#I understand the view point of the person who made this

[wolfstarwereinlove]

honestly even if izoch didnt become canon, i think they still had the best conclusion out of any relationships. the last climax of the final war was their talk, izuku basically calling ochako his hero and holding her hand? meanwhile we havent even gotten an actual talk between bkdk and izuku didnt even acknowledge anything bakugo did for him. thats why many people think hori chickened out from confirming izuoch and just left it soft canon/implied at the end.

i disagree with u, but i respect your opinion, i will show why i disagree tho

first:

izuku and ochako are definitely important to each other this is canon and is beyond love relationship, they are friends first, like everyone in class 1A, this is the canon part that is not implied. Obviously if some people view more as love it’s ok too!

but now let’s talk about the importance of the acknowledgment of the hero thing and the hold hands in mha!

calling someone hero there is to show how this person is important, it’s not romantic at all. Izuku is kota and eri’s hero and obviously this is not romantic, it’s a way to show to that person how much their existence impacted on them. (and shoto also said something similar about izuku being he’s hero) And izuku calling ochako hero there make total sense, why? because she was struggling because she didn’t save himiko, that’s way he said that ochako was he’s hero, because even tho he couldn’t say that she was himiko’s hero deku needed to show her that she is important as a person, not as a friend, not as a lover, as a hero.

and i love this part because shows a lot about uraraka’s development! and i will also say the importance of him calling her by hero and not heroine, as her japanese VA said, uraraka is a hero so she is a woman that goes there and worked for her own things as a HERO, she recived and sacrificed herself for that work, if hori used heroine so this would make them being implied because heroine is the love interest, the girl who is a hero but is always saved, and kidnapped, and used as a weapon of torture, to disturb the hero

and who recived that cargo? katsuki.

now the hand hold, this is way more symbolic because it’s like a izuku’s thing and iz//chas used that as the biggest reason just because the hand hold has more history with bkdk than with anyone else 💀, but in mha holding a hand is to support someone or/and asking if they are by someone’s side, just because someone hold the others hand this doesn’t imply nothing and i say that for bkdk too! Iida, kirishima, ochako, aoyama, tenko, all of them had their holding hand, kiri with katsuki and the rest with izuku and this just shows the importance of the “hold hands”

but why this is important for bkdk? because katsuki rejected. Again this doesn’t mean that they are a romantic pair! BUT ITS MORE SPECIAL BECAUSE ITS THEM. the thing is the whole bkdk development was around that fucking river scene with the no hold hand, so the importance of this to bkdk is to show their development and their relationship, but not to say like omg they are canon, if was just because of this so half of mha would be canon. And the problem is that iz//chas misunderstood that and made this as the final point, but there was just two friends talking about how ochako was sad because of himiko (who i dare say had more impact in ochako’s life than deku did, because she showed to uraraka her importance and made uraraka understand more the villans and watch them with another eyes)

and obviously the reaching for izuku’s hand is one of the biggest reasons why the hold hand with bkdk is important in another level, this represents katsuki accepting izuku and he’s friendship, it’s when he decided to be different, to be better and be with izuku for the rest of their lives

second:

i’ll be sincere to you, i also missed a scene with a bkdk talk. But i do not agree when u said that izu//ocha had the best conclusion, because mha is about izuku and katsuki. The manga started with them and ended with them (and all might). Platonic, romantic, whatever they are, they had the best conclusion because the show revolves around them, without one there would not have the other.

All katsuki’s development was around izuku and he’s relationship with izuku, everything he did was to izuku or for izuku, he grow up, he died, he cried, he trusted, he changed because he understood through his relationship with Izuku.

And izuku didn’t have to acknowledge anything because he already trusted katsuki even from the beginning and izuku called katsuki he’s hero a long time ago, AND izuku saw katsuki crying because he lost he’s quirk so he knows.

they know eachother more than themselves so has no need to do such things.

third:

izu//cha was not implied at all in the final, they didn’t even talked in the time skip, while bkdk talked before and after so, has nothing implied there is actually about iz//cha

but kacchan spending years saving money with their classmates and all might (with him being the heart of it) and working harder everyday so izuku and him could be heroes together for the rest of their lives? oh this is a romantic thing to talk about

and he finally reaching his hand back? i dare say CINEMA

[yingandzhan]

I keep seeing people condemn WWX for his actions at Nightless City and I just can't understand how they arrived at that conclusion.

First off, WWX was an innocent man being condemned for no reason other than people didn't like the fact a son of a servant was more powerful than anyone from the reigning bloodlines. He was a hero, praised for his new cultivation method, until he wasn't needed any more and they made him into a pariah. They attacked him on the way to a social event he was invited to and he defended himself. That's allowed... Otherwise he'd be dead!

A tragic accident occurs, and while the cultivators might not know the truth - they know some people ambushed him and accused him of something without hearing his side of the story. To anyone else, that would be an injustice! Even WQ and WN were given a trial!! However rigged it was, they still had one. The clans demand WQ and WN hand themselves in and they will let the matter go for now - leaving WWX and the Wen remnants alone for the time being. But they go against their word! The minute the Wen siblings are apparently dead and they are dumping their ashes at Nightless City they are plotting to attack and kill WWX and the remaining Wen remnants anyway!! That's absolutely disgusting. They gave their word and instantly went against it. WQ died for nothing.

WWX witnesses all of that and is of course distraught. Then one idiot shoots an arrow at him because they choose to ignore how morally wrong the whole thing is (murdering innocent people because of their name - people that were once free AFTER the war, put then recaptured and put into labour camps at a later date) and is even rubbing shoulders with people who were on the Wen side and actively on the Wens side during the war (as WWX pointed out during his gatecrashing antics at some gathering). Yet we should feel bad for the person who blindly follows the mob and shoots at a man that's actually innocent? All of that damning evidence against the people he's siding with and all the truth WWX spoke and he'd rather just ignore all that? It was his choice to make and he was morally wrong in shooting at WWX.

WWX only ever acted in defence during this scene. Yeah, maybe he did go over the top because he was traumatised and grief stricken - but he was trying to defend himself and keep the Wen remnants safe as well. This is ancient China!!! Not the modern times! Stop viewing this novel through a modern lens!

For the millionth time - regardless of your opinion, MXTX was right to state WWX is the moral ideal of the story because she literally wrote him as such. She's not claiming he was perfect or never did a single thing wrong. She's saying he's the moral ideal because he learns from his mistakes!!! Unlike 99% of the characters in the novel! He learns from them and vows to never do such things again - which we see throughout the story. She wrote him as the moral ideal because he is willing to do what is right despite any backlash or consequences. That's what makes him the moral ideal. Not some fairytale bullshit, but real life moral ideals, where people aren't entirely perfect but do what is right, even if it's not the easy option.

[kylieswift31]

Hey Stephen

The ‘Hey Stephen’ interview is gaining traction again now because it was a pre-sent Easter egg designed to be understood at a later date. And the key to understanding it now is to view the interview through the lens of the Truman show…

Just after Truman’s escape ‘fails’, the director grows complacent as we begin to view Truman’s life through his point of view and this begins with interviews and clips of the fans watching along at home. This is designed to be a show of support on first watch, but the deeper you get into the themes of the movie the more you understand how many seem to be stuck in the shallow end of interpretation.

All of the positive endorsement of Truman’s popularity and the success of the show is a setup to highlight the director’s ‘good’ intentions by painting Sylvia’s character in a bad light. She’s the one that got (taken) away in Truman’s love triangle and is now seen as the face of the ‘free Truman’ movement. In his eyes she’s the anti hero and the reason why Truman began trying to escape after she left.

Everyone else watching from home had adopted a similar point of view to the director because they were viewing Truman’s life through his point of view. Understanding the director’s role in scripting the narrative slowly increased the support for the side that could see the cracks forming in the facade.

This is where ‘the tortoise and the hare’ reflects the moral of the story being told in the Truman show. The director is betting on the hare based on his view of Truman™ and Sylvia is betting on the tortoise because she can see the hidden side of Truman underneath the facade of Truman™.

The director was so sure he’d won the race after Truman’s ‘failed’ escape that he didn’t realise it was a purposeful ‘loss’ in a game of checkers. The director saw each round as a win without realising progress was being made until Truman had crossed the finish line.

This is why the movie ending with Truman stepping through the door is so powerful. It’s Truman revealing that they had been playing chess all along. Stepping through the door was Truman saying checkmate without giving the director a second thought.

Just like the tortoise’s slow progress towards the finish line, the never ending references to the Truman show stem from Taylor reenacting Truman’s strategy of slowly turning up the heat. Doing all of this as a one woman band allows each small step forwards (or breadcrumb left behind) to go unnoticed, as the connections between each clue are undetectable at first glance.

In the ‘Hey Stephen’ interview Taylor repeats “shockingly specific” details about Stephen’s personal life because she sees how some of her own fans are bordering on a stalker level of obsession while refusing to put the same level of investigation into her lyrics. For example we’ve seen the tracking of her private plane flights, knowing the names of her bodyguards and tracking her fertility cycle in the hopes she’s getting married and having children with Travis any day now.

I go back and forth on who I think the director in Taylor’s story could be, but I’m beginning to see that it’s this specific subset of the swiftie fanbase that might fulfil this role. It’s the ones that continue to overstep as they demand to see a palatable version of Taylor™ who will be the ones hanging on to the facade right up to the very end. And it’s their predictability that’s allowed Taylor to plan out future references like this so far in advance.

The Stephen Colbert poster is a classic example of how Taylor has created a cycle of leaving a trail of Easter eggs, red herrings and breadcrumbs along the way. It’s saying look over here at the pizza, but whatever you do don’t look over here to see the golden egg being pointed to with the other hand. Seeing the one piece of evidence on its own and not considering the bigger story it connects to is how the hare lost the race he didn’t realise was progressing towards the finish line when he wasn’t paying attention.

Highlighting the use of homonyms (and homographs, homophones etc) by referencing names such as Stephen and Lucy feels like a nod towards the meaning of Truman’s name. Truman is pretending to be the ‘True Man’ in the form of Truman™ because this is who the director wants him to be. In the same way Taylor is pretending to be Taylor™. This is essentially a combination of the ‘good girl’ persona and the pop star persona. Combining all of this with the manuscript also meaning ‘the man you script’ and you create the foundation for the ongoing performance art.

The golden egg is likely a reference to the Aesop fable ‘the goose and the golden egg’. It’s about a countryman who got rich from selling the golden eggs the goose had laid. Over time he became impatient and greedy waiting for the goose to lay one egg a day. He came up with the idea to kill the goose and cut it open. As he did so he discovered that there were no more eggs to be found and that it was the process the goose went through laying one a day that created the golden egg.

Another example of this story is seen in the Willy Wonka stories. In this case it’s used as a test to sift out the bad eggs from the good ones. In the end the moral of the story is “those who have plenty want more and so lose all they have”. This is what lead Truman to reach a breaking point and it’s what we’re seeing play out with Taylor’s story too. “All the pieces of me shattered as the crowd was chanting “more!”” And ‘the goose and the golden egg’ is listed as number 87 in the Perry index of Aesop fables. 🫠

On that note… the only orange colour on the poster is the TnT, a common nickname for Taylor and Travis. What if karma orange is actually a reference to something they were working on together? Stephen Colbert emphasised the music played to transition into the interview as a ‘liaison’, this word is usually used to describe someone acting as a bridge between two people. And Travis is the key to highlighting the contrast between Taylor and Taylor™.

The performance of Taylor™ as the ‘good girl’ and Truman™ as the ‘true man’ is designed to break down the facade so that we can see who they really are underneath. “You never had a camera inside my head”. If we’re not willing to look past the facade of Taylor™ we won’t see what inside her heart.

We’ve all reached the point where we agree that Taylor is queer in some form after viewing her story through a queer lens. I know many are frustrated that the story isn’t over yet, but we have to remember that we’ve already crossed the finish line. Taylor is now repeating the race to help explain her story to a larger audience in a way that they can understand it. All that’s left now is to filter out the good eggs so that we can leave the bad eggs behind.

“When you watch a film or you read a book and there’s a character that you identify with, you most of the time identify with them because they’re targeting something in you that feels like you’ve been there. That’s why we relate to characters.” -Taylor Swift

This applies to swifties too ❤️💛

A tortured poet,

Kylie x

[suzukiblu]

Question. How would you go about writing from a mad scientists point of view? Or how would you write a point of view of a character who writes in logs or records their work aloud?

No matter the narrator, I just about always start with the character's base personality, so when you say "mad" scientist, the immediate question for me is are we talking, like, cackling lunacy or cold logic or neurotic obsession? Because I'd approach all of those personality types differently, obviously. So like, using those archtypes as examples:

The cackling lunacy would be very hard to follow and jumping all over the place and their logs/recordings would be very self-referential and full of delusions and hallucinations and just be INCREDIBLY difficult for other people to understand, but still following their own internal logic. It doesn't make sense to anyone else, but it makes sense to THEM. Their notes literally just sound the same way they talk all the time.

The cold logic would be stripped-down and short and full of cross-referencing notes and references to previous experiments or other people's work, and trying to minimize the effects of their personal opinions on the data. Their opinions show in glimpses based on WHAT experiments they're running and what data they find important and how they approach their work, but they don't express them outwardly unless they can back them up with Results(tm). Their notes code-switch to more formal and precise language than they'd typically use in daily conversation, and more clinical and neutral tones/terms, plus a lack of bothering with the kind of put-on social niceties that make talking to other people a less annoying process for them.

The neurotic obsession would be VERY stream of consciousness, weaving in and out of topics and going off on tangents and struggling to concentrate on the nitty-gritty details or things that just don't interest them like their obsession does. Literally just writing down/recording their thoughts without a filter or focus and having to catch themselves and go back to previous parts of the experiment, and possibly need to stop and course-correct or just correct MISTAKES at least two or three times a log, and possibly inadvertently contradicting themself sometimes without actually noticing. Everything is about the obsession, and everything is bent AROUND the obsession and made to fit or relate to it. Their notes just sound the exact same way as their infodumps do when no one interrupts or stops them and just lets them talk their ears off.

So yeah, those are some starting points for my best immediate advice, but I would say above all else, the personality is ALWAYS what most matters, and especially the internal logic the person taking the notes operates on. Also, the additional motive of the question of it these are PERSONAL notes, or if they're notes that the character intends to publish or edit FOR publishing, or if they're notes that another character is supposed to transcribe later? The perceived audience in the character's head is always gonna influence what they do/don't mention or do, whether intentionally or not.

Hopefully that's helpful, feel free to follow up if you've got more questions or want some clarification on anything I said!

[lycanthropyreturned]

How labels impacted and continue to impact my alterhumanity/therianthropy.

The first thing one may notice in the alterhuman community is that here are a lot- and I mean a lot- of labels. Therian, Otherkin, Fictionkin, otherhearted, otherlink, just to name a few. These can be overwhelming at first, especially when someone is just learning.

In the modern therian community I have noticed that there's a backlash against those who are learning. If someone gets a term incorrect, or misunderstands something, they are shunned, and called fake. This just pushes that person away from the community and its inherent hostility. Especially with so many labels inside a community, I think people need to learn to be more lenient, and to point folks towards resources that can help them learn and understand. How else is one supposed to learn otherwise?

With this, people can find labels to be restricting, and that's valid. Others can find labels endearing and comforting, and that's also extremely valid. Each person has their own preference, and as long as they aren't hurting anyone, there's no harm inherently from it.

I have been comfortable with the term therian for almost ten years now. I have watched the community grow and change, and watched myself grow and change. And with growth and change comes shifts in identity. It is and entirely normal part of life.

When I saw the overall context and community of therianthropy change, it at first startled me. Sadly, nowadays, when someone says therian, it is far from the textbook definition that they think of. People will think of children doing quadrobics, or homemade masks and frankly- tiktok. It frustrates me that in the present this is how therianthropy is perceived. I myself do not fit the modern "frame" of therianthropy (masks, quadrobics, etc), and I don't want to.

Now if you express yourself this way it is entirely valid. However it is also true that this is how the public sees therianthropy due to social media algorithms. It's also true that not everyone aligns with this kind of self-expression with their therianthropy.

So that made me stop and think. While I don't identify with the modern version of therianthropy, I am still a therian. I still identify as nonhuman, on a non-physical level, involuntarily. That makes me a therian. But do I need to call myself that? No, no I don't. Plenty of people who would fall under the therianthropy term do not identify with the term itself. After all, it is just a word, and what is language to an animal except nonsense?

I decided to explore more labels for myself. I had always contained myself strictly to the label therian. I had not given thought or any exploration to anything else. This was in part due to the backlash I knew I would get online, and in part a personal boundary. I had to overcome both of those to get to where I am now.

Through this search I realized I didn't necessarily need a label for myself. Sure, I may find comfort in it, and sure it makes it easier for other people to understand, but did I really need a specific label for my identity? My identity that only I truly know and experience?

The answer was no- but there was a hang-back. I personally find comfort and joy in the term therian. I am a therian and that will not change. And of course there was still a social stigma to have some sort of "label" for myself so others would know.

So I returned to my roots. Lycanthropy. I am inherently canine. I have always been and will always be canine- most strongly wolf. Some folks will retaliate this that wolf is the most common theriotype/kintype, but that's another story for another day. I have been obsessed and entranced with wolves and their mythos- especially the werewolf.

I don't use the term werewolf for myself. I don't view myself as werewolfkin. I am not the changing creature from mythology. I am a wolf, trapped in a human's skin. I am but just one wolf. I am no monster from mythology, however intimidating I wish I was- I am just a dog. Just a wolf.

Lycanthropy is the more "professional" term for a werewolf. However, lycanthropy has another meaning too. It is a form of delusion where one believes so strongly that they are one hundred percent physically an animal. Medical lycanthropy.

But I know I am human. I know my privilege as a human and I know, even on those full-moon nights, I will remain this way. But that's a simple fix. Thankfully the human language is vast and has many conjunctives. So all I did was put a non in there. Non-medical lycanthropy. I know I am human physically, but the person here is wolf.

So yes, while I use labels for myself, they are most definitely not something required, and I have experimented with that. Only you know your true self, and that's what matters. As long as you know your true self, what else is there to do? There is no need to explain to others if not desired, so why?

Afterall, they are just words, and what are words but nonsense to the animal mind. So be kind to your fellow animal. Help them along with their journey of education into this new world. If their views and experiences differ from you, respect that.

[thecoolerliauditore]

Pls tell me about Scott's views on women in general pls I'm begging you

o7 and I'm sorry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

fyi, the post itself isn't NSFW, but I'll be getting all gender theory in this bitch so I'll be referencing a lot of things and putting in pictures of naked ppl sometimes. maybe skip this one if you don't like that

(long post)

Disclaimers

An explanation for the tweet up there

I usually don't write these because I assume the people on my blog have enough sense to realise when I'm talking about the characters vs the CCs or are comfortable enough being a little confused, but I feel the need to extra-clarify here and expand on how I specifically view C vs CC because I think it differs a little from the average person.

To me, C and CC are two separate entities but not entirely disconnected. What differs (e.g. the exclusion of irl relationships -- their wives, kids, etc.) is poignant enough to severely detach them from the people they originated from, at least in my eyes, but there's also the fact that these are not scripted characters, just creators being themselves with a hint of behind the scenes drama-adding and improv thrown in.

For example, CC Pearl is a car nerd. So I assume her character is too.

This is where I state very clearly that yes, a lot of these thoughts come from things I've seen on Scott's twitter, which is undoubtedly the CC and not the C. However I, to me, am still talking about the C because any observations/judgments I could make on actual irl youtuber CC guy Scott Major would be tabloid at best and slightly invasive at worst. I'm seeing these statements within the context of "the death game guy would say this too and I'm writing this based on that", not "this is the inner psychological workings of the youtuber because I, as a fan, can totally tell".

TLDR I don't consider this post RPF but you might. This is a little more RPF-y than my usual stuff. If you don't rock with it we cool.

Everyone is weird about women, and that's okay

One short-hand I've used in the past to talk about Scott and women is just by saying that he's "weird about women" which I'm sure isn't exclusive to him.

(shitpost I made awhile back)

I see a lot of people now who love "villains" and "evil" but when it comes to any traits resembling real life evil (e.g. misogyny in this case) they suddenly become insecure. Just a couple of days back a saw a post on twitter essentially asking for permission to continue liking CC Scott in spite of the "bad things" he did.

And I think, in order to present an analysis like this, I must address that mindset first.

This is not a judgment on Scott's morality, nor is it trying to dissuade you from liking him. This is not saying that he is any more misogynistic than any other player in the series. This is just me pointing out Scott's attitude towards women and what I read it as, nothing less or more.

The feelings that me pointing these things out - be they apathy, disgust, anger or, what I would hope to see most, interest - are your own. I'm not here to tell anyone how to feel and never will try to police that on my blog.

Scott's Relationships with Women

aka. oh yeah this is about minecraft.

Scott and Cleo || "Yeah, you can kill me."

Scott and Cleo's alliance is arguably the strongest in the entire series, spanning through all five seasons and remaining unbroken with no (serious) drama attached. You'd expect from this that they two have a very settled and stable understanding of eachother, yet this isn't a case.

Their power dynamic shifts dramatically from one season to the next.

3L's initial Widows Alliance began on fairly equal footing, built on the mutual agreement that they were waiting for their respective partners to die. Both understood they were eachothers' "plan B" and felt comfortable in that arrangement.

Come LL, Cleo does what she couldn't in 3L, and initiates that plan, going to Scott after her last alliance, the fairy fort, fell apart. Scott requests nothing from her in return.

DL is the longest the two spent as eachothers main ally. Cleo is the one who initially proposes teaming up to spite their "cheating" soulmates and Scott agrees. Cleo admits to Martyn in private that she's aware she's taking advantage of Scott (which I've always interpreted as her talking about all seasons, not just DL). Due to the time they spend together, it's here where it becomes apparent that their initial assumptions during 3L were not entirely accurate, as Scott shows a level of gameplay competency much higher than Cleo's (e.g. teaching her how to axe-crit) but despite this Scott never berates her or thinks any less of her value as his ally.

LimL is probably this pairing at their most unhinged, as Scott, despite once again asking for nothing (or very little -- I'll be honest I'm a bit fuzzy on this) in return from Cleo, allows them and their allies to butcher him repeatedly for time. He gives more time to the Clockers than he does to Martyn, his closest ally that season. Despite this, Scott is never ever considered as a "family member" by the Clockers, despite them giving that title to even temporary allies (like the Bad Boys being their cousins) -- even Martyn gets a title with Scott completely unattached.

SL is relatively more chill, but shows that the two inevitably end up teaming together even despite their oath to avoid eachother that season.

The point being -- again and again, we see Scott literally and metaphorically making sacrifices for Cleo, with the only real transaction he requires from her being that she continues having his back when times get rough. This is despite that he's aware she isn't any more capable than he is and the fact that so far it has only been Cleo in rough times (LL, LimL and SL) and never Scott.

Speaking from a purely transactional perspective, Scott is not getting a bargain here -- and even Cleo seems acutely aware of it, judging by her comment during DL as well as the way she tends to speak of her survival capabilities very lowly in general ("rubbish pvp skills and spiffy one-liners"). I'm speaking in this sense because I've seen discussions in the past about the transactional way Scott views relationships but rarely does Cleo get brought up.

This is at stark contrast to how he treats Jimmy, whose predicted death was what spurred on Scott and Cleo's alliance in the first place.

Scott assumes Jimmy is "incompetent", where he assumes Cleo is capable. When Jimmy messes up, he reprimands him, when Cleo struggles to crit him, he patiently teaches her. When LL begins, Scott's first instinct was to look at Jimmy's lives and note that he was "useless to (him)", but holds no objections to Cleo joining his alliance despite her already having enemies being a potential liability. In SL, he jokes about how Cleo and him being allied is a given and pretty much expected of them, whereas in LimL he explicitly requests from Jimmy a recognition that he still cares ("say love you back!") before he will help him.

Scott and Gem || "You HAVE TO kill me, Gem,"

In SL, Gem settles in very easily in a leadership position within Gem and the Scotts due to her trying to live up to her reputation but also due to Scott and Impulse's more laid back, passive playstyles.

Both Scott and Impulse let Gem kill them for extra health this season, although Scott is arguably much more subservient than Impulse is, with him not only insisting that she kill him in the final episode but also not fighting back (and only yelling for her to stop) when she starts hitting him with a sword during the episode where her task was to literally kill everyone on the server.

Once again comparing her to Jimmy, Scott in 3L had a tendency to brush aside Jimmy's concerns over alliances (e.g. Jimmy questioning if they could trust Cleo) while in SL Scott runs his plans by Gem (and Pearl and Impulse) in terms of who he wanted to team up with (specifically excluding Joel from the potential mounders alliance) implying he held her opinion in some form of regard.

Before this becomes less of an analysis of Scott's treatment of men vs women and more of Scott's treatment of Jimmy vs everyone else, I think it's notable enough to mention that he and Martyn also lacked this sort of communication in LimL. He would inform Martyn of his plans, but rarely was it ever framed as a request.

SL almost feels as if Scott has slid Gem into the slot he had previously designated for Cleo in 3L (his girlboss ally) as he provides her and pretty much forces onto her by the end the acts of service he'd become accustomed to performing for Cleo.

Scott and Lizzie || "You killed her! I don't.. I don't know what to even say!"

Relatively shorter section because this is the one woman he hasn't teamed with, but there's still some interesting stuff I wanted to touch on.

In LL, one of the first thing Scott does is yell at Pearl to revenge-kill Joel for boogey-killing him. Pearl does as she's told and Joel's wet miserable pathetic LL life gets worse from there.

Several episodes later, the roles are reversed -- Lizzie lies to both of them and manages to isolate and boogey-kill Pearl. Scott, instead of reacting with the anger he had for Joel, is almost in a state of shock as he asks Lizzie to let him down so he could collect Pearl's belongings. He doesn't act aggressively towards Lizzie at all, with his most antagonizing act against her being to lie about his intentions when giving her a wither skull.

In SL, he's the only one aware of her early permadeath, but keeps quiet about it almost as if he's in a state of shock akin to when he saw Lizzie kill Pearl in LL. It's not until the others have noticed when he finally brings it up.

Scott and Pearl || "Tilly death do us 'part"

I wrote a whole post just for their relationship alone so for the sake of my sanity I'll be leaving this here.

So now I get to dedicate this section to the meat of this post -- how the way Scott treats women in general impacts his relationship with Pearl and how I view his heel-turn on her as seeping with relevance to Pearl's perceived gender.

In all three of the previous sections, the running theme is that Scott is 1. kinder and more patient with women, regardless of their competency and 2. someone who likes to be in a supporting role to women, occasionally aiding them more than he aids himself and his closer male allies (e.g. Jimmy and Martyn). As shown with Cleo, he assumes that girls have it together, but even if they don't it's not a big deal. When a girl's actions are truly disastrous, such as with Lizzie's, he goes into a state of shock and doesn't really react, preferring to swallow it down and not acknowledge it.

With the amount of times he sacrifices himself, I don't think it's a reach to say that Scott values his own life less than he values the lives of his (female) allies. This specific point actually does extend to his male allies too, shown when he's happy when Martyn literally backstabs him in LimL, but just as with the Martyn post where I point out his victim status-ing doesn't end at only women but includes all the women, Scott has pedastal-ed all the women he's teamed with.

Lizzie is, once again, the exception here due to his limited interactions with her. However that's actually somewhat patched over if you look at adjacent series (such as x-life) where he definitely shows her a level of admiration and respect.

Back to Scott and Pearl.

Their relationship during LL is very standard of how Scott treats women. While the power dynamic between them is obviously more caused by the initial life trade agreement, I don't think it's a far reach to say that Scott is somewhat comfortable in the arrangement.

However, this is also the first thing that sets their relationship apart from Scott with Cleo or Gem -- Pearl is the one making sacrifices, not Scott. She is the one "sacrificing" her lives to him, just in a more non-violent way as allowed by the season's mechanics.

When viewed through this lens, Scott trying to make it up to her and wanting his effort acknowledged makes even more sense. This is suddenly uncharted waters for him. His assuming that Pearl doesn't value him as a person goes hand in hand with him valuing himself less than her.

What Scott has with Cleo or Gem, situations where the other party is clearly uncomfortable with how he treats himself (Gem) or actively aware they are taking advantage of him (Cleo), is equalized to him because he is inherently worth less. What he has with Pearl, on the other hand, looks more equal to most people (lives vs labour) but is wildly imbalanced to him.

It's one of the many factors I see going into Scott's weird decision to abandon her in DL.

An Interlude, Before We Get to DL

La Pieta, Michelangelo

So this has been a lot of words so far and some of you might be wondering at this point: why say Scott is "weird" about women when so far this has been describing how he values women more, is kinder to them, is more patient with them, etc.? How is any of this behaviour remotely misogynistic?

And I would feel horrible if I forced you to read through all of my DL thoughts before I clarified this -- Scott is not your classic wifebeater "women are lesser" misogynist, Scott is someone who subscribes to misogynistic schools of thought and probably considers himself an ally to women, when in reality his beliefs are still rooted in dehumanizing them and these beliefs end up harming the women around him as well as himself.

After all, seeing women are your superiors is still not seeing them as your equals.

I know it's a bit of a meme on this blog at this point. But. Sigmund Freud identified what we know refer to as the "madonna/whore complex", which he described as a pattern of behaviour in men who separated women into being madonnas (pure, holy and admirable) and whores (debased, sexual, deviant). We'll be focusing on the former, the madonna, as it is more relevant to Scott's character.

Freud proposed that the madonna figure was something men projected onto women as a replacement for maternal love. These women are sacred and untouchable, literally as the projection of the maternal role onto them also makes it so that the sufferer cannot feel any sexual attraction towards her (keep this in mind for later).

Scott projects the madonna figure onto his female compatriots -- they are to be protected, served and supported. They are goddesses, queens, but they are never human. The madonna role in of itself is not inherently harmful to the woman, as seen with Cleo who takes control and advantage of it. However, it is enforced, as seen with Gem who at first revels in the superiority but almost breaks down when Scott offers him up as her sacrificial lamb one last time.

I linked this Utena AMV awhile back when vaguely talking about Scott and women, and this was the point I was alluding to.

Girls are beautiful and pure. They don't spit on the street, they don't piss on the street, they don't build hierarchies -- they subvert all the expectations of masculinity that I hate having to deal with. They are my escape.

But what about the girls who do spit on the street? The girls who piss on seats? Who build social hierarchies, who size up their competition?

The girls Scott interacts with are all painfully human. Cleo weaponizes his beliefs and take advantage of him. Scott is smart enough to know and accept this. Gem's playing into a role she has been assigned into by not only Scott but everyone around her. Scott supports the character she plays. Lizzie reflects traits he hates in Joel and Jimmy, but for her, he looks the other way.

Are they "demons", as the song says, or are they no longer girls at all?

(demons, gods, but never humans)

Weaponized Femininity and Women In Total Control of Themselves ;)

Hylas and the Nymphs, John William Waterhouse

Historically, weaponized femininity I'd argue is one of the oldest tropes in storytelling. Whether it's nymphs or sirens or witches or succubi or even more roundabout cases like Helen of Troy, there's countless stories of men's sexual attraction to women leading them to disaster.

One way to view these stories is to see them as warnings, don't let womens allure be the end of you.

There's a lot of good writing done on the femme fatale trope both in the context of weaponizing femininity and as a sexist way to argue against victims of sexual assault, as these stories often say that men who experience attraction to these "evil" women no longer have agency over their own actions.

Look at the painting above, for example - is it the nymphs who are responsible for drowning Hylas, or is Hylas climbing into the lake of his own accord?

Despite the fact we all know sirens, nymphs and succubi aren't real, the belief that men will simply lose control of themselves when encountering a particularly alluring woman persists to the modern consciousness. That there's something inherently dangerous about women and attraction to them.

(this is not 100% applicable to Ninja saying he won't stream with women, but it's the real life example I felt most comfortable putting in here)

Now, let's combine this with what's been said so far -- let's say you don't hate women. You love women, in fact, and you hate the way men treat women. You hate men, in fact.

Yet, you still believe in this inherent power women hold by being female and the loss of agency that men experience when attracted to them -- how disgusting.

It quickly becomes easily to not only demonize men for sullying the holiness of women, but also men, masculinity and attraction to women as a whole.

(apologies for using twt discourse in the meta post but this flew by my TL and i had to grab the irl example of mens non-violent attraction to women being used to frame them as misogynistic before the stupid app refreshed and i lose everything forever)

"To Venner" is a student film exploring a world set within this belief, where all the women have vanished and the men have become monstrous figures as a result of their pent up sexual frustration. fyi this is one of my favourite student films (and ive watched a bunch), but I do think its messaging is worth breaking down (especially its juxtaposition of dirty horrible monstrous sexuality vs pure and beautiful romantic love)

NOTE: this film is super graphic, lots of violence and nudity. have fun. or not

I admit this section is a bit hard to gauge as everyone in the series is gay as fuck. The closest in-series example I can think of is Scott reacting to Martyn's antics in DL with a sort of indigence but otherwise I can't really think of an example of a man expressing attraction to a woman at all, let alone one Scott reacted to. However, I do think it's still worth talking about because it opens up some interesting trains of thought in regard to Scott and Pearl.

For Scott, he himself has never been part of the picture. He's gay, after all, which gives him an edge over the bad straight men who objectify and assault women. Likewise, there's little evidence to suggest he finds the expectations of masculinity frustrating, but I don't think it's too far a reach considering how common of an experience that is for gay men and his adapting of more feminine mannerisms.

Double Life and Corruption

As mentioned in my previously linked post about Scott and Pearl's relationship, I do think Scott experiences what he would name as attraction towards Pearl, so my writing will reflect that.

Pearl is. ahem. not like other girls.

Not actually. But to Scott, she probably isn't like other girls.

She remains unaware of his different standards for her (how could she when she had nothing to compare them to), she acts out, sometimes violently, against Scott's urging (such as when she stole from Scar's wagon). She maintains their already irregular dynamic, and while she appreciates his care for her, she never quite falls into seeing him as a source of subservience the way Cleo or Gem do.

At the end of LL, right before the 1v1v1v1, she monologues to herself that she no longer has to feel bad for killing Scott. Which, in turn, implies she expected Scott to give it his all against her as well.

She entirely fails to embody the madonna with her immature naivete and her questionable morals. She is unpredictable, she doesn't take what she is owed, she is a monster in a lot of ways.

Scott, too, is a monster, to himself, for how he feels about her.

The very foundations of your understanding of yourself being ripped apart aside, let's rewind to the madonna/whore complex. To sexualise the madonna is to corrupt her and make a monster of yourself. Suddenly, you are no better than the men around you, the ones you've grown to hate. Suddenly, you are the grotesque figures in films like To Venner. You are Hylas and she is the nymph. And you are so stupid. Your worldview crumbles around its flawed foundations.

Scott is, however, immune to this corruption. This is a theme that appears in Empires as well, but throughout the traffic series he's prided himself on being loyal and kind and good. His monologue leading up to LL's 1v1v1v1 summarizes it quite well.

He can't let himself or anyone else see this side of him, but the energy needs to go somewhere. To defy fate, abandon your soulmate, is to admit you had a fate in the first place, is to acknowledge that she was your soulmate in the first place.

I've previously talked about how fate and romance are very ingrained in Scott's belief system, if it was anyone else it would've been amazing. He could've been like Bdubs and Impulse or Ren and Bigb, diving into domestic life and performative romance with a stranger. Or the world could've made his happy ending from 3L real, as he got to be Jimmy's husband all over again. I think it says something that he accepts Cleo as a "soulmate" before Pearl.

So what do you do with all that energy and tension, clearly apparent to yourself and everyone else, when you can't let them observe your feelings?

You project them.

Shout-outs to @/legally-allowed-to-slime for pointing out Pearl's comment early on in DL that she "feels like (she's) been broken up with" confirms she never saw Scott in a romantic sense. The "crazy ex-girlfriend" and "this is why I'm gay" comments really did come out of thin air, or perhaps insecurity.

Pearl is the crazy one. She's insane, because she wants me. She wants to be with me, so she does all this crazy stuff. She's lost control of herself because she wants me. She's disgusting.

I mentioned before that Scott is not your classic misogynist, but this is where the gears start turning. Scott's views of Pearl echo that of other players, most prominently Ren and Martyn, that Pearl has been overcome with some sort of corruption. She has become the witch, the demoness, the whore, in their eyes. Scott does not want to be the same as these men and I think his overcorrecting his behaviour in SL makes sense when you view it from this angle, but for now he has to rely on more traditional misogyny in order to navigate this new obstacle.

"Corruption" also implies that she had to have been pure (or at least pure-er) beforehand, something Scott personally knows is not true, but it falls in line with defaulting women to being "madonnas".

This is a Scott post but. shout outs to Ren for being all of this about Pearl but without the complexity of Scott like he literally accuses Pearl of seducing Bigb what the fuck man.

Pearl is, of course, none of that. But she plays into the role of being the witch much better than she fared playing into the role of the madonna.

Sidenote: I know I'm looking at this from a Scott/Pearl POV but I do feel like you can omit Scott's attraction if you look at it from a purely "pearl not performing to standards of femininity I expect and she makes me realise I don't view women as a whole as human which makes me feel weird so now we have to do this" POV. Like idk I think the exact reason he abandoned Pearl is going to be lost on everyone forever so any analysis I could perform is going to suffer at least a little bit of making-shit-up-itis.

I do also think there's something to be said about Pearl being pushed until she performed a role, any role and generally failing at Being A Girl tm but that's another post i think. yknow shes um. a bit. 🏳️‍⚧️ (but also very much not at the same time idk that's gonna need its own post)

anyway yeah uh the minecraft movie looks crazy huh

[psicheanima]

I've always admired your eye for fashion. Your posts about it on twitter are some of my favorite of yours. Out of curiosity, did you ever encounter a character who had a sense of style you thought didn't suit them which couldn't be explained by purposeful characterization? And if so, how did you think they would dress?

Thank you very much. Yes, it happens a lot, but to answer I suppose I want to talk about a problem in comics of continuing to write characters who were very much a product of their time fashion-wise: Laura Kinney and Nico Minoru. Despite these characters being incredibly gothic with unique outfits, and saying MANY times that this style of dress “felt like them”— in recent years, Neither of them are goth, ever. Especially Laura. She is only drawn in incredibly bland clothes. The edgiest she will ever get is a leather jacket. She dresses explicitly like a girl version of her father, when her unique taste in fashion was a clear stand-out from the writers to create her own unique, more emo identity than Logan had— he is very recognizable by his flannel and more western biker clothes.

For Nico, it all starts with that demon Kris Anka. In his defense, Nico had been wearing increasingly un-researched gothic fits the more she was divorced from Runaways comics. Her outfits got more stereotypically emo rather than punk, clearly drawn by artists who weren’t too well educated in fashion. Nico was known for being a goth character. It is essential to her moody history and even her powers— they involve her needing to cut herself, clear goth stereotype which is deconstructed.

But Kris Anka’s designs of the Runaways were very “updating to suit modern sensibilities.” Karolyn’s, who was peak 2000s soft bohemian— with wrap around tank tops and NEVER without her frayed jeans, was now a complete prep, wearing things that her more down-to-earth, hippie original never would.

In Nico’s case, she is not a goth anymore. She is alt, yeah, but alt grunge. She wears bright colors, dyes her hair in a distinctly 2016 way, and for some horrible reason— is very attached to flannel. This portrayal of her fashion became repeated by other artists to the point that it’s her look in the new Spider-Man show. You understand how upsetting this is to Me? It’s like if someone ripped off all my finger nails than made me eat them.

Yes, the type of goth they were was most popular in its time. But they were characters constructed around those styles and should keep them. They should not grow out of the styles, but evolve with them. I am also an adult and I dress the way they did. It just hurts to see characters with my fashion sensibility have their drip taken away in such a barbaric manner. And have these sauceless outfits now be their style. Laura is her own person— why would she just be a woman version of her dad? Because she’s figured out her life she went from painstakingly choosing her presentation to being a lazy bum who wears only primary colors? To being the lobotomized man’s view of “badass woman clothes”? Just make genderbend Logan art, I will fucking kill you.

[thoughts-of-insufferability]

Probleme die die Welt bewegen, wirklich 👏/sarc

[kahluah]

*puts hand up* sorry I’m very new here what’s the context with what’s happening with the tag war??

Alright, I will give my run down, but I will not be naming any blog names on either side even if I have the info and the action was net positive. I just like to use my blog to scroll and reblog for the most part and refuse to embroil myself in the drama more than just giving my view on it as a bystander. One that definitely has an opinion on the events, but also as someone who would rather curate my own experience than fight.

So all this fighting that is going on, it used to just happen in the normal "Jiang Cheng" tag because back then there was no "canon Jiang Cheng" tag; it had not been created yet. (By that I mean it was not a tag used as a tag, Tumblr's shitty search algorithm might still show posts if one typed it in to the search bar because those posts had the words 'canon', 'Jiang', and 'Cheng' in the tags separately, but there would not be posts with "#canon Jiang Cheng" because nobody normally creates a post with a tag like that when "#Jiang Cheng" was suffice. Sometimes I see irrelevant posts in the canon Jiang Cheng tag, but the actual tag isn't on the post, the tags just happen to have all three words in them. Those I ignore because that is Tumblr's fault, not the poster.)

The fighting was between people that like the character and prefer to see the good in him and the interpretation of his character, and those that may or may not like the character (just because you like a character does not mean you need to defend their every action after all) but do not share that opinion of his character and have a more neutral or negative portrayal by contrast. The former also tended to favor or have only read the novel as it is the source material for all other adaptations.

Now things really came to a head when hate and threats were being thrown about on posts that were just quotes from the book showing the negative actions of Jiang Cheng. The people posting the quotes were basically told "if you hate the character why don't you just tag the post as anti-JC?!" but is it really right to call those anti posts when they were posting how the character acts in the source material? That is the character. That is how he acted. Look it is in the book! The character really did that! It is not somebody's negative headcanon that the character may act like that, it is something the character actually did. Personally I can not consider that as an anti character post, and neither did the people who made posts like that.

But things did get heated enough that some people finally took a step back and said "Fine. You want us to make our own space to make these posts so that you do not have to see us talk about JC this way? We will. It will be #canon Jiang Cheng and you can block it if you don't want to see the posts." Was the name picked in the spirit of schadenfreude? Very probable, but it is also not an incorrect name as the people who wanted to use it base their opinion on the novel. But the point was that the tag was created so that people now had their own space to make the posts they wanted and those that did not want to see it could block the tag. Curate your own experience; we can block tags on this site for a reason and advertising tags to block is a courtesy. (Because as said previously, the search here sucks, because the posts contain the character's name they are still likely to show up in the main tag, but block the newly created tag and you will not see those posts either way). Could the other people come into the tag in good faith and make arguments with textual support? Yeah, that was welcomed, but in the spirit of debate they should expect rebuttal. Was that what happened? No.

No instead what happened was basically this meme

They did not like the name chosen for the tag. They read the novel too and still believe that JC is good, so they should be able to use the tag too! Never mind the fact that the tag was made so they could block the posts they didn't want to see. So that they can go on with their days no longer having to deal with the people they constantly fought with. No. Instead of curating the experience of this website, they would get so hung up on the fact that there was now a tag called #canon Jiang Cheng in use that they had to use it too to defend JC from the people that post 'negative' things about him; even if it is novel text!

So while the fighting didn't stop, it did get slightly better because not everyone felt the need to jump into the new tag to defend their fave. Some people actually did curate their experience. Plus there is a block button and people do use it, so things got to a point where I would say it was relatively stable even if there was still fights here and there. (But once again I lurk, I do not participate. Things may not have been the same for more outspoken people).

But then a certain muskrat bought Twitter and a chunk of the fandom there fled here. That's when the main push to "reclaim the tag" and the new influx of people hopping into the tag to argue and defend their fave appeared. These people did not know why the tag was made, they just saw blogs that they liked telling people about the "JC-antis" that made it and how with the new people pouring into the Tumblr fandom from twitter, they had a chance to flood it and reclaim it. And since then the fighting has not really stopped.

As for what has happened in the past few days, you have JC defenders flooding the tag with fan art (not canon), screen caps from CLQ (not canon), and screenshots of a sentence or two from the novel (canon, but usually out of context or lacking additional lines that go on to rebut what was previously said) in the tag and the people who made the tag for a specific purpose getting mad about the spam. (I block so I have no clue how big the influx was or whatever but there was definitely like at least 3 new people I had to block). So when they made posts venting the anger, you got JC defenders coming back to them and going "But I never sent any hate or harassment! I just used the tag to talk about the canon character!" And perhaps they didn't, but these people in their defense always ignore and never respond to the question of why they are in the tag instead of blocking it because that is what the tag was made for. Instead they come back with "Well if you want to talk about JC that way, why don't you post in the anti tag or make your own tag!"... Remember that meme picture I used above. Yup.

The tag war began because people did not like negative posts about JC in the main character tag for JC. When told to use the anti tag or make a new tag, a new tag was made, but instead of curating the experience the stans of JC got so tilted at the name of the tag that they decided that they would come into the tag and continue the fight instead of just blocking it. Twitter fallout made the fighting worse. And now we have come full circle to the JC stans once again telling people to just use the anti tag or make their own tag.

[jattendschaton]

Some people are very good at talking to a group and creating an environment where all of them feel very welcome and proactively making sure people are included in all aspects of the conversation and then some people talk to a group as if they are trying to keep everyone divided? Like they are using inside jokes that only one person understands or talk in a guarded way that suggests they are everyone's closest confidant but no one else is allowed to know each other. No real point, I'm just thinking about how much I would rather be the first type of person but how much more common I think the second is

[moobrvoobl-moobmoob-oobmpoobroom]

I just find it mind-boggling that some people will reblog things like “Anakin didn’t care about Rex and his men, he wouldn’t listen to Fives just because he was friends with Palpatine” and then in the next post be gushing over Rexwalker/Rexanidala like???? so you agree. Anakin does care about Rex?

[punctuation-completionist]

you don’t have to answer this ask but wow how are you supposed to be the bad guy fucking apologizing for reacting badly to being told to kill yourself?? i hate this website

well okay hold up i never said i was the bad guy. i said there were misunderstandings on both sides and that i was sorry for an issue in one part of how i handled it. just one.

[orchideae]

In today's episode of 'Sae, do you (...)': the topic of Ningguang and Yelan, and I thought that I should note my opinion more clearly outside of my rules as it's very important information for my portrayal: I do not ship Ningguang and Yelan romantically.

Honestly, while this is of course my own opinion, I don't find that there's anything to really substantiate a romantic interest between the two. For starters, I don't think that Ning, as interesting of a character as she is with a past that might just be similar in its 'rise' to Yelan's (we're left with very little information on the latter's childhood), ticks the right kind of boxes for her, though to be fair: not many do. Yelan craves a specific sort of thrill in her life, I mean she lives it at the roll of a dice because she is, on some level, bored, and craves the unexpected, the unusual, the 'surprise', and Ningguang's life nor personality seem to play into that. Beyond it, Yelan would need a kinship within this very specific 'loneliness' that I talk about too often and I think that Ning is not one who quite meshes into that in the right way.

Second, despite their long-standing history that even predates their mutual involvement with the Qixing, there seems to be a certain professional distance between the two that I'm quite fond of that is shown in brief event cutscenes, and also Yelan's vision story, that I find inherently intriguing. Perhaps this distance plays more into Yelan's character of not investing too heavily, or rather not too easily, into social dynamics than it does Ning's (I'm not one to weigh in on her character), but it seems evident to me that there's also that semblance of professionalism that creates a line that takes away the possibility of growing closer on an emotional level. And whether that's a mutual decision or not is not up to me to judge, but I think it's one that's made rather clearly from Yelan's side. On top of that, Yelan is Yelan and it's my personal belief that shipping her is rather difficult.

Now I'm also inherently of the opinion (unpopular, I know, I apologize) that dynamics aren't always more interesting when written in romantic settings, and I don't think it's a benefit for all of them to veer into a romantic nature. And in my opinion (and most importantly: in my depiction and understanding of Yelan's character), I think that having Ning and Yelan cross the line from professionalism into something inherently more rooted in romanticism, would be a detriment to their dynamic. Because honestly, I think the fact that Ningguang being one of two people (other being Uncle Tian) to know Yelan best, without ever crossing that line, is too good. I would simply, well, just prefer to keep that not only platonic, but professional, but of course not excluding it of Yelan's quips, and the occasional 'confidant' element.

/rambles in tags because I feel like I have more to say that I shouldn't flood the post with.

[thedevotionaltour]

karen is MY special white woman. my problematic fave. because i understand why she sucks. i think in order to be allowed to be a karen fan you have to actually understand why she sucks. if you don't understand why she sucks then you're a bad karen fan i think.

[opens-up-4-nobody]

...

[valeriehalla]

I am so utterly fascinated by “Saki”, the 18-year-running mahjong manga in which you, the reader, become gradually, frog-boilingly aware (over the course of nearly two decades’ worth of mahjong tournaments) that none of these girls are wearing underwear and most of their boobs are slowly expanding.

I need you to understand that I have, like, an anthropological level fascination with this comic. From the perspective of someone who is also a comic artist and writer, two things delight me about it:

the fact that I understand completely how an artist gets from “the fans can have a little hint of skirted asscheek” to “the pussy is completely out on center page” over the course of 18 years; and

the way in which the pussy being out is treated by the characters and diegesis as being utterly unremarkable.

Okay. Point 1. The frog-boiling.

Let me put this in perspective for you. There was already a meme about how the characters in “Saki” don’t wear underwear when I was in middle school. I am thirty now. Okay? And it’s still going.

In the time since, this has stopped being a joke. It is now indisputable canon. This is not because anyone outright says it at any point. It’s because the underwear ran out of places to hide. I’m obsessed with this thought: somewhere in the over 20 volumes of “Saki”, there is a panel in which underwear was objectively deconfirmed. And it would be so hard to figure out where that panel actually is. Maybe the artist didn’t even realize it when she drew it! The frog? Boiling!!

And of course there is also the breast expansion. I don’t know how to put a spin on this. They are just expanding. Like, this happens a lot with artists: you define a character as being, in your mind, “the one with the big boobs”, and over the years you emphasize that trait further and further so that the signal doesn’t get lost in the noise. It’s just that normally—in like a wildly popular manga series about mahjong published by literally Square Enix, for example—normally there would be a point at which the boobs stopped getting bigger. Like, an editor would step in or something. Or you would get to the point where you cannot draw the character in the same panel as her mahjong tiles without her breasts spilling over the tiles, and you’d go, “Well, this is now untenable.”

That did not happen. There is no ceiling. The frog is soup.

Point 2. The complete and utter mundanity of all of this.

It’s like this, okay: there’s no shortage of trashy ecchi manga out there. There’s a million other comics doing wildly bawdier things with wildly more improbable bishoujos.

The vibe with “Saki” is different.

It’s hard to explain this, but it feels like the world of the comic is fundamentally uninterested in the fanservice happening on the page. I cannot describe it as “leering”, because I cannot conceive of a person in the story from whose point of view one would leer. I think the artist is probably into it—I can’t imagine anyone is making her do this—but “Saki” the comic has no opinion on the matter.

There are essentially no male characters in “Saki”. Like, there was one guy? Kind of? At the very beginning? But he is gone now. They put him back in the toybox. He does not exist. It appears to be some level of canonical that in the world of “Saki”, almost all humans are women. Those women are sometimes romantically into each other. According to comments the artist has made on Twitter (which I cannot source), they have lesbian baby technology, so it’s no problem. It’s so much not a problem that the story is about mahjong, instead of any of that.

So, like, the fiction here appears to be this: this is the, like, meta-narrative of the fanservice of “Saki”, right: it’s just normal that they don’t wear underwear and their boobs are arbitrarily big. It’s been normal. It was normal before the story of the manga began. It’s just how things are. Nobody bats an eye about it, and if they do, it’s in sort of a lesbian kind of way so like what’s the problem, we love lesbians here. This is literally normal for girls.

The fanservice simply diffuses into this all-encompassing aura of disembodied, ambient sluttiness. The framing of the panels demands you acknowledge it, and the story demands you already be over it, because it’s mahjong time now, and we’re playing mahjong.

Do you get??? why I’m so fascinated??? Are you not a little enraptured???

Anyway, I have no idea how to end this weird post. I guess the conclusion is that women stay winning????