#I have one specific defining feature that I will not mention bc I have an irrational fear of ppl finding me irl

[mypimpademia]

Talking about body stuff becoming a trend, apparently people are getting bullied for the space between your lips and nose? Like??? What???☠️

This genuinely has me perplexed bc like… what.

[lumalalu]

why on earth do you even want a fe4 remake if you dont want anything to change just go play the original game.

[attyrocious]

cross posting yesterday's rambling thread for posterity and because tumblr lets me edit things. anyway this is a sorta long thing and i might add things i forgot to mention in the twt thread

i tend to draw on-model canon because im a coward + just personal preferences. but the way i convert the canon designs into my artstyle is that i take the distinct features oda gives them and then combine it with personal headcanons to complete what should look like a unique human. Starting with Trafalgar Law, who is unfortunately a bland-ass conventionally pretty boy

someone commented a while ago the law hat drawing tutorial i made a while ago didn't make much sense and i realize its bc of the specific way i draw law's face: heart shaped (ba-dum-tss). That meaning, a narrow chin widening into a mild defined jaw, wide cheekbones, and up to his know-it-all brain dome.

given that, the pudgy guitar pick shape of his head i mentioned here should make a lot more sense.

i don't think this design point is unique to me, as most conventional pretty anime boy gets given jaws like this. a lot of law artists tend to veer into this head shape. just how life be sometimes. other points: flat, thick eyebrows is bc im a hairy gal and i need to feel better about myself.

Killer gets to be more interesting, because he shouldn't be considered conventionally attractive. my idea behind killer's is that those individual features is smth he would be insecure with enough to hide himself in a helmet but i draw him with all the love in the world actually. i'd like to think its how kid sees him or yknow, law, bc he's my kin assigned blorbo and maybe you ship lawkill as a guilty pleasure too i mentioned before (and ruined people's days) when i said whenever i draw killer he looks like griffith before i put on his goatee. the upper half of his face is distinctly feminine, with the lower half kinda over compensating. other than that uhh...idk. stan killer

Kidd is the bane of my existence, i feel like i can never draw his face consistently. yet at the same time he's so damn fun to draw everyone gotta try it.

my problem with kidd is that this mf does have eyelids. most kidd painters out there interpret this as him having deep set eyes (think Matt Smith or jeffrey star) . and yeh skill issue on me i should practice that. other notes, i try to make him younger than canon makes him look. he is my babygirl and he deserves to look cuddly. my band au kidd version has the honor of being allowed some chubs. he's just tries to look older and more menacing with edgy makeup. also i try to give him dimples when i can because, well i can.

Rosinante last bc i lost steam after kidd. the thing abt cora is that aside from not having eyebrows, everything is structured with the generic one piece man template. which means i gotta do everything myself doffy is there bc the way to figure out how to draw these two is to give them minor differences from each other, that being doffy gets slightly sharper features. in canon, these two are also rly wide boys (more of an oda style feat tbh) but i make them long. though bigger brained donquixote artists know that of these two brothers, doffy should be the wiry-er built. anyway that's it. in conclusion, i need to draw more girls actually i feel like im becoming misogynistic by osmosis from oda's style and now i draw girls all looking the same too.

[scarlet--wiccan]

What are some things you think are necessary to have on a Wanda costume? Personally I think that all of her costumes should have a cape, long gloves & gold jewellery (+ some pink bc imo the pink & red colour scheme is way better)

Her headpiece; long gloves; jewelry; either a cape, cloak, or skirt, but I'm not picky; and some kind detailing that sets her costume apart from the standard superhero aesthetic, and makes her look more like a magic and fantasy character. And this is more subjective, but I really like the wide neckline on her 2016 costume and the shoulder cutouts on both her current look & the Crossing design-- I think that shoulder/collarbone peakaboo is a really fun signature for her.

Obviously, the most essential component is the headpiece. You'd think that would go without saying, but she has had a few costumes that either don't include it, or include a version that's too heavily modified. At this point, it really is her defining visual characteristic, and it's been incorporated into her lore-- it's something she shares with her predecessors, and it's a symbol of her magical title & lineage. She needs it, and frankly, I think Billy should have one, too. She ditches the headpiece most often when she's being posessed or manipulated

I'm of the personal opinion that magic characters, particularly spellcasters and mages, should not wear conventional superhero suits. I prefer for them to wear separate garments with more adornments and acessories than you might ordinarily see. So while I do like Wanda's classic costumes, I don't think that type of look is right for her anymore, because I want her to stand out in the Avengers lineup as a witch or sorceress, not just a lady in a leotard.

To that end, I do think accessories are really important. Gold and red jewelry look really good on her, and they're a big feature in some of my favorite costumes. You're absolutely correct that long gloves are a must-- it's part of a very specific, glamorous aesthetic that Wanda vocally expresses an interest in throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s, not to mention this hilarious moment--

I know, I know, I've posted this panel a million times.

[smalltimidbean]

Out of curiosity, are there any clones you've wanted to make but haven't because you can't figure out a design for them you like?

-bee anon 🐝

An interesting question, Bee Anon! And the answer is yes, definitely

That kinda goes for any character I want to make, but specifically for clones it's a little easier bc they all have a 'template' they fit into (either Tall Fake Peppino, Wide Fake Peppino or Peppiclone) and then add/edit features where desired

But there are a lot where I have the idea in my head, but they won't come out on the (digital) paper - so they currently remain as concepts in my brain with vague appearances and colours, even if they are listed in the masterlist and I count them as characters

Like I have mentioned Turmeric at least twice before, but they do not have an 'official' design yet bc they lean into the more body horror side and - besides needing to be in a certain mood for body horror - I can't seem to get them how I see them in my mind - I have an idea and an inspiration/reference, but I just have not been able to do it jkfgdkfdg

Some other clones like Cinnamon Stick and Mixed Herbs I've had ideas for months, but I have just never got them drawn - and other clones like Cas do get drawn, but then I get stuck on their colours or what patterns/markings I want them to have

More recently the kangaroo clone gave me some trouble bc I did not know which type of clone to make him (I was debating on a midway between a Fake Peppino and a Peppiclone, but then what would I tag them as kjfgkjfdg), and one of a kangaroo's defining features are their feet, and I tend to leave the clone legs untouched, so it was weird to give them jacked kangaroo legs jkfdgk - but once I got the idea for the huge tail, then it was like oh!!! Not fully a kangaroo any more (now part snake), but I am happy with the design

Even more recently, as in last night, I was working on one of the suggested clones, and it is more of a joke suggestion (the asker even said they were gonna suggest it ironically, but they wanna see what I'd do), so idk if I wanna completely lean into the joke or not - and they're another plantpino, which seem to give me the most trouble, bc I don't enjoy drawing plants that much kjgfdkjdf (I am gonna work on them today, bc I think I have an idea, wish me luck jkdgkj)

That all being said, most get their designs officially at some point! They might not be how I initially imagined them, but I can always redesign them later!

This has been another Bean Spiel, thank you (silly)

[brehaaorgana]

Is anyone else finding they're constantly having really frustrating bugs in BG3, or do I just have extremely terrible luck? I'm going to lose my mind bc:

"you can't reach that" keeps happening to things right in front of my characters. Sometimes I can reach the top shelf of a bookshelf and sometimes I just can't. Same height as things I did reach, same character.

Loads of times if I click on something to loot (not something locked, mind you!), it just...does nothing? It makes a sound, and then does nothing.

Also not a bug: I hate 5e's confusing language soooo much. "Does this stack? No idea because these refer to totally different things! Good luck!" Keeps happening. I can't remember the specific words used off the top of my head, but I was levelling up Halsin and found myself genuinely confused by feat and class descriptions.

Also the guardian of faith (or whatever it's called) summon straight up never does ANYTHING. Like it just stands there and takes hits but doesn't hit back. For a level 4 spell that's utterly useless.

Also not a bug per se but: i once found bracers that were like "when an enemy takes poison damage they must now save or be poisoned," which...that's how poison damage works? Wtf is the difference the bracers are making? That's just doing what already happens.

Another "that's a feature not a bug" oh my GOD fuck 5e's confusing bullshit plain language.

It's actually very very bad!

I was leveling Halsin, and choosing a feat. Now look at this:

Savage Attacker Effects: When making weapon attacks, roll for damage twice and use the highest result.

Cool. Weapon attacks. Except Halsin can wildshape. He cannot use a weapon in wildshape. Things like claws or bite are listed as skills. Most other games usually label these as types of attacks, not as weapons. This might seem confusing, but it helps categorize claw/bite attacks as fundamentally different from a weapon you can be disarmed of/drop/whatever. That's really important. You can make someone drop their sword in this game, you can't make them drop their claws.

Usually they're treated in ttrpgs/crpgs as "natural attacks" or "unarmed" (or natural is a type of unarmed attack), if there is any kind of "unarmed" attack elsewhere in the game.

So claws and bites are not weapons you hold. Should Halsin take Savage Attacker, or is it useless half the time for him? It's not immediately clear!

Now during this level up, I also added a dip into Monk for 1 level on Halsin, but I had no idea if it would work the way I wanted, because wildshape attacks are listed as skills and don't tell you the weapon type.

The idea is this:

Monk level 1 gains the feat Bonus Unarmed Attack: After making an attack with a Monk Weapon or while unarmed, you can make another unarmed attack as a bonus action.

So if wildshape attacks are counted as unarmed, this is a way to get even more attacks in wildshape. But then I have the above problem! Is unarmed still a weapon? Is savage attacker actually a bad feat to take for Halsin? Look at MOST of the general fighting feats — do any of them actually mention unarmed attacks, or do they mention weapons, which are "arms"? (Also what the fuck is a Monk weapon in this game, anyways? They don't actually define that when you take a level in monk!)

Anyways I take a level in Monk and hope that I can trigger the bonus unarmed attack, and guess what? It DOES work in wildshape, and it DOESN'T expend a "bonus action". Is this a bug? It's literally just an additional attack. They say you get a bonus action (which would be identical to how dual wielding is handled, where the off-hand attack is handled as a bonus action choice) but that's not actually what happens in combat? And having an extra attack is supposed to be a level 5 feat? But I definitely did an attack, extra attack, and bonus action (heal) one round.

[squidaddle]

BUT WAIT THERES MORE

I HAVENT EVEN TOUCHED THE STATES OF MATTER YET

Okay, so there are 4 “main” states of matter; solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. In chemistry, there’s a 5th one, too: aqueous (we’ll get into that in a second)

Fire is considered plasma currently in the science world. Which makes sense, right? If lightning is the “most pure form” of firebending, it would make sense that fire is plasma, too.

Firebenders aren’t firebenders, they’re plasmabenders. Which opens up a WHOLE new world of possibilities, friends

So many things are plasmas. Lightning and fire are only the most well-known ones; aurorae, the light inside of neon signs, solar winds and polar winds, the ionosphere of Earth, and arguably the most applicable to the conversation; stars, including the sun, and the tail end of a comet.

This would explain and add depth to so much of the concept of firebending - Like on a general level, yeah, firebending is unique to the bending styles because it relies entirely on your inner chakra and how it interacts with the chi of the universe. It takes the metaphysical energy of the user and translates it into physical energy - heat and light.

But adding the entire new level of the existence of plasma and how it manifests?? Their literal patron god is a giant ball of plasma. The way that lightning is created by a bender; taking balanced energy with no specific charge, pulling that energy apart, and letting it crash back together.

When things are unbalanced, they want to balance - that goes for ionic particles, as well as cationic/anionic particles. When you pull them apart (which it takes great force to do so, if it’s stable; further evidence on why lightningbending is so difficult in practice), they’re gonna try and get back together. The act of snapping in and out of place is what causes that little burst of energy. Take that teeny tiny explosion, jack it up a couple billions, and boom (literally).

FURTHERMORE the possibilities are genuinely endless. Aurorae are plasma; Oxford Languages defines the term as “a natural electrical phenomenon characterized by the appearance of streamers of reddish or greenish light in the sky, especially near the northern or southern magnetic pole. The effect is caused by the interaction of charged particles from the sun with atoms in the upper atmosphere. In northern and southern regions it is respectively called aurora borealis or Northern Lights and aurora australis or Southern Lights.”

I’ve read so many fics about Zuko ending up at the South Pole to be raised by a loving family, and all of them have incorporated the concept of the polar night - the time of the year where, the further you get towards the northern/southern magnetic poles, the longer/shorter the days are, depending on the time of year. There are parts of the year where the sun doesn’t rise for over 30 days in some parts of the world, and vice versa.

The concept of the polar night is such an integral part of the incorporation of placing a firebender at one of the poles long-term, but when you take into account the fact that the Aurora Australis is a giant colorful banner of plasma across the Antarctic sky???

That’s not even mentioning the midnight sun!! The time of year where the sun doesn’t set for over 30 days; I haven’t seen any fic talk about the concept of Zuko being unable to sleep for an extended period of time, and the effects of sleep-deprivation on the his lil brain.

I want to see an in-depth fic exploring Zuko navigating life in Antarctica, facing problems like the polar night, which are improved and survivable by the occasional Aurora, the midnight sun, and the constant bitter cold. Is that too much to ask??????

This is getting really long so I’ll cut it off here, but Next installment will feature Bloodbending: Fire Edition and the molecular breakdown of aqueous solutions and how Toph could bend literally every element if she wanted to. Also maybe some bits about airbending on a molecular level bc air is such a broad term what part of the air is he bending???

I am such a slut for worldbuilding and lore, and ATLA has some of the best of both worlds in that department.

I literally cannot get enough of the in-depth-ness of the bending world; like the concept of there being two main civilizations of waterbenders (the tribes at the poles, and the benders of the foggy swamp) and they literally cannot get MORE different. Bending the water inside the plants??? Incorporating the moon and tides with the culture and practice??? BLOODBENDING????? Shit has me foaming at the mouth

I’m haven’t even gotten into the whole earthbending/sandbending thing either,,, it’s the same concept!! Two sides of the same coin, the same element bent and used in ways that make it almost unrecognizable to the other side. And do sandbenders have any waterbending influence?? I would imagine it wouldn’t move as a solid substance, right??

AND how lavabending wouldn’t necessarily be only earthbending or firebending, because it has heavy roots in both elements??? And GLASS???¿¿ if Toph and Zuko got their field trip they would have figured out lavabending and make glass sculptures no shot

ANYWAY the reason I was making this post is because I had a concept; similar to lavabending, how would permafrost work??

I see in lots of fics the idea of “what if Toph had been in the North Pole with the gaang” and i have So Many Thoughts about it

It seems to be the general consensus that she would be blind up there; having no earth beneath her feet making it impossible for her to see. BUT are the poles in the avatar universe similar to the poles in our world? The real North Pole is literally just a giant slab of ice floating on top of the Arctic Ocean, but I have reason to believe that this isn’t the case for the ATLAverse.

Evidence: the Spirit Oasis.

How could the whole continent be only ice if the epicenter of it is an island?? Therefore, my conclusion is that the North Pole in the Avatar universe is not like the real North Pole, it’s like the pieces of land that surround the arctic circle; the ground is permafrozen.

If that’s the case, what’s to say Toph couldn’t figure out glacier-bending?

Give her 5 minutes and an encounter with Pakku. Watch it happen.

[rahleeyah]

Howdy!

Mkay so not to sound like a total square but what does ABO mean? I’ve seen a few of your anon replies mentioning it but i have no clue what it means pls help 😂

Thank you so much for all your lovely work! ❤️❤️❤️

you are not a square at all! this is a fic trope that is really big in some fandom spaces and non-existent in others. it's sort of notorious bc it can be...well, friend, it's a lot. i am sure you're not the only person who's wondering! let me see if i can break this down in a way that makes any kind of sense. just trying to think of how to explain this without a 50 slide power point presentation on the history of fandom. ok let's just start at the beginning.

there's gonna be some sex stuff here so i'm gonna go ahead and put in a read more this is not safe for work

ok so first of all, abo stands for alpha/beta/omega. the fanlore wiki describes it as a "kink trope" which ok, i guess it is - please bear with me - in which some people have defined biological roles. the words alpha beta omega and what they mean in this context come from outdated theories about the hierarchical structures of wolf packs.

please note, despite everything i'm about to type, in abo everybody is still fully human. just with some extra features.

so alpha is pretty obvious, right? it's the "dominant" role. what that means (oh my god i can't believe i'm gonna type this) is that in most abo fics, if the alpha character is a male. well. biologically. he's a little different. male alphas, generally - i say generally bc there are a million different ways to write abo - will. Jesus this is difficult to type. i'm like actually embarrassed.

so in some verses this only happens under specific circumstances and sometimes it happens every single time but when the male alpha is aroused he will have what is referred to in abo as a knot. which is. basically. thank you to abo tiktok. when the base of the penis swells up so that when inserted it won't/can't come back out again until he's done. even after he's finished, the knot will take some time to go back down, and he may become aroused again while he's still locked with his partner, and the cycle may keep going. being knotted, physically linked together and unable to separate, is a big feature in abo fics.

so if you're still with me i'm gonna skip to omegas. we'll get back to betas later.

so the omega is the foil for the alpha. sometimes "submissive", coded feminine but not always female - just as alphas are not always male. the omega is the one who breeds, the one who accepts the alpha's advances. so the biological difference for omegas is they go into heat. which is exactly what it sounds like. sometimes the alpha only knots when he's in rut, and sometimes the rut is only triggered by an omega's heat, and sometimes an omega can only get pregnant during a heat. there is power in being an omega, and being chosen by the alpha. or sometimes omegas are like. bottom of the hierarchy. i keep saying it varies but it really does.

another biological difference that comes into play in a lot of abo stuff is biting. if an alpha bites an omega, that omega is claimed. it is often a mark that does not fade. it is known to others. once an omega has been claimed, generally, people know. in some verses, omegas can only conceive if they have sex with an alpha, in some verses it doesn't matter. there really is so much variation.

scent also plays a huge role in all this.

circling back to the betas, then. betas are subordinate to alphas in the hierarchical chain, and generally have "normal" human anatomy. no heat, no rut, no knot. some verses have no betas at all, some verses betas are the norm and alphas and omegas are rare.

so that's the bare bones of it. but what it really is, honestly, in addition to the sexy tropes of extra big dick, being physically locked together, physically needing one another, is, imo, a way to explore relationship dynamics and traditional gender roles. even though a ton of - perhaps the majority of - abo fic is m/m, it's still breaking down what it means to be dominant or submissive, and examining where that comes from and whether those roles are as fixed as we think.

alphas are dominant, leaders of the pack - but they need a pack to lead. they need people. they are protective of what's theirs. but they also can't just take that role; a wolf pack will oust an abusive alpha, just as a human society will overthrow an unjust leader. it's a position of power but it's a power built on the trust of others, and that power can be taken away.

omegas are understood to be in the submissive role, but would you get between a mama wolf and her pups? omegas can also be fiercely protective, and will not necessarily go along with an alpha who's not treating them well just because he's an alpha.

i hope this hasn't scared you off lmao

[kindahoping4forever]

Hi so I was a big fan from like 2013-2017 but kind of fell off leading up to yb (still was like vaguely in the loop through the album release but not hardcore) and I’ve been kind of getting back into 5sos lately so what did I miss?? Especially in terms of tumblr bc I see hardly any names I recognize anymore :((

Oh gosh "what did I miss" is far too expansive a question 😅😅 I'll start with the easy part: in my Tumblr experience, it's a pretty rare sight these days to come across someone from the time period you cited. A lot of people fell off before YB or during the unofficial hiatus that happened in 2020 because of the pandemic.

If you have any specific questions, I can answer in better detail but for now, I've compiled an abridged "here's what you missed" recap:

After the release of Youngblood, the band went on the Meet You There tour (highly recommend looking up fan vids on YouTube, that set was 👩🏻‍🍳💋) and released a live album of it at the end of that year. Youngblood the album went on to be streamed over 2 billion times and the song is still charting in Australia to this day.

2019 was controversial in the fandom for a lot of reasons: they featured on a Chainsmokers song called "Who Do You Love" and later toured with them on their World War Joy tour. Personally I always thought the song was a banger and the tour saw them deliver their strongest live show to date (absolutely please look up vids of that on YouTube omg 👁️👄👁️) but some fans were unhappy with their association/didn't like them trying to expand their audience. The band also released two singles off of their forthcoming album but a lot of fans were irked by the staggered and prolonged release strategy.

2020 opened with 2 more singles from the new album and they played the biggest show of their career to date, a featured slot during Fire Fight Australia, a benefit concert attended by 75,000 people and broadcast/streamed globally to millions. (Ashton trended on socials for legit a full day afterwards, it was absolutely a Defining Moment for them.) Unfortunately, promo and tour for their long-awaited 4th album, CALM, was halted for pandemic safety reasons and it released to muted fanfare in March 2020, just as lockdowns were being put into place. The album was still successful and has been streamed over a billion times (it was nearly #1 on Billboard but that's a longer story lol) but the release and truncated era was definitely a disappointment for band and fans alike.

The guys have spent the pandemic living in LA and being generally quiet on socials, finally able to enjoy being in one place and living a "normal" life for the first time since they were kids. Ashton emerged in the fall of 2020 announcing he'd recorded a solo album at home with his roommate and he independently released Superbloom (and its accompanying concert film) in October.

Late 2020/early 2021 the guys went on a few trips to the CA desert to work on a new album and it was heavily implied they intended to be much more hands on with the production of it. They spent the majority of last year working on this new album and no one really knows what to expect from it as they've worked with a potpourri of collaborators (everyone from John Feldmann to Ryan Tedder) and have mentioned several times that it'd been thru multiple incarnations. Over the summer, Luke surprise announced his own solo project (this time backed by a major label) and When Facing The Things We Turn Away From was released in August.

After a year and a half away, the band finally played their first show together in September, at the Global Citizen benefit in LA. December was the band's 10th anniversary and to celebrate, they released a song called "2011" alongside a feature-length variety special on YouTube. (Highly recommend even if you're not familiar with the new material, it's very nostalgic and career expansive, you'll absolutely get something from it if you were a fan at any point.)

And now we're here in February 2022, waiting for any 5SOS5 news - Ashton leaked part of a song the other day so it feels like it'll be any day now but it's felt that way for months tbh 😅.

Other stray developments of note: They finally parted ways with Modest Management (tho eventually ended up signing with their old manager from Modest but at his own firm. Idk 🤷🏻‍♀️). They've changed labels a couple times since you left and are now signed to BMG. Nearly 2 years after it was supposed to happen, tour finally starts in April (fingers crossed). Michael got married, Luke is engaged. Ashton bought a cabin in the woods. Calum shaved his head, insisted he wouldn't be growing his curls back and then hilariously had to let his hair grow during quarantine and now he has a mullet. Everyone, band and fans alike, are still generally kind of nuts. The more things change, the more they stay the same 😂

[spacedlexi]

ok i got a few different messages from people so im gonna answer them under the cut but i dont think theres a whole lot more to be said so i think im done publicly responding after these

thank you to everyone who chimed in i really appreciate all the comments regardless of your opinion because in the end i just want to do better and i know this is all coming from a place of good will 💕

i get what youre saying here, and someone else mentions this down the post, but like, im drawing specific characters that are already defined. there is only so much i can exaggerate to the point where they lose their likeness and i dont want to Over exaggerate. like the other artist you mention is pretty cartoony, and thats not really exactly what im going for. spider verse is the Most cartoony id get but again its not my goal for my main art style, which is the one im assuming youre talking about. 

also not sure how you mean “when you push to exaggerate you can find more realism” because i feel like those things are at odds. you also talk about proportions which, i do try to keep, well, in proportion. i dont like pushing my proportions too much because then it becomes too exaggerated and thats not what im going for. also to reiterate im drawing already defined characters so im trying to keep their likenesses and i dont want to push them to the point where they lose that. the artist youve been referring to mostly seems to draw original characters, which is fine, but theres more freedom in that

but like ive already said im always aware of trying to make features identifiable and unique without losing that likeness. arcane has been a big inspo in that regard recently and im only just starting to really break that down specifically so youre really just gonna have to give me time to improve on that,,

thank you for the nice words and yes noses and lips can be harder for me to differentiate, more specifically lips, and the nostrils over the bridge or roundness/sharpness of the nose, but it does also come back to keeping a characters likeness so its a fine line to walk. especially when the character is more realistically portrayed and i have to figure out the best way to stylize them without Over stylizing them or missing the mark 😓

ive seen some artists with Severe same face syndromes and its always sad for me to see even when i like the art overall, so i do things like making those charts to compare features to make sure theres not too much of a visual overlap between anyone. theres only So much you can do when youre drawing a pre established character because you want them to look like themselves, but also youre stylizing them, so you gotta be careful to not push too hard. at least in my case where i dont want to be overly exaggerated bc thats not what im going for

i used to be more exaggerated in the past but over the years ive done more portrait studies and am trying to be closer to the realism side of the semi realism spectrum. at least for my main style. sometimes im more cartoony but thats not my main goal its just when im being lose or messing around. i like exaggeration of expression more than exaggeration of features, but its not like im Not defining features, theyre just not pushed to cartoony extremes. and Again im limited in how far i can push if i want a character to retain their likeness especially for a semi realistic style

so thank you for thinking im doing a good job at differentiating between characters 😭 i really do put a lot of effort into it without being too cartoony

ok yeah heres the one that pointed out im limited in just how far i can push features without a character becoming unidentifiable. everything i do or change when i draw a preestablished character is in an effort to make them look as much like themselves as possible, and Very Rarely altering things (really the only thing i can think of is i give clem slightly larger lips bc hers in game are so tiny and my girl doesnt deserve thin lips lol. theres a specific piece of concept art from s3 of clem that i absolutely adore and its where i get the blocked in upper lip from. that piece of concept art is my biggest inspo when it comes to drawing her bc i feel like its near Perfect aha the eyes are just like Slightly too far apart proportionally)

and youre right that sometimes people conflate a consistent style with same face, but i dont want to be quick to jump to conclusions, because again im trying to hear everyone out bc i know this is all coming from a place of good will and i always want to do better, especially in this regard. but some of the critique has sounded like they want me to alter my style to be more exaggerated. right now my biggest art inspo is arcane because they have such a beautiful array of distinguished faces while still being imo perfectly stylized

im glad you think i do a good job making everyone distinct,, thank you for the encouragement,,

yeah this is why ive been so confused because im being told i have same face but also that i have variation of shape and im ??? like im trying to make it make sense. this feels like a good summation of whats been going on and where the disconnect is happening. again ive been trying to not just boil it down to “thats just my style” because i want to take it seriously, but i do feel like im being asked to be more exaggerated which begins to push that line im toeing of stylized realism

in my college painting class we dove into proportions Extensively and theres so much to keep in mind when laying out a face specifically

this is just off the top of my head so i think im forgetting a thing or two, plus its fast so its a little off but this is the general idea (like i think theres about another eye length on both sides of your face between your eyes and the side of your head but idr 100%), but like no matter what your features are or how big or small they are they will Generally line up like this. so you can use this method with small faces or long faces or slim faces or wide faces, these proportions Usually hold up regardless. just like with the proportions for the rest of your body. did you know your foot is the same length as the inner part of your forearm? did you know your face is the same size as your hand? unique for everyone BUT still holds up proportionally to yourself

but the fun part about knowing proportions is being able to work with them to create identifiable faces, and thats what im trying to do. ive learned the proportions but now im just trying to push them in a way that is still “correct” but stylized, and identifiable by character

--

ive come a really long way in just the last few years, and that was off the back of a 5 year burn out hiatus. so im really happy with the progress ive made but obviously theres always room for improvement and im always looking to do so. whenever im happy with my art i always get excited thinking about how im going to continue to improve and what my art will look like in the future :) so i do appreciate people wanting to help see me do better, but on my personal blog where i post things for fun, maybe just ask if you can give critique first,, and depending on what it is maybe we can just keep it between us. i promise i wont bite aha 💕 i just need to be emotionally in the right space to receive it

[sneakerdoodle]

I was going to release this as a long video essay but devices and software had conspired against me and eventually drained my patience, so here it is in the written form. My magnum opus. My 15 pages long analysis of the three Infinity Train seasons currently out. 

1. Introduction

So for starters, I watched Infinity Train way too late, only a few weeks before the release of Book 3. And it immediately gave me MANY many thoughts, head full... Needless to say, when the first 5 episodes of Book 3 were released I was HYPED. So hyped that, being on a vacation out in the countryside, with better connection only availble upon climbing a nearby hill, I made some. sacrifices. To get there after dark, when everyone else was sound asleep.

[id: two screenshots of separate discord messages by someone with a handle “fern”, one reading “ also i decided to not risk bothering people/dogs by opening the gate, so i jumped the swamp instead, except i didn’t actually cover it, my foot got stuck, i barely saved my shoe, and i need to do that again to get back bc i am locked out”, another reading “well” with a photo of a person’s legs covered in black dirst from feet to knees. end id]

And by the rules of friendly bullying, I am now destined to have that night haunt me forever. Naturally.

[id:discord chat search results for the word ”swamp” (38 results found), cropped so that a part of one message is readable, saying “... KNOW it was the SWAMP that embraced ME, not the other way around”, another (by someone with a handle “Fleur” saying “you already DID embrace a swamp”. end id]

[id: a message from the same person saying “he asks ‘how was your swamp’”. end id]

[id: a message from the same person saying “big words coming from mx. soggy feet” with an angry red overlay. end id]

And, well. The first two Books had left me with a sense of assuredness, the underlying motif of them appearing empowering and infinitely comforting, and I was excited to get another supporting pillar in season 3. Another story to turn to in time of need to remind me that I have the power to make my life a better one, that it is never too late to make something of where I am. And, well, it's not that Book 3 didn't continue the topic of personal choice and growth, but the story it told added... let's say, more weight to the idea of personal development. 

That is perhaps only natural: narratives need to grow, to develop, to take the themes explored in them further, deeper with every coil of the spiral. And a more, grave, exploration of them will only bring them closer to life. But in the aftermath of Book 3 I had to deal with a certain sense of powerlessness, not being able to fit it into a neat system, put it on a shelf in a shiny frame of witty analysis and call it a day. But, quite ironically, I believe that this exact feeling of unending change and death of comfort is the exact thing the show wants us to get comfortable with. And that's what I want to talk about here. Infinity Train's core narrative of an individual versus the wrold, individual versus change. The very concept of personhood, the relationship between the person and their environment and the way to approach it that is shown as perhaps the most productive. 

I’ll start with my Many Thoughts on the first two books to explain what I thought was the underlying message of both of them.

2. Book 1: The Perennial Child and the Unproducitve Protagonist Complex

Book 1 establishes the core elements of the narrative wonderfully, the writing is smooth, effortless, beautiful and takes you on a wonderul, deeply impactful and bittersweet emotional ride. We have Tulip, The Perennial Child herself, who has to renegotiate her relationship with the world, with life, change, and other people's power to bring said change. Tulip is also to learn true connection and make peace with its price.

The narrower narrative of a story centered around a divorce is a perfect gateway into a broader one, so let's explore the specifics of the foremer first. Tulip's mindset is the mindset of a child from a dysfunctional family. The notion of blame is very strong in her perception of the world. On one hand, she sufferes from a misplaced sense of responsibility for the way things are, as she admits in her conversation with One One. That is the most natural for someone who grew up in an unstable environment, with parents whose relationship was not harmonic and healthy.  A child caught in the middle of adults' anger and argumments internalizes that anger and those arguments as something having to do with them. And that's what we see Tulip go through, with her having to listen to her parents fight because of her needs. 

[id: a screenshot from Infinity Train Book 1 showing younger Tulip, a read-headed girl, sitting between her two parents upset as her father is telling something to her mother angrily. end id]

Tulip also has to step in as a caregiver to a suffering adult, tucking her dad in at night; the dialogue emphasizes that their usual roles are being reversed in that situation. Growing up in the middle of constant conflicts, having to provide care and comfort and stability to someone who was supposed to take care of her, had naturally resulted in a  deeply ingrained painful perception that Tulip is the one responsible for her environment, is the one to blame when it is “broken”, and is the one who should step up and fix it, make it right.

Then, on the other hand, there is the notion of blame Tulip puts on others, specifically her parents. Here, we see the same mindset but reversed: Tulip feels caught in the middle of their divorce and demands that they make it right, make it work, for her sake. She needs her family, she needs stability, she needs her parents to work out their schedules, she needs to get to the game design camp. And she is prone to seeing her parents as people who are cruelly destroying her life and her family for no apparent reason. 

I am not calling her entitled, of course; ideally, stability is exactly what parents need to provide their children with. That is their mission. And when they fail, it is more than natural for children to feel hurt and betrayed. In a way, they are. Tulip's agony over her parents' divorce is never mocked nor undermined in the show, either; it is shown with the deepest compassion. So this is not so much about calling her feeligns invalid, but about looking for ways to redefine the situation in a way that would help Tulip heal. The way out of her  agony seems to be to abandon the mindset that puts her at the center of her family life – and at the center of the world, in general. Things are not that simple; people have reasons for behaving the way that they do outside of how it affects her; and avoiding and rejecting that truth hurts her, first and foremost. Feeling like the center of the universe isn't so much selfish or arrogant or toxic; it's just painful, and Tulip needs to step out of it, for her own sake.

[id: screenshot from Infinity Train Book 1 showing the two adults from before, Tulip’s parents, with exaggerated demonic features, surrounded by flames. end id]

An important thing to discuss is that the notion of “blame” can only exist if there is indeed something wrong with the world. Let's go back to Tulip's defining conversation with One One, in which she gets to say some incredibly important words: “It's not your fault the car is this way.There isn't a fault, it just is.”. “No fault” can mean “no one to blame” as much as “there is actually nothing wrong with the world”. The words “It just is” carry this simple and raw reality check that forces us to accept the way things are, with no emotional withdrawal or avoidance of it. 

The world simply is the way it is, and even if the way it is hurts us, it doesn't mean that what hurts us is wrong. 

I would like to suggest that the Unfinished Car itself, the residents of which continue adapting to their unconventional reality and genuinely thriving in it through acceptance and flexibility, are here to emphasize that. We may not like the way things are, but that doesn't mean we should go looking for someone to blame and force to “fix” them, be out ourselves and others. We shouldn't ferociously attack what hurts us with wrenches, kicking and screaming and tyring to get it to Work Already. Sometimes the only thing we can do is to accept the reality of it, let go, and see what we ourselves can do to feel happy and content in the present circumstances.

Making peace with the way the world is, renouncing responsibility for it outside of her personal decisions, is exactly what Tulip gets to learn on the train. Being half-abducted by it during a time when Amelia has taken over and no one is there to give a nice welcoming message with specific instructions, Tulip is deeply distraught by the mysteries surrounding her, and infinitely frustrated by her seeming inability to 'logic' her way through the challenges. She boards the train as a girl whose main need is to create a semblance of control over her environment, through understanding it. 

[id: two shots of Tulip’s sketchbook where she is tryng to figure out train’s puzzles. end id]

She is at the center of the universe, she is responsible for the way things are, and it is up to her to figure them out.

That is a lone, individualistic journey of a single person who only wants to deal with their own life, their own problems, and Tulip does not welcome any companions at the beginnig of it. It makes sense for her to seek solitude: she feels overwhelmingly responsible for her own little personal world, just how unbearable would it be to let it merge with other people's lives, for her to suddenly be at fault when those she cares about are hurt? Not to mention that new people are new unknowns, new factors that can make her life harder, more confusing and painful. For a person stuck in her desperate desire for control, it makes a lot of sense to prefer to deal with her problems on her own and expect others to do the same.

Meeting One One, who is the first to care, and Atticus, who is there to dispense his pearls of wisdom about the resources we find in each other, the value of friendship and its ultimate worth in the face of responsibility and risk of loss that comes with it, is what helps Tulip find comfort and humility in her relationship with others. She is simply one of the many people influencing each other's lives; she is not at the center, not at fault for the pain that comes to others, even if they were hurt through their association with her; it was their chocie to lend her a hand or a paw, and they had the right to make that choice.

Similar humility of being just one of the many is found in Tulip's relationship with the world at large, too, shown through her relationship with the train. First, she is frustrated and impatient, trying to figure out the most rational logical way to proceed in her attempts to control what happens to her next. Then, as she finds joy and connection, things become easier, she finds a rhythm that works for her, as seen at the start of “The Ball Pit Car”. And then soon after that, in swoops Amelia, ready to wreck havoc and quench Tulip's progress by trying to kill one of her friends and turning the other into a monster, and pinning it all on her. 

Losing Atticus is far too big of a blow, and so Tulip gives up her lessons and falls into fatalism, feeling like she has no control over her fate, like she will never be allowed to make it off the train.

But the core component of Tulip's character is her ability to “bounce back”. She loses her progress quite tangibly, with the number going up – and yet reverses that development rapidly, when she gives it all another try and subsequently learns the truth about Amelia. Finding out that the current self-appointed conductor who has been terrorizing cars and threatening Tulip and her friends is just a person, Tulip asks a very important quesiton: “What's stopping me from doing what she did?”. She stops interpreting her surroundings as alien, hostile and created to act against her, in weird incomprehensible ways that seem to be mocking her attempts to find a shred of logic to them. Instead, she takes full control of her own actions and starts using her environment to her own benefits, much like Amelia did. But Tulip takes it a step further and approaches it in a healthier fashion. Where Amelia is desperately trying to make the world do her bidding, Tulip states a simple objecitve: help her friend, - and looks at her options.

Tulip steps into her power when she realizes her choices and actions matter and have full weight. That restores her faith into being able to help Atticus. She cannot control her surroundings fully, she cannot control how other people behave, and trying to make herself responsible for it is unfair to herself and others and hurts everyone. She can, however, make her own choices and use her own skills to strive to perserve what is important to her.

Once again, that mindset is directily opposed to Amelia's. In Book 1, Amelia is stuck in the constant attempts to recreate her life, to change the world around her, to bend her environment to her will instead of growing internally, accepting the change and adapting to it, taking responsibility for her own feelings and not for what surrounds her. The key motivation in the prison she has created for herself is grief. Unwilling to let go of the world she once shared with someone she loved, not wanting to accept the passing of something that was incredibly important to her, Amelia stagnates, rejects the thought of progress, of healing, of moving on. To start to get over such a loss is to create distance between yourself and what you are mourning. When you move on, you leave it futher and furher behind with each step. And so Amelia decides to stay exactly where she is: in the depth of soul-shattering suffering. Symbolically, she never even leaves the pod she was delivered to the train in, stays at the very beginning of her recovery journey, turns her pain into her armor until forcefully broken out of it by Tulip. 

The two characters are perfect for each other as counterforces; even more so, the very environment that Amelia has created, the one that frustrates Tulip with all the unanswered questions and mysteries, is the exact one that would motivate this girl to grow. This is something to keep in mind when approaching Infinity Train's narrative: Amelia is a perfect antognist to Tulip, and it is through encountering her that Tulip grows. Amelia's mistakes result in Tulip's progress.

A key moment in the two characters' confrontation is Amelia's offer to give Tulip a car of her own, where her and her family can be pitcture-perfect and happy in the exact way Tulip wants them to be. By that point in the narrative Tulip has already had to face the truth of her family situation, the reality of it, it not being anyone's fault nor her parents' whim, sad things simply just happening for reasons outside of anyone's control. And with Amelia's offer, she has to come painfully close to the truth that she has just started making peace with once again. She has to really internalize the fact that her real parents were not happy together, and wouldn't be happy in this simulated reality; and if they were, they would not truly be the people she knows. 

Tulip acknowledges the painful and beautiful truth of life: if you want to be surrounded by real people you can love, people that can love you, you need to give them the freedom to live their lives, freedom to hurt you, to walk away, to change the life you share, to have their own personal feelings that might be different from the ones you wish they had. They need to have freedom to make choices. It is scary, and it hurts, but that is the only way to have something real. While Amelia is obsessed with molding her environment in the image of her perfect life, and failing miserably, Tulip realizes that to reunite with her parents she needs to accept that, as long as they are in her life, things can change between them; and that is okay. That is the only way love can exist. With the risk of loss and pain, not any less worth it for that.

At the end of her journey, Tulip has learned the nature and price of connection, and her place in the complicated, irrational, incomprehensible world. She gets to accept that things don't need a reason for happening, that there is not always someone to blame and demand reparations from. She gets to accept that she is just one person -  but that realization gives her so much personal power. As just one person, she is free from the weight of the world she used to carry on her shoulders; as just one person, she has the full scope of her personal skills and power to protect herself and those she loves, to change with the world and adapt to it, once she starts treating it as a friend and engaging with it on its own terms. At the end of her arc, she truly gets to say that she is ready for everything: she learns a whole new way to approach life that makes handling change much less painful.

She is a protagonist that gives up the protagonist complex, telling her she is the central point of the larger narrative. And through that, she finds peace and flexibility.

What is fascinating is that the narrative itself then supports that idea by removing Tulip from the center of the show. In the next book we follow the arc of Lake, my beautiful perfect child. And with it being centered around the idea of Lake's personhood and them transcending the role of a denizen, that decision could not have been any more metatextually perfect.

3. Book 2: Cracked Reflection and the Relationship between Personhood and Connection

In the first season, Lake is a side character that appears for just one episode, contributes to the protagonist's journey and is then gone. But as the story shifts and focuses on them, we see their struggle as they try to break out of the role of a 'supporting character' and prove their completion and worth outside of their contribution to someone else's story. Their intial place in the narrative and their initial position within their own story echo each other beautifully, and this is the exact kind of writing excellency that has me absolutely hooked. Thank you Infinity Train.

Quite interestingly, the idea of personhood is explored in relation to the theme of connection. Lake shares their journey with Jesse, and the two character arcs mirror each other, dealing with the relationship between personal freedom and external bonds. 

Lake and Jesse operate under the same false pretense that to connect to people means to be what they want you to be, that in order to have friends you have to sacrifice who you are, what you want. They approach this false predicament from the opposite ends: Lake by avoiding any connection altogether and Jesse by readily caving in to peer pressure, adult pressure, just... general imposion of everyone else's expectations, because he suffers from the compulsive need to be liked and accepted. Lake refuses to fit in and is left to deal with their horrifying situation alone, Jesse hurts himself and those he loves in order to fit in.

It's very interesting how the narrative connects reflectiveness to connection. 'Empathy Goes', the song about friendship that Jesse sings, starts with lines “When I look at you, I see me” – words that take on a quite literal uncomfortable meaning for Lake. 

[id: a screenshot from Infinity Train Book 2 of a small girl looking at her reflection in a reflective child (Lake)’s head, Lake unamused. end id]

Then the thematic core of season 2 – Lake's conversation with the dying Sieve, in which the latter torments them – introduces the thought that, by befriending Jesse and helping him grow, Lake became what he needed them to be; became his reflection.

That is, of course, not true. The idea that Lake had simply fulfilled the role of a denizen is disproven by the fact that they are the protagonist of Book 2 that goes through the same journey as Tulip, meeting the exact people and creatures and foes that influence and challenge them in the most important ways. At the end of the day, their victory was not changing their external circumstances but their internal approach to them.

As this awesome person has pointed out, that to get off the train, Lake had to embrace their reflectiveness. However heartbreaking was their enraged plea to have their personhood recognized, they never really did change One One's mind. In his perception, they remained a denizen, “so good at helping”. 

The truth is, however, is that yes, Lake has helped Jesse - by being themselves unapologetically, by not fitting in, by showing him that that is an option, and in that life, you can still be loved and cared about – because Jesse without doubt cares about Lake very deeply. 

But Jesse has helped Lake, too, has changed them – by giving them connection and recognition, by showing them they can be accepted and loved without the need to change who they are, without the need to tailor themselves to another person and 'mirror' them. At the end, the two get one escape for two people – because their journey was a shared one, because their paths cannot be separated, because they have influenced each other equally.

 And much like Amelia was the perfect person to challenge Tulip, One One with his inability to think outside of the algorythm and acknowledge Lake's personhood, was perfect for challenging them and putting them into a situation where they had no other choice but to accept, acknowledge and appreciate the connections they have made, and the fact that those connections define them - partially.

Reflectiveness represents bonds, letting other people into your  life, letting them influence you, teach you something, ask something from you – and, fascinatingly, that seems to be a part of what defines us, gives us personhood. Are we just what we do for other people? No, obviously not. Are we simply what separates us from others, what makes us unique, who we are completely on our own, with no regard to what unites us with other people, what they bring into our lives and what we bring into theirs? The answer Infinity Train provides appears to be no, once again. 

Lake names themselves – finds a true, real name that they identify with, when they embrace their reflective nature and see themselves in a body of water that, yes, lets the world in, reflects it, while also undoubtedly having a life and depth of its own. Personhood, real, full human experience seems to be the subtle dance of individualism and connection, both what defines us as separate from others and what tethers us to them.

I mentioned how Lake's journey being similar to Tulip's is a part of what validates their personhood. That's one of those fascinating things in Infinity Train's writing: how the intial split of the cast into the passenger and supporting denizen characters appears almost like commentary on the protagonist complex, with Tulip actually having to internalize the idea that the world and her life are not centered solely around her, are not all about her happiness and growth, that some things happen just because they do, not because they have something to do with her. 

Then, opening with a lead that needs to outgrow the protagonist complex, the show moves on to that character's narrative foil and shows them grow into the central point of the narrative, fighting to have the world recognize them as the main character of their separate, independent story. And to us viewers there is no doubt that Lake is a person of their own and has full rights to personal protagonism – they  are the one we are watching, whose struggle is  the focus of the Book, they are who we sympathise with in the story. 

This wonderful meta decision really drills in the idea that every single character we only ever catch a glimpse of is the main hero of their own journey, and has a full life and full personhood outside of the role they play in the story we watch unravel. At the same time, as per the rules of narrating, we only see the people and events that serve the current protagonist's growth. Through that, and through being an antalogy that unravels by latching onto a secondary character time after time, book after book, exploring their own journeys and inner worlds, Infinity Train creates a breathtaking polycentric model of reality, in which every single person is the main character on their own path, with people around them contributing something of value to that path – and the main character contributing something to theirs, becoming in turn a secondary supporting character in someone else's story. 

Tulip and Atticus are a wonderful example of that: embarking (hehe) on the same journey for different reasons, helping each other, accepting the responsibility that comes with being each other's friends and companions, welcoming the pain that comes with connection and at the end aiding each other in their quests. And Jesse and Lake are much the same. 

The idea of companionship being the escape is only directly introduced in Book 2, but it had already sprouted in Book 1. The themes of connection, renegotiating one's relationship with the seemingly hostile world, and coming to terms with everyone's place in it as one of the many, but having endless personal power over our own narrative, are constantly and continuously present in the show, with the differnet smaller plots and character arcs beautifully overlapping.

___________________________________________________________

Analyzing all of this in the past, I felt incredibly secure and confident in the seeming underlying lesson. That there is no reason to fight the world at large, the things that are outside of your or someone else's control.  And that doesn't mean “not standing up to those who are hurting others”, as shown in Tulip's confrontation with Amelia, Jesse's confrontation with the Apex. It means that some things, like where you have come from, what the relationships of people around you are, and who you have lost, cannot be changed, and our subconscious attempts to fight them only hurt us in the end. 

The idea of our boundless ability to find resources in ourselves and people around us, learn from people that surround us, accept their help and offer them ours, find love once we accept the change love brings; the idea that we always have the ability to thrive in our current circumstances, once we accept that we ourselves are getting in our own way, out of the unwillingness to let go of something we hold dear; the idea that we can always, always bounce back, that it is never too late for any of us, and that true companionship will always be there to give us escape... 

The idea of the world as our friend, with its own will and wishes, something that is not to be controlled and bruteforce- reasoned  through, but something to engage with... 

These all gave me strength, held me up, and gave me a new paradigm that allowed me to look at the reality from a place of comfort and assuredness. The paradigm of the complicated web of life where everything is in its place, where our shortcomings create valuable lessons for someone else, where our choices, even if they hurt us and others, create lessons, as established by Sieve,  have their place in the big picture, like what we see with Amelia's mitakes and Tulip's progress. 

Then, the idea that in that big picture, you are exactly where you need to be, always, because you always have the only thing you need to grow and recover and thrive – you have yourself and the people around you. How infinitely comforting this is, how solid.

And then Book 3 has arrived. And holy shit y’all.

4. Book 3: Cult of the Conductor and Trust vs Control

And once again, this season has not necessarily disproven all of the aforementioned stuff, just... put a lot more emphasis on the reality of pain people have to endure. In this book we had to witness simultaneously a recovery – within Grace's arc, - a descend – within Simon's, - and an actual, raw trauma, that Hazel had to suffer through on screen. We had to watch Simon murder Hazel's caregiver and repeatedly make her feel unsafe, and Grace withdraw herself and leave Hazel alone because of her ungoing identity crisis. We have to come uncomfortably close to the reality of the pain that shapes people, and with how horribly we all can hurt each other. That pain is no longer obscured by the passage of time, it's not something in the character's past. And that is... very rattling.

But, once again, the constant running themes and motifs remain. Once again, the show tackles the idea of change, of connection and the relationship between the individual and the world. 

Regarding the latter, what we see with the Apex is the protagonist complex projected on a group. The Apex myth simultaneously places them at the top of the world – hence the name – and makes them the poor victims of the evil False Conductor that of course seeks to destroy them and targets them specifically. Grace and Simon developed the idea of themselves and their group as the sole people for whom the train exists, as well as the chosen deliberate targets of the entity that had taken over their environment, instead of accepting that maybe the world does not revolve around them!

Upon meeting Amelia they learn that they are not chosen, that they are not on the train because the outside world did not recognize their value, that there was never someone at the top who had their best needs in mind, and that the entity that calls the shots now does not actually know anything about them besides the fact that they exist.

The theme of connection makes a comeback hand in hand with the motif of empathy, with the book opening with Jesse's song 'Empathy Goes'. And that's what's being explored in Grace's and Simon's respective arcs with relation to denizens: their ability to show compassion and recognize someone else's personhood.

The narrative is multi-layered here. On one hand, what is being explored is a group mentality, a cult mentality that paints the outside world as simultaneously inferior and hostile, and we can see Grace and Simon accidentally inventing some pretty mean propaganda techniques. Whew, those kids. But then on the other, the idea of denizens as projections, 'nulls', incapable of actual feeling, only pretending to be real people... this brings to mind such complicated and staggering concepts as philosophical zombies or the idea of the world as something that is simply a projection of your, you currently reading thinking person, brain, where nothing is real except for your own consciousness. And since it is simply impossible to possess others and make sure they are indeed living breathing feeling creatures and not just NPCs in one wild, wild dream, empathy becomes a fascinating choice. What we're left with is 1) believing that other people do in fact feel what they say they do, 2) treating them with respect just in case or because being mean feels bad, or, 3) you know, deciding that we're on top of the world, and are the Apex predator, and everything exists for us, and we can do whatever we want with people around us.

It's interesting to see this mindset as a group mentality, but it makes sense, too; with the Apex we get to watch what happens when a group only recognizes the personhood of those that are a part of it. The thing is, there is no actual empathy within that group, either; we see that once Grace stops fitting into it as smoothly. To the Apex, she becomes a 'void', a nothing, something hollow, devoid of status and power and therefore rights and feelings that need to be respected. Simon's approach is “whatever I do not like is not real”, so by proxy, the new version of Grace is nothing, and should be erased.

This lack of empathy can be tracked deeper and deeper down to Simon as the extremely tyrannical leader, his refusal to recognize the personhood of anyone who does not agree with him. It is natural for us all to act as if what we believe is correct; otherwise, why would we believe it? But Simon takes it to the extremes, refusing to even for a second consider an alternative point of view, and ends up locked in a mindset in which he is the only person entitled to the ability to see the truth, and everyone else somehow is inferior and incomplete. That's the protagonist complex, that's the experience of a person who considers themselves at the center of the world. Why would he out of all people be the keeper of truth? He simply does not ask himself that, because he does not stop to think about the existence of others, or their experiences.

However, it wouldn't be correct to say that Simon is completely devoid of empathy. It's just that his version of it is extremely self-centered and unable to discern between his personal situation and someone else's reality. As my awesome friend @buttercup-bug​ has pointed out, the relationship between Grace and Hazel and Simon and Hazel is built on extending that limited, conditional empathy. As they have noted, the golden and silver masks at the start of the season that are performing the song 'Empathy Goes' represent the two of them, the golden one directly intersecting with the one Grace wears, and in general gold and silver matching their color schemes. 

The position of the masks matches their position on the stage, as well: they are the two leading figures in the big messed-up play that is the Apex, removed from reality, avoiding it, living in their own little world. They perform that reality in different ways, Grace leading with smiles and emotions/emotional manipulation, Simon being more uptight and serious. 

[id: two shots from Infinity Train Book 3, showinng first a scene with halves of two theatrical masks, a sorrowful and a laughing one, surrounded by undefined actor creatures; then Simon and Grace, two young people, Simon white and blonde, Grace black, with shortr dredlocs, wearing a golden masks, holding hands with each other and two other kids in a curtain call manner, with fire raging behind them. end id]

Now, returning to the empathy motif: as it was pointed out to me, the two extend their empathy to Hazel in their own ways, representing their relationship with the inner child. Grace relates to Hazel as a lonely young girl seeking connection with other children, and engages with her in a fun, upbeat way, making it so they enjoy each other's company and spend time together like friends do. That helps her get closer to Hazel, get genuinely attached and through that let Hazel influence her worldview a bit, and be there for Hazel through harder, less fun things as well, till.. a certain point.

Simon, on the other hand, sees himself in Hazel as someone stranded on the train and under the care of a denizen, and automatically perceives Tuba as a threat. And he expresses his empathy in a direct, serious, violent way, by doing what he thinks needs doing: by getting rid of  Tuba without making time for smiles and fun times. 

Grace is the leader, she engages with people emotionally, making them feel needed and special and through that keeping the group together. Simon is the general who leads the army in what he perceives as the Apex's attempt to protect themselves. His approach does not leave much space for bodning. And it makes sense for him as someone much more focused on safety to have his understanding of denizens as dangerous run deeper, be more at the forefront, in his focus. He’s the one calculating the “danger levels” of encountered denizens. And of course the incident with The Cat makes it much more personal. I think it's fair to assume that both Grace and Simon must've had some unfortunate run-ins with the inhabitants of the train, with Grace being initially so set in her belief that denizens are dangerous because they are unpredictable, and you never know what they will do next. Though the only time we actually see her endangered is by the steward that Amelia had reprogrammed. Either way, the two had started off feeling endangered by the unpredictable and unreliable creatures surrounding them, and probably, in their attempts to find a reason to trust each other and feel safer around each other in a dangerous and confusing world, decided that passengers must be inherently good, denizens must be inherently bad.

There is, however, no actual trust in that, none at all between them. 

I'd say that “trust”' is the core motif of season 3. Infinity Train tends to adopt an aphorism that keeps reappearing throughout a season, pronounced by different characters or in different contexts, highlighting the thematic movement and change and the development of the theme within the plot. In Book 1, it was the collocation “bounce back”, as the core of Tulip's character. In Book 2, we had “You can't spell 'escape' without 'companionship'”. In Book 3, our boy Roy introduced the phrase “Teamwork starts with two people trusting each other”. Simon's horrifying rendition of it emphasized the idea that not everyone counts as a person, so not everyone is deserving of trust. You can only rely on those who fit your narrow criteria of one. 

However, even when Grace and Simon were on the same side of the barricades they've built with their own hands, they could never actually trust each other. Their bond and their care for each other were extremely conditional, hinging on the ultra specific image of a passenger, and influenced by the power hierarchy they had created. 

We see that Grace is reluctant to trust Simon or the Apex with the changes happening to her, with her number going down, because she didn't want them to think “less of her”. Her personal  issues, her fear of loneliness and abandonment and the idea that she needs to be something specific, someone who is always strong and right for people to stick around her, have certainly played into that. Grace is so used to comforting herself through saying the world is mean to her because she is special; she wears her “special” status as a mask, she has the highest number, she is “so good at the train”, and that's what keeps others around her in this reality, keeps them needing her. But it's not actually about her as a person. But it is also just the system the two have established. Numbers are power; one's number going down is their failure. 

The amount of trust only diminishes as the plot progresses, with Grace's perspective shifting but her not being able to trust Simon with those thoughts and feelings – quite understandably, since he remained adamant about his beliefs till the very end. Grace could never truly trust Simon outside of the invented value system they've been existing within for many years. And that is reflective of her constant inner struggle, not being able to trust anyone with her self, without any myth explaining why she is awesome and irreplacable. Hazel was the first person who spent time around Grace while also falling out of the equation, not being influenced by the Apex propaganda, and that is why their bond was so life-changing to Grace – aside from the aforementioned grounds for empathy.

Now, was Simon ever able to truly trust Grace? I think he desperately needed to, and facing the fact that Grace has in some ways betrayed that trust by keepings things from him was one of the things that played into him going off the rails. (...That pun was not intended. ) 

As it was pointed out many times by many viewers, Simon seems to know quite a lot about funerals, which means that he probably had to attend one as a kid. Then, his relationship with The Cat seems to be a metaphor for neglectful parenting due to an addiction. The Cat is a collector, her treasures seeming to be extremely important to her. The voice in which Simon says the words “She is collecting again” hints on a long, ongoing problem. Then in the memory of his meeting with Grace, we see that The Cat had actually probably endangered him on one of her car crawls. Overall, Simon's childhood seems to had been an extremely unstable one, with nothing and no one he could truly rely on, with parental figures either dying or neglecting him. It is similar to Tulip's struggle, but most likely running even deeper.

We see Simon continuously leaning on Grace, which at times causes her frustration: she snaps and asks bitterly if she always has to tell him what to do. When Grace starts behaving weirdly, starts changing, acting in a way that Simon can't understand and is not used to, he probably feels endangered, like his life is growing incomprehensible and unstable once again, like things are slipping through his fingers and out of his control. 

But at the end of the day, not one of them was truly relying on the other. Grace never trusted Simon to just stick around because he liked her, she needed the upper hand, the leading position, the idea of being “very good at the train”, and the system in which they should stick together as the passengers threatened by the dangerous environment and “the false conductor”. Simon never truly trusted Grace as we should trust those we love: with the freedom for them to grow and change and still remain someone we can feel safe and happy around. Instead of taking that leap of faith and relying on her to do right by him, he was in fact leaning on the system they've created, clinging to it desperately to the very end. People may change, but the system will stay the same, as long as he doesn't reconsider his worldview, and he had decided to never abandon it, whatever happens.

The lack of trust is warranted by their treatment of each other. How could Simon rely on Grace if she had never shown him her true self? How could Grace trust Simon with her genuine self if he needed her to be something very specific and unchanging? Their bond, while being something that helped them through the lonely existence in a weird, dangerous place, was in fact incredibly, tragically toxic. That is not something that people acknowledge easily. These two held onto their semblance of friendship for dear life, but that only worsened their respective problems, made them less and less capable of actual genuine friendships.

Both of their characters are very complex and convincing, and before I speak directly of some less pleasant parts of them  I want to establish that I love Grace and am so very proud of her, and glad to see that a Black woman character did not remain an antagonist and got explored deeply and compassionately. And that while I was absolutely enraged by Simon's actions throughout the season, I can also appreciate the depth and complexity of the show's writing in his arc, and the tragedy of it, and I do feel for him quite deeply. 

It is also worth mentioning that, even tho they are on the older end of 'kids', they are both kids still, with their formative years spent in unfortunate, unhelpful environments, and the age of growth and self-discovery happening in an actual cult, even tho it is one they had locked themselves into.

So now, to what can be perceieved as the darker parts of their characters. A unifying element of both Grace's and Simon's characters are their desire for control. Both scared of what life would be without it, they bend over backwards to make people behave in the way they need them to. 

Grace does that through emotional manipulation, she directs her entire demeanor into making people see her as the most knowledgable and powerful, someone they need. She makes them want to be a part of the gang, telling them that it makes them special and brave, as well as making them belive that the outside world means them harm, which is... a classic cult tactic. She hides the truth from them when the truth threatens her position and bonds with them. In the culmination of her personal growth, she admits the reason behind it: she did everything in her power to not be left alone. She tried to control the way other people see the world, and through that control how they see her, thinking that that will make them want to stick around. But her manipulation was what kept her from creating genuine connections, so after she first fell out of her own equation and then pushed Hazel away in the last desperate attempt to fit back into it, there was no one left around her. She made people need her cult, not her person. She never let them know the real her that would make them want to stay. The truth is that people change constantly, and we can't eternally push ourselves to live up to a specific expectation, so any attempt to keep people around with anything else than our genuine self are simply doomed.

Simon does not have the same talent for manipulation that Grace does, despite his attempts to use her own techniques on her when trapping her in her memories. 

[id: screenshot from Book 3 showing Grace looking at Simon, who’s sitting next to her with a grave expression on his face. end id]

Lacking subtlty, he seeks to control the world around him through brute force. We see him repeatedly grabbing Grace in an unsettling, scary, invasive and violent manner. He is unable to influence her mentality like she influences the mentality of other people. He can't act subtly, through emotion and manipulation. And his desperation to control the world and force it to work in ways that suit him get externalized through physical aggression. 

That does not excuse him, nor does his desperation warrant sympathy, but the idea of his shows of power being actually signs of powerlessness seems... captivating, reassuring somehow. People who lash out at us do so because they don't actually get to control how we feel, and never can. They can influence and wound us deeply, but they can never actually fully control us, they don’t get to rewrite us.

...Buuut back to the character analysis. Much like Grace who at the start was holding the position of “whatever doesn’t pleases or entertains me gets wheeled” (perhaps a reflection of her “never needed them anyway” attitude seen in how she feels about her failed attempts at friendship), Simon also denies everything that doesn't suit him, not just the value of it but the reality of it, too. Despite all reason, he refuses to believe that he had been living a lie for the last uhh number of years. If something isn't working the way he wants it to, if someone is behaving in a way he doesn't like, he deems them broken and wrong. As Grace points out, her memories are only a true and reliable source to him as long as he likes them, and once he doesn't, they must be lies. 

Simon is the very embodiment of stagnation, complete lack of flexibility – out of his compulsive need to control the world, to have it remain the same and stable, after the turbulences of his childhood. He is very, very much like Tulip – but he is not given a chance to 'bounce back'. Amelia, another example of deep stagnation and refusal to accept the changes in the world, is allowed that decades after boarding the train. She might never leave it, but she can still make an effort, she can still grow, bit by bit. Simon never makes it to the point where he is ready to accept the reality and start making peace with it.

I assume that for the biggest part of the show he is simply constantly triggered. He spends time with Grace, like they used to, before the Apex – but they met and started travelling together right after The Cat had abandoned him. Then they encounter a child who has no one but a supposedly unreliable denizen taking care of her – another thing to remind Simon of his own neglect. Then they straight up bump into The Cat, and Simon learns that her addicition is still active, that nothing has changed, that what happened to him wasn't enough for his parental figure to reconsider her ways. Then things start changing, Grace starts behaving differently, abandones the 'passenger-denizen' binary and makes him feel more alone and directionless than he probably has been in years. 

But after he traps her in her tape and returns to the Apex, there is at least a couple of month for him to get out of the spiral and reconsier. All Of That. and yet he doesn't. At this point his actions are not solely motivated by the very unstable state he was in – which is not to say that he wouldn't need to take responsibility for them either way. But a certain amount of time and distance from it all could have been used for reflection, and yet Simon stays firmly in his position of clinging to the system and revelling in the ultimate control he had found by becoming a leader. He creates a myth of Grace as someone who is worthless because she is unfit to be a leader. He paints himself as more reliable and powerful through the firmness of his beliefs. With him, you can always know what the rules are going to be, how to be the best. Perhaps, in his twisted horrifying perception, he was giving the Apex kids the stability he'd never had.

Going back to the question of why Simon was not given the opportunity to bounce back... Obviously, a core element of his character is his refusal to change in any form, and that’s on him. But with making peace with change being a big theme in the show from season 1, with Amelia doing the same for decades and eventually getting to a place where she had finally accepted it... This is a heavy and fascinating narrative decision.

It's good to consider that Amelia never actually succeeded at controlling the world in the way that she needed. Among all the characters, her grief was the most hopeless, most desperate: she tried to reverse time, she tried to bring someone back to life. Unlike her, Simon achieved some at least perceived control that he had been striving for. The danger of his character is that he executed his power over actual physical people, and he felt like he could actually decide what their life was going to be, what his life was going to be. He never got to lose it all, like Grace did. He never got to face just how hollow his illusion of control was. So in some ways within his arc him not getting redemption makes sense. 

But what does it mean for the show at large, for the underlying message? It feels inconsistent with the Infinity Train's narrative to just make Simon out to be a cautionary tale of what happens to those who deny change, or a foil to Grace who did ended up accepting it; we've already established that in the show's polycentric system, every character is more than just a part of someone else's journey, has full existence and autonomy outside of that.

Once again quoting my wonderful smart friend @buttercup-bug​, I want to refer to the end of season 3 in which Grace tells the ex-Apex kids that it is not fair for her to decide for them what their place on the train is, who they are, what life is to them; and in the same way, the unconcluded story of this book can be open to interpretations, with every one of us getting to choose what to take out of the simple reality of it. Simon's story simply happened. We can take whatever lesson we need from it. 

But before we part our ways and each one decides what to think of the bone-chilling end of his arc, I want to point a couple more things out.

5. The Train as a Metaphor for Life

Something that has really fascinated me about the show's narrative ever since my marathon of the first two seasons is the concept of the train. One One seems so very sure the train inspires growth, and yet, as we have learned in season 3, he, the Conductor himself, does not actually know much about the passengers' life aboard it except their numbers. There is no established system, there is no assigning of the denizens, there is no rulebook for them, they are not aware of the specific problems of the passengers they meet. Passengers can actually die on the train, which is wild if the goal of it is to make them grow and flourish. We are so used to thinking that to heal, one needs a perfectly supportive, comfortable and safe environment, and yet the train is challenging, dangerous, unpredictable.

I think the idea here, with characters time after time having to come to terms with life being confusing, ever-changing, often painful and entirely outside of our control, is that the train is not necessarily there to soothe the wounds but to raise the stakes, challenging people in such a way that their choices and their actions and approach to the reality have much more serious consequences. Tulip learns to accept help and help others in situations that actually threaten her and her loved ones, while what she would risk in the past when shutting herself off was just upsetting some friends and family and, you know, being fundamentally alone. Jesse went from letting others bully his brother to balancing on the edge of selling Lake out, which would end their entire existence. Grace went from being a child who creates fights and eggs others on to do something stupid to being an actual teenage cult leader. The train raises the stakes exponentially, and that makes everyone on board reconsider the real price of their actions.

Aside from that and giving specific directions for growth through numbers, though, it doesn't really... do anything. It functions the way life functions: things just happen, people just behave in ways that make sense for them, and everyone has full autonomy. At the same time, we see characters encounter the exact companions that make them grow, the exact enemies that challenge them in the most important ways. To once again quote Fleur @buttercup-bug​ a.k.a. the established sponsor of all of the behind-the-scenes Infinity Train discussions, the train is both ambigious and very meta, and “acts both as a narrative arc machine in a storytelling sense and as a lesson provider in a life sense, which bridges the gap between story and reality in a really personal way”. 

That is a wonderful way to put something that captivated me upon my first watch. The train is a metaphor for life. It is contrasted against the metaphor for death or non-existence: the  lifeless wasteland through which it is constantly moving, the wasteland populated by soul-sucking parasites also symbolical of nothing other than death. The train is life that is always moving, never the same, outside of our control, bigger than us, not obeying our wishes no matter how hard we try, challenging, populated by other people that have their free will, which often hurts us. And yet, the train is a provider of companions, which are to be our escape. And they are not crafted or tailored to us, nor are we crafted for them - and yet as our paths intersect, we impact each other, and we learn from each other in incredibly meaningful ways.

When thinking about this, I've landed on two possibilities. Either the Engine or the Train – something separate from One One – is a great and omnipotent mind capabe of foreseeing how things would unravel to everyone's utmost benefit, placing the correct people at the correct places, weaving an incredibly complex web of connections in which we always meet the companions we are supposed to meet ot exchange lessons with... or it doesn't need to be at all. And I think I like the latter much more. 

The train doesn't need to be that, because, as I've already proposed earlier, ourselves and the people around us, whoever they are, are all we ever need. Wherever you are right now, wherever the Universe has put you, you are supposed to be there, not because it has some grand plan and knows something that you don't, but because no matter your circumstances, you already have what you need for growth. You have yourself and you have other people and their stories, and the connection they can offer you. (Hazel, who is perhaps the most mature character we meet – which is tragic considering how many dysfunctional adults she has to be around – seeks to connect with everyone around her who is not outwardly dangerous, no matter how little in common they seem to have. And eventually something is found, some strand of connection, creating empathy.) People around you always have something to offer. You yourself always have something to offer.

I would hold onto that idea, as well as the idea of “bouncing back”, of it never being too late to get better. And I felt a bit off-balance when Simon was not given a chance to do that. But in a way, shifitng the story from fated encounters that kickstart someone's progress, like the one between Tulip and Amelia, Lake and Jesse, gives even more weight to this concept, by putting our personal decision to change into focus. 

It's not all about meeting this one specific person who will show you the error of your ways; even more so, sometimes people who have a lot in common and mirror each other hold each other back instead of helping each other grow. Sometimes one of them changing only pushes the other further down when they refuse to accept that. And at the end, it is all up to us. 

Getting a little bit existential here, but we are fundamentally the only ones who define our lone separate experience, and we are always on our own and solely repsonsible for ourselves. Connection is always there to support us, to teach us something, and playing a role in someone's life is what makes us real and vice versa, and at the same time we are all masters of our own destiny. We do not bear responsibility for other people's actions, and they do not bear responsibility for ours. Some environments are more suited for our growth, some less, but at the end of the day the choice to take whatever opportunities we have is up to us. 

Which means that we don't have to sit around waiting for the Logical Point in our character arcs to achieve a breakthrough. The world is always there for us to engage with, to hear what it has to say. The question is, are we ready to accept it? To see it for what it is? With time it will grow louder, ignoring the truth we're avoiding will become harder, but the choice to listen is always ours. We can do it sooner rather than later. Or we can do it... never, refuse the reality, refuse change and the nature of life. Because we are the ones responsible. We can't blame the world for not delivering the needed lessons sooner in life, because even if it did, nothing would stop us from ignoring them. We can't feel entitled to endless lessons and endless comfort from people around us. We should take care of ourselves. 

Which means that, wherever we are, at any point of our lives, we can always grow if we listen, if we open ourselves up to the truth. And the truth is that  life is incredibly, undescribably complicated. It stretches across so many different individual experiences, and it does not prioritize a single one of them. We are a part of such a vast web of events and connections, and it is foolish to consider that the world is the way it is just to spite you or hurt you, or that it should change, stop and start spinning in the opposite direction just to ease your pain. 

Things happen that no one is to blame for. There is no fault in the way the world is. Nothing is broken. Life goes on, endlessly, life changes, people change, people leave, people hurt us. That is okay. We can always change ourselves, we can be flexible and open and alive, we can extend our hand to the world and work together with it in true companionship.

Life is the way it is, wild and uncontrollable, and you cannot escape it, you cannot escape change, as long as you are alive. But you can make peace with that. Through acceptance, love and connection.

Gohms, creatures dwelling in the desert that symbolizes non-existence, parasites that symbolize death, are what awaits those who choose to get off the train. Those who try to escape the endless movement and challenges of life. You cannot truly stagnate, you cannot stop moving, you cannot stop things form changing, as long as you exist. As Simon attempts to control the world, still it, for the very last time, that is what happens to him. He stops existing. By refusing change, he refuses life itself. And loses it. And maybe it's not about him never getting to arrive at a point that would tip him over and change him. Maybe it's about his choice to not take all the opportunities that were presented to him before. Maybe he could've done something very different, whether that would have changed his fate or not, with whatever time he had left.

[adamsvanrhijn]

The dialect quiz is actually pretty good! Got me to within 20 miles of home and I havent lived there for 20 years by now.... I was interested in your definition of northern England English, which many writers do often use indiscriminately for tv etc but I have less qualms about (posh southern) julian fellowes using it because it was 100 years ago so obviously people would talk differently

they did a really good job!!!! you guys have a lot more englishes over there because you've been talking in the same places for longer so it is easier to pinpoint where you started talking 😈

for a lay audience for simplicity's sake, when i say "northern england english" i'm mainly referring to the englishes spoken in the modern political boundary area from the southernmost borders of yorkshire and lancashire up to the scottish border, excluding the isle of man, especially by middle and working class speakers

but, as i think you are getting at, there is a TON of variation in this area and you can't really define it as One English beyond a surface level because, like i said and like you said, in the british isles in general you can ascribe unique linguistic features to a very specific area and sometimes they can be pretty wildly different, usually completely independent of modern political boundaries

but it IS more simple to draw the lines of where the Groups Of Englishes begin and end. not Simple just more simple, like in the area i mentioned there are enough common linguistic features, many around vowel sounds, that are unique from the south and moooost of the midlands, such that you can group those together coherently

in linguistic terminology, you define language areas using an isogloss, which is an imaginary line where, for example, most people on one side pronounce rhotic/r sounds after a vowel and most people on the other side don't.

there are a few of these people look at for northern england englishes, one good example is the trap/bath split isogloss. if you learned how to speak english north of this imaginary line you probably pronounce the vowel in those words differently than if you learned how to speak south of it. this line actually goes through the midlands, which is also true of the foot-strut vowel distinction isogloss

that said, that vowel distinction is less reliable these days bc, 1, language changes all the time, and 2, especially w/ stigmatized language varieties you tend to see change as standardization toward the prestige variety, so some of the distinguishing features of 100 years ago don't exist much anymore

the really fun thing about downton abbey and i think what must have been a good challenge for their dialect coach, is, you have many northern actors who speak w/ local accents, some of which are stronger than others, and you want to take advantage of that where you can so broadly you will encourage people to keep using them

but there are some changes that have happened in language over time that can be reflected too, and those have to be coached, but you also need to keep in mind that this has to be comprehensible across multiple english speaking markets worldwide so you can't go Too historically accurate or a lot of it would be very tough to understand even for modern speakers of e.g. yorkshire english(es), and SIMULTANEOUSLY there is historical context about working in service and the effort people put into changing their speech for their jobs, so... it's just a lot of layers! cool to implement. and like i said in my thomas post a lot of it seems to come down to direction and/or actor choice, jf didn't always include northernisms in the script where they appear in the show

I Just Think It's Neat

idk if this touches on what you were getting at sjjfjd but thank you for the ask either way!!!

[thepringlesofblood]

ok so arthur right??

i was talking to my dad yesterday and I casually mentioned the PBS kids show ‘arthur’ (the one with the fist that became a meme) and he was having trouble remembering it so i was like ‘y’know, arthur the aardvark?’ and he still didnt get it so I looked up a picture of him 

and he goes ‘if he’s an aardvark, where’s his snout’ 

for reference, this is the punk we’re talking about

no snout. basically an orange dude w/ mouse ears 

this is an aardvark

huge snout. not orange. giant tall ears like a naked bunny. wtf 

so i’m like ‘well yeah, but aardvarks are kinda weird lookin and not very common, but i swear the other animals on the show look like their animals’

so i look up the other animals and #1 they all are varying shades of skin tone, no frogs or birds or anything, and #2 it took so much fucking digging to figure out what each person’s supposed to be, and I grew up my whole life thinking they were the wrong animals. 

according to the wiki, there’s 8 main characters. Arthur and DW are both aardvarks, so the 6 remaining are francine, muffy, alan/brain, binky, buster, and mr. ratburn. 

let’s start nice and easy. arthurs whole family are aardvarks (and all of them have the same ‘orange-ish person w/ mouse ears, no nose, and human features’, what about francine?

so here’s our girl francine 

she basically looks like a normal cartoon person, except her mouth is like an otomatone. as a kid, i assumed she was a monkey, because people told me she was a monkey, and i was right. but there’s so so so many layers of anthropomorphizing here. she’s just a person with a protruding lower face, basically. it works, but it is so so minimal. the lil nose slits are in most arthur characters so they don’t read as different or specific. 

next we have muffy. similar situation. 

again, but even more anthropomorphized. her lil monkey facebump thing is even less pronounced, her ears look fairly human (for a cartoon), you could even make an argument that she has kind of a nose. I had no idea what she was as a kid. I legit thought she was just a person, and that this was how people looked in arthur world. 

that might be on me, since there are people who Just Look Like People in arthur world - buster’s dad is literally just A Human Man w/ bunny ears and the canon typical Nose Slits

behold, a man. 

but still. artistic license, it’s a cartoon, so I thought muffy was just a Person. 

there’s also the opposite end of the spectrum, where shit gets a bit wilder. 

what the hell is binky. y’know what I thought he was, when I was a kid? 

a hippo

seriously, he’s got the weirdly spaced teeth, the tiny lil ears, big craggy face, he’s larger than everyone else which makes sense bc hippos are gigantic. he’s not the same color as a hippo but everyone in the arthur verse is kinda skin toned so i didn’t think much of it

but

do you know what he’s supposed to be??

a bulldog

what. the hell. 

i just 

????

why is his jaw so gigantic??? this is a bulldog, for reference

if he’s a bulldog...why is he one of the very few arthur characters to get a DEFINABLE NOSE??

IT’S NOT A SNOUT. IT’S NOT EVEN A LIL DOG NOSE. IT’S LIKE AN EGG SITTING ON HIS FACE. NO WRINKLES. WEIRDASS EARS LIKE MOTORCYCLE HANDLES

only thing i can kinda see is the busted ass teeth. but like his whole head is a weird triangle in the wrong direction. I’m so confused. I’m so afraid. 

ok 

but get ready

for the ultimate weirdest interpretation of an animal

a l a n 

aka brain 

looks pretty much like arthur, right? except for his lil triangle nose instead of 2 dots, and slightly darker skintone, this is just like arthur. heads a bit more egg shaped but i think that’s a joke on how he’s real smart so hes an egghead or whatever. 

so, you might think, oh, he’s another small mammal like an aardvark, right? with that cute little pink nose, maybe a hamster? a mouse? 

no. no he’s not

according to arthur.fandom.com (the wiki site for the show)

he is

a fucking 

BEAR

thats right ladies and gents the ferocious bear before you, clearly indistinguishable from an aardvark

WHAT. THE FUCK. 

WHY

just to prove that I’m not shitting you 

https://arthur.fandom.com/wiki/Alan_Powers

HOW

THe fUCk

is This Lil Twerp the MIGHTY BEAST!!!! that is Bear. 

and you know the worst part? 

It’s evident. that the Arthur team. Knows how to do anthropomorphizing right. 

exhibit a?

B U S T E R

look at this motherfucker. the teeth. the weird lil triangle nose. the ears. he’s so clearly a fucking bunny. simple, but effective. clear, but not excessive. this is why you get a spinoff, buster. this is why you get all those ‘postcards’ series and the best games on PBS kids go. because out of everyone in town, you’re the only one who is instantly recognizable as the exact animal they’re supposed to be. no doubts, no qualms, no questions. just a good ol fashioned bunny. 10/10 

honorable mention, of course, goes to our only other recognizable main character. 

mr ratburn. what a legend. maybe it’s cheating a bit to have ‘rat’ right in his name so you know what he is, but god damn does his design deliver. take a closer look at that snout! whiskers, lil pink dot nose, vaguely triangular headshape, mouth at the very end, squinty lil eyes way back up on his head- you may not like it, but this is what peak rat performance looks like. remy ratatouille wishes he were this cool gay elementary school teacher. the sad thing is he looks more like an aardvark than arthur does, and he’s a rat. 

so

let’s review

out of all of the 8 main cast

two (2) 

are recognizable as animals on sight. 

arguably muffy and francine are recognizable but like so vaguely

so

75% of the main cast are Rounded Skintone Animal with Weird Ears

and then we got buster baxter and mr nigel ratburn over here carrying the show in terms of animal anthropomorphism done right. absolute madmen, true legends. 

god what a weird part of zillenial childhood. 

[princess-of-france]

I’m interested in your take on Angelo & Isabella w/ personality parallels (also just your opinion on Angelo especially tbh because I feel like I under-analyzed him when I read the play bc I was just. Well, found him scary :P) because obviously w/ your production you’re pretty deep in and I don’t see a lot of MFM content

Oof, this is a loaded question.

I’m happy to answer it, but I think I should make a disclaimer that—as you point out—my opinions of Angelo are skewed by my experiences as an actor inside a specific production. I’m also not an English scholar; I’m a theater artist. My lit crit skills are dodgy at best (as @lizbennett2013 knows all too well), and I don’t believe there is a single way to interpret any character in drama, especially when you’re dealing with heightened text. All I can do is give my honest appraisal of Angelo as I have encountered him dramaturgically through cutting our script, rehearsing Isabella, and seeing his iterations in other productions. 

So! Angelo and Isabella. Two sides of the same coin. I really think they are.

Let’s get the obvious stuff out of the way first: Angelo is scary. He just is. His sexually motivated exploitation of authority continues to be one of the most transcendent aspects of this ever-timely play. However you stage it, however you trim the text, whatever charismatic actor you slot into the role, Angelo is a capital-T-Terror and there’s no getting around it. Coercive, manipulative, hypocritical, ruthless, misogynistic, fraudulent, and cruel, he basically spends the entirety of MEASURE FOR MEASURE committing crimes and then soliloquizing about how painful it all is for his bargain-price conscience. You’ll never hear me say he doesn’t deserve his reputation as one of the most reprehensible tyrants in all of Shakespeare. 

But.

Of the three defining qualities I see in Angelo—ideological dogmatism, rhetorical prowess, and professional pride—there’s not one of them that is not blisteringly prominent in his antagonist, Isabella. Despite the fact that she’s a Catholic republican (“Butt out of people’s lives, Big Government; God will judge us when we die!”) and he’s a Puritan[ical] bureaucrat (“My job is to regulate people’s lives because purgatory is a myth!”), they have far more in common, cognitively, than not. Understand: I’m not saying that Angelo is not a piece of shit for how he behaves throughout course of the play. Nor am I implying that Isabella is somehow culpable for his masturbatory exercise of power over her. My girl has flaws, but she’s unquestionably the hero of M4M. What I’m trying to articulate is that Angelo and Isabella were born with the same psychological toolkit, which they elect to apply towards radically different purposes. (Think Parseltongue and “It is our choices that show who we truly are, far more than our abilities…”) This shared intellectual arsenal is what makes their pair of scenes in Act Two so iconic. We basically get to watch them play out Newton’s Third Law in real time: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction… As far as rhetoric goes, neither Isabella nor Angelo can overwhelm the other. For every argument she makes in favor of mercy, he punctures it with legalism. For every judicial explication he provides, she dissolves it with morality. One minute, we’re nodding our heads along with Angelo as he explains why Christian values should have no place in a court of law; the next, we’re on our feet cheering for Isabella to convince him to factor human integrity into his role as a public servant. I can’t read 2.2 as anything other than the blueprint for every screenplay Aaron Sorkin ever wrote. It is the ultimate courtroom drama.

Just look at the play’s opening act. Angelo’s hasty promotion aside, both he and Isabella begin the story at the lowest rung of their respective vocational ladders: he’s a would-be Chief Justice, she’s a would-be Prioress. Deputy/nun. Politics/religion. Different spheres/same ambition. And, in like true zealots, both Angelo and Isabella express their commitment to their new duties in terms of self-flagellation:

“You may not so extenuate his offenseFor I have had such faults, but rather tell me,When I that censure him do so offend,Let mine own judgment pattern out my deathAnd nothing come in partial.”        (Angelo, II.i.29-33)

“And have you nuns no farther privileges?[…] I speak not as desiring more,But rather wishing a more strict restraintUpon the sisterhood, the votarists of Saint Clare.”        (Isabella, I.iv.1, 3-5)

It’s also worth mentioning that our first introduction to these characters features them scurrying along in the wake of an authority figure they respect. 

Act 1, Scene 1: Angelo wants to know the extent to which he can wield his law degree at the pleasure of the Duke of Vienna (the Duke himself!). 

Act 1, Scene 4: Isabella wants to know the extent to which she can practice self-denial for the glory of God and the approval of Mother Superior. 

They are both drawn to gravitas, to figures who represent order and authority. They are also drawn to discipline. He’s a non-drinking, non-smoking Precision. She’s a gluttony-abhorring Bride of Christ. Let the rest of the world eat cake. They will be eating their sins and purifying their souls, thank you very much.

At the risk of descending into the flaming pits of cliché, I’ll also touch on those three qualities I mentioned earlier, because who says the TPE (Three Paragraph Essay) is dead? 

First up: ideological dogmatism.

[Side note: I may be a crappy historian, but I do recognize there’s a historical paradigm at play in this text. Vienna needs to be a Catholic city and Angelo’s Protestantism needs to be allusive because Shakespeare presumably valued all his limbs and didn’t relish the idea of rotting in a Cheapside prison. If he’d lived in a “free press” kind of sociocultural context, he might have endowed his religious figures with a bit more Opinion. I digress.]

In the M4M-centered episode of Isaac Butler’s phenomenal podcast, “Lend Me Your Ears,” he interviews JohnPaul Spiro (Assistant Director of the School of Liberal Arts, Villanova University), who does a wonderfully unfussy job of summing up the Angelo/Isabella ideology parallel:

“In much the same way as our era is filled with political zealots—as well as, to a certain degree, religious zealots—what you’ll find when you look closer is there’s a small number of very loud people who are dominating the discourse. And a lot of people are in the middle and would rather not have to take sides. Claudio, he seems to be monogamous, he seems to want to just live a very simple life, he’s not really concerned with theological things. And when pressed on theological things, his point is: ‘I don’t really know. No one really knows what happen when you die, so I’m scared.’”

Because religious extremism lies at the heart of the rhetorical warfare between Angelo and Isabella, I think there’s a misconception that M4M is a Play About Religion. But the ONLY characters who canonically go to the mat about the finer points of theology are…wait for it…Angelo and Isabella. This is an early modern text brimming with religious figures (Sister Francisca, Friar Thomas, Friar Peter, even the phony Friar Lodowick), but not a single one of them gets on the pulpit about ANYTHING in the course of the entire play. Sister Francisca’s role consists of bemusedly listening to her youthful novitiate describe her desire for stricter prohibitions at the cloister. Friar Thomas, a sycophantic priest whose parish coffers are probably lined with Vincentio’s gold, spends his one onstage scene nodding his head sympathetically as the Duke over-explains why he is disguising himself as a monk. Friar Peter, the poor Jesuit roped into delivering the Duke’s messages, forgoes moralizing and instead uses his limited dialogue to try to help two disenfranchised women receive justice for their abuse. And Friar Lodowick, of course, is nothing but an alias for a cowardly sociopath who wants to run the world without being held accountable for his mistakes. Nothing evangelical about any of that.

But Angelo and Isabella? They can’t shut up about religion. 

Isabella wants Angelo to temper his punitive Weltanschauung with morality, ideology, Platonic ideals, metaphysics…in short, all of the intangibles that can’t be used as evidence in a court of law. 

“Why, all the souls that were were forfeit onceAnd He that might the vantage best have tookFound out the remedy. How would you be,If He, which is the top of judgment, shouldBut judge you as you are? O, think on thatAnd mercy then will breathe within your lips,Like man new made.”        (Isabella, II.ii.97-103)

Angelo, in turn, wants Isabella to recognize the futility of Catholicism as a proper tool for creating heaven on earth because Catholicism permits withdrawal from the world and the abdication of earthly responsibility (cf: nunnery). Instead, he argues, what God actually needs is for people to actively toil in their communities to criminalize, punish, and eradicate sin. 

“I show [pity] most of all when I show justice,For then I pity those I do not know,Which a dismissed offense would after gall,And do him right that—answering one foul wrong—Lives not to act another.”        (Angelo, II.ii.128-132)

They take up the two sides of a theological debate that predates Christianity: ethics vs. justice. And that conflict is itself inextricably tied to the timeless political debate of non-intervention vs. regulation. And the thing is: even when Angelo and Isabella realize the irreconcilability of their respective schools of thought, they KEEP ARGUING ABOUT IT because extremism is just that: extreme. Angelo and Isabella may be major players in M4M, but they represent the radical minority of their world. They are the “small group of very loud people” and literally everyone is a moderate next to them. Ideology, not desire, is the bedrock of their personhood. When confronted with a person of an uncompromisingly polar viewpoint, they behave as if it might be possible to change the viewpoint of that person because the alternative is to admit defeat. To tragic effect, they hold their ideals more sacred than human life. For Angelo, that ideal is the law (i.e. integrity of action). For Isabella, it’s chastity (i.e. integrity of the soul). They are dogmatic in their beliefs, inflexible in their opinions, and inalienably convinced of their own “rightness.” They are austere, incisive, independent, articulate, and sharp. They are disgusted by the depravity of the world around them and determined to transcend it. What differentiates them is the content of their convictions, but they rate the value of that conviction equally.

So, yes, M4M is a play acutely interested in how religion shapes the law and human behavior. But I would argue that it is really only about one thing: power.

Which brings me to rhetoric.

Angelo and Isabella are lawyers. Both of them. High-powered, quick-thinking, weakness-sniffing, self-righteous litigators. Sure, Isabella may not have the paperwork to prove it; she was conceived by an Englishman in the early 17th century. But much in the same way that it’s obvious to everyone with eyes that would-be nun Maria [von Trapp] is a born music teacher from the first scene of The Sound of Music, so is it evident from Isabella’s first moments onstage that she is a born lawyer. She was, quite simply, born to argue.

Consider her first scene onstage: in the nunnery, with Lucio and Francisca. Unlike the audience, Isabella doesn’t have empirical evidence of Lucio’s amorality and notorious womanizing. She doesn’t need it. She can smell it on him. And in six short lines, she wipes the mosaic-laced marble floor of the cathedral with his ass:

LUCIOCan you so stead meAs bring me to the sight of Isabella,A novice of this place and the fair sisterTo her unhappy brother, Claudio?

ISABELLAWhy her “unhappy brother”? Let me ask,The rather for I now must make you knowI am that Isabella, and his sister.

LUCIOGentle and fair, your brother kindly greets you.Not to be weary with you, he’s in prison.

ISABELLAWoe me, for what?

LUCIOFor that which, if myself might be his judge,He should receive his punishment in thanks:He hath got his friend with child.

ISABELLASir, make me not your story.

LUCIO‘Tis true.I would not, though ‘tis my familiar sinWith maids to seem the lapwing and to jest,Tongue far from heart, play with all virgins so.I hold you as a thing enskied and sainted,By your renouncement an immortal spiritAnd to be talked with in sincerityAs with a saint.

ISABELLAYou do blaspheme the good in mocking me.

        (I.iv.18-40)

I’m not going to venture down the English professor’s rabbit hole of rhetorical devices and syntactical analysis—partly because there are thousands of scholars who have already done it better than I ever could (check out Claire McEachern and Julie Felise Dubiner!) and partly because I’ve been blathering for too long in general. But sufficed to say that three hallmarks of a good lawyer are as follows: 

The ability to seize and repurpose the language of one’s opponent (“Why her ‘unhappy brother?’”)

The ability to spot and sidestep landmines (“Sir, make me not your story.”)

The ability to redirect conversation (“You do blaspheme.”)

By that metric alone, Isabella’s performance here is worthy of the Harvard Law Review. 

And then, of course, two scenes later, she meets her match. 

A dear friend of mine, who is a first-year at Georgetown Law and basically the smartest person I’ve ever met, once told me: “The best and worst thing that can happen to a good lawyer is to meet another good lawyer with different ideas.” I do apologize for invoking Sorkin twice in one essay, but honestly: “The President likes smart people who disagree with him” (Leo, The West Wing, 2x05). It is a truth universally acknowledged that however infuriating it is for a highly intelligent person to debate with an equally intelligent person who disagrees with everything they stand for, it can also be unbelievably stimulating and monumentally entertaining to watch. (Hello, 50 million seasons of Law & Order.)

I’m now two weeks deep into rehearsals for M4M and I still get gobsmacked, daily, by the sheer majesty of Angelo’s and Isabella’s rhetoric. Theirs goes so far beyond the mental agility of anyone else in this play, or even—dare I say it—in Shakespeare’s canon. They are beyond intelligent. They are freaky genius kids with the kind of sanctimonious stubbornness that would be obnoxious if it weren’t so damn compelling. Between the two of them, between their two infamous scenes, they pull out every rhetorical trick in the book and play approximately seventeen unique rounds of intellectual checkers. (I say checkers because chess is too slow for them. If you want chilly brinksmanship, check out the Roman plays. Angelo and Isabella have agendas and professional pride on the line. Time is of the essence.)

ISABELLAI do think that you might pardon him,And neither heaven nor man grieve at the mercy.

ANGELOI will not do it.

ISABELLABut can you, if you would?

ANGELOLook, what I cannot, that I will not do.

ISABELLABut might you do it, and do the world no wrongIf so your heart were touched with that remorseAs mine is to him?

ANGELOHe’s sentenced. ‘Tis too late.

ISABELLA“Too late”? Why, no. I, that do speak a word,Might call it back again.

        (II.ii.67-78 [italics are mine])

Things get even more complicated when they start moving into those same theoretical marshes I described earlier:

“If he had been as you, and you as he,You would have slipped like him, but he like youWould not have been so stern.”        (Isabella, II.ii.84-86)

“The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept.Those many had not dared to do that evilIf the first that did th’ edict infringeHad answered for his deed. Now ‘tis awake…”        (Angelo, II.ii.117-120)

ENOUGH WITH THE METAPHORS ALREADY. CLAUDIO IS ON DEATH ROW.

And even when they finally, finally get to the point, they remain at an impasse:

ISABELLAYet show some pity.

ANGELOI show it most when I show justice.

        (II.ii.127-128)

Which causes Isabella essentially to lose all sense of self-awareness and control because goddam it, never once in her entire life has she met a person she couldn’t out-argue, who the fuck does this deputy think he is, this was supposed to be a simple mission and she’s been standing in this room for ten minutes and he’s still siTTING THERE SMILING AT HER WHAT THE F—

“So you must be the first that gives this sentence,And he that suffers. O, it is excellentTo have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannousTo use it like a giant[…]Could great men thunderAs Jove himself does, Jove would never be quiet,For every pelting, petty officerWould use his heaven for thunder,Nothing but thunder. Merciful heaven,Thou rather with thy sharp and sulfurous boltSplits the un-wedgeable and gnarlèd oakThan the soft myrtle. But man, proud man,Dressed in a little brief authority,Most ignorant of what he’s most assured,His glassy essence like an angry apePlays such fantastic tricks before high heavenAs makes the angels weep, who with our spleensWould all themselves laugh mortal.”        (Isabella, II.ii.134-152)

Which causes ANGELO to lose all self-awareness and control because goddam it, never once in his entire life has he met a person he couldn’t out-argue, who the fuck does this nun think she is, this was supposed to be a simple smackdown and she’s been standing in this room for ten minutes and he’s still waiting for her to admit defeat and oh God oh no oh no oh no why can’t he look away from her face, what the fuck is happening what the F—

ANGELOWHY DO YOU PUT THESE SAYINGS UPON ME?

ISABELLABecause authority, though it err like others,Hath yet a kind of medicine in itselfThat skins the vice o’ th’ top. Go to your bosom,Knock there, and ask your heart what it doth knowThat’s like my brother’s fault. If it confessA natural guiltiness such as is his,Let it not sound a thought upon your tongueAgainst my brother’s life.

ANGELO, asideShe speaks and ‘tis such senseThat my sense breeds with it.

        (II.ii.163-173)

Finally, Angelo gets her to leave and faces the music. My tremendous co-actor, Jude Van der Voorde, always slays this soliloquy.

“What’s this, what’s this? Is this her fault or mine?The tempter or the tempted, who sins most, ha?Not she; nor doth she tempt, but it is IThat, lying by the violet in the sun,Do as the carrion does, not as the flower,Corrupt with virtuous season.”        (Angelo, II.iv.199-204)

[Non sequitur: Jude is the kind of actor actors dream of acting with. He’s always got at least one trick up his sleeve, so my Isabella is constantly second-guessing herself around him. And he does the “sleazy wunderkind act” with a panache rivaling BJ Novak’s in Season 4 of The Office. He’s also one of the funniest people I’ve ever met. Kids, don’t be Method. Make friends with your fellow actors. Leave the emotions onstage and go get a midnight pizza. You will be so much happier.]

With regards to the M4M narrative, we all know what happens next, although it takes an agonizing 175 lines of text in 2.4 before Shakespeare levels off and gives us the canonical threat:

“Redeem thy brotherBy yielding up thy body to my will,Or else he must not only die the death,But thy unkindness shall his death draw outTo lingering sufferance. Answer me tomorrowOr by the affection that now guides me mostI’ll prove a tyrant to him. As for you:Say what you can, my false o’erweighs your true.”        (Angelo, II.iv.177-184)

What precedes this is the kind of tension-groaning, hair-splitting, goosebump-raising rhetorical tarantella that television writers today spend their entire careers trying to emulate. Isabella plays the fool for as long as she possibly can…

ANGELONay, but hear me.Your sense pursues not mine. Either you are ignorantOr seem so, crafty, and that’s not good.

ISABELLALet me be ignorant, and in nothing goodBut graciously to know I am no better.

        (II.iv.79-83)

…but eventually Angelo forces her hand and she has to deflect his onslaught with the sleek diplomacy of a kidnapping victim.

ISABELLABetter it were a brother died at onceThan that a sister, by redeeming him,Should die forever.

ANGELOWere not you then as cruel as the sentenceThat you have slandered so?

ISABELLAIgnomy in ransom and free pardonAre of two houses. Lawful mercyIs nothing kin to foul redemption.

ANGELOYou seemed of late to make the law a tyrant,And rather proved the sliding of your brotherA merriment than a vice.

ISABELLAO, pardon me, my lord. It oft falls out,To have what we would have, we speak not what we mean.I something do excuse the thing I hateFor his advantage that I dearly love.

        (II.iv.114-128)

Remember when I said that Angelo and Isabella are alike in that they are inalienably convinced of their own “rightness”? That still holds true. But now Angelo, without warning, has moved beyond the conceits of debate and is taking Isabella’s rhetorical arguments from 2.2 at literal face value in order to trip her up. He’s brought ideology crashing down to earth and introduced their physical relationship into the conversation…again, without warning and very much without her consent. And she has to figure out a way to back-peddle on her words without yielding defeat of the argument. It is nigh impossible. And I bring it up because guess who gets trapped in the exact same situation three short acts later?

LUCIOCome, sir; come, sir; come, sir; foh, sir! Why, you bald-pated, lying rascal, you must be hooded, must you? Show your knave’s visage, with a pox to you! Show your sheep-biting face, and be hanged an hour! Will ‘t not off?

        (LUCIO pulls off the friar’s hood and reveals the DUKE.)

DUKEThou art the first knave that e’er made’st a duke.—First, Provost, let me bail these gentle three.—Sneak not away, sir, for the friar and youMust have a word anon.—Lay hold on him.

LUCIOThis may prove worse than hanging.

DUKEWhat you have spoke I pardon. Sit you down.We’ll borrow place of him.       (to Angelo)Sir, by your leave.Hast thou or word, or wit, or impudenceThat yet can do thee office? If thou hast,Rely upon it till my tale be heardAnd hold no longer out.

ANGELOO my dread lord,I should be guiltier than my guiltinessTo think I can be undiscernible,When I perceive your Grace, like power divine,Hath looked upon my passes.         (V.i.395-421)

Game, set, match.

As for ego… Do I really need to talk about professional pride? I don’t think so. It’s Angelo and Isabella. Pride leaks out of every virtually every line they speak in this play. Pride in their conviction, pride in their moral righteousness, pride in their intellect, pride in their ability to judge the world with clarity (or whatever). Angelo actually admits it out loud to us in perhaps his most famous soliloquy, because the little fucker has a lot more Catholic guilt about lusting after a novitiate nun than his Protestant heart would like to admit:

“The state whereon I studiedIs, like a good thing being often read,Grown sere and tedious. Yea, my gravity,Wherein—let no man hear me—I take pride,Could I with boot change for an idle plumeWhich the air beats for vain.”        (Angelo, II.iv.7-15)

And even though Isabella could easily be the poster child for Christian piety, she’s so damn proud of her own humility that she occasionally threatens to void it altogether. 

ANGELOWhat would you do?

ISABELLAAs much for my poor brother as myself.That is, were I under the terms of death,Th’ impression of keen whips I’d wear as rubiesAnd strip myself to death as to a bedThat longing have been sick for, ere I’d yieldMy body up to shame.

        (II.iv.107-111)

Look at me, Angelo. Look at this body. It’s mine. Mine and God’s. I see what you’re doing, I know where you’re trying to go. And it is never. going. to happen.

Two weeks into rehearsal and I’m still not sure I’m convincing in my delivery of these lines. I’ve watched every filmed production of M4M I can get my hands on, and it’s no help. I just don’t know what to make of this. Scholars disagree virulently about these lines, but also…scholars aren’t actors, you know? I find myself questioning everything every time I get to this passage. Is Isabella actually a virgin? I’m not sure. Chastity and virginity aren’t actually the same thing and Isabella, for all her idealism, is more worldly than many of her ingenue brethren. One thing is for sure: she’s flushed with self-righteousness when she speaks these words. Angelo may be a haughty son of a bitch, but so is she, so is she, so is she.

Ugh, these characters. I love them so much. I hate Angelo, I do. I also love him. And God help me I love Isabella. They’re dumpster fires of human conviction and I’m so grateful to Shakespeare for giving us their story and for understanding four hundred fucking years ago, that this, THIS is the pinnacle of hell in the female experience: “Who would believe thee, Isabel?”

#MeToo

Thank you, Will. Thank you.

I feel like I should apologize for the length of this reply, but I’ve had so much freaking fun that I also don’t feel apologetic. Thank you for this amazing question! Hope you’re doing well! xx Claire

Tagging @malvoliowithin @measureformeasure @harry-leroy @suits-of-woe

[dungeonsanddragonsfifthedition]

long post about Him.

okay i do have transcripts out so here’s cad thoughts with mild theorizing because that’s been strengthened for me tonight. this does also factor into #deadclays2019, but, like, i won’t talk too much about it.

so first. let’s lay out the groundwork, by which i mean, here’s our little reference pool.

“The forest beyond my little patch of earth is a little unsavory. It’s dark, it can be a bit dangerous, don’t recommend going out alone. It has been overtaking our temple for the last hundred years, and recently has breached the walls again.”

“He’s... 25 in firbolg years. [...] I think somewhere around 80 to 100 is his actual age.”

“You said the life force was being sucked away from your grave, from your home.” / “That’s right. Has been for a while. The forest that surrounds it [...] is overtaking it as if the magic that held it in place is being supplanted. I’m of the opinion that that shouldn’t be happening. [...] We haven’t had much communication with the other sites, so I don’t know if it’s happening anywhere else.”

“You’ve had no contact with [your family]?” / “No.”

“You know [Caduceus is] a tall, dark, and handsome guy over there.” / “He’s kinda the opposite of dark. He’s more like light and pastel.” / “Extremely pale, even–even by family standards.”

“I don’t mean to presume anything, but if it would be possible to get some specifics of what my mother and my aunt and sibling may have talked about–”

“I forget, but how many siblings did you say you have?” / “Quite a few.” / “Like. Nine?” / “Not quite that many, no.”

“How were the Clays coming through, Constance and uh, Corrin especially?” / “I talked to them a bit more than mum did, uh–” / “They’re alright?!” 

“My parents fucking lied to me.” / “They do that, apparently.”

“Who’s on his list of people he doesn’t like?” / “I mean, he’s got some sibling issues with one of his siblings, there’s some family stuff.“

“I honestly have to mention my knee hurts a little bit on the left side, usually about an hour beforehand [of storms]. It was a thing my sister did. It was 25 seasons ago, give or take. She’s a piece of work.”

“No one’s come back. When you came around, I had an inkling that it was supposed to be my job to do this from the beginning and that I had been shirking my duties. You all seemed like a very good sign that it was time to take some responsibility.”

“Everyone thinks they’re strange, creepy hermits and possibly witches.“

“You live in the Savalierwood.” / “Yeah, if I recall.” / “You’re a crazy motherfucker.” / “That’s what some people have said. That’s fair.”

“You’re not all Clays?” / “No, we’re his traveling companions.”

no quote bc i forget which talks this was but of the nein, all of whom he “loves and trusts”, he relates most to yasha, both in terms of personality and goals. + + all of the appearance stuff from tonight left unquoted. but it’s there. 

basically: caduceus was born around the same time that the blight entered the grove. the blight takes purpleish tones. it got worse when he was left alone there. he had a complicated relationship with his family. his family has made no effort to contact him, in spite of many of them having access to sending, etc. while, admittedly, all firbolgs are striking to the average eye, he is particularly odd looking, with a magical lil ecosystem of moss and lichen, growing on him and coloring his features. most are pink, some more recent additions are blue.

sidenote but he finally cast blight which is maybe my favorite grave cleric spell. i was waiting for him to cast it, and he finally did it. while it is a standard grave cleric spell, i do think it’s fun that he has blight powers.

so let’s extract some details

correlation between his birth and the blight

physical violence between him and a sister well into adulthood

i want to know more about the complications between him and his family--he was a little bit snarkier than usual when it comes to talking about his parents lying.

very close to corrin (aunt). not super close to colton (sibling).

several people in his family can fucking cast sending.

his appearance is very much defined by paleness and decay; he’s skeletal in terms of build, so like, that’s some dead body imagery there. like he’s a pastel boy but plants and lichen growing on you and changing the way you look is plants and lichen growing on you and changing the way you look no matter how much they glow in the dark..

he is canonically handsome. just thot to put this in here.

he also, canonically, is not immediately recognizable as a clay by jeramis and tyla dust.

he believes that it’s been His Job All Along to save the grove.

and then, make some broad conclusions

the blight’s definitely had some kind of impact on his body

he has anime protagonist hair. this was almost confirmed tonight, which was extremely sexy.

seventh son seventh son seventh son. please. it’s so cliché but i love it. seventh son seventh son seventh son. it’s SO POSSIBLE.

his family’s effectively cut him off. unless they’re hashtag dead clays twenty nineteen.

just fucking scry or cast sending. please. for my health.

i wanna know the fucked up family dynamics that are still full of love! the fuck! some of us bitches need to PROJECT!!!

i believe that the correlation with the blight is genuinely important; there’s some influence going either or both ways. boy’s always talking about the ~darkness~ inside of fjord. plot twist, buddy.

please. please let it be connected.

like this all ties in with undead cad/sick cad theories from the Old Days Of When I First Started Watching but. c’mon.

please

let me have this