#I’m open to discussion

[jjkyaoi]

i will take a caitvi reconciliation arc IF it’s caitlyn snotting and sniveling at vi’s feet. like. vi deserves to be chased and pampered and treated like a princess after the shit she just put up with bro 😭

[dykedvonte]

I was rewatching mouthwashing, and I ended up thinking of the different reactions that Curly and Jimmy had in doing their tasks. How during the scene of Anya evaluating Jimmy and showing dread towards the idea of doing his evaluation, Curly was the one that offered to take it off her hands. He had no issue with adding more to his plate, because he knew - or well, thought, he knew that Jimmy wasn't going to "bullshit" with him since he's known him for a long time. When Anya hands Curly a note from Swansea, Curly goes to check out what the issue is and he takes care of it without a complaint, the only "complaint" he has is how this incident could have damaged the pods. Which is reasonable, those pods are their only way to be saved if anything tragic happens on the ship. However, in comparison to Jimmy being asked to do things, he's passive-aggressive about it. When Anya asks Jimmy if he could help her out with Curly's painkillers, he tells her that people should be worth their titles, specifically using her title as a nurse when she asked him for help and then when she says forget it, since he made her feel insecure, he still goes "Oh no, I'LL take care of it" as if he was doing a chore, a favor for her. Then, there's that part where he blows up at her for things that she didn't even ask him to do - more so the others asked him about it, like the code scanner, him deciding he needed to find the axe for the foam, and then, there's the medicine part (which when she does ask, and she reconsiders - going to do it herself, he takes that away from her). Jimmy complains about the tasks he has to do and he treats it like a big issue, a "woes me" that he has to do this and that - wanting the praise of the capital without actually doing any work. While Curly doesn't complain about it, in fact, he even mentions that he's aware of how well he is doing at his job as a Captain during that cockpit scene with him and Jimmy. If Jimmy only had to do a small amount of tasks to get irritated and annoyed at being captain, while Curly didn't which I feel like encapsulates their personalities. Curly understands what he's doing is a job, it's a responsibility, why would he complain at any point for doing what he's suppose too? Why would he be upset at people asking him to do tasks? While Jimmy on the other hand, isn't used to it at all and it's different to what he's had before and he's realizing that he doesn't actually like doing the work he has too. I just wanted to ramble about it even if it seemed kind of obvious xd

It’s obvious but it is a thing people miss or understate when trying to find parallels in Curly’s and Jimmy’s relationship/personalities.

Like the way people portray it as neither taking responsibility when it is almost split down the middle of Curly taking responsibilities and faults that shouldn’t be his and making himself unequipped to handle the ones that are while Jimmy refuses to handle the responsibilities he has because he wasn’t expecting the work that comes with them.

Not a lot to say but people forget that another thing the game comments on is prioritization of issues and responsibilities and how the guys fail at it in one way or another in the situation.

[edgymegatronus]

Ok megatron crash out.

Been more active in fandom space lately and I have seen some fucking terrible takes on MTMTE/Megatron/morality. BRACE BECAUSE I AM BIASED.

“Megatron didn’t deserve his redemption arc.”

“Starscream deserved it more.”

“I hate Megatron’s redemption arc, it was so unrealistic.”

DID WE READ THE SAME COMIC???????

This isn’t a “Megatron redemption arc” HE DOESN’T GET REDEEMED. HE FACES TRIAL. HE GETS EXECUTED OR PLACED IN A SOLITARY, INFINITE HELL FOR ETERNITY HOOKED UP TO A MACHINE.

Megatron does not get a happy ending. He never should have. He got a limited time where he was ‘the happiest’ he’d ever been. He did not deserve that.

The characters around him come to tolerate, if not like him. They are biased because they spent time with him on the Lost Light, a place considered home. His ‘redemption’ if you call it that lives only TRULY in their minds and experiences. He gets his 819 years in the functionist universe. That does not redeem him. All that went down with the Knights of Cybertron arc at the end does not redeem him.

To the rest of the universe his legacy is ONLY that of the worst Cybertronian to ever live. HIS REDEMPTION WAS NOT THE POINT. THATS NOT WHAT IT WAS. I can’t put this isn’t words without feeling like I’m crazy oversimplifying it.

Like any good, complex-ish media so many of the characters are morally grey. YOU AS THE READER get to decide. We are biased because we saw Megatron. Inside his head and how he treated others. That does not redeem him. I don’t like to think it was ever ABOUT his redemption!!! It never was to him! We don’t want the story to end.

I’d like to think there was an exploration on how a character LIKE THAT can be changed. If they can be changed at all. His second life was confined to a very small portion at the end of his time. His legacy will ALWAYS be one of desolate, brutal, unforgivable horror. I think reducing / brushing away Megatron/Cyclonus/Whirl/Starscream whoever else has a shaded past to just ‘a bad redemption arc’ is crazy. It is NOT black and white like that. And we get to decide!!

Engage ur thoughts about the media you enjoy !!! It’s so fun

[quericus]

Usually, in a story where a villain get set up along with their ideology, part of the main character defeating them is also defeating the villain’s ideology. Depending on the story, defeating the ideology can be more important than physically defeating the villain themselves.

But this doesn’t happen in Epic.

Poseidon is defeated, yes. But only because Odysseus fully embraces Poseidon’s ruthlessness mentality.

So while the physical victory might be satisfying (“Next to my wife” was a mic drop moment if there ever was one) , Thematically/ideologically, it is a hollow victory. In fact, I would say that it is not a victory, but a defeat.

Are you truly defeating the monster if in the process you become the monster that made you?

Cause the monster���s still there. It’s just you now.

[jacarandaaaas]

in this shot the candle is positioned higher up in the shot than mirabel, showcasing how she feels this candle is worth more than she is. This is also foreshadowing for the moment she quite literally values this candle more than her own life!

[a-ikuoliver]

which of your f/o’s is fucking you until the bed breaks when your boyfriend suggests opening the relationship?

[sysconversationalist]

I don’t know if this is helpful to the community at large or anything, but I wanna talk about in-system pregnancy for a second.

It’s not an actual pregnancy. I feel like that’s common sense. It’s not going to cause the symptoms that pregnancy would, at least not truly. (Maybe psychosomatic symptoms at most.) People who are pregnant internally should not be in spaces for people who are bodily pregnant. (Again, I feel like that should be common sense, but I have unfortunately seen it.)

That said, a lot of what happens internally can be metaphorical, or for healing purposes. There’s a dozen reasons, just off the top of my head, that a brain might perceive a system member as pregnant.

I’ll use myself as an example. Someone in my system was internally pregnant, and, as we perceived it, gave birth to another system member. As far as I can tell, this in-system kid’s whole purpose is to just be a happy kid that’s never known suffering. Which means a lot to me as someone whose childhood was primarily suffering.

I consider this a split. The system member who ‘gave birth’ to her was happy during that time, but there was so much going on in my life around then, so much stress. Maybe I needed something joyful to focus on.

I can understand why a lot of systems may not have this experience, but I also think it’s ridiculous to say “that’s not something that can happen”. Without giving too many details, a lot of my own trauma involves babies/pregnancy, to a point that I likely would be very awkward around children if not for our in-system kid who I’ve learned to interact with. (Obviously an in-system kid is a lot different from an actual child, but it helped bridge the gap for me.)

To recap: In-system pregnancies are not the same as physical pregnancies, of course they’re not, but that doesn’t mean they don’t happen. They are their own, separate things.

[*As always, this is my personal experience & opinion. I’d try to find sources but, quite frankly, I don’t think there are any. I would love them if anyone knows of any.]

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

Randomly thinking about “tolerate it” (narrator voice: it was not random) and how under the cloak of fiction it is ostensibly inspired by works like “Rebecca” (which Taylor said she read during the 2020 lockdowns I believe?), with the line of “you’re so much older and wiser” indicating that the speaker is significantly younger and inexperienced compared to the person she’s speaking to and a pretty direct reference to the plot of the book.

But I saw something somewhere once that stuck with me about how it might not be referring to relative age between the characters but chronological age as in the passage of time in a relationship. And that made me think about how in a contemporary context, it might not necessarily be referencing an actual age gap between the two characters, but rather a sarcastic or cynical response to the man’s claims that he has matured (“you’re so much older and wiser [than you were before/than you were when we met/etc.]”), which then made me think about that line in relation to the woman. And that it could be taken like, “you act like you’ve matured so much in our time together and like you know everything, while I’m supposedly still stuck as the girl I was when we first met.”

Which then made me think of the “right where you left me” of it all and did you ever hear about the girl who got frozen time went on for everyone else she won’t know it and the bit in Miss Americana where she talks about how celebrities get frozen at the age at which they got famous, and how she’s had to play catch up in a lot of ways not just in her emotional growth but kind of in general. (Which also made me wonder if she’s ever been called out for immaturity/lack of curiosity/lack of education about things in her life…)

Which then made me think about the rest of the song, and @taylortruther’s posts yesterday about “seven” and “Daylight” and the way Taylor idealizes her youth yet contrasts it with an almost sinister reality in its wake, and the line, “I sit by the door like I’m just a kid,” because the discussion raised that her relationship let her recapture some of the childlike joy and wonder she’d lost. So this line is a double-edged sword: the speaker sits by the door with childlike hope that the person will come home and cherish her, but on the darker side, feels like the child dealing with the monsters she doesn’t have names for yet and the feelings of isolation she felt as she aged.

I’m not saying the song is necessarily autobiographical; like most of the songs on folkmore, it’s clearly a fictionalized story based on media she’d consumed and created, but we know a lot of the fictional songs were infused with her own feelings and experiences and… This idea swirling in my head picked up steam and now I kind of can’t stop thinking about it. Sorry but I’m a little obsessed now.

Like maybe it might start to shed light on why she identified so strongly with the novel in the first place…

[diorgirl444]

one thing that i think so many people miss is the pure irony of Johnny being the one to kill Bob. Bob who is loud and cocky and rude and full of rage but has become that way because he’s grown up with a lack of support from parents… and do you see where i’m heading with this? who does this sound just like? oh yeah the person who Johnny is closest too. Dallas Winston. Bob and Dallas are pure mirror images of each other so the fact that one loved johnny and one hated him is so interesting and shows so well how gang culture and classism thrusts different people together. even cherry points this out when she says “I could fall in love with Dallas Winston. I hope I never see him again or I will” this is S.E Hinton telling us of their similarities but like nearly everything that’s said by Cherry it’s been forgotten which is a real shame because to me this is such a significant part of the book and yet I never see anyone talk about it.

[ssruis]

Wrt the people talking about the new set as fan service: my initial reaction was also “oh cute” & moving on, but after carefully reading the full arguments of the people who found it distasteful, I agree with their points. I’d normally link or post screenshots of the points made, but since the Prsk fanbase apparently is jumping people over this on twt I don’t feel comfortable doing that. To summarize and add some of my own explanation:

> everything in gacha games is fan service, which doesn’t have to necessarily mean it’s sexual - ode for the pure of heart featuring rui/touya (popular with female audience) looking very princely was fan service. The white day knight/fantasy theming is fan service (popular & well loved aesthetic). Fantasia squad was fan service for the players who like the male characters, etc etc.

> I don’t feel like arguing about all of the cards, so I’ll just point out what bothers me about the most egregious example (Rin’s card)

When considering art, you have to consider the deliberate choices the artist made, and what messages they are trying to get across with the atmosphere they have created.

Why choose the maid aesthetic? Why make these cards a player pov? Why choose framing that (using the grid composition, contrast and lighting from the window, the way lines direct the eye) makes the points of interest and emphasis Rin’s face *and* butt? Why choose that pose, with Rin looking over her shoulder, with a surprised expression and prominent blush? Why is the posing reminiscent of art of vintage pin up girls (or any other similar art movement)?

It’s male gaze. The answer is male gaze.

The male gaze is often just associated with overt sexualization, but that’s an overly simplified definition. The male gaze can also be portraying women in positions of servitude (most often within the home), emphasizing body curves (even through clothes), voyeuristic povs, emphasizing cuteness/demure-ness/shyness, etc. It’s about the (assumed male) viewer having power over the female subject.

Rin is cleaning, the light from the window heavily highlights her butt, the framing of window itself specifically draws the eye from her head to her back to her butt using contrasting colors/light/point of interest, the parallel lines in the piece direct your eyes down her body (Japanese audience, reading image from right to left). If the emphasis was on the action she is doing, rather than her body, the light source and brightest colors would be on the other side of the image, the duster would be brighter, as would the objects/set pieces she’s interacting with.*

Sexualization/male gaze isn’t restricted to the very obvious “woman sexy posing in a bikini” image, and having that viewpoint will only serve to limit the ways you understand art and artist intention. It’s similar to taking “all art is political” to mean “all art is either republican or democrat” and responding “well that’s stupid and you’re stupid.” You’re missing the point.

I’m a little disappointed the knee jerk reaction here seems to be “you’re wrong and you’re actually a freak who sexualizes minors for pointing this out” here, especially because the point of calling this out is to say that it’s distasteful to do a card like this for a character who is, despite not having a canon age, pretty much portrayed as younger than the main cast (making her 15 or younger).

Nobody is saying “this set sucks you can’t like it if you like it you’re problematic and project sekai should be cancelled forever”, it’s just something to keep in mind. You don’t have to agree with the argument, but acting like anyone pointing this out is insane isn’t fair or justified.

> also just as a side note: maid cafés have a pretty long history of sexualization, with the emphasis/appeal of having power over the workers and them being your servant while dressed cute. I don’t entirely think this set was going for a maid café look, but I do think it’s something to be mindful of.

> *it’s a little hard to articulate/explain this, and my knowledge on how much the average person knows about stuff like this is skewed due to my own education in art/art history/design/etc. If you find this confusing, I’m willing to explain more in detail and specifically point out what I’m talking about.

> I have a different post on the taisho/daisho romance elements, which is an entirely different discussion, so I’m not bringing that up here.

[honeycrispjamz]

Hey no offense but full offense, if you come on my ‘Ben mistreating/grooming Misty’ posts and hide shit in the tags like “it’s actually a lot more nuanced than that” or “it’s not black and white” I need you to do some inspection on yourself and why you think I need to be more sympathetic towards, first off, a man—period point blank— let alone Ben who canonically hits Misty hard enough to draw blood, uses grooming tactics on her just so he doesn’t have to actually confront her obviously skewed view on relationships, and later refuses to help in any way when she has to deliver Shauna’s stillborn baby with little to no medical training.

Sorry if it’s crazy to yall that I would rather defend Misty in this situation

[junicult]

how old do you think harvey is? would you say that him and the farmer have an age gap? i'm js wondering about your take, my apologies if you answered this before

i’ve always thought of harvey to be around 31-33 when you first meet him.

as for the age-gap, for me personally that’s not my thing. especially in hetero relationships (but that’s a conversation for another time.) whenever i write for all of the bachelors, i think of the farmer to be the same age, or around, as who they’re romancing. obviously, the farmer is whoever you want them to be so that’s entirely up for you to decide. this is just how i write them.

my take has always been that the farmer is younger than harvey because he has that one line of dialogue about the farmer staying healthy cus they’re young, or something like that. so, maybe 3-4 years younger than him. like if he’s 31, the farmer’s 27. i also think it logically makes sense that harvey’s over the age of 30 at the very least.

also semi-unrelated side thought; i feel like harvey talks about feeling old, or being old, because he spent so much time of his life in school to get to where he is now. and because of his trauma and field of work, he’s seen firsthand how expendable life can be. i don’t think he’s actually “old” by any means, i just think he’s likely seen death happen in young ages, therefore the concept of “being old” changed for him. i guess lol if that makes any sense.

[rollercoasterwords]

love when i make a post on tumblr.com like “this is how i feel about this” & then someone reblogs it & the tags are like #i actually completely disagree with this #i feel the complete opposite way #here’s an explanation of why this post is wrong. like u know u didn’t have to reblog the post right….

[kingofpuppets]

elden ring dlc spoilers

here's my 2 cents about the dlc and the reactions i'm seeing

i have no intention of writing a post analyzing in-depth the lore of the dlc since i've yet to go through every dialogue and item description as i did for base game – anything i were to write now would be incomplete at best – so this is not it. i just wanted to address the overall dissatisfaction i'm seeing from a lot of people. like, as someone who spent weeks after playing the base game reading every single line of text in the game, analyzing each environment, enemy placement and design, seeing the reaction people are having to the dlc lore is quite funny. i get being disappointed a character isn't what you thought they'd be but going so far as to scream "bad writing!" is a bit excessive. i even saw people claiming miyazaki changed the writing to pander to the fans and, seriously? fromsoftware never came close to doing that and there's absolutely no reason for them to start now. but anyways, as i mentioned before i'm a huge lore nerd, the kind with a huge mind map containing nearly all relevant item descriptions, there's nothing in the base game i haven't read, so i think it's safe to say i have a somewhat good understanding of what new lore piece in the dlc contradicts what lore piece in the base game. i'm in no way an authority on the matter – there isn't one – nor am i pointing fingers saying "i'm right, you're wrong" – i just don't understand. i've been through countless different theories before i settled on the ones i entered the dlc with and obviously i wasn't right about everything – especially because a lot of it is speculation not to mention there's not really a right or wrong, only different interpretations of the same materials – but nothing new i encountered contradicted the base game lore i had put together. if anything, it strengthened even more some of my theories. so many people are upset about miquella being the main antagonist or that he's evil (which i completely disagree with, especially some posts portraying miquella as some kind of cartoon villain which is more speculation than anything with actual support from in-game lore), but everything was leading up to it if not in the base game in the dlc (the moment i found miquella's discarded love i figured who the final boss might be, when i found st. trina i was sure). "but the radahn fight comes out of nowhere" maybe there's no direct mentions of it in the base game but it is hinted quite well albeit very subtlety what miquella wanted to do with him in one of the dlc quests – not to mention radahn makes the most obvious sense when you think of miquella/radahn as a parallel to marika/godfrey. and miquella using mohg is not even worth mentioning – i hope my fellow mohg enthusiasts are feeling vindicated, as am i. in short, nothing seemed out of place for me at all. so i was really taken aback when i went into the tags and saw the overall mood. everyone can have different opinions regarding their enjoyment of the dlc nor are there right and wrong theories in a fromsoftware game where the lore is so vague but it's quite upsetting seeing people talk about how "the dlc ruined miquella's character" or "the dlc lore has no connection to the base game" when that's simply not true. if anything, the dlc only added more depth to miquella and even if i was heartbroken at the death of my favorite elden ring character, it made sense thematically. if anything i'm more upset about the fight itself but that's a gameplay problem which is not the focus of the post.

[waroferas]

Cia HyWars is pure evil?

There is so much I could say about Cia . and i will ! you’re stuck with me now idiot !!!!! (speaking into an empty room)

i was going to skip this section bc if anybody reading this somehow didn’t know who Cia is then like . google is right there . but zeldadungeon actually has fuck all to say about cia’s backstory and i would never knowingly subject someone to the fandom wikis.

Cia was originally known as the Guardian of Time, a minor deity tasked with overlooking the checks and balances of the triforce across the past and future. She did this work alone, and her psyche was left vulnerable to a fragment of ganondorf’s soul. Her admiration and jealousy of the holder’s of the triforce was manipulated until she became physically fragmented, her “light half” being cast from her as she was fully corrupted.

That half goes on to become Lana, and what remains of Cia wants two things: Collect Link like barbie doll, and help Ganondorf restore his soul and gather the triforce so she can Collect Link like barbie doll. She’s the main antagonist of the game now.

why would she do this? is she stupid?

being lonely makes you crazy and i mean this very genuinely.

Hyrule Warriors is constantly hammering in that you need to rely on other people through gameplay And story beats. i would even say that friendship and teamwork is one of the strongest and most recognizable themes. In the very first stage there is an honestly comical back and forth that goes as follows: link runs in to fight volga. impa runs in to save link. link hops up last second and saves impa instead . and then they round out the stage with impa saving link and delivering the hero’s tunic to him. this has to be a joke? but it isn’t . they LOVE TEAMWORK !! not to mention the gameplay that forces you to run around and help your allies, or the massive story beat that revolves around Link running ahead to fight on his own, which i could dissect in its own post.

unrelated but related, in the first edition of this game Cia dies. she asks lana to make her pain make sense, reveals that she knew on some level she was doomed to fail, and admits that lana really is better than her. it’s a bitter ending with very little fanfare, as ganondorf swoops in quickly to kickstart the beginning of the end.

But in later versions, there’s additional content. Cia is found to be alive, struggling against Phantom Ganon’s forces with the last of her power. She becomes an ally and she gets to live at the end, finding a happy ending in resuming her duties now as one of two Guardians of Time with Lana.

Would it be such a stretch to assume that the root of her pain was her solitude? Her admiration of Link as the revered hero, her jealousy of Zelda as the damsel who is destined to always fight by his side, and her happy ending. she easily walks away from Link, Zelda, and the allure of the triforce because now she finally has company, and knows she is leaving them all as friends. Wouldn’t it make sense thematically that in the game about friendship, the main antagonist would be driven in part by a lack of it?

this doesn’t justify starting a war

yeag . the devs for the Dynasty Warriors hack and slash series should have made it Not a war (JOKE. PARODY. but see the first sentence or the previous section)

but what about the part where she is an irredeemable creep?

look me in the eyes . i cannot describe how much this train of thought kills me. i am trying not to point at anybody specific here but it actually scares me a little bit how common and Assumed To Be True this is considering the preexisting racism and misogyny surrounding Cia’s design and role within the game

Cia is creepy towards Link. it’s not normal to disregard a person’s autonomy because you want to “make him yours”, and it’s not normal to have just So Many pictures and statues of a guy. but i have to draw the line there because Genuinely that is where it ends.

Pet names? if you play her side campaign you find that she calls Literally everyone things like “lovelies” and “darling.” Her speech mannerisms are classically cartoonish villain and i am absolutely biased because i love this

Age difference? an important thing to note is that cia’s design is one of the things the most afflicted by the aforementioned racism and misogyny. considering she has no canonical age afaik it freaks me out that people treat her like a Textual Predator with the Everything in mind.

if she’s redeemable then they did a shit job at it.

no argument there . i think everyone forever should make something new up to make up for the fact that they did a Poor Redemption . at least have her say sorry or something idunno .

in my opinion they had a lot going on when cia joined the allies, so i like to imagine she ended up getting a proper redemption arc After phantom ganon is put to bed. it lives in my head and it’s just as convoluted and weird as the rest of the game 👍

Hyrule Warriors is just an extremely elaborate excuse to play dolls

and i LOVE my tuoys. come play with meeeee come have fun with me and ciaaaaaa

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

Screaming from the crypt (or how the past haunts the present on Midnights)

I know it's been discussed so much since Midnights came out but just.

I love how there is such a clear narrative throughout the album (and perhaps especially on the 3am/Vault tracks). About questioning and regret and choices and coming to terms with all of it. It is one long story about how we're all a mosaic of the choices we make, each one taking something from us and leaving something else in its place.

(And now a disclaimer: I'm looking at this mostly through a narrator/subject lens, and trying not to dive too deeply into real-life events or speculation except for in a general sense. For this purpose I like to look at the body of work as art, like literature, because I find it makes it easier to see the common threads in the different songs and cohesion in the narrative.)

In looking at the 3am+ tracks in particular, it's fascinating how some turns of phrases or themes repeat themselves in different songs, in different contexts. (I'm only focusing on the non-standard tracks because there are too many songs and I'd be here all day but I bet I could do a part two lol.) I know many people have pointed out the parallels throughout her discography already and I’m not saying anything groundbreaking by writing this, but I love how these parallels run through in the same album, because it makes it seem like it's one long story, or at least, one long rumination on many different stories that are coalescing into a single narrative.

Battle (let’s go)

For instance, the one that jumped out at me when I started writing this post the other week was, "Tore your banners down, took the battle underground," in The Great War and "If clarity's in death, then why won't this die? Years of tearing down our banners, you and I," in Would've, Could've Should've. It's a story about staying stuck in the same cycle of reliving trauma and coping mechanisms and bad habits over and over again and fantasizing about how taking the “antagonist” out and gaining the upper hand for good would bring closure (WCS), but the truth is that nothing ever will. All that cycle does, though, is repeat itself in other situations, and in this case pushes someone away the narrator cares for (TGW). The difference is that the imagined battle in WCS is a two-way street in her mind (that is ultimately unwinnable because it was never a fair fight), but in TGW it's one-sided -- she's the one fighting dirty, taking shots, the way she'd been doing in her imagination (or nightmares) all these years. But the person in front of her isn't fighting back the way the person in her mind in WCS would, because their intentions are honourable instead of exploitative.

And that's paralleled in another pair of lyrics from the two songs, "And maybe it's the past talking, screaming from the crypt, telling me to punish you for things you never did," (in TGW) and "The tomb won't close, I fight with you in my sleep," (in WCS). In both cases, the funeral imagery makes it seem like this past event should be dead and buried in WCS, but it keeps rising from the dead, haunting her no matter what she does and in TGW, another (or perhaps the same?) tomb that won't close keeps unleashing new ways to hurt her and in turn the new person in her life. In other words, the trauma from the past continues to bleed into the present.

(Again from a literary point of view, I'm not saying the events of the two songs are linked IRL, but they're fascinating textual parallels on the album as a string of chapters, which is why Dear Reader is so compelling, but that's a whole other essay.)

To keep the battle motif going, there’s yet another parallel, this time between TGW’s "[You were a] soldier down on that icy ground, looked up at me with honor and truth," and You’re Losing Me’s "All I did was bleed as I tried to be the bravest soldier, fighting in only your army.” In the former, the subject is laying down his armour in the war she’s projecting onto him, waving the white flag, and she realizes that she’s about to destroy something if she doesn’t put her sword down too. By the time we get to YLM, the roles are almost reversed; at the very least they’re supposed to be on the same team, but in this case she’s doing all the heavy lifting, fighting for their relationship in contrast to his apathy killing it. It’s also pretty interesting (if not outright intentional) that one of the 3am+ editions of the albums starts with The Great War, where they find themselves in conflict (even if it’s in her head) that ends in a truce, and ends with You’re Losing Me signalling the end of the relationship, evidence that the resolution in the first song wasn’t an ending but merely a ceasefire before the last battle.

Putting the rest under a cut because this is waaaaay too long now ⤵️

(There’s also another metaphor there in The Great War with its battle imagery: World War I, aka The Great War, was supposed to be the war to end all wars, because loss on its scale was never seen before and when it ended, most thought never again would the world embroil itself in such battle, the horrors and implications were so devastating. Two decades later, the world found itself in WWII, with an even larger scope and more horrific consequences, the intervening time between the two a period of festering conflicts and resentment leading to some of the worst acts the world would see. Bringing real life into it for a second, there’s something a little poetic, though sad, about The Great War the song being about a fight that could have ended the relationship that they ultimately resolved and was meant to be evidence of the strength of their love, but so too did it end up being a period of détente, the greater battle coming for them years later. But that is not the point of this post.)

If one thing had been different

Another major theme in these editions is pondering the "what ifs?" of life, but I think it takes on even more significance in the broader context of the album in the lyrics of "I'm never gonna meet what could've been, would've been, should've been you," in Bigger than the Whole Sky and the repetition of would've/could've in Would've, Could've, Should've (I would've looked away at the first glance, I would've stayed on my knees, I would've gone along with the righteous, I could've gone on as I was, would've could've should've if I'd only played it safe, etc.) In both songs, the narrator is mourning an alternate course their life could have taken* and questioning what they could have done differently, in the aftermath of trauma and loss, and the regret that comes with that loss, and with the loss of agency in the situation because ultimately it was never in their hands. In an album full of questions, wondering about the path not taken, or the forks in the road that have led to a different version of your life, it's digging deeper into the contrast of choice vs. fate, action vs. reaction, dwelling on the past vs. moving on. When you're supposed to let go of the past, what do you do when it is holding your future hostage?

(*I know there are different interpretations/speculation about BTTWS which I am not getting into on main. I'm just saying that whatever the song is about, it's grieving something that never came to be. The literal origin of the song is less important to the album than the sense of loss it portrays. Whatever the inspiration is, it's crafted to tell part of the story of Midnights of ruminating over how, to borrow from her previous work, if one thing had been different, would everything be different?)

(Also I was today years old when I realized that the words are inverted in the two songs. Apparently I've been hearing BTTWS wrong this whole time.)

There's also an interesting tangent in the role of faith in both songs: in WCS, the events of the story cause her to lose her faith (e.g. "All I used to do was pray," "you're a crisis of my faith,") and question all the things she felt had been unquestionable until that point in her life (e.g. "I could have gone along with the righteous"), whereas in BTTWS, she questions whether that very lack of faith is to blame for the loss in that song ("did some force take you because I didn't pray? [...] It's not meant to be, so I'll say words I don't believe"). It's like pinpointing the moment her life changed and upended her beliefs (WCS), but as a result then leaving her unmoored in times of crisis because ultimately there's no explanation or comfort to be taken from what she used to hold true before that (BTTWS). The words she once relied upon to guide her have long since lost their meaning, but in times of trouble it leaves her wondering if that faith she once held then lost could have prevented this pain.

(Shoutout to WCS for being Catholic guilt personified lol.)

To keep on with the vaguely faith-y notions, an obvious parallel is the line in Would’ve Could’ve Should’ve about, “I damn sure never would've danced with the devil at nineteen,” and, "When you aim at the devil, make sure you don't miss," in Dear Reader. All of WCS is about her fighting with an antagonist who haunts her, with whom she wholly regrets ever becoming involved. DR could be seen as a reflection on that fall from grace, warning the audience that if you choose to go after the person (or thing) haunting you, make sure you do so clearheaded enough to be decisive. Again, these “devils” may not be related in real life: the IRL devil in DR could be speaking about her naysayers, or Kim*ye, or Scott & Scooter B, etc., meaning not to cross your enemies until you know you can win. But taking real life out of it and looking at it textually, I am intrigued by the link between WCS and DR, so that’s what I’m going with here. And perhaps that’s even the point in a wider sense; there will be multiple “devils” in your life, or threats to your well-being. If you’re going to commit to taking them down — whether it’s an actual person, or the demons inside you that refuse to let you go — make sure you have the right ammo so that they can no longer hurt you. (Of course, one lesson from these experiences is that sometimes you can’t win, and you have to live with the fallout.)

(Sidebar: I know that “dancing with the devil” is a turn of phrase that means being led into temptation and engaging in risky behaviour, as opposed to describing the actual person. Given the religious metaphors in the song, that could very well be/is the intention, particularly when it’s preceded by, “I would have stayed on my knees” as in she would have continued to follow her faith — in whatever sense that means — had she never met this person, which could also be a more eloquent way of saying she would have continued to be live her life in a way that was righteous (even naive) and seen the world in black and white. Either way, it’s a force she wholly rejects. Like I said, multiple devils, same fight.)

Regret comes up too: in WCS, she says, "I regret you all the time," obviously directed at the person who manipulated her and led to her perceived downfall, citing him as the one impulse she wished she'd never followed, because it won't leave her no matter how hard she’s tried. In High Infidelity, she tells the person to, "put on your records and regret me," and on the surface, it’s like she’s turning the tables, painting herself as the one now causing the regret in someone else, the one inflicting the pain this time. Yet the verse preceding it and the lines following it in the chorus depict a partner who is also emotionally manipulative and vindictive like in WCS (“you said I was freeloading, I didn’t know you were keeping count,” “put on your headphones and burn my city,”). It’s not so much that she’s intentionally harming the person (the way the person in WCS does to her), but rather that the venom in the subject’s feelings towards her seeps through; she’s imagining the way he’s going to feel about her when she leaves, hating her just for by being who she is. (There could be another tangent about how in both songs she’s there to be a “token” in a game for both of the men, who play her for their own purposes.) The regret is dripping with disdain. It’s as though she’s picturing how the person is going to hate her for doing what she’s thinking of doing the way she hates the person who first hurt her.

Sadness, unsurprisingly, shows up in a few lyrics. In BTTWS, “Everything I touch becomes sick with sadness,” sets the scene of a person so overcome with grief that it permeates everything around them; they cannot see their way out of it and feel like the fog will never lift. In Hits Different, it’s, “My sadness is contagious,” the result of a breakup where the person’s grief again touches everything and everyone around them, pushing them further in their despair and loneliness. The reason behind the grief in either case may vary, but regardless of the source, the feeling is overpowering and isolating. They may be different chapters in the story, but the devastation is hauntingly familiar. (As is a recurring theme in Midnights as a whole: there are situations and feelings that present themselves at different points in her journey and colour in the lines in different ways along the road. Like revisiting an old vice and realizing the hit isn’t quite the same as it was in the past.)

Death by a thousand cuts

She also writes about wounds on this album, which isn't surprising I suppose given that the whole conceit is that these are things that have kept her up at night over the years. WCS is perhaps the driving narrative on this never ending hurt when she sings, ��The wound won't close, I keep on waiting for a sign, I regret you all the time,” suggesting that no matter what she does, the pain of this experience has permeated everything she’s done afterwards. (Not unlike the overwhelming grief in BTTWS, for instance.) Elsewhere, in High Infidelity she sings, "Lock broken, slur spoken, wound open, game token," and in Hits Different, "Make it make some sense why the wound is still bleeding.” Again I'm not suggesting they're about the same events; the line in HI is about a situation where a partner crosses a boundary, hits below the belt, picks at an insecurity (or creates a new one) and treats the relationship like it's transactional, opening the floodgates in turn. In HD, the wound seems to be more self-inflicted, where she's pushed the person away. (Over a situation real or imagined she feels she needs distance from.) But again, something has picked at her like a raw nerve, and just like in the past, she's hurting, even in a different time and place and person. Almost like the wounds of the past break open over and over again to create new scars. If one were to extrapolate further, it wouldn’t be the biggest leap to wonder if the wound open in WCS, then torn apart in HI makes the one in HD hurt even more.

(I once wrote a post about how I think as time goes on, WCS is going to turn into one of those songs that will be found to drive so much of her work, because it’s just… kind of the unsaid thesis statement of so much of her songwriting.)

Another repeated theme is that of the empty home and loneliness. In High Infidelity, she sings, "At the house lonely, good money I'd pay if you just know me, seemed like the right thing at the time," painting a picture of someone who may have everything they'd want to the outside world, but in reality feels metaphorically trapped in their home (or at least alone amidst abundance), a symbol of a relationship gone sour and a failure to build connection. She just wants someone to understand her, want her for her, but as she's written earlier in the song, she's just a pawn in the game, a trophy from the hunt. Home, in this case, is lonely, isolated, an emblem of her fears. In Dear Reader, she continues this thread, then singing, "You wouldn't take my word for it if you knew who was talking, if you knew where I was walking, to a house not a home, all alone 'cause nobody's there, where I pace in my pen and my friends found friends who care, no one sees you lose when you're playing solitaire." It's the same idea, admitting to listeners that the gilded cage she lived in kept her distanced from her loved ones and real connection, keeping her struggles close to the vest but feeling desperately lonely amidst her crowning success. She's pushed people away and it may have felt like the right thing at the time, but in the end maybe felt like she was trapped. And when you push people away, eventually they take you at your word and stop pushing back; you’re a victim of your own success at isolating yourself. What starts out of self-preservation then further perpetuates the underlying problems.

(There's another interesting link about "home" also feeling unsafe with HI's "Your picket fence is sharp as knives," which further leads into the theme of marriage/domesticity feeling dangerous, which is a whole other thing I won't get into here because it's another discussion and may derail this already gargantuan word salad.)

In a slightly similar vein, we have the metaphor of bad weather for a rocky road or unstable relationship, in High Infidelity again with, "Storm coming, good husband, bad omen, dragged my feet right down the aisle" and You’re Losing Me’s "every morning I glared at you with storms in my eyes.” They aren’t speaking of the same situation or even same kind of breakdown, but it is pretty interesting how the idea of clouds/storms/floods/etc. play such a role in Taylor’s music to signal depression, apprehension, fear, uncertainty, etc. In HI, I think the “storm” coming is the looming threat of commitment to a partner who makes the narrator uneasy (if not fearful). In this case, the idea of making a life with this person is not one that incites joy or comfort, but instead makes the narrator feel that dark times are ahead if she continues down this path. Perhaps in some way, the “storms” in YLM have made good on the threat in HI in a different way; it’s a different home, a different relationship, but the clouds have settled in regardless, and some of her fears have come to fruition in ways she did not expect. The person she once trusted no longer sees her or her struggles (or worse, doesn’t care), and the resentment and pain build with each passing day.

Coming back to heartbreak, one of the obvious "full circle" moments is the beginning of a relationship in Paris, where she says that, "I'm so in love that I might stop breathing," clearly enthralled in a new love that allows her to shut the world out and grow in private, capturing the all-encompassing nature of the relationship. This infatuation has consumed her in the most wonderful way (in contrast to the sorrow of some of the previous songs), and it feels like a life-altering (or even life-sustaining?) force that is so strong she may forget what it’s like to breathe. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.) By the end of the album, though, in You're Losing Me, that heart-stopping love has become a threat: "my heart won't start anymore for you." In the former, her racing heart is full of excitement, but by the latter, her heart has given out completely under the weight of the pain she bears. (YLM is full of death/illness imagery which I already wrote about awhile ago so I won't hear, but needless to say that song deserves its own essay for so many reasons.) She's gone from the unbridled joy of the beginnings of a relationship to the unrelenting sorrow of its end, two sides of the same coin.

Love as death appears elsewhere in the music too, for instance, in High Infidelity’s, “You know there's many different ways that you can kill the one you love, the slowest way is never loving them enough" and You’re Losing Me’s “How can you say that you love someone you can't tell is dying? […] My face was gray, but you wouldn't admit that we were sick.” Though not completely analogous situations, they both tell the tale of one partner’s apathy (or at least denial) destroying the other. In the former, the partner’s actions (or inaction) are more insidious, if not sinister; in the latter, the lack of momentum (or admission of a problem) is passive. In both cases, the end result is the narrator’s demise; it’s a drawn out affair that chips away at her morale and her health and her sense of self. (Breaking my own rule about bringing in alleged actual events into the discussion, but the idea that the relationship in High Infidelity, which was obviously fraught with unease and even fear, ended in a similarly excruciatingly slow and hurtful death by a thousand cuts as the relationship in You’re Losing Me almost did at that time must have been so painful. It almost feels like YLM is wondering why what used to be a source of light in her life was mirroring a situation that caused her such pain in the past.)

From the same little breaks in your soul

I said early on that part of what is so compelling about Midnights is that it feels like an album about ruminating — on choices, on events, on people — and the two final “bonus” tracks of the album depict that as well. In Hits Different, she sings that, “they say if it’s right, you know,” an ode to the confusion of a breakup and struggling with the aftermath of calling it quits. It’s a line that has always intrigued me, because the typical use of the phrase is in the sense of, “you’ll know when you meet the one,” but here it seems to have a double meaning, a reassurance perhaps from the friends (who later on tell her that "love is a lie") that she’ll know if she’s made the right decision in calling it off, but could also be her wondering if the relationship is right, she’ll know, and want to reconcile. In the final bonus track, You’re Losing Me, she sings, “now I just sit in the dark and wonder if it’s time,” this time leaving no doubt about the dilemma she faces, though it’s no less fraught. She’s wondering, perhaps for the last time, if now is finally the moment to end the relationship for good. They say that if it’s right she’ll know, and now she’s wondering if that feeling inside her (that once told her her partner was the one, which is why it hit differently), is telling her that it’s time to go for good. Wait Alexa play “It’s Time To Go.” These are not only the things that keep her up at night, but the things that play over in her mind like a film reel in her waking hours.

Midnights as a whole is a deeply personal album, as is most of Taylor's work, but the 3am+ edition tracks seem to dig even deeper to a lot of the issues raised on the standard album. Almost like the standard tracks are the things she wonders about on sleepless nights, but the bonus tracks are the things that haunt her in the aftermath. The regret, anger, sadness, grief, relief, even joy— they’re the price she pays for the memories she keeps reliving. Midnights might be the most cohesive narrative of all her albums, and really does feel like we’re watching someone work through her journal over time, stopping short of outright naming those giant fears and intrusive thoughts (except for when she does) but making them plain as day when you connect the songs together, and perhaps never more clearly than in the expanded album. It’s incredible how the songs stand on their own to relay a specific moment in time, but that they are also self-referential to each other (whether thematically or overtly) to weave a larger web over the entire work. We’re so lucky as fans to have these stories and to keep peeling back these layers as time passes. (And my literature-analysis-loving ass loves her even more for it.)

This is obviously by no means an exhaustive list, and I know there are more parallels and probably even stronger links (particularly when you add the standard version into the mix), but these were the ones that particularly struck me and I’m just glad I’ve had a chance to sit with this and think it through. ❤️