#I wanted to contribute to the meta i guess

[sassasafreeaction]

While The Resurrectionist minisode gives us a lot of different things, one of the most important things that it gives us is the concept of plausible deniability and how important it is for Aziraphale and Crowley's relationship.

In the episode, Crowley drinks literal poison, and while he gets to be very silly, he also gets to be a more honest and genuine version of himself. He gets to do good, and when Aziraphale points this out, he immediately throws in the rebuttal - "Not kind! Off my head on laudanum."

Now, the next time he sees Aziraphale, he asks for holy water, so it's hard to say how much deniability the laudanum actually gave him. At the same time though, Crowley is still around and not eliminated.

The only real effect that a supernatural being seems to experience with poison is drunkness, which in a way I guess makes sense because alcohol is its own poison. However, it's also a poison that the two of them regularly partake in.

A lot of the more serious and genuine conversations that the two of them have happen while they're drinking, when they have that level of plausible deniability. It would be so easy for one of them to say something and take it back under the ruse of being drunk and not knowing what they're doing or saying, even though they both know that it takes an extraordinary amount of alcohol or a strong poison for them to actually be drunk.

The first example we see is in the bookshop after Crowley has delivered the Antichrist, and he's trying to convince Aziraphale to help him. When they had met up initially, Aziraphale had adamantly refused to help him, but once they're safe in the bookshop with several bottles of wine in their system, Aziraphale is honest for the first time about his feelings on the situation. "I don't like it anymore than you."

Sure, they sober up shortly after that, but it isn't until there is that liquid courage/plausible deniability in their system that he's even willing to dare to start to humor the thought.

(In Hard Times, you do have them sharing a drink together in Rome. It's the first time where they seem to genuinely indicate that they'd be interested in actively pursuing the other's company. There's less to pick a part because it's so short, but worth mentioning, especially because the entire time the two of them talk, they have a drink in their hand.)

The next time we see either of them drinking is right after Crowley has left the bookshop fire. A lot of people drink when they're sad, so that's not the most exciting, but he is drinking because he's sad about Aziraphale, his "best friend," and while Hell probably doesn't care because they have bigger things on their mind, it still gives that placebo level of protection.

Side note, there's a strong chance that if Crowley does remember the Fall that this is probably the most accurate description since he's the most open we've probably seen him in the show here- essentially talking crap at the Heavenly Watercooler with the boys and then ending up in a boiling pit of sulfur.

The Script Book has a line that I think is super worth mentioning as Crowley says, "Aziraphale? I'm trying to get drunk. Failing." It emphasizes how much of a cover drinking has become for them, and that the act of pretending is more important than genuinely being drunk. Also, Crowley doesn't try to hide from Aziraphale. He doesn't specifically say "I thought I lost you," but he looks absolutely wrecked. The way Aziraphale pauses in return makes me feel like he has to know, but also, they're idiots.

The two of them also share a drink before the Swap, and they get rather philosophical in regards to the Almighty. This is also the first and only time that Crowley uses the phrase 'We're on our side' and Aziraphale doesn't have a rebuttal.

At the end of Season 1, they're at the Ritz, drinking of course, and it's here where both of them tease at how they genuinely feel about the other. The drinking is on the light side though, so we don't get anything more concrete than 'To the World'. (Although the way that Aziraphale looks at him and says that phrase still makes me weak.)

Season 2 sees Crowley offering Aziraphale his first drink. The angel refuses but Bildad still gets his drink on. This is the first time that Crowley introduces the concept of not being on Hell's side.

(Also, he just watches Aziraphale pleasure himself enjoy some ox ribs which is freaking wild. I'm pretty sure everyone has analyzed the undertones of this scene to death, but there's drinking involved so it makes the cut.)

After speaking with Heaven and Hell, Crowley and Aziraphale get together at the pub to discuss their new plan. They both have a single drink, but you have the chest touch and Crowley talking about falling in love in the rain (ya know like he did).

In 1941, following the magic act, we have them drinking again. Crowley asks Aziraphale to retire the act, and then there is an important beat as they get ready to start a more serious conversation. As soon as Aziraphale decides to take them toward more serious territory, he tops off Crowley's glass. They again tease at the concept of 'our side' by discussing the morally grey.

Now, in S2E6, Crowley mentions to Muriel about taking Aziraphale for an extremely alcoholic breakfast at The Ritz, which to me suggests that even without Maggie and Nina talking with him, Crowley likely would have confessed.

However, in Episode 5, when Crowley is sitting at the restaurant, the first thing he does after getting Aziraphale's attention is ask if he wants a glass of wine. Aziraphale tells him "I'm at work and I have a meeting". I feel like this was almost the original confession from Crowley. Forgive me because I can't find the post, but I know someone has pointed out some of the other parts things that indicate this (Crowley's is the only table with a rose, him walking right into the 'smitten' phrasing because he thought that might make a good transition, etc. I'm really sorry I didn't find it right away when I scrolled and I gave up.) I think the wine speaks a lot to it though because it allows for the same song and dance of if this doesn't work out, I can always blame it on the alcohol.

Now you could say that the two of them just really enjoy alcohol and its a coincidence, but there are an angel and a demon who also happen to meet a pub. Gabriel gets himself and Beelzebub a beer, but the two of them never drink them.

Unlike Aziraphale and Crowley, they have the luxury of power to protect them. They don't need to have the plausible deniability because as far as they're concerned, they answer to no one.

Maggie, a human, also turns down alcohol while she's with Nina. Nina needs the liquid courage, but she doesn't. She has no interest in alcohol. However, Nina is in a sticky situation with her partner. Maggie carries a torch for Nina, but she's also brave enough to be the first one to offer a gift and indicate how she genuinely feels about her. They're both human, so they can be honest with one another.

I'm sure drinks will probably still be important in Season 3, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have a scene where either Aziraphale or Crowley actively turns down a drink because they no longer need to hide.

[calliecat93]

HAPPY SPONES DAY! 🎉

[annabelle--cane]

there's a lot going on in the mag 58 supplemental, this one little scene does a lot of heavy lifting to set up martin and tim's arcs for the rest of the show, but I want to focus on these lines particularly because of how therapy comes back as a symbol in s4/s5.

broadly, in the context of the meta plot and not the individual statements, seeking therapy in tma is representative of trying to improve oneself and get out of a bad situation. later, when taking melanie to therapy, georgie suggests that jon should get some as well but, when asked, says she wouldn't be willing to escort him like she does with melanie, showing how she does wish the best for jon in theory but doesn't think he actually wants to get better, or at least that she's not sure enough to involve herself with him.

that view of jon doesn't come from nowhere, because here we have an instance of him rejecting that same offer, symbolically rejecting help in favor of digging himself deeper on his own (obligatory disclaimer that irl therapy is a very personal thing and says nothing about one's overall character, this is just an examination of a motif in fiction). the word choice of "he just says no" imo implies that martin has suggested this multiple times and jon keeps giving the same answer, continually reaffirming that he does not want outside assistance to pull him out of this spiral.

the fact that martin's the one advocating to go soft on jon despite repeated refusals for more sympathetic help is interesting to me, because I would guess that this conversation was instigated by jon aggressively confronting martin about trevor herbert two episodes earlier. we know he was stalking all three of his assistants, but that is the biggest and most threatening outburst we get from jon in this period, and in this conversation it is still martin being defensive and apologetic vs tim being frustrated and pissed off.

I've said recently that I'm pretty sure martin believed jon was self harming and/or suicidal at this point, so I can see why he would be particularly willing to give jon slack and try to prevent any big conflicts, but that still contributes to his current narrative role of "guy who is treated the worst but ignores it because he's also the guy who cares the most." in that way, he's a foil for georgie; she cares, sure, but not enough to ignore (perceived) risks. martin pushes for jon to get therapy even as he lashes out and rejects help, and georgie won't involve herself when jon asks if she'd be willing to help him see a therapist.

this motif comes back around for a final complication in s5, when laverne, melanie's therapist, winds up as part of her cult. melanie's effort to get better and get out did have lasting effects, she is separated from the watcher/watched system and is coping a whole lot better than she would have before, but those personal efforts still weren't enough to fully get her out of the whole mess. no amount of individual action could remove her from this structural problem, her therapist helped her a lot but also now thinks she's a prophet.

which also comes back to the above scene. tim and martin both write off elias as useless in this situation, so they start sniping at each other and talking about how to stop jon from doing what he's doing without even really lingering on how the guy who is actually in charge and has power over them all is making it worse by neglecting his managerial duties. I'm sure jon could have done with some therapy at this point, but that would have only dealt with, like, 10% of the archive gang's current problems.

[itshype]

How I Met Your Brother (DC x DP)

Dan joins the Justice League - not as part of his rehabilitation, but as a reward for doing so well.

Tucker makes the grave mistake of mentioning Dan in front of Jazz. And as an eldest sister myself I would not be happy about an alternate version of my sibling being left completely alone in the world, no support, no family to then be turned into a psychopath. And I would be furious for them to then be imprisoned - not for life but for all time?

However, unlike me, Jazz is the world's foremost authority on ghost psychology. She has Dan out of his Thermos and in a larger enclosure within the week.

Now, a lot of fics have Jazz as a magical therapist who can say a few sentences and make any bad guy cry. Sorry, not today though.

First, they resocialise Dan like a feral cat (solitary confinement does make people get loopy), sitting outside his enclosure and hanging out, doing homework etc. This sort of gets him to figure out emotionally that he's no longer in the timeline where everyone he ever cared about died.

Danny discusses with him how many nightmares he's had over just the idea of losing his entire support network the way Dan did and he can't imagine what he's been through. But no emotions are not, in fact superior to having negative emotions.

After a few months, he decides that he does in fact want to actively try and get better. He goes to a therapist (because family members can't do therapy!!!) who's just unhinged enough to get a kick out of counselling a ghost from an alternate timeline.

There's only one relapse. Clockwork fixed it and they don't talk about it.

A month or so later they let him out of the enclosure for good. They offer to symbolically destroy it but Dan thinks they should keep it just in case.

While Dan's humanity has returned, his actual human half is gone forever. But he's interested in doing something with himself. He can't get a GED, or a degree, or be an astronaut. Maybe something in entertainment?

Tucker makes the grave mistake of mentioning that the Justice League headquarters are in space. Dan isn't as powerful anymore now he's no longer a halfa, but he knows he's handy in a fight. He loves space and due to having them repeatedly and ineffectively implemented against himself - a deep knowledge of international war tactics.

NGL, this isn't where I thought this story was going. But Dan is now an international politics, war policy and foreign affairs expert, I guess.

He helps a fair bit on the team, but his key contributions are his encyclopaedic predictions of how different international communities will react to events. If an out of control meta in Paris takes down the Eiffel Tower, he predicts which countries will immediately 'crack down' on their superpowered citizens - that sort of thing. It's invaluable for their PR team and young meta safety.

He's a friendly guy, doesn't judge anyone for losing control of their powers or going 'too far' on a villain who hurt their friends and family. And he never shuts up about his kid brother who is apparently also his best friend. He briefly mentions a baby sister he's never met and that makes everyone pretty sad.

He doesn't consider this Jazz his sister. He's already had a sister named Jazz and isn't looking for a 1:1 replacement. This Jazz is more like a mum-friend. However, he never had a Danny or an Ellie in his last life.

"My little brother told me about the trick to this level in Doomed 17, want me to explain what you're missing?"

"Sorry, I really can't possess you, even for 'anti mind-control' training. That isn't how overshadowing works, you can't become immune without exposure to ectoplasm in dangerous doses. No, I can't get you some pure ecto, my baby brother would kick my ass to hell."

"Yeah, my baby bro and I both wanted to be astronauts, I died so it's not in the cards for me anymore, but he has a real shot still, we're all rooting for him!"

Most Justice League members think he's a dead eldest brother with living siblings he's still in close contact with.

It's all fun and games until he tries to take a bullet for Batman during an ambush and it's actually an amnesia ray designed to make Batman forget about a specific case until the bad guy can complete his plan.

"I killed you all before, and I will do it again."

[retributory]

Thank you for the post saying Binghe wouldn't care if he found out Shen Yuan replaced Shen Jiu, I saw a post on that danmei confessions blog that was something like "Shen Yuan being compared to Helen of Troy is accurate bc they both bring ruin to those around them, since if people found out about Shen Yuan then Cang Diong would want Shen Jiu's body back for a burial (so they would basically exorcise Shen Yuan out of it I guess and he'd die again) and Luo Binghe would break up with him for not being able to trust him anymore" and that pissed me off so much bc like. Worstie how can you read the novel and be this wrong about everything in it. Personally I don't think people know Shen Yuan replaced Shen Jiu (except maybe Binghe) but if they found out about how he was forced to due to the System, like he was a hostage and cursed by some entity, they certainly wouldn't blame him or force him to leave. I mean literally the only person who would mourn Shen Jiu is Yue Qingyuan, and he likes the current Shen Yuan too! He wouldn't want him dead either. Idk how some people can misinterpret a novel's point this bad but I wish they'd stop talking about it as if they're facts

yeah idk the average user on that blog appears to be reading entirely different novels and you go in the notes and people are nodding sagely as if the posts make sense. like if the actual text of the novel disagrees with you i think you're just wrong lol.

and yeah they . . . pretty much have already guessed it isn't shen jiu anyways. like they don't know who it IS, or what exactly the truth of the situation is, because the system and such are out of their scope of knowledge, but they're quite confident in running theories like "qi deviation-induced amnesia and personality change," so they don't consider him the same guy anyways. they were actively shocked it WASN'T possession (though the possession theory is kind of correct. lol). it's also so weird to think that cqms would (for lack of nicer terms) give a fuck at all if sy DID maliciously possess sj. in the original timeline it's made pretty clear no one comes to sj's defense except yqy, because sj specifically desires that outcome. sj isn't some helpless baby at the whims of everyone around him - he specifically and intentionally seeks to ruin his own life and the lives of everyone around him, or at the very least make them as miserable around him as possible. thus, no one else likes or misses him at all, and in fact every peak lord at that meeting was jumping for joy that they got Other Guy instead of sj, which is a contributing factor to why they just decide to simply not call him out on it.

i also think (says guy who posts about svsss 3 times a day) people are like. taking it too serious. you're not supposed to be seriously considering lines of thought like that because svsss is a transmigration parody novel of xianxia power fantasies - whatever exists in the background exists purely to support the world of this satire. and while that certainly is a fun topic for meta - i enjoy reading posts like that! - it becomes irritating when the meta is framed as if somehow you are in the wrong for enjoying a novel the way it was intended to be enjoyed by the author, and that the only True way to enjoy it is through enlightened meta-contextual analysis that assumes all the characters are actually different people.

someone on that blog was like "why doesn't svsss expand on the lore and fights and characters!!!" because they don't matter to the story my friend. not every novel is lord of the rings. this is xianxia transmigration parody novel my friend. just read . . . an actual stallion novel. actually really do that because then you'll form a connection with sy because these things are written SO bad and then you'll understand him LMFAO

[appleflavoredkitkats]

let's talk abt c!fundy, as a whole:

i don't really know what i want the flow of this post to be. i don't really have any goals in mind, but i really, really, wanted to talk about c!fundy. i don't think i can intellectually cover his storyline arc by arc because, well, i don't actually think i'm capable of doing that in excruciating detail (especially for l'manberg and nlm) but. oh my god i need to talk about him. and my experience i had backing his character up ever since the pet wars.

takes about fundy as an underrated character only became popular around the time manberg ended. a big contributing factor to this is that dsmp recap and update accounts on tumblr and twt only started thriving by that time. so basically, a lot of pre-end of manberg stuff done by cc's who weren't tommy, wilbur, or quackity tended to be ignored, because nobody realized there were more pov’s to consider.

and tbh! as much as i was a bitter fan last 2020, i do want to acknowledge this isn't the fault of the fans. but of course this doesn't come without repercussions. a good portion of people only realized fundy was a spy for pogtopia only when he revealed it to wilbur. this comes as a surprise to me at that time because fundy confirmed as early as eret's election results stream that he was going to pretend to be a traitor.

but okay, that's well and settled. but i guess the bigger issue back then i grappled with a lot as a fundy fan was that many people described fundy's eventual reverence to schlatt and his “disownment” of wilbur to be out of nowhere or uncalled for. as someone who has paid attention to fundy to a tee ever since the pet wars, there is so much little things that occurred that built up fundy's dislike towards wilbur.

for one— wilbur's absence and belittlement of the pet war fiasco. although i'll give it that the pet wars is more of an exploration of fundy's character, especially as a friend to others, rather than something that proved wilbur's neglect. the elections was really where things start becoming finicky. from the mix of tommy saying fundy “would have been exiled from l'manberg if he weren't wilbur's son” (which caused him to create coconut2020) to him not siding with wilbur in the election debates, expressing his feelings of exclusion within l'manberg. there are so many moments, expressions of frustrations for how belittled he feels in the eyes of wilbur and tommy.

and, well, i think this is explored very uniquely in manberg, but in a more subtle way. yes we know about the disowning and the charged exchanges he and wilbur had, but i think that. his relationship with schlatt is one of the more undervalued things about manberg. we know about all the rampant dadschlatt headcanons with tubbo, but oh my god, i need more people to see that it is literally canon that fundy saw schlatt as a father figure and schlatt viewed fundy as his son.

that dynamic is so unexplored. the way fundy first started as a traitor, then almost got caught by schlatt with schlatt telling him that. he hopes fundy can be someone he trusts to make manberg great. man to man. schlatt has continuously raised the ranks fundy had in manberg, makes him tag along in different events. fundy made the schlatt throne and the decorations for manberg.

fundy gave up being a spy because he thought schlatt respected him more than wilbur. then, schlatt killed some cats during the festival and blew it all. i think, on one hand, it's funny this is all it took. on the other, fundy has shown to have massive reverence for the pets that exist in this server. the pet war especially, where it's not only fungi who he avenged but beelloon and niki's fish and farm animals and his own endermen. he himself even couldn't kill skechers. he was upset in nlm when tubbo accidentally killed his fox.

and again, wilbur's absence during the pet wars spoke loudly to him, so when he sees wilbur in schlatt for the first time, he drops him.

there's also sort of a meta angle with fundy being sidelined as a character. i always mention this in my own posts, but yeah. i believe cc!fundy mentioned during manberg that it was hard playing a villain because his views plummeted. and i also find it interesting that cc!fundy didn't stream a lot of pivotal moments in the dsmp during nlm, like schlatt's funeral and the butcher army fiasco. he wasn't even present during the disc war finale.

i can never in my life assume whatever cc!fundy wanted for his character, but i remember, before las nevadas was announced, i came to terms with realizing that i cannot control whatever cc!fundy wanted with his character. if he wanted to step away from the dsmp then i supported it, because if he didn't find himself having fun doing all that, or he thinks not a lot of people liked his character despite his efforts, then i get it.

doomsday isn't my favorite fundy moment. it's subjective, and definitely a hot take among the fundy community, but to me letting go and breaking down felt like a low hanging fruit for him, because genuinely i didn't expect it. there's no build up to it. not in the neglect department, no, fundy definitely has been traumatized enough. but i feel like the manner in which this was expressed felt too angry to be in character— which, tbh, is bold of me to say because who am i to question cc!fundy's character decisions. but genuinely there wasn't a lot of streams in between that and other emotional beats to warrant a heavy breakdown like that.

ok, before i get skewered, what i'm saying is that i think doomsday tends to overshadow everything else fundy did because a lot of fans really wanted some kind of villain arc like that from him. and as cool as the “i want to make them cry” thing is, i don’t think fundy breaking down angrily like that and giving up on everything is representative of his entire character, especially when we see the larger picture with las nevadas and his reunion with wilbur.

fundy is emotional, but not angry. he gets angry at wilbur for almost leaving during their reunion, but he pleads immediately after. he yelps “what the fuck?” at quackity when quackity belittles his achievements, but he pleads “i don't know what to do” softly when quackity compares him to l'manberg fading away.

fundy's character hopes easily, gets attached easily, which is why his breakdown to me feels like a puzzle piece that doesn't fit. to be fair, i can't expect all things in the dsmp to be executed perfectly! and if it weren't for las nevadas, doomsday would've probably been the finale for fundy's storyline, and it makes more sense to view it that way.

but imma just say, thank the fuck it wasn't.

my most favorite thing about fundy would be his consistency, especially with what kind of baggage his character brings within every arc. i think the las nevadas episode that showcases how quackity manipulated him into joining establishes exactly what fundy’s character is in essence.

when quackity compared him to the fading buildings in l'manberg, we got it. we got the confirmation i wanted on what his character is supposed to be, and that is— principally and representatively, he is l'manberg. wilbur's definition of what l'manberg's supposed to be. originally, l'manberg prided itself on peaceful unity that didn't rely on minecraft pvp as a source of power, which is the complete antithesis of the entire cycle of violence we observe in the dsmp later on.

of course, wilbur lets go of these ideas being realistic after they win, then completely gives up mid-pogtopia arc, because to him, l'manberg is a manifestation of his ideologies succeeding. if it doesn't, then l'manberg is nothing. so what does it mean then, in this case, if l'manberg was something wilbur promised to fundy?

well. to me that means wilbur succeeded. fundy is l'manberg. let me explain.

fundy, like tubbo, was present in all iterations of l'manberg. he was close to every single president, usually one of their backups whenever an event occurs. this also happens with las nevadas. he becomes blindlessly devoted to someone if they give him a lick of attention, something wilbur never gave him, but more importantly, his presidents promised him safety and prosperity. when he and schlatt fought before schlatt died, fundy mentioned he sided with schlatt until he ruined plans with manberg.

this is why he also believed in nlm, in las nevadas. he believes in the upturn of cyclical violence in the dsmp, unconditionally and devotedly. he created flags for manberg and lnv, hell, even gogtopia, and he as a dutch also inspired l'manberg's flag. while i also don't think he fully embodies the idea of peace (he is a prankster after all), he definitely embodies how that pacifistic mindset is viewed or treated in the dsmp.

which explains how he dies, i suppose. he dies diving into the l'manberg crater, after cutting ties with wilbur. it's metaphorical in one way, and sad in the other. on one hand, it makes sense. if the embodiment of l'manberg and its principles cut its ties from wilbur, especially considering that the dsmp ends a few months later without ending the cycle of violence, of course they would die. they would disappear.

it would explain why cc!wilbur explains the scene as fundy wanting to get as far away from wilbur as much as possible, not to end it all.

on the other hand, it's sad because… if your entire character is dependent on that toxic connection to nationalism, l'manberg, and wilbur, then, what are you? a few days later, fundy donates the schlatt sword he holds dear and calls an “heirloom” away to the museum. he stands in the rain and disappears from the dsmp forever.

sometimes i wonder what fundy would be, independent of l'manberg. to be okay with being alone, with not involving himself in countries with big plans of power.

it's a hard thing to figure out because we never see fundy after that moment. even before those moments, fundy defined himself always from the way he gets belittled. even the fact that he is a prankster gets roped into this, because he is often made a punchline to other characters like schlatt, phil, tommy, and more. no one takes him seriously. if everyone treats your existence as nothing but a joke, what part of you, then, is real?

we never got to understand what fundy's dreams mean, in the end. we've only seen two instances of this, although in the stream where he finds out wilbur is alive again, he mentions having multiple dreams seeing wilbur. i guess what i can offer is that fundy having such a useful power such as prophetic dreams just proves how he has no one to report things to.

it's like greek myth's cassandra. he's gifted with the skill of knowledge and foresight that he literally cannot use because no one takes him seriously. theoretically, he could have predicted dream's escape, charlie's death, but if he has no one he could trust, what's the point?

fundy’s so much more than what people see him as, inside lore and outside. his entire character explores what it means to be sidelined, to constantly question your worth because of other's input to the point you become it. and when we finally get the catharsis of him letting go, he becomes… nothing. he disappears.

it's sad to see fundy's storyline end this way, but as a fan, i think it felt complete. it felt right. a friend once told me closure is a luxury in the dsmp and fundy is not exempt from that. i'm happy cc!fundy was able to at least tell us a complete story like that, and i'm happy to have met so many fundy fans throughout my entire time here.

he's a great character. i'm happy that he at least exists and prospers in our eyes.

[coollizzylou]

Hey gw2 peeps I recently learned that this interview exists (it’s from late December last year)

And I think reading through it gives a lot of context for why the latest update(s) may not have hit the mark for more story inclined people.

(My own thoughts/analysis under the cut. I’ll try to be vague spoilers but it comes with the territory)

Ok first to get it out of the way: my thoughts. I like this update! I think the new part of the map is beautiful as always, and it feels a LOT livelier than the first part. The new meta is less intensive than The Road to Heitor and feels fun to drop in and to replay, which is nice. I love all of the events that focus on helping civilians. I’m glad we have a portal from the Wizard’s Tower now, too! I haven’t really dug into all of the new weapon proficiencies on all classes, but I am enjoying engineer shortbow in WvW! I think this update has a lot more than a lot of people are giving it credit for, because what’s here is more mechanical gameplay than story instance content. I’m ok with the player character being A Hero and not THE Hero, but I do wish the commander had more speaking lines because it’s the little things that make the story so immersive and fun for me.

Speaking of, I want to highlight a quote from the interview I linked above. The rest of it is really fascinating, but this part stood out as specifically relevant to the discussion being had.

We’re learning a lot about how we develop and release content on this cadence, which absolutely has a downstream effect on the player experience. The overall shape of development between expansions 4 and 5 are very similar (timelines, resourcing, etc), even if the content and features are not. This means that we’re able to focus more on refining our development processes than reinventing them. The better that we can identify production issues like undocumented dependencies, bottlenecks, resourcing issues, etc, means that we can proactively address those issues in future dev cycles.

From our experiences with Secrets of the Obscure alone, we’ve adjusted development schedules, review processes, dev resource allocations, documentation and communication practices, and more. All of these contribute, to some degree, to improving the quality of what we deliver.

So basically what I’m getting here is that SotO was a huge adjustment, and if I’m reading between the lines correctly, I would guess that the adjustment was probably a little rough (to put it mildly).

I think this is why the story instance content was weaker than what other updates have provided. It makes sense that if a speaking part had to be cut/diminished, it would be the player character’s. 10 different voice actors for each line of dialogue is a lot more difficult to plan logistics for than a single voice actor reading ten lines.

But it also makes me hopeful that the devs at Anet will continue to learn from whatever might have gone wrong, and I am really excited to see what’s next!

[yjzine2024]

Yellowjackets Zine - Applications Open!

You might have seen the poll going around for interest, and well, it convinced me enough to start this up. A zine for Yellowjackets! Yeah!

The plan is to make this a relatively small but hopefully exciting project to cross the current lack of things between seasons. Think you have a good idea? Submit it!

You can apply for the zine via this form

So far I'm thinking of keeping it at max 30 participants, but this mostly comes down to a first-come-first-serve basis. Fear not, I may include you if you have a really cool idea for a submission.

Guidelines for applying are copied below but will also be in the form.

Cheers!

What is a zine? "Zine" is short for magazine. What a Yellowjackets zine would entail is a small, digital booklet with artworks, writing, collages, lists, etc. related to the show that it's all connected to. There are zines that have a print run alongside digital versions, but to keep it all running smoothly, I'd like to keep this digital only. So I can't offer compensation in financial means. This is first and foremost a passion project, and also things would get tricky on a legal front if there were to be any money involved.

So if I want to contribute, it can be anything? Basicallly! But there are some hard rules I would like to be followed for it to stay coherent.

Canon Compliant. Writing or art, hard AUs aren't really something for this zine. It's a little celebration of the show that is there, and tonally there might be too much dissonance if AUs are included in this. Guesses at the yet to be seen months in the Wilderness, or in the present day are very much welcome!

Self-contained works. Putting chapter 1 of your fic in a zine isn't really ideal. For art this is easier to accomplish, but written submissions should be completed within the pages they are on.

Not just shipping. Yes, I know, shipping is big. But like I put in the first point, I would like to keep things more generally on events, plot, characters, and a neat discussion of it. There's of course degrees to how much you can ship within canon in a show like this. It's totally cool if you put something in that is (Basically) Canon (f.e. TaiVan but also JackieShauna) or Has Strong Potential (f.e. LottieLee, MistyNat). Don't come to me with something like Shauna/Walter. Explorations of characters and relationships are of course okay! But don't make it a smut fest.

Nothing too NSFW. This is Cannibalism Show (TM) we're talking about, so there is some leniency. But let's say if you would rate it as E on Ao3, then maybe try to get it a bit lower in rating or think of something different.

(Previously) Unpublished works. This may be a given, but a zine is the most fun when it's full of original content. You are of course free to publish what you made on your own accounts/profiles once the zine is online.

Other than that, it's pretty free to fill in for yourself! What can be published should be able to go in a hypothetically printed magazine, but if you would write fic, and essay, compile a mixtape list, make some meta newspaper article on the events, graphics, collages, a poster design, or banger fanart, it's all up to you as long as it gets you excited to work on it!

I'm splitting them up in written and graphic types of contributions, but there's room to give a pitch for your specific idea.

Practical stuff!

Max wordcount for written contributions should be about 2500 words. I'm not going to be too strict, but keep any overflow within reason.

Graphic works should be able to be displayed well on a 2100x3000px canvas on. This is the size of page I'm using at the moment.

How much time would there be to prep? For now I'm thinking of putting the final deadline on November 30 so hopefully everyone will have time to work on their submission (from scratch). I also gotta get the hang of a publishing design program lol.

[cyle]

I'm guessing the new Original Post implementation will strictly capture posts where the blog owner is the OP.

Has the team considered adding in an option where you can also see all the posts the blog owner has added to?

A lot of Tumblr's charm is the collaborative aspects of posts and I know most of my top bangers were made in conversation with other users.

I've actually been working on a little project to scrape all the meta I've posted on a blog into a single document and have run into trouble achieving this. It would've been easy if I'd tagged everything consistently but over the years my tags changed 😔

The Tumblr API doesn't have an explicit method to get purely original posts, so I used a 3rd party tool (Jet Black Code) to pull my original posts. To try to get my "added on" comments, I downloaded my blog backup file, hoping to write up some quick code to pick out posts where the last blog with content on the chain was mine.

Unfortunately, it's less obvious than I thought it would be because in those cases my contribution isn't actually marked with my username like it is for everyone else in the reblog chain. 🤔 I'll need to dig into it more to see if I can rely on the formatting of the final block for these cases.

i don't know if we've thought of that specific case, but that does sound neat. i know there are a lot of capabilities we're looking to add to search, like including reblogs in search results (which should be coming soon i hope), and improving in-blog search. in general, i'd love to spend a lot of time making our API better for the special things people want to do like that, but i just do not have the time. but maybe we'll be able to open up stuff like this as our capabilities improve.

[codenamesazanka]

Spinner used to be a hikikomori and NEET, which means he was a recluse who wasn’t in school or employment (and technically still isn’t) and had withdrawn even from his family to hide out in his room.

We get two one-panel flashbacks to this era of his life and the imagery prove the label undeniable. As official Viz translator Caleb Cook notes:

…Book stacks, tied-up garbage bags, general clutter. This is the classic NEET/hikikkomori living space, as portrayed in media like Welcome to the NHK and other series. It screams "young adult whose life is in shambles.��� There's huge visual contrast between a NEET apartment and a teen's room in manga/anime. The latter is almost always spick and span. In Japanese media, excessive clutter is often a visual marker for characters who have failed society's expectations of them. Practically a trope.

Going by this imagery, guess who else is a hikikomori/NEET— or, is (supposed to be) read as a hikikomori/NEET?

Shigaraki Tomura’s room fulfills all the requirements of this trope, down to every tiny bit of filth on the floor. There’s really no difference between his and Spinner’s room.

And Spinner likely recognizes this. While everyone else is watching Shigaraki after they escape from Kamino - minus Mr. Compress and Toga who are talking - Spinner is the only one staring at the dirty floor, lost in his own thoughts.

＊

I’ve seen meta before about how Shigaraki’s living conditions are a direct result of All For One’s lack of proper education - that All For One purposefully wants Shigaraki to have bad hygiene, to wallow in his own filth and just completely neglect any basic upkeep. Just another way to whittle him down. That’s a fair assumption, but I think it’s worth pointing out that in Tenko’s early years living with All For One, his room is neat and clean, even after he starts to accumulate toys and books and general stuff.

The best time to teach a child to set (or not set) habits is when they’re young, and clearly Tenko knew at least to not toss litter around carelessly, to put things away, and even to make his bed:

Of course, it could be that the teaching of deterioration started when AFO gave Shigaraki Tomura his name, but the people around Shigaraki the most have always shown to be neat and proper: AFO is always dressed in a suit; the Doctor’s lab is crowded with a lot going on, but not dirty; Kurogiri, who we assume has been babysitting Shigaraki for years, keeps the bar immaculate. AFO’s other wards also live in neat, clean environments:

That’s not to say AFO didn’t contribute at all to Shigaraki’s hikikomori vibe - simply keeping someone isolated and depressed will bound to make a mess of their mind and that will be reflected in the environment; just that AFO didn’t have to purposefully teach Shigaraki not to clean up after himself - he didn’t need to when Shigaraki does it on his own.

In any case, Shigaraki reads as a hikikomori/NEET from the start, someone alienated from society and wildly off the typical, proper life path expected of him as a young man, and resents the rest of the world for it.

＊

Combining the two observations, I think this is another aspect to why Spinner had so quickly grew attached to Shigaraki after the Doc calls Shigaraki a loser

Being hikikomori/NEET is just another commonality they both share, in Spinner’s eyes. Before the crumbling, glittery horizon of Deika; even before the revelation of Shigaraki’s grand ‘Destroy Everything’ goal, Spinner was just some depressed 20-something-year-old who saw another depressed 20-something-year-old and recognized their similar pain, then wanting to lift that burden somehow, however he could.

＊

*Important to note: Often hikikomori/NEETs are seen as failures that can really only blame themselves, lazy parasites on their families and society. Of the three hikikomori the series have shown so far - Shigaraki, Spinner, La Brava - the story have been careful to clearly draw a line between the marginalization they face and why they ended up how they did. Shigaraki was kidnapped by a criminal mastermind; Spinner stayed inside for his own protection because walking outside got him sprayed with pesticides, among other things; and La Brava was bullied and mocked by her peers. Horikoshi have made all three characters incredibly sympathetic and made the root cause of their alienation not from faults of their own but from how society had failed them.

[distort-opia]

Hello! So I recently got into batman, and I’ve been slowly climbing my way up my reading list while also browsing through tumblr in search for metas about him, which is how I found your blog, and I really enjoy your metas!

I have a question though that won’t leave my mind, yet I also don’t want to stop my current reading list to jump into another series (JL), so I hope you don’t mind me asking this question to you instead 🙏

Basically, I’ve been wondering whether Bruce has opinions about Clark in relation to his self���Bruce’s self? So far from what I’ve read, Dick is (excuse me if the wording isnt exactly accurate, but just as a sums up) “the one that brings the light to Bruce’s darkness & the ideal self—the best of him”, whereas Joker is “the mirror to his self—the him that ‘what could have been’, the him who took different route”, and I wonder if there is a similar thinking/opinion about this self thing from him @ Clark too (like some sort of parallels)? I’m sorry if it sounds confusing 😅 Thank you!

Welcome to the fandom! Thank you for the kind words, glad you've enjoyed what meta I've put out. Hope you're having a fun time with Batman comics.

Oh Bruce definitely has opinions on Clark and Superman in general, in relation to himself. Though I have to make the note that in no way was Superman intended or built as a narrative foil for Batman's character, a "mirror self". Dick and Joker are characters who populated Batman's world from early on and were always meant to say something about the protagonist. Superman is a protagonist onto himself; he was created before Batman, and his popularity was actually a big factor contributing to Batman's creation. But that doesn't mean these two characters haven't grown together and influenced each other in a myriad of ways.

On a surface level, you've got the... grumpy one/sunshine one dichotomy. Superman is brightly colored and more emotional and fights in the light to bring people hope. Batman is enshrouded in darkness and stoically represses his emotions and fights in the night for justice and vengeance. One in the light, one in the shadows, one alien, one human, the "boy scout" and the "bad boy"... Even though they work together and are both on the side of good, these contrasts between Bruce and Clark are easily noticed by both others and themselves, and have led to conflicts on more than one occasion. But the way this translates in Bruce's head, to approach it from the angle you mentioned, is probably best summed up by the following pages... which I'm putting under a cut since this gets a bit long. Spoilers too I guess, for the Rebirth Batman run (if you haven't gotten to it yet).

Batman (2016) #36

"He's a better man than I am. [...] Who am I, compared to him?" And this is no way a new sentiment for Bruce:

Batman: Hush

Bruce doesn't see himself as a good person. He's capable of risking people's lives, of blackmail, lying, torture and manipulation, of unbelievable brutality and violence in the service of what he believes is his Mission. But he sees Clark as an inherently good person; as an ideal that he himself is not capable of ever reaching, of ever being. If I were to summarize only the projection aspect when it comes to Batman and Superman's dynamic, I'd say it's this one-- Superman is the hero Batman wishes he could be, but not one he'd ever try to become, because he believes himself fundamentally incapable of it. If as you said Dick is someone Bruce relates to and sees parts of himself in, but better (in trying to help Dick he retrospectively tries to help his child self), Clark isn't that. Superman is less of a mirror Bruce actively acts on, and more of a... negative. Clark is technically an alien, and yet in many ways he's more "human" than Bruce, having grown up with a loving family that Bruce wishes he had. Where Bruce tries to rise above the humanity he sometimes sees as weakness, both in emotional and physical terms, Clark is someone who's already "above" humanity, and yet yearns to be part of it. Moreso, Bruce envies Clark's sheer god-like power, but he knows that he doesn't have Clark's good character; that if he had this kind of unstoppable power, his need for complete control would drive him mad. Which actually happened one time, in Superman/Batman (2003) #53-56.

That being said, as is noticeable even in the pages above, this can result in Bruce putting Clark up on a pedestal, and idealizing him a bit too much, to the point of forgetting that Clark is a person too, with flaws and weaknesses. And not just that... the more ruthless and calculated side of Bruce never truly stops seeing Clark's power, both as something he can wield and something that can be turned against him (hence the hoarding of kryptonite and the contingency plans, in case Superman went bad). Perhaps Bruce's attitude more generally is illustrated best in this very recent moment:

Batman (2016) #128

Superman as Earth's greatest hero, and its greatest weapon. And Bruce is willing to risk his life to preserve that, because by comparison, he isn't these things. (And because Clark is his friend.)

[gammaraydeath]

how do you guys write these fandom meta posts character studies and stuff like i want to talk about characters so bad but i never ever do bc i fear being judged soooo badly like someone is going to read my take and think im the biggest idiot in the world. it's easier to find people i agree with and just go along with what they say but then i end up feeling like i have nothing meaningful to contribute bc it's already been said. putting myself in situations that make myself sad for the hell of it i guess

[cheese-water]

Generation Loss being a tv show makes so much on a meta level. Like remember how Ranboo said there’s a reason why it’s streamed on his twitch channel, and how we all thought it was because he was secretly broadcasting it? That was disproven quickly with Showfall Media publicly promoting the viewpoint and the existence of Squiggles on the broadcast.

So let’s look at the the episodes through the lens of a tv broadcast instead of a twitch stream. It becomes clear why Ranboo always gets himself into these wacky situations and miraculously survives till the end unlike his friends. Ranboo is the main character. Ranboo is the protagonist.

Compare them to another tv protagonist, like Ted Lasso. Sure other characters contribute to the story of each episode, but we as a viewer always follow the main character’s highs and lows, successes and failures, rights and wrongs. They are how the plot moves forward and conflict is created and dissolved. There’s a reason why we don’t see Sneeg’s escape attempt, Ethan Austin and Vinny being freed from the machine, Jerma’s demise; because it doesn’t matter. We don’t care. Showfall doesn’t want us to care.

Our viewpoint is Ranboolive. Who cares if a couple side characters die when the main character is about to solve the next puzzle. He is what keeps the show running, an essential cog in this beautiful machine. He will keep this broadcast rolling whether they like it or not.

Makes you wonder how many other “viewpoints” there are. Are they similar television channels, different people, sets, situations all at the press of a button? Is Showfall Media just beginning of interactive experience entertainment or is it one of hundreds of other programs following the same protocols, each baring a long list of missing persons cases that have yet to be solved? Who really was the “Founder?”

I guess we have to wait and see…

[ariaste]

Are you, perchance, a 2013 BBC's Sherlock veteran

No particular reason I'm asking

I watched it and I think I probably reblogged a few things back in the day because I had mutuals who were into it. But I don't recall ever really feeling like I was in the fandom myself.

I'd guess that you're asking because you've recently read my Good Omens essay and your next question is about whether I was a supporter of The Johnlock Conspiracy, and the answer is a hard nah. At least to me personally, all the textual and meta-textual evidence made it abundantly clear, even a decade ago, that the show was not only inhospitable to queer fans, but actively and deliberately hostile towards them (one recalls that utterly mean-spirited depiction of what Steven Moffat thinks a "fangirl" looks and sounds like, as well as more than one occasion when he and others involved with the show mocked fans/fandom/fanfiction in interviews, on camera, with their actual human mouths). I do vaguely remember coming across people on tumblr in those days who were convinced that there was something else going on, that somehow Moffat was going to suddenly change his tune and start loving them back the way that they loved his show, that they would be rewarded for their faith by having their ship made canon, but that seemed extraordinarily unrealistic to me and not based on any concrete facts.

Now, don't get me wrong -- wishful thinking can be really fun, and you're not hurting anyone by hoping for the best and daydreaming about a happy ending. That's just basic human nature. But when someone shows you what kind of person they truly are, pay attention. Balance dreaming with prudence, and don't put all your eggs in one basket--or, rather, don't pin all your hopes on one stranger's artistic decisions.

Part of me wants to say that Steven Moffat is one of several significant contributors responsible for the deep-rooted media trauma that still afflicts thousands of fans today (consider how so many people watching the first season of Our Flag Means Death as it aired were utterly convinced that it was going to queerbait them and exploit their sincere, heartfelt desire for a queer love story on screen, the same way that nearly every other show had done already. So many people met that glimmer of hope with cynicism and pessimism, because when you've been not just disappointed but outright punished for wanting something, the natural trauma-response is to assume that you're not going to get it until you're proven wrong, because that's the only way you can protect your bruised, exhausted heart.

It is true that Moffat's cruelty to the fans of his show contributed to our collective media trauma. However, it is not the only thing that has done so: Particularly in America, we are in the midst of a literacy crisis. Schools have been failing us for more than two decades: They have increasingly failed to teach nuanced reading comprehension and to adequately equip young people with robust and agile critical thinking skills, and this means that an entire generation has been robbed of the tools that would help them to protect themselves from the psychic damage of media trauma before it happens. Moreover, it means that many people now insist on looking to canon to "legitimize" their ships, as if their own interest and enthusiasm was not sufficient. Instead of feeling empowered to reimagine the stories handed to us in order to suit our personal needs, we give away our power into the hands of strangers who do not feel any ethical responsibility to care for their audience as if the audience is a guest in their home. And thus, we get hurt. Media trauma is real, and it sucks.

To return to your original question, no, I don't consider myself a veteran of BBC Sherlock, because I wandered through town, saw that it wasn't worth the fight, and left before the war started.

Remember: In literary criticism and in science, you don't do good work by cherry-picking evidence that supports your pet theory; you do good work by assembling all the data and asking what theory would unify them into a cohesive whole. And if you're really good, you make the effort to be skeptical and look for evidence that might disprove your theory, and you invite others to check your math, because at the end of the day, you are a beautiful, imperfect human and sometimes you make mistakes.

[inevitably-ineffable-husbands]

Crowley's Past: Was He Archangel Camael?

With S2 now having been out for a few weeks, and the theories running wild, I think one of the unanimous beliefs within the fandom is that Crowley was SOME sort of Important Angel Before™. I touch upon the MANY clues in the various parts of my initial GOS2 Thoughts Meta, so I won't go into too many of those here, but inevitably this separate meta started out as the pulling-and-expanding-upon of the Archangel Crowley theory, primarily the "Raphael" theory, since I have loved that theory to bits since its inception early post-S1.

That was until my friend Peter finished watching the season early last week, and presented to me an alternative theory as to Crowley's identity that I thought deserved its own post breakdown, since I haven't seen this theory before.

NOW, I should make it clear I haven't been as DEEP in the fandom as many of y'all since S1 aired, so it's probably come up before S2 as just a light mention, but I personally haven't seen anything, so what follows is a joint speculation between my real-life, not-in-GO-fandom-spaces-whatsoever friend Peter, and myself, with my contributions being the expansion of his theory and linking it to what we already know.

The theory is this: Crowley might actually be Archangel Camael.

Please, PLEASE note that I am aware that authors and writers change things for creative liberty and originality, so please take this entire theory with a grain of salt (or go nuts with me, I'm happy either way!).

I'll TRY to keep this concise, but y'all know me. You can skip right to the "Conclusion" for a point-by-point breakdown if you don't want to read everything, but I hope you'll at least give me a chance to explain within the body of this meta.

I apologize in advance if any of my thoughts are a bit scattered. Here we go:

The Initial Text

Here is the initial text Peter sent to me after he finished watching S2 (and this was after I mentioned that the popular running fandom theory is that he's actually Raphael):

Okay… well - disclaimer I did not go to religious school and my biblical studies were a great many years ago. As I recall Lucifer was not one of the 7 archangels - he was meant to be but he rebelled before he was appointed (and there is some wiggle for a fictional story). So, based on what we have seen Crowley was one of the 7 but he hung out with the wrong people and asked too many questions. He never says his real name when we see him as an angel it is comically dodged - for a good reason. Crowley has a login and proves he had clearance way above a level 37th angel. He can see the top most important meetings… like he may have been allowed to attend in a previous life… And one line sticks out to me “one fallen prince has already gone to Hell. Two shows a problem.” As I stated Lucifer was not a Prince - we are not talking about him. Gabriel was banking on going to Hell like his “brother” - I’m guessing Camael, the one who Sees God - who ironically has cursed eyes now as a demon - the Prince of Fortitude (also Love and Charity). He often breaks his demonic spirit in cases of charitable needs or love. Crowley is one of the big Seven to be entrusted with creating the cosmos ;)

Naturally, this had a lot of things click for me, and I'm going to break them down below, with my additional research into the points that Peter made since he mentioned that he was going off memory.

Who Was Cameal?

When Peter mentioned this angel, it boggled my mind that I never actually recall knowing of this archangel. I went to a Roman Catholic school up until Grade 12, and with that comes Religious Ed classes, which also feature World Religions in the later grades. Funnily enough, I found out WHY I never heard of Camael:

Camael is not recognized by the Catholic Church due to the Vatican's decision to ban the veneration of angels not mentioned in the Bible [SOURCE]

Kind of explains why I only heard of Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael (which now adds another layer to a theory I will cover further down in "Does Crowley Remember?"), then.

Reading further:

[He] is the Archangel of strength, courage and war in Christian and Jewish mythology and angelology. [SOURCE] He is claimed to be the leader of the forces that expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden holding a flaming sword. However, in iconography he is often depicted holding a cup. [SOURCE]

A Flaming Sword, you say??? Interesting. Here's a good place to point out that there IS also a theory that Crowley and Aziraphale are one single archangel that was split into two (and Gaiman has stated that in original drafts of the original book, they were at first one character, so this fact might be an afterthought of that original idea). Also, interesting that this angel is depicted with a cup, traditionally used in Christianity to depict wine, which is Crowley's drink-of-choice. So, there's that.

Another standout point for me is the Adam and Eve bit (which I bolded above). The Snake of Eden is TECHNICALLY the instigator (the "leader") who encouraged the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden. "Forces" in this reading of it could be the metaphorical definition of it; the knowledge of good and evil, and the desire to see beyond the Garden. AND also the Flaming Sword itself BEING the object of force given to the couple for protection.

Furthermore, Crowley's a strong and brave character, given all the shit he endures time and time again. Strength (and bravery for that matter) can mean many things: emotional strength, physical strength, possibly also a strength of character and an unwavering belief in the values one holds dear. I should also note that it's interesting that an angel of war, should Crowley indeed be this character, wants nothing to do with a war and is actively trying to stop one: an angel of War can absolutely NOT want a war, because he knows it's wrong.

And without the Angel of War up in Heaven to PREVENT any war at all? Well, they would just get all willy-nilly crazy on the idea of War without having any pushback on it, wouldn't they?

Kind of like how Gabriel was to be demoted (cast out) for denying Heaven a War. Funny old world, isn't it? Seems the parallels write themselves.

What's in a Name?

Because Peter mentioned the name meaning, I had to look into it myself, and indeed, one of the various meanings of Camael is apparently "he who sees God" in Hebrew.

As Peter stated above, I think this is very significant because it's seemingly only Crowley who has "demon" eyes that he himself cannot change. It's the ONLY part of him that always remains a constant, and why he is forced to hide them. We know from S1 and bits of S2 with Shax that other demons can change their eyes because we see them mimicking other humans time and again without the black eyes if they choose to.

Crowley's eyes could have been cursed specifically because was ordained as "the one who sees God" and possibly was the ONLY angel who ever "saw" a physical God in the literal sense (it's implied in the show that no one actually SEES a physical god). It's possible that Crowley being cast out literally burned his angelic eyes and left a visible scar that can't be fixed or erased – a forever-reminder of what he did and can no longer do. AND as the one who sees God, he indeed was a very high-ranking angel.

In the GO universe, I suspect he was indeed the FIRST Supreme Archangel, tasked with creating God's Vision (HAH) of the Universe. And when Crowley questioned what the point of creating such beauty was only for it to be destroyed, God (or, I suspect more likely, the other Angels) saw it as Crowley questioning their "vision" in the metaphorical sense.

Does Crowley Remember?

In light of Season 2, and some interesting exchanges and moments of Crowley with other angels, some people speculate (and as I watch the series more, I'm starting to also agree somewhat) that Crowley may not remember everything from Before.

Now, while I do like this theory a lot, and it makes sense with the context clues from S2, I don't think it's that he doesn't remember anything at all, however, as many versions of the theory postulates.

My speculation is this: what if, by having his Angelic Name removed from recognition in the Bible, and going through a similar Trial to Gabriel, THEN by Falling the traditional way, the memories are still there, but they're just a bit fuzzy and scattered? It could also explain why some of the other Archangels DON'T remember him... he was removed from the memories of other ranking angels (Saraqael is the only angel to seemingly remember who Crowley was, so I postulate that she WASN'T a top angel until fairly recently, because of the named angels in the next section).

The show brings up the Book of Life in S2 on several occasions, leaving me to believe that this will be an important item in the next season. What if the phrase "it will make it like you don't exist" literally means "don't exist in memories"? Maybe a Book of Life 1.0 existed at one time, and everyone who Fell was forgotten because their angelic names were removed. Because wouldn't that be more awful than never having existed? Remembering that you WERE something or someone, you had a name that you can't remember, that you WERE important to people and events, and having everyone around you who you considered family forget who you are? It's its own kind of personal Hell ... kind of like George Bailey in It's a Wonderful Life, a movie that references angels, funnily enough. And Crowley remembers the furniture being there but not where it all belongs. I think his memory haziness is also a side effect of Falling the traditional way (burning sulfer and all that jazz, possibly causes trauma amnesia?).

It's a stretch here, I know, but I thought I would put this one out there as a possibility as to what it could mean (given that Gaiman and Pratchett tend to "play on words" a lot, I think it is worth mentioning this as an alternative meaning).

In S2, when Gabriel was sentenced, the Trial stated that Gabriel would forget his time as Gabriel, but not his time as an angel. I think a similar thing happened with Crowley, only much more violently with the "burning the eyes out" and "staining his wings black" thing.

My friend Peter mentioned that the show avoided Crowley's Before-Name "to a comical degree". I reckon, rather, that Crowley just simply doesn't remember his Angelic name, and his changing of his demon names is him possibly trying to find an identity. I think he recalls it having started with a "C", maybe? And now he's a snake, so he's kind of crawl-y, must be "Crawley". As time moved forward and as he learned more and more about humanity, he changed is namee to fit in better. Having a full Human-esque name makes him feel more connected to the Humanity he prefers.

And because I'm a romantic sap at heart, I think he enjoys spending time with Aziraphale because perhaps some part of Azzie's presence helps Crowley remember bits and pieces of his broken memory. He is LITERALLY Crowley's Emotional Support Angel – remember Shax can read into people, it seems. Azzie brings comfort to him, and seeing another Angel that also questions the choices Heaven makes allows Crowley to feel less alone.

The Original Seven Archangels

It's brought up a couple to several times in S2 the point that "God loves sevens". I actually couldn't remember why Seven was such a big Biblical number so a bit of quick Googling reminded me that "Seven [...] communicated a sense of “fullness” or “completeness” [...]. This makes sense of the pervasive appearance of “seven” patterns in the Bible." (SOURCE).

And of course, after Peter had mentioned it, I had to look a bit more into who the Original 7 could possibly be. Wikipedia mentions it could be Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Camael, Jophiel, and Zadkiel.

Peter was correct in his assumption that Lucifer wasn't one of the original 7 archangels, so that leaves us with Raphael, Camael, Jophiel, and Zadkiel, if we're assuming that Crowley is one of these top Archangels.

I would also like to speculate that "God likes 7's" could also mean (if you allow me to reach a bit) "God's favourite angels are the initial 7". If Crowley happened to be one of these 7, it could explain why he's able to get into Heaven without raising alarm at all, why he still maintains his immense power that set off alarms in Heaven when it was used purposefully against Heaven, why he was able to access the Gabriel Files, and why Sarqael allowed Crowley to continue watching the Trial (because if God allowed Crowley access even when he's no longer an angel, then Sarqael has no reason to believe that he's still not important to God).

Perhaps, in Modern Day, only having four archangels making the decisions symbolizes that, indeed, God's not really calling the shots anymore – and hasn't been for a long time – and that the whole system is all broken and not complete.

It also begs the question: if Crowley was one of the Original Seven (if they are indeed going to go in that direction), what happened to the other three? Did they also suffer the same fates? Were they turned to Scriveners just like Gabriel was to be?

Here is where I will also throw out there that my random thought that Muriel possibly also may have been one of the other three, as my own expansion of this theory, but I digress.

Anyway, I think I found the original Fandom Wiki that Peter quick-referenced when doing his quick message to me, and it's very interesting:

How they were founded as a unit is unknown, but it is said that it happened during Lucifer's rebellion. When Lucifer rebelled against God, one entire choir of angels followed him and was lost. Many angels from other choirs also followed him in his rebellion. It is revealed that Lucifer was meant to be apart of the Seven Archangels as well, however, since his fall he was replaced by Camael. 

Disclaimer here that I understand that Fandom Wiki isn't THE BEST resource, but we're also talking about a fictional story that loosely references actual scripture, so I think it's valid enough, heh.

But I bring this point up because Peter links it to Metatron mentioning the "Prince of Heaven" falling, as Gabriel as being "another" one. "Another one" what?? We have to assume that Metatron means another "Supreme Archangel" as holding the title of "Prince of Heaven", meaning Gabriel was NOT the first and only Supreme Archangel. I don't think Metatron is referencing Lucifer here. In fact, they deliberately avoid saying a name. We just ASSUME that it was Lucifer because that's the "common knowledge".

If GO is going to reference the theory that Lucifer actually fell BEFORE becoming an Archangel, then that means in my theory Crowley became his replacement of the Original Seven. And given that he was possibly the One (and only angel, in my above theory) Who Sees God, he was in-turn given the position of Supreme Archangel, charged with creating, again, God's Vision of the Universe.

I think having Crowley be the one who witnesses Gabriel's Trial is important if we're going on the theory that they are mirrors of each other in S2. What if:

Crowley ALSO had a similar Trial when he questioned God (or the other Archangels) about "what's the point of" the destruction of the universe, then subsequently saying "nah" to having Armageddon 6,000 years before the events of S1?;

In said Trial, Gabriel was a presiding member, and, given that we know his prior cruelty from S1, he voted on Camael being cast out in a vicious and cruel fashion "for betraying God". Thus, his eyes burnt and forever scarred to prevent him from ever seeing God again, had his name and memories removed from the Book of Life, and sent to on a one way trip to Hell. I speculate this because Trial-Gabriel certainly believe he was going to "Fall" that way. I'd also wager Camael/Crowley was the last angel to ever "properly" Fall, which is why the modern angels still think that they do it this way, rather than the way they planned for Gabriel. I realize that this point DOES contradict my theory about the other missing Archangels quietly being erased and reassigned, but perhaps BECAUSE Gabriel is SO High up the chain, they HAD no choice but to make an example of him. Perhaps Metatron just quietly deleted the other Archangels' original names without anyone's knowledge.

We now know from S2 that regardless of an angel's status, the angels will veto against anyone who goes against their interpretation of The Great Plan. We now also know that the "Supreme Archangel" is also a "title only" job that has benefits only if you're going to go with the Majority Vote. And if you don't, they're going to make an example out of you.

And I reckon Camael/Crowley, just like Gabriel after, tried to "go his own way" (as quoted by the Metatron) and got banished for it.

Aziraphale really now has himself in a pickle, and I suspect that he will figure ALL of this out when he gets there.

And finally because this is the "Sevens" section of this meta, I also want to mention these "a-bit-reaching-but-still-plausible-theories" that I came across while I was researching:

This tweet speculates that Gabe is morse coding "7"

Michael tweeted 7 dots after S2 aired

CONCLUSION

While this theory doesn't outright bust the Raphael Theory (since there are some similarities with Crowley and Raphael within the theory), as well as the "he was Lucifer" theory (which I also really like, but Crowley mentioned in S1 he was "hanging out with Lucifer and the guys" before he fell, so... I'm more apt to not really run with this theory). BUT it does tie up a lot more things, and it connects things better than the Raphael one does, in my humble opinion.

The TL;DR of this entire post is this:

I think Crowley was an Archangel, that is the only CERTAIN thing I feel.

I think he was Camael, The One (and only angel) Who (Literally) Sees God. He was the First Supreme Archangel who created God's Vision of the Universe.

I think that Camael questioned the Council of Angels why they need to destroy beauty that God created. It didn't make sense to him.

They told him about Armageddon (the S1 one). As the angel of war, and as the Supreme Archangel who had final say, he said "nah". And he tried "to go his own way" to avoid Armageddon.

The Council and Metatron did not like this, saw it as blaspheming against God. Camael then had a Trial similar to Gabriel's.

I think this all happened shortly after the war that sent down Lucifer and the other rebelling Angels, so Heaven was still VERY tetchy about anyone who questioned God and The Great Plan. Because Camael was a Supreme Archangel, the original Prince of Heaven, this was seen as SEVERE betrayal of the Council. For the record, I think the "Before the Beginning" sequence takes place AFTER the War that created Hell.

My belief about the Book of Life is that its ACTUAL purpose is to remove people from being remembered, which is far worse of an existence for someone banished. A metaphorical interpretation of "removed from existence" simply could mean "and everyone forgot about you", à la It's a Wonderful Life, a movie that references "angels getting their wings".

Camael was sentenced in a way that would make an example of him to other angels to remind them of their place: He was cast out of Heaven, his angelic name erased from the Book of Life which caused his other Council Members at the time to forget him, and for him to have foggy memories in turn, although he KNOWS he was an angel (perhaps as a side effect of being cast out the traditional way, you are forced to remember that you once lived in Heaven). His eyes were burnt out to quite literally leave an unremovable scar so he could no longer "see" God and their vision, which explains why Crowley cannot ever change his eyes regardless of how he presents himself. He has to hide them away.

I think Crowley was the last angel to be cast out in this way. BUT because his ANGEL name was erased, none of the remaining Original Council angels (Gabriel, Michael, and Uriel) recognize him. I suspect Sarqael remembers him because she was NOT an Archangel at the time since she was not one of the Original Seven Archangels.

I also suspect that there are purposely missing Archangels for a reason, and the fact that only 4 rather than 7 seemingly run things symbolizes the problems in Heaven and that God has not been in charge for a long time. I think those missing 3 or 4 are actually Scriveners, who were quietly sentenced and erased by the Metatron, hence why Gabriel thought that he was going to be cast out like his predecessor. But because Gabriel WAS a Supreme Archangel, he HAD to be made an example of, just as Crowley before.

"Supreme Archangel" is a Title-Only job, and if you go against the Council, you are indeed made an example of. I think this is purposeful setup for S3 to show that Azzie is in DEEP shit.

EPILOGUE

I still want to expand upon my Angel Theory section from my S2 Meta, but for now, I am so pleased with how this turned out, and I hope you've enjoyed this Deep Dive into another Archangel Theory. I had a lot of fun with this one; I like learning about supernatural things, it's always interesting.

I am interested in others' thoughts on this theory, especially if your memory of your religious education is a bit better than mine! Feel free to expand upon this more, because I am an interactive blog, so it will be added to the post! <3

I hope you enjoyed, and thank you for reading!

[writing-for-life]

Sandman Master Post and Intro

Hi, I’m so glad you’re here! This started out as a small blog but has developed a horrifying (^jk) life of its own over the past two years, so it was about time I organised the links and tags to all my Sandman stuff for you to make it easier to find your way around.

I love getting asks, about analysis, about my fics, prompts or generally just to chat, so see this as an encouragement to slide into my inbox…

[For quick reference:]

[The Ultimate Sandman Character Tag Library]

[The Women of the Sandman Tag Library]

[Sandman Comics: Original Artists Library]

[Sandman Reread (Comics)]

[Sandman Rewatch (Netflix)]

[Sandman Reference: How to Collect the Comics, Companion Books, Annotations/Reference Literature etc]

[In Light of Recent Allegations]

Ordered by topics (recommended):

Sandman Meta-Analysis (general "sandman meta"-tag, also contains contributions to other people's posts. You can find my own metas grouped into literary/conceptual/psychological, musical and art, and I definitely recommend perusing both links and the main tag)

The Sandman Book Club Community: Just follow the link if you’d like to join

Sandman Fics (m/f and f/f, both OC and canon pairings) & Poems

I’m also Dream’s Therapist. I think we all agree he needs one

Sandman Art (general tag that contains all art posts. I have also grouped them into my own art and art of others). Separate tag for official Sandman artists

Sandman March Mania was an event we specifically ran for the comics art lovers, so check it out

Sparkle Content Curation (a not-quite-serious collection of Dream/Morpheus thirst-trap fan-art and unhinged posts). Please also peruse the tags #contraceptive sparkles, #glitter herpes and #murphy and his cool hat (yes, I am sort of responsible for the #muhulhu tag on here) if this hell-site has left you in a state of being desperate for laughs

A Little Intro…

…and why this blog will keep on existing

Once there was a girl with so many words, so many images, so many songs in her head that had no place to go. So she decided some of them will just go here…

Well, that sounds a bit contrived, but it’s not entirely untrue. Apart from the “girl”-part, because I’m at the younger end of Gen X. Or the “no place to go”-part, because some of my work actually *did* go places. Just not the stuff I decided to put on here…

Which is mostly Sandman stuff right now, let’s be honest (I fell in love with it when I was 16, and it still has a tight grip on me three decades later). And the fact that my blog a wild mix between my metas, my fanfic and a bit of my doodling already shows the pull in different directions I have experienced for most of my life:

I’ve worked in science/academia, creative/performing arts and mental health. I guess I’m just a multi-hyphenate who can’t make up her mind what she wants to do with her life, so she tries to do it all and ends up burned out half of the time.

Somewhere along the way, I managed to publish a few novels under a pen name, and only a select few people know about it. And I intend to keep it that way.

I used to draw much more (mostly pencil and ink), but between working and having a family, something had to give, and if I have to choose, writing always comes first. But I doodle and experiment a lot in Procreate, and it usually helps me when I procrastinate on my writing. I drop the odd drawing in here (like my profile pic), but I don’t see myself as a fine artist, and I’m in perpetual awe of the talent I see on here.

This is just an account for unapologetically being me, with all my hyperfixations—and undoubtedly some pointless shitposts just for fun…

In light of recent happenings, I explained my personal stance and, by extension, why this blog will keep on existing.