#ICONIC EUPHEMISM

[preacherboyd]

OZ | 4x09 Medium Rare

[stardustvalentine]

kyoutani DOESN’T dance 😤⚾️

[tsuchinokoroyale]

What's yiur favorite silly word for penis? I've been using the word wiener a lot lately cause it's fun to say fat wiener

It really depends but I do say peanus weanus a lot for someone who’s almost 30…

[benevolentgodloki]

Loki, please experience the glorious thing that is a taco

"I believe Barton will show me soon enough."

[redbuckethat]

Cat King's introduction is so iconic.

He sends an army of cats to greet you. Those cats eat a man. He transforms from cat to human. He kidnaps you in an instant. He calls you out for being a gay, repressed twink in love with your best friend. He gives you a bracelet. He tries to fuck you. He tells you to count some cats (not a euphemism).

[pseudophan]

What is the editing tips thing? Sorry I’m confused

basically in an interview in 2015 dan said that he and phil got talking because he reached out to him to "ask for editing tips", very obviously just not wanting to get into their actual (gay as shit) reasons for meeting and giving a very simple answer to a very inconsequential question. of course upon seeing this all us phannies went OK LOL. sure dude. editing tips. suuure that's what you were after. because obviously at this point we all knew their actual story. and then in the years following that dnp, dan especially, keep making editing tips jokes as a euphemism for what was actually going on (that being gay sex, mostly). i just think it's so funny and honestly kind of iconic how that joke has progressed. like at the start the joke, from dan's perspective anyway, was "haha yeah we know how dnp really met it was dan being a fan of phil lmao not editing tips" and then it evolved into "yeah 'editing tips' is just a sexual innuendo" and idk i think that was one of the first Bits we had in common. like one of the first instances of the phandom and dan and phil being so obviously on the same page but still not Saying It. like oh my god this was a thing for years before they came out and at least for the last couple of years before The Reveal it was just a known thing that editing tips meant hooking up. and dan still made the joke frequently. the whole bit is kind of dear to me just for that lmao like. man. a piece of history.

[milquetoast27]

Subtext in The Creeping Man

I find that this story of Arthur Conan Doyle's Holmes canon features some of the most complex subtext we've had aside from A Study in Scarlet. But rather than being complex early-on because of our lack of knowledge of the characters, it is rather complicated by the fact that we both know too much and too little of their relationship. This story, with astonishing subtlety, conveys the cooperative relationship between Doyle's two characters — the nuance in their limits and strains, but also the joys that they work to reach, together. It emblemises the beauty of the Canon, where it all ties back to the joy and complexity of human understanding and belonging.

This story opens in "those latter days" (1903, near to Holmes's retirement) where Watson describes their relations as "peculiar". The word certainly feels like a euphemism from the ever-polite Dr. Watson, when it is soon made clear that their relations were far from amenable. Watson has become one of Holmes's "concentrated habits", and apparently is as good as a piece of funiture, as all of Holmes's remarks would have been as "appropriately addressed to his bedstead." It's given through snapped sentences; "I was a whetstone for his mind. I stimulated him. He liked to think aloud in my presence." This "irritation" and discordance between them is extremely concentrated in the early pages of this story, but drags through it, as well. Take, for example, the "laconic" (or perhaps iconic?) message:

"COME AT ONCE IF CONVENIENT — IF INCONVENIENT COME ALL THE SAME. S.H."

Watson gives us the original of Holmes's telegram to demonstrate to his readers just how "long-suffering" he is. A true exhaustion is apparent in how he simply shows the telegram, rather than politely referring to it. Compare this with the unendingly civil telegram sent to Watson in The Boscombe Valley Mystery, and you can see the great shift that has taken place in their alliance.

"HAVE YOU A COUPLE OF DAYS TO SPARE? HAVE JUST BEEN WIRED FOR FROM THE WEST OF ENGLAND IN CONNECTION WITH BOSCOMBE VALLEY TRAGEDY. SHALL BE GLAD IF YOU WILL COME WITH ME. AIR AND SCENERY PERFECT. LEAVE PADDINGTON BY THE 11.15."

While long-term and intimate relationships will remove need for over-courtesey, there are two very different reasons for why Doyle has shown both of these telegrams at a point in time. This accumulation of Holmes's ungrateful behaviour not only imparts Watson's utter despondancy, but also, importantly, Holmes’s — and this is something that Watson's ever-perceptive and intelligent heart does not fail to miss. It is important to note that this story nears Holmes's retirement, where he acknowledges that he has been "sluggish in mind". There is no doubt, then, that the great detective is out of his prime. Hence the temperementalness, taking his Watson for granted, and a heavier reliance on those "narrow and concentrated habits."

Despite the turbulent roads of their life, we see Watson's undying devotion co-exist with it. Past all the irritation, Watson closes, "Such was my humble role in our alliance." It is more than clear that he consciously makes the decision to remain at Holmes's side, to be his ally. Such has always been Watson's role in their alliance. His "humble" service extends to his practice as doctor and soldier. His pride is in his duty to others, and to Holmes as his assistant.

There is something that shines through Holmes's unsocial behaviour when we look closely at the text.

I sank back in my chair in some disappointment. Was it for so trivial a question as this that I had been summoned from my work? Holmes glanced across at me. "The same old Watson!" said he. "You never learn that the gravest issues may depend upon the smallest things."

We know from the Canon (opening of DANC and RESI) that Watson's emotions are like an open book to Holmes. This 'sinking in some disappointment' is not missed by Holmes's 'glance'. "The same old Watson!" he says, and I feel it important to note that he compliments one of Watson's most distinguishing features; his stability and fixture — the "one fixed point in a changing age." Yet, we may miss these details, because Holmes, ever in his own insecurity, must back-hand every praise with a teasing chide. We could say that an attempt was made to cheer Watson up, though not very successful.

Developments continue, as Holmes tryingly says "I had hoped to have a longer chat with you", then parades him with compliments before their client, "Dr. Watson is the very soul of discretion". But mixed indications continue to come as he flips back to patronising language; "You will appreciate it, Watson, when"—. Doyle further cements Holmes's particular unbecoming behaviour on this day as he further also annoys their client, who speaks in a "tone of reproach" when Holmes does not listen, and is "clearly annoyed" at irrelevant interruptions — to which, Holmes only smiles in, what I believe, is pure self-importance.

Here we find a shift — a greater effort on Holmes's part, a second round of appreciation for Watson's stability, even when his opinion is faulty. "Good, Watson! You always keep us flat-footed on the ground". He's then included in his bubble; "We were gradually coming to that conclusion, were we not, Watson?", and even a sordid attempt at bringing Watson with him on the bait of the Chequers in 'Camford' where "the port used to be above mediocrity and the linen was above reproach." (Which he follows up on!)

And, despite these attempts, their connection still does not rekindle. Watson is clearly irritated still with the inconsiderate easiness with which Holmes was able to leave London, leaving only difficulty on Watson's end to join him. It's an indicator from Doyle that nothing's remedied, yet.

Here is an interesting passage for study.

"Have you the effrontery necessary to put it through?" "We can but try." "Excellent, Watson! Compound of the Busy Bee and Excelsior. We can but try — the motto of the firm."

Burstive praise from Holmes at the merest utterance of a phrase — a phrase which has only ever been used one other time in the Canon; the previous story, The Problem of Thor Bridge. This suggests it may be some small motto of Holmes's, though one not often seen in Watson's records — this makes his use of the phrase a very Holmesian approach. This participation, no doubt, is nothing but a delight for Holmes, who is trying to restring their relationship, and continues to overenthusiastically affirm Watson's sturdiness.

Yet it's made clear that superficial praises are not a true apology, as we see signs yet again of Watson's dispassion. As they sit to their meeting with Professor Presbury, Watson writes:

Mr. Holmes smiled amiably.

This sentence may seem unassuming, but be assured it is one of the coldest in the Canon. This usage of "Mr. Holmes" is entirely unique within the Canon. In other times, when Watson has used "Mr. Holmes" or "Mr. Sherlock Holmes", it has been when speaking directly to his readers, since they would be using the honourific. This moment is the only exception, where Watson has intentionally used "Mr." to create distance and convey undesire for intimacy with Holmes (rather than any professional effect). Why has Watson used the line here? Well, Holmes is 'smiling amiably' — in a way that forces a friendly manner, one that attempts to create a good impression with Professor Presbury — which also didn't work out, by the way. Considering all the superficial means up to now employed by Holmes on his companion, Watson no doubt feels cheapened and no more important than Holmes's investigative objects; as if his trust is just as easy to gain as anyone else's, with nothing but an 'amiable smile'.

We are shown time and again that Watson isn't pleased with Holmes's desultory attempts at reconciliation, until finally, a shift happens. One that is not identifiable in the text, and so is reasonable to assume happened unpenned. We find Holmes acknowledging that "Dr. Watson has his patients to attend to", when before this information seemed completely irrelevant to him. Holmes even sent Watson a "short note asking [him] to meet at the train"! The greatest change is when we finally have Watson using "my friend" and "my comrade" for the first time in this story. Now we see Watson taking real excitement in the case, in the "assurance of [his] comrade". Self-teasing also makes its way into their dialogue as Holmes cries "Oh, Watson, Watson, what a fool I have been!" The emphasised address seems to suggest an apology for something more. It's as if he cries 'Look how wrong I have been Watson, how imperfect and daft I can be!' It's adorable, really.

All semblances of reproach towards Holmes disappear as they steal together in darkness, come to the dénoument of their adventure, as Holmes philosophises on science and nature, and described admiringly as "the man of action". Our story ends in a light-hearted resolution, as always.

"There is an early train to town, Watson, but I think we shall just have time for a cup of tea at the Chequers before we catch it."

To conclude, this story presents so much so subtly in its pages; a reflection of the small, nuanced and unseen processes between human beings, but those which we must be attentive to in order to find fuller understanding between each other. Yet, there is still much uncertainty in my inferences; which also shows the uncertainty of language and communication. We simply must be clear of ourselves, as we can only assume Holmes and Watson were, off-page, for them to have found that resolution, rather than fleeting smiles and compliments. Arthur Conan Doyle, with this story, further cements the triumph of bonds and connection, perhaps far more than any other of his stories.

[philosophicalconservatism]

Female Post Election Anger (Response)

knavesravenraves

Flirting? Nothing women do can exist outside the realm of sexual for you. Some women already reject transgenderism and some don't/won't. What's your point? Scaremongering for those who support it so that 4B becomes an issue not focused on women and their rejection of men but whether or not trans women are real women? Sowing division so that the movement fizzles out as those it caters to waste time arguing about it?

Philosophicalconservatism

Nothing has done more to sexualize women than the modern cultural Left. No force has done more to replace love with sex. Sex reconceived in crude transactional terms inevitably leads to a greater perception of women as sexual objects. Your side seems to only be angry about it when you suspect that Conservatives are thinking in this way (even if it is just a simple euphemism as it is in this case) .

I know that some women reject transgenderism in the U.S. they are called Conservatives. Women of the Left are not permitted to reject transgenderism; ask J.K. Rowling. Even if you are a Feminist icon who helped to put the modern version of that movement on the map, like Germaine Greer, you will be cancelled if you do not fall in line on this issue. No dissent is permitted.

Sowing division? We aren't doing anything. Once you start by dividing people (which is how the modern Left operates) the dividing never stops. Look at the reaction to the election. It starts out as contempt toward Conservative Americans. But soon it becomes a hostility toward all men (even the Left-wing men that voted with you). Then black women start to turn on all white women (white women voted for Trump by 52 percent, the majority). Then everyone starts to attack all Latino men, whom they once defended (this group supported Trump by 45 percent). We are seeing this bitter division and animosity across demographic lines play out all over social media.

You will get division when you are dealing with a fundamentally divisive cultural ideology.

[sapphosremains]

“i love it theologically but in my personal religion idk how it makes me feel. this is actually a super common phenomenon - christian theologians are often very liberal in their theology and more conservative in their own religion.” Can you please please please talk more about this distinction????

Of COURSE! I’m still trying to find where I got this fact but I always have like 10 books on the go not including journal articles etc so I have a lot to dig through! So firstly, it’s quite an important distinction. There is a massive overlap between theology and religion, and exploring theology naturally impacts one’s own religious beliefs, and vice versa, therefore it’s not a hard line per say. However, it is crucial that theologians can have some separation. For example, one of the first questions they asked me in a certain unnamed university interview that you’re not meant to give any details about picked up on this. I was given a few passages taken from different religious traditions, and we discussed their similarities and differences. A little into the conversation, they told me that the passages had been written sequentially, with each a few hundred years after another, and asked “Could the later ones possibly have been inspired by the earlier one?” One of the later passages was taken from the New Testament, with this question carrying the suggestion that an author in the NT had been inspired by Ancient Greek mythology. If you’re answering that from a religious perspective, no, absolutely not! This is where they start to separate. 

A good part of theology requires looking at religious texts as a piece of literature. In my Extended Essay for IB I wrote about Cozbi, and a significant chunk of my work looked at word choice in a variety of translations, including the original Hebrew. This meant looking at how she had been named (Cozbi was probably not her real name - it means ‘to lie’ and ‘lies’, and the Akkadian equivalent of her name, ‘kuzbu’, means ‘voluptuousness’, ‘sexually vigorous’, and is a euphemism for genitals) to convey a message, and the use of grammar and vocabulary in order to pin the blame on her as opposed to the Israelite man Zimri. So in this, I’m looking at the Bible as literature, and making arguments which are quite tricky to make from a Christian standpoint - to look at my religious text and say ‘The author of this text has chosen these words to manipulate the reader’, when in my Christian head, the author of the text is God (as discussed in earlier posts, expressed by humans). So, I think that interview question aimed to very quickly sort out those who are not able to have that distinction. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it would make it very difficult to study Theology, and be taught Theology, I think.

But this distinction is where the liberal theology vs conservative religion comes in. My argument in my Cozbi essay, that the Bible deliberately uses women as plot devices and scapegoats, is liberal, and, honestly, not something I really want to believe! And arguing something academically, especially in the field of Theology, doesn’t necessarily mean you have to believe it. If you’re arguing something in Chemistry, that’s a bit different! Do I think my Cozbi essay is academically compelling? Yes. I am academically persuaded by it. Do I believe it religiously? Do I think that’s what God’s word is really trying to say? No. Do I think my icons essay is academically compelling? Yes. Do I think it justifies the use of icons in the Church of England? Yes. Would I have icons without it? Also yes. Writing that essay, although informative, did not alter my personal religious beliefs.

I think there’s also this weird overlap in the Tumblr-Christian-Theology little niche that you and I like to sit in. You do it much better than me. Your theological arguments persuade me, and I do think I often believe them religiously. However, my theological arguments aren’t meant to do that. Mine are often purely academic. This also links back to a post you made a few months ago that I wanted to talk about but didn’t have the words for. You talked about not liking people distinguishing between ‘theologies’ ie ‘feminist theology’ ‘liberation theology’ etc etc. And I agree and disagree, once more based on this distinction. If ‘theology’ is your personal theology, what you believe about God and religion, then yes, this idea of ‘feminist theology’ is really weird. However, when I say I’m a ‘feminist theologian’ or I’m interested in ‘liberation theology’, I mean I am interested in the niche in the academic subject Theology that belongs to ‘feminist theology’ or ‘liberation theology’.

So, why are Christian theologians often more liberal in their academic theology and more conservative in their personal religion? I think because we’re not compelled to believe it. You can try out ideas, and argue for them, and find evidence to support them, but none of this means you have to believe it. This gives Christians the space to figure out ideas that they may not agree with religiously, or might get push back from their religious community, in an academic sphere.

[Throwback to this great conversation with my (LDS) coursework supervisor:

Her: *finishes reading coursework* Oh no, you can’t submit this. I hate it, I really disagree.

Me: Oh gosh, sorry! Which arguments are the weakest?

Her: Huh? Oh, no, all your arguments are really strong. I can’t pick holes in them.

Me: Oh, that’s good. How can I improve it then? What’s wrong with it?

Her: I really disagree with it.

Me: That’s… that’s fine… You don’t need to agree with it.]

Also, I think it’s a lot easier to be liberal hypothetically! And academics can argue whatever they want. You could put a claim I hated in front of me and I could still defend and support it just as strongly as something I agreed with. Also, there’s less responsibility. If you’re consciously publishing a religious opinion in a religious space, that’s something people might take away and believe, which comes with an element of danger! Obviously you don’t have control over how people use your academic work, they might well go away and incorporate it into their religious beliefs, but that likelihood is lower, so this throwing out of ideas and ‘what if God meant this’ and ‘what if Paul meant this’ is a little safer, and comes with the understanding that it’s not necessarily your belief or a belief you endorse! 

Anyway yes this was actually a very difficult question to answer and, despite it being true of me, I don’t really know! But this is an attempt for now, and I’ll come back to it after I’ve done some more Theology!! Definitely next academic year after I’ve done some uni :))

[evolnoomym]

🩵Tag game!🩵

Make a holiday icon for yourself using this picrew, and take this quiz and tell me your result!

Thank you for the tags @aurorawritestoescape @thundermartini @joelmillerisapunk @itwasntimethatdidit40 @fruityreads 🙏🏻🫂

Npt: @milla-frenchy @missredherring @lotusbxtch @mountainsandmayhem @ace-turned-confused @goodwithcheese @toxicanonymity @pedrospatch @moonlitbirdie @pedropeach @iamasaddie @chronically-ghosted @intheorangebedroom @almostfoxglove @schnarfer @604to647 @sanarsi @penascigarette @guiltyasdave @sizzlingcloudmentality @xdaddysprincessxx @strang3lov3 @beefrobeefcal @jeewrites @honeyedmiller @joeloverture @sin-djarin @syd-djarin @the-mandawhor1an @hellishjoel @papurgaatika @joelsdagger @jolapeno @itsokbbygrl @magpiepills @pattwtf @eupheme @shellshocklove @pedgito @burntheedges @baronessvonglitter @grogusmum @sp00kymulderr @secretelephanttattoo @vichons76 🩵

[t00thpasteface]

my roommate just used my name as a euphemism/slang, she hit her head on something and said "ow... i totally pulled a shebbz." my iconic trademark is self-inflicted blunt-force cranial trauma... i'm gonna walk into the ocean

[eldritch-spouse]

Pinnie would like you to know that I have recently become obsessed with your writing and oc’s like I have read more these past couple of days on tumblr than I did for the entirety of my high school years. As an elder gen z I have some pretty weird thing I say that I personally find hilarious but I don’t think that your characters would like.

One such thing is that instead of calling it sex I like to say Devils Tango in the most obnoxious voice ever and I’m wondering how the icons would react in terms of like finding it funny like me or forbidding me from ever using it again

["Elder gen z". Fuck you mean elder gen z- I'm older gen Z. We're elders now? 🥲 I'm glad you're having fun though :7. I've always done a lot of reading, writing not so much.]

Most of them already find the way the legend of "the Devil" is perpetuated in spite of there being physical proof that Hell and its Rings are currently occupied by seven different demonlords to be kind of ridiculous.

Vesper finds it funny that mortals continue to associate sensuality and desire with Hell specifically. It gives him a sense of pride, he feels that he actively contributes to this view, to the allure of Lust as a Ring- Even if people continue to have that ever boring misconception about Hell's power structures. You can call it whatever you want, he's rolling with it.

Kalymir, as you know, is a fan of raunchy terminology. He's a lot more likely to just say he wants to gape your holes- No filter no shame. It's just built into him, to express sex almost always through a violent lens. An euphemism that simple is bound to have him groaning in irritation and calling you a little bitch.

Zizz is only going to roll his eyes. It's so typically human of you to use an expression like that. At the same time that he has to admit it's a novelty, he's also vaguely in pain from the remark.

Rinx laughs every time you say it, because it's simply so dumb a term to him. It endears you to him, truly. It also totally shatters a more serious atmosphere if that's what was happening until you opened your mouth to say those words.

Vorticia cannot mask the way her eyelids twitch or the way her smile tenses in a hard cringe. You're kind of killing her mood. Please use anything else. She won't mention it.

Cero quickly shuts you down by claiming that the "Devil" doesn't exist. You're being dumb when you say those things- Just tell him you want him.

Livius will not hesitate to pick up on this terminology. Oh you want to do the mattress mambo? In the mood for horizontal hula? Some hanky-panky? Getting busy in the boudoir?? Do you want to make whoopee with him? Please stop this menace.

[dark-rx]

Supply-Side Economics: A Theology of the Trickle

In the pantheon of modern economic ideologies, supply-side economics occupies a sanctified, if contested, altar. Heralded by its adherents as a blueprint for prosperity and dismissed by its critics as a gilded myth of plutocracy, supply-side economics is not merely a school of fiscal thought—it is a political theology dressed in the language of markets.

Genesis and Dogma: The Laffer Curve and Reagan’s Revelation

The intellectual scaffolding of supply-side economics rose from the ashes of stagflation in the 1970s, when Keynesian orthodoxy seemed impotent against the twin specters of inflation and unemployment. Into this void stepped figures like Arthur Laffer, whose now-iconic curve posited that tax rates too high would discourage work and investment, thereby reducing government revenue. The curve, scrawled infamously on a napkin, became scripture.

Ronald Reagan seized upon this narrative in the 1980s, inaugurating what came to be known—half in jest, half in dread—as Reaganomics. The strategy was elegantly simple, like all enduring myths: cut taxes, especially for the wealthy and corporations, deregulate, and let the invisible hand perform its alchemy. If the rich were liberated to pursue profit, their investments would create jobs, increase productivity, and lift all boats.

This was the theology of the trickle-down. It promised manna not from heaven, but from capital gains.

Material Consequences: Growth for Whom?

It is one thing to theorize prosperity and quite another to measure it. The decades following Reagan’s tax cuts did indeed see economic growth, but this growth was neither evenly distributed nor causally clear. While GDP expanded, so too did income inequality. Wages stagnated for the working class, while the top one percent accumulated unprecedented wealth. Productivity soared, yet the rewards were hoarded at the summit, not shared in the valleys.

Empirical studies have since cast doubt on the central dogma of supply-side economics. The International Monetary Fund and other institutions have shown repeatedly that tax cuts for the wealthy have a statistically negligible impact on economic growth but significantly exacerbate inequality. A 2020 study of 18 OECD countries over 50 years found no correlation between tax cuts for the rich and higher employment or investment. What did increase, however, was the wealth of those already wealthy.

In this light, supply-side economics becomes not a theory of prosperity, but a rationale for plutocracy.

Language as Incantation: Euphemism and Ideology

Observe the language of supply-side proponents: job creators, economic freedom, capital liberation. These are not neutral descriptors but euphemisms, crafted with precision to obscure power relations. The “job creator” becomes a secular deity, the beneficent force upon whom the economic well-being of all depends. Regulation is not oversight—it is burden. Taxation is not democratic redistribution—it is confiscation.

Such language reframes systemic questions of justice into technocratic debates over efficiency. It erases the agency of labor and community, replacing them with an individualized fantasy of entrepreneurial salvation.

In essence, it is not economics—it is propaganda.

The Global Export and the Neoliberal Consensus

Supply-side economics did not remain confined to the United States. Through the neoliberal turn of the late 20th century, its tenets were exported globally via institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, often imposed upon the Global South under the guise of structural adjustment. These programs dismantled public institutions, privatized communal assets, and opened markets to foreign capital—frequently with devastating human consequences.

The irony is suffocating: policies justified in the name of growth left many nations poorer, more unequal, and politically destabilized.

Toward a Reckoning: What Does an Economy Serve?

The central question, rarely asked in polite economic circles, is this: What is an economy for? Is it a mechanism to enrich shareholders, or a structure to meet human needs? Supply-side economics answers unequivocally: the former. It is not, in the end, a theory of society—it is a theory of capital.

History teaches us that no civilization survives on inequality indefinitely. The gilded palaces of Versailles did not insulate Louis XVI from history’s guillotine. Neither will contemporary oligarchs find lasting sanctuary in tax shelters or philanthropic foundations.

Conclusion: The Mirage of the Trickle

To invoke supply-side economics is to invoke a theology that asks for faith in the beneficence of capital, despite centuries of evidence to the contrary. It is, as Gore Vidal once said, “socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.”

Let us be clear: economic growth is not inherently unjust. But when the gains of that growth are privatized while its costs are socialized, we do not have prosperity—we have extraction. And when an entire ideology serves to rationalize that extraction, it deserves not deference, but dissection.

“History does not weep for empires—it remembers their ashes.”

[rythmicjea]

Jeronica Endgame Analysis

I wrote this on Reddit and have been meaning to bring it over here. But commenting on @elizacinnamon's tumblr is what convinced me to do it. Buckle up because it's a long one!

Okay so, looking at all of the easter eggs in the episode, to me, it's heavily coded that Betty and Archie do end up together and that Jughead and Veronica end up together. The first thing that should be acknowledge is that everything in this episode is done with a purpose. They couldn't definitively say who Archie ended up with because Archie comics is predicated on the unanswered question of "Betty or Veronica?" so they had to make things "ambiguous" so people could come to their own conclusions.

When we hear of Veronica's life, Jughead says that she was known for her "impeccable taste" and "produced some of the most iconic movies of our time". So, right there, that's huge. That's a lot of heavy lifting. While he is complimentary and sensitive to everyone else's ending, the way he describes Veronica's life is just more. Take Fangs, he doesn't describe "Pixie Girl" as a "timeless" or "iconic" song. He just says that Midge and their daughter were taken care of and that his gold record will hang as long as there is a Riverdale High. He doesn't mention if Kevin or Clay won any awards for their work, but he says that Veronica won two Oscars. He goes out of his way to note the importance of Veronica's achievements.

The scene at The Babylonium is where I've found the most clues to their shared future. Jughead says "I always loved this theater". He doesn't say that about any of the other places they visit. Throughout the show, they regularly used characters to represent overarching themes. For example, Archie = Riverdale. I take Jughead's declaration to be a euphemism for Veronica. It's not that farfetched to believe that they fell in love while in high school. They were together for a year and a half before graduation. So, in the scene, he says "I always loved this theater. But it had a good run." At this time, in reality, both Veronica and Jughead have passed. Their run ended. He then lifts the seat and HIS CROWN is drawn under it! Why? This is a quick visual cue that he and Veronica are connected. If the Babylonium is a physical representation of Veronica (which is what the episode frames it as) then she essentially has a Jughead tattoo on her (a bit of a dramatic way of putting it lol). But, also this is not the first time something like that is in the show. In season 1 and 2, Betty wears a sweater with a yellow three pronged crown. It's universally recognized as Jughead's crown (she wears it on his birthday and in the Heather's musical episode). So, he makes his statement and BAM Veronica appears. Every time we see a character that isn't in the "relived day", it is a clip of them in the future. Veronica is the only character to essentially be an apparition. They didn't have to include her, but they did. And seeing as it's Narrator!Jughead (the real/angel Jughead is in the Pop's in the Sweet Hereafter, and the show literally ends with typewriter sounds) telling Betty all of this, Veronica's appearance can be taken as a clue that she is ever present in his mind/life.

When we see her in her office, she has four "The Comet" posters behind her. Hanging posters of the movies you made is very common. What isn't common is that one franchise has such a place of honor, so that means it's incredibly significant to her. Her clothing is in the style of the early 80s (the creators had an idea to bring everyone through time with each episode but it wasn't feasible so this is kind of a nod to that. Cheryl is seen in the late 60s, Betty in the 70s, and Veronica is the early 80s). We know that Jughead adapted The Comet into a comic book, and he was the one that introduced her to WEB DuBois' people. The artwork of the posters is the same as the comic he created. Making movies at that time was very time-consuming. Also, franchises like that were not common. The whole "Saga", "Trilogy", and "Universe" collections of today were not done to the same extent back then. So, not only was "The Comet" incredibly popular (because it got four movies) but it spanned over a large time frame (again, she still has the posters up decades after graduation via her clothing style), meaning that there was a consistent dialogue between Jughead and Veronica.

Outside of the Babylonium is a poster for "The Big Sleep" (It's also on the Marquis). This is a direct reference to the episode "The Red Dahlia" (3x14) where Veronica enlists Jughead's help. It is one of the main "Jeronica" episodes of the series. In that episode he says that he'll be her "Philip Marlowe". In The Big Sleep, Philip Marlowe is the main character played by Humphrey Bogart. In the same episode he says "Nice hat... Bacall." Lauren Bacall is the female lead of The Big Sleep. Bogart and Bacall were a huge draw for audiences. They were a power couple of their day (and they were also married... hint hint lol). They were the Bennifer and Brangelina first.

Now, moving onto Jughead. He doesn't talk much about himself. Everything that Betty says can literally be read on screen in his obituary. There are two main takeaways from this scene. The first is he barely talks about himself. When he does, he focuses on talking about his career and there's no mention of his personal life. This is a parallel to Veronica's description. He only describes her career and not her personal life. What is also a parallel is that in his summary of Veronica's life he says that she was known for "taking risks on young, raw talent" ie Jughead. Jughead tells Betty that he "put all of his eggs in one basket". That turn of phrase is to mean that you did the riskiest thing possible. When Betty asks if he ever regrets not getting circled he says 'sometimes'. It's a very ambiguous statement. BH shippers will say that he is talking about Betty. But his relationship with Betty ended in high school (both times) and were never rekindled later in life. It doesn't have to be that regrets not marrying Veronica, but it can be taken that way.

The second is on the artist easel in the Madhouse offices. There is a picture of Veronica. It is not a photograph it is the canonical comic book portrait of Veronica (Pep Comics IS Archie Comics). And it is smack dab in the middle of the easel. This is another parallel to Veronica's future. She has "The Comet" posters and he has her portrait. Remember, his first comic book line that he created was "Veronica: The Teenage Witch". So this is a clue that he has used Veronica's likeness IN his magazine for most, if not all of, the run. There's no picture of Betty or Archie. Why still have Veronica's portrait and use her likeness if they weren't still connected in real life?

Now we come to the final scene. So, throughout all of Riverdale (with a few exceptions) the milkshakes that the core four drink all correspond to their hair color. Betty = Vanilla, Archie = Strawberry, Jughead and Veronica = Chocolate (double chocolate to be specific - which can be extrapolated to represent them. It's a stretch but it can be made). In the final moments, we see that this formula has been flipped. When Betty sits in the booth, Archie is drinking a Vanilla milkshake and he hands Betty a strawberry one noting it's "her favorite". What are Jughead and Veronica drinking? Double chocolate milkshakes. If in the Barchie Endgame theory Strawberry being Betty's "favorite" is to mean "Archie" then we can apply that same logic to Jughead and Veronica. Then there is their seating arrangement. The girls on one side and the boys on the other. Betty is sitting directly in front of Archie and Veronica is sitting directly in front of Jughead. Again, because they had to keep the "Who will Archie choose?" answer ambiguous they use this blocking technique to show the pairings without the pair sitting right next to each other. (Couples either sit next to each other or across from one another.)

That is my analysis of the finale using clues to prove that Jughead and Veronica were "endgame". I hope you liked it! If you have any corroborating theories let me know!

[bulkyphrase]

Comfort Podfic Rec List

It's been a while since my last podfic-specific rec list, and with that lore.fm nonsense it seems like an especially good time to highlight the wonderful work that podficcers do!

These are some of the podfics I rely on to cheer me up. They're all sweet, fluffy or funny, and relatively short.

but hey, you're all right read by sisi-rambles (Stucky, 30-45 Minutes, Teen And Up Audiences)

Summary: 'This is not my fault,' Tony lies. 'It was supposed to be a joke! Christ.' 'Thanks to your joke,' says Coulson, 'we now have a code three-four-delta, with the variable being a Russian immigrant. We're checking his background right now, but it might take a while. Meanwhile, I suggest you civilian-proof the Tower. If any SHIELD intelligence is compromised, I will hurt you.' Yes, this is the story where the Winter Soldier is a Russian mail-order bride. Everything goes about as well as you'd expect. Based on the story by beardsley

Baby Steve Adventures read by blackglass (Gen, 20-30 Minutes, General Audiences)

Summary: Captain America gets hit by a spell during a battle. The rest of the Avengers look after him. Based on the story by catty_the_spy (@cattythespy)

The Devil and the Wild Man read by Tipsy_Kitty (@tipsyxkitty) (Loki/Steve Rogers, 1-1.5 Hours, Mature)

Summary: Steve's dinosaur keeps Loki in line on Sakaar. This is not a euphemism, but it is also 100% a euphemism. Based on the story by Effing (@effingunicorns)

More below the cut!

Right In Front of Your Face read by sisi-rambles (Clint Barton/Phil Coulson, 10-20 Minutes, General Audiences)

Summary: Phil and Clint get engaged and go out together to spread the news. but everyone is just shocked to hear they're together. Based on the story by @ereshai

Mixed Ages Classroom read by blackglass (Gen, 30-45 Minutes, Not Rated)

Summary: For this prompt, where the Avengers are de-aged, but to different ages: Clint & Tony to young children (below 10), Bruce to a toddler (whose tantrums involve hulking out to bb!hulk), Natasha & Steve back to teenagers (with scrawny!Steve). In which Hulk is a baby, Natasha and Steve know they aren't real teenagers, Clint and Tony behave badly, and Maria Hill is not a parent but Coulson might be. Based on the story by harcourt (@haforcere)

Protocol 1985 read by sisi-rambles (Gen, 30-45 Minutes, General Audiences)

Summary: “Holy crow, it worked,” someone says. Wherein Clint and Natasha meet Howard and Peggy. Based on the story by hollimichele (@nonasuch)

Fair Shot read by hopelesse (@sheshopelesse) (Stony, 20-30 Minutes, Mature)

Summary: Captain Rogers leaps from the helicopter like a gymnast on the dismount. All the lines of his body are controlled. Perfect. The iconic round shield lies flat across his back. “How does he fit a parachute under that?” I ask. “He doesn’t,” Stark answers. “Marvelous adrenaline junkie, our Cap. Likes to almost break his ankles every time. Makes him feel like a man.” Front Line reporter Ben Urich spends a mission embedded with Tony Stark and Captain Steve Rogers on an Ultimates mission. Based on the story by @isozyme

Dad's Got Skeletons read by sisi-rambles (Steve Rogers/Howard Stark (maybe?), 20-30 Minutes, Teen And Up Audiences)

Summary: “To think he became a dad—your dad. A daddy.” He looked up sharply and saw that Steve’s smile had twisted a little bit, pulled up at one corner like a smirk, except no, Captain America did not smirk. “You know, it’s funny. I called him daddy once too.” Based on the story by kehinki

Sam Wilson: Ghost Hunter read by sisi-rambles (Samsteve, 0-10 Minutes, General Audiences)

Summary: Sam's stuck in a horror movie cliche. Based on the story by kehinki

(the kitten invasion fleet has arrived) read by blackglass (Gen, 0-10 Minutes, General Audiences)

Summary: what if the first contact with nonhuman life forms comes about in a different way? Based on the story by @labelleizzy

someone’s gonna pay for this read by sisi-rambles (Gen, 0-10 Minutes, General Audiences)

Summary: Steve as a cat. Based on the story by @lazulisong

Groundwater read by blackglass (Darcy Lewis/Steve Rogers, 30-45 Minutes, Teen And Up Audiences)

Summary: Okay, she thinks, in a zen-like state of calm: given a chump assignment, she not only managed to fall in a well, she somehow dragged Captain America--living legend, supersoldier, level 7 SHIELD consultant, and Avenger--down with her. This means two things: 1) Captain America knows who she is now, and thinks she’s a dumbass, and 2) SHIELD is probably going to make her disappear as punishment (likely by throwing her in another, deeper well and pretending she never existed). “Don’t mind me,” she says faintly. “I’m just gonna drown myself now.” Based on the story by @legete

Dear Clint Barton (Circa Age 7) read by RsCreighton (@rosecreighton) (Gen, 20-30 Minutes, Teen And Up Audiences)

Summary: The most annoying parts of being de-aged (and then re-aged) are your friends. Based on the story by @pollyrepeat

Situation Normal read by quietnight (@quietnighty) (Stucky, 20-30 Minutes, Mature)

Summary: AU wherein Bucky Barnes and Steve Rogers never met, Steve somehow manages to rescue the Winter Soldier anyway, and Avengers Tower ends up with the world’s angriest duckling and a whole new brand of entertainment. - (“He was dragging him out of the river,” Natasha argues later. “Nat, be honest, he was going for the Full Monty.” Says Clint. “I’m pretty sure we interrupted him in the middle of giving ‘emergency CPR’,” Tony agrees, “Or the stage after emergency CPR. Emergency Dick? Is that a thing?” “That’s not a thing,” Natasha and Clint reply.) Based on the story by redcigar

How Steve Rogers Singlehandedly Lost the Cold War read by quietnight (@quietnighty) (Stucky, 20-30 Minutes, Mature)

Note: This is a sequel/companion to the previous fic, Situation Normal.

Summary: AU wherein Steve Rogers and Bucky Barnes never met, but the Winter Soldier takes an interest in Captain America anyway, and has an odd way of showing it. -- (On the helicarrier, hurrying to reach the central hub of the third aircraft in time, the chip clenched in his gloved fist, Steve turns to find a ghost blocking his path, and is abruptly reminded on what the road to hell is paved with.) Based on the story by redcigar

Get Some Now read by where_thewind_blows (@flowersthroughthecracks) (Stony, 1-1.5 Hours, Teen And Up Audiences)

Summary: Avengers Mansion has a mysterious feline infestation. Meanwhile, Steve just can't figure out how to ask Tony out on a date. And the thirteen teleporting cats sure aren't helping matters any. Based on the story by @sineala

Mercy in You by Sineala read by Pywren (@phyrrhicvictory) (Stony, 1-1.5 Hours, Mature)

Summary: When Tony comes back from a very bad D/s date, in pain and abandoned by his dom, Steve offers to help Tony out and give him all the aftercare he so desperately needs. Based on the story by @sineala

To Keep the Home Fires Burning read by blackglass (Maria Hill/Natasha Romanov, 30-45 Minutes, Teen And Up Audiences)

Summary: Maria does three tours of cat sitting duty before she and Romanoff come to be on a first name basis. She claims a whole shelf in the pantry and sneaks in two more cat mugs too. Based on the story by Woad

[2-59-amwater]

Percy Jackson Analysis ep.1

(did that sound vaguely pretentious? I feel like a need a funny name for this)

SO SORRY it took me this long. To be truthful I put on My Happy Marriage to listen to while refining my notes, I'm not a huge romance lover so I didn't think I would get that invested but then I proceeded to binge the whole thing...

anyways go watch My Happy Marriage, it messed me up in the best ways

On to my children, the way I wrote these notes was chronological, including lines I thought were powerful and thoughts I had while watching, enjoy my sub-tier analysis

To start with I think the casting, as well as most of the acting in the show, is phenomenal. There are some acting scenes which aren't great, but the nice things about child actors is that they grow and improve

iconic opening line 10000000/10

blackjack cameo? *chefs kiss*

One thing that really stands out to me regarding young Percy in school is that the bullying is portrayed so well. Like, sure some kids get punched but more often it's whispers, snide comments, teachers not doing enough to stop it. Not to mention when you have mental health problems or neurodivergency on top of that it makes it even harder to fit in and gain help from authority figures. There's no way teachers weren't aware of how Percy was being treated (we even see this in the books with mortals that don't care about him getting picked on by other mortals, think sea of monsters)

GROVER!!! I know I already ranted about the casting but Aryan just does such a good job. I hope in later seasons we see him more than we did in the books.

I'm UNHEALTHILY OBSESSED at the idea that mythomagic cards are to help train halfbloods. It also gets me thinking about season 3 interactions between little Nico and Percy. But it's incredibly clever to have a game that would entice children to learn more about the monsters they're likely to face against. It's also a clever marketing move irl.

Once again great portrayal of bullying while still keeping the show appropriate for kids

UNREALISTIC their paper would never be printed with color ink /lh

I really enjoy how they displayed dyslexia, it seems very accurate to descriptions.

"how it makes you feeeeel"

The lines about not everyone who looks like a hero being a hero and not everyone who looks like a monster being a monster is some of the best foreshadowing I've ever seen. It perfectly foreshadows Luke, Medusa, and generally captures one of the major points of Uncle Ricks books.

the hold fast line being used through the series *chefs kiss*

One thing I stand by in both the books and series is that I was incredibly disappointed in how little Chiron directly stood up for Percy- even in regards to mortals. Like yeah ok he's gonna be a hero but he's also twelve, help the poor boy!

The bullying Dodds shows Percy is also very accurate to real life. I've had many teachers who straight up bully kids just like this and are never called out for it.

The utilization of the word 'Special' thought the series is a great example of how "PoLite EUpHEmiSm' and often weaponized and used as derogatory terms and serves as an example of why many push for using terms like disabled over differently abled.

"childhood trauma, feelings of inadequacy" DAMN GROVER just going for the jugular, pop off. love how the show incorporates realistic convos kids would have. This instance and other little side bars we see throughout the show add something that I often find missing in television throughout all generas. it's incredibly important to have realistic convos to help solidify characters as people.

"Never ever stand up to them" "that doesn't sound right" THIS LINE 10000000/10

"there you are" we're not fools Percy Jackson

I did feel like this should have been Perseus Jackson seeing as how it's pretty canonical that monsters and gods alike only refer to him using his full name, adding on the the names have power theme that permeates throughout the series.

trauma for days

"is he dead?"

Chiron low-key being the embodiment of gaslighting, girl boss, gatekeep

UNCLE RICK CAMEO!!!

realist portrayal of adults already having their mind made up and children being unable to do anything except tell their story over and over

(also does Kronos speak to Percy in his dreams as the school principal? I genuinely can't remember, if so Kronos sure knows how to embody nightmares)

I honestly wish they would have expanded more on both how guilty grover would have felt rating Percy out (even if it means protecting him) and also how betrayed Percy would have felt. his fatal flaw is loyalty, grover was his very first and very best friend, he only really has his mother, this would have been a huge punch in the gut.

anyone else feel like grover and Percy should have been interviewed separately?

I'm sorry, I have to complain about the lighting in this show. WHY IS IT SO DARK? THIS ISNT SHOWN IN THEATERS! MY EYES ARENT THIS GOOD. IM SQUINTING TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT IS ON THE TV!! WHYYYYY??!?!

"at least I know you think you didnt" -not helpful Chiron :/ shame on you

"you might have the most difficult journey" great foreshadowing

'SPeCiaL'

I know there was lots of discussion about how Gabe wasn't abusive 'enough' but often times abuse isn't easy to see or what TV leads you to believe. The show keeps it age appropriate while also showing how much of a leech and how controlling he is (answering Sally's phone, not wanting her to leave to the beach). Honestly I might make a separate post on this but at the moment I'm tired of seeing ignorant people claim that Gabe wasn't aggressive enough or that Sally wasn't meek enough to be abused.

I was disappointed that Eddie became a 'good' character instead of showing how abusive adults often have buddies backing them up

It's realistic Percy would talk to Gabe even though he's a dick, kids want to make connections

Sally in the rain- reference to Poseidon 10/10

Sally is just happy to see him :')

"all that matters is that your here, ok?" aww

BLUE FOOD!!!

"Is there something else you wanna talk about" mom knows

"I'm scared" damn does that resonate

once more just because Sally isn't portrayed as meek doesn't mean that that whole interaction wasn't unhealthy and abusive

di angelo reference! even if it's not our di angelo the name choice was incredibly purposeful

"it's getting angrier" personification of the storm lends well to Zeus and Poseidon

love PJO dream sequences

"who are you" does Kronos not know who Percy is? Gonna be real this confuses me, am I missing something obvious?

Sally was crying??!?!

the race from the car to the cabin is another example of the writers (and actors) creating realistic people you can connect to. the nostalgia that hit me in this scene was POTENT

It's so so so important to have a place to escape to as an abuse victim, and as a teen in general. Scratch that, just people in general need places to escape to which makes the cabin even more significant

Percy's self deprecating marshmallow talk :(

"I'm used to the world feeling weird to me" neurodivergency and mental health issues can create very isolating atmospheres making community important -camp is that community

Uncle Rick does a great job creating metaphores regarding discrimination and ableism

It's so hard to tell someone you trust and love that you think something is wrong, especially as a child. Walker did a fantastic job capturing all the mixed up emotions that occur.

"something that felt real to you but no one else could see" once again significant to neurodivergency and mental health

I don't personally like the choice to have Sally tell Percy that his father is a god. The acting in the scene also just rubs me really wrong - it feels fake. I think I enjoyed the book version better with him never receiving a clear answer until camp, and even then you can debate on how "clear" it was.

I would be freaking out so much more that Walker if my mom approached the subject like this. It would be incredibly frightening to think your mom was going insane alongside you.

"there is something wrong with my brain" once again, uncle Rick reaches out of the screen/pages to hit me where it hurts

"I don't want to see him" the betrayal he feels :(

grover pants scene (I feel no need to elaborate on this note, it was by far the funniest scene of the episode 1000000000+

"so the important thing is not to panic"

"who are you" nooo he's ur friend don't do this to me :(((

I love grover

very nice natural lead into explaining the mist

The show is unfortunately hit with the complex issue of trying to provide context to an audience who already knows and is eager to see the action. I know there were many criticisms about it but I will say my mother, who didn't read the books, felt she had a firm grasp on the lore of the show, so that counts for something?

"what else haven't we talked about, what else haven't you told me" broken trust :(((

"I'm actually 24" NOW IS NOT THE TIME GROVER

"won't all of us be safe" ha... about that

"swear it, SWEAR IT GROVER" damn, okay sally

again, WHY IS THE LIGHTING SO DARK?!?! I know it helps hide cgi but we know there's gonna be CGI in a show abt monsters and myths

"you are not broken, you are singular" amazing foreshadowing

Sally is bamf

trauma

the choice to make things silent after Sally 'dies' *chefs kiss once again

I just really love the shot of Percy surfing down the monster dust

"he must be the one" :)))

hope y'all enjoyed :)