#It felt right for him as an evil religion villain

[evesetchings]

More doodle of Dream Eater! My space riders oc! Who is surprisingly fun to draw!

I’m gonna take this opportunity to turn this fun couple of shitposts into a lore dump about them and their relationships with other characters, okay? Okay.

So as said in my last few posts about this guy, Dream Eater is a being whose sole motivation is its own survival. Anything else, including the lives and well being of their fellow members, is secondary. Despite this, Dream Eater is still one of the highest ranking members of the cult, being able to communicate directly to the prototype, probably because it lets him keep a close eye on Dream Eater’s behavior, and because their powers not only let them go on covert manipulation missions to make conquering planets easier, but also because it lets them inhabit the bodies of fellow cultists and report directly back to the prototype. It also has the wonderful advantage of making cultists more careful with what they say or do, because who knows if one of your fellow members has a brain sucking monster watching you. Dream eater itself couldn’t care less about the grunts of the cult, viewing them as disposable meat shields or cheap hosts, (they still need to eat after all) but with more powerful members, Dream Eater turns into the biggest ass kisser imaginable, both to lower the risk of being murdered by them, but also because it gives them a powerful ally. After all, the tougher the partner, the longer they can distract the threat.

Their relationship with the space riders is pretty bad on principle, but Catnap holds a special place of loathing in his heart for Dream Eater, as their first encounter being when they were sent on a mission to “gently persuade” (read: gaslight and manipulate) into joining the cult of his own free will. It didn’t work of course, but Catnap has reviled them ever since and Dream Eater themselves isn’t to fond of the either for making him lose some favor with the Prototype for their failure.

(also despite being a MASSIVE coward, Dream Eater isn’t much of a slouch when physically fighting. Those claws aren’t just for show and being able to shove yourself down an enemy’s throat gives you pretty good access to their vital organs)

This au belongs to @onyxonline, check out their stuff!

[devotion-that-corrupts]

10 Characters / 10 Fandoms / 10 Tags

pick 10 characters from 10 fandoms and tag 10 people. thank you for tagging me @ithinkthiswasabadidea :)

apparently you don't have to comment on them. HOWEVER, i love talking about my interests, and you've given me an excuse to do it, so let's go!

(not in any particular order, i love them all.)

constantin d'orsay (greedfall) baby boy. has done nothing wrong ever in his entire life. seeing him activates my knight instinct. i would fight lord and lady d'orsay for him. i would fight the high king guy for him. i would fight god for him. if he is wrong i would reshape reality to make him right. all of this to say, i love him a normal amount.

viego (league of legends / ruination / runeterra) if i had a nickel for every time a character i love was born a second son of a ruler and so was never intended to lead, yet became an heir after his brother's death, was supposed to die because of poison, had only one person he cared about deeply, in something between eternal love and obsession caused immense destruction for the sake of that person (who has never asked for any of this), had some sort of transformation during which his hair turned from fair/blond to platinum, his eye color changed, and there appeared some weird magic-related thing on his head symbolizing his becoming a villain (or, rather, making it clear that he was wrong all along), then i'd have two nickels. which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice. ok, now for a more normal explanation. bringing your kingdom & then entire realm to ruin for your wife? in grief, in hopeless attempt to revive her? i love this! i love it when love turns people evil.

camilla hect (the locked tomb) i don't have coherent thoughts about her. i simply adore her with my whole heart. here's to camilla hect, yet another of devotion's casualties!!!

gale dekarios aka gale of waterdeep (baldur's gate 3) i will kill mystra.

gabrielle de lioncourt (the vampire chronicles) there is much to analyze about her background and her relationships, esp with lestat, and i am most definitely unfit for this. let me just say that if i were a vampire, i would also ditch humanity and explore some jungle instead. and probably wear men's clothes.

millions knives (trigun) unhinged codependent siblings… <3

fang runin (the poppy war) my darling girl who fell in love with the war, and nobody told her it ended. i think she should get to burn the world down, as a treat.

breezepelt (warrior cats) i am including him because he is my og blorbo. 10-year old me really looked at the worst guy ever and said yeah that's the one. my love for writing about dysfunctional families and defying religion could probably be traced back to him.

constance blackwood (we have always lived in the castle) i NEED to teleport into the world of this book and ask constance her perspective. because she knew it, i mean, she knew what must have actually happened the whole time. i wonder what she felt after the accident, and if/how her view changed since then. i wonder what she thought of her parents, and of merricat, and of the life they came to lead. we get some of it from the dialogue and interactions ofc, but it doesn't stop me from contemplating all of this.

august (the wicker king) guard dog of a boy. 'I like following him. Following orders. Doing whatever he wants.' 'I’m always going to want to be at your heels, fighting for you. Hurting myself because you tell me to.' i hope belonging to someone else brings him peace.

anyways, i had to open the book to find these quotes, and now i want to reread it all over again. let me just tag some mutuals and then i'm gonna go read.

(no pressure!) (also you don't have to elaborate on them) @kuramirocket @grin-unsettling @boygirltwins @fairylightfairlybright @drizzit @msnormandy @darkvisionvamp @gardenbastard @cjflint @pups-2-dust & anyone else who wants to :)

[bucky-bucky-bucky-bucky]

I have a complicated outlook on the big reveal that Chuck (aka god) is the villain.

On one hand, I'm like, very anti religion. I don't believe in god at all. I think organized religion is evil and easily corrupted. and I see the ways that religion (specifically christianity) gives people an excuse to be hateful. basically, I like the fact that god is the villain in supernatural bc I see religion / christianity so negatively. it felt like a hell yeah moment for me. especially bc I was raised in the south where everyone is just soooooooooo christian and people have told me my whole life about the "power of prayer" and that I need to "give everything to god". which, in my opinion, all of that is ~bullshit~. especially because like... we see horrible things happen everyday to people who do not deserve such treatment, but tHe GoOd LoRd doesn't lift a finger to stop it (bc he's not real). And even if he was real (he’s not), you’re telling me that children get cancer and people get murdered but he’s this loving almighty father??? You’re telling me there’s a pLaN and a ReAsOn FoR eVeRyThInG??? Bullshit. Absolutely not. There’s no reason for a child to get cancer. There’s no reason for rape and murder to exist. so I've always viewed church/ prayer as shouting into the void. Bc no one is listening!!! which is basically what happened to sam and dean. god was not answering prayers, he didn't care. he didn't listen. So the reveal of god as the villain was so satisfying to me, it felt like vindication.

BUT-

on the other hand, I loved chuck! before the reveal that he was The God, back when he was just a guy to us, I was like "what a weird little dude. He's endearing and kind of pathetic and he the writes supernatural books, that's fun." and in every episode after that (up until the reveal of him as god) I liked him more and more. Then we found out he was god and my view of him changed a little. I was kinda pissed at him for being such an absentee father and leaving sam and dean alone to deal with all the apocalyptic shit / general awfulness. but he was still that endearing, likable guy. And he talked about free will and how he didn’t step in because it wasn’t right of him to intervene and dictate their choices. so I didn't hate his guts…

UNTIL- the s14 finale. He's just such a spiteful asshole. The way he sees sam and dean as nothing more than his favorite show makes me ill. And it made me miss the version of him from the earlier seasons, when I thought he was just some weirdo prophet guy.

even when I rewatch the show, I still love that version of chuck. I still really enjoy him. And then when everything turns sour in the s14 finale, I hate his fucking guts.

[fangirltothefullest]

OH MY GOD! WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT ROMAN! This is a conversation I’ve had with my friends so many times! Roman is constantly villainized in the fandom for how he treats certain sides (namely Virgil and Janus) but this poor man has been getting so many mixed signals on what’s right and wrong.

First he’s mean to Virgil (not great but Virgil wasn’t exactly reaching across the aisle at that point)

So he’s much nicer to the next dark side that shows up (aka Janus) and he gets guilt tripped for being on deceit’s side

So he starts mistreating Janus just like everyone else is and guess what? He gets scolded for that too!

He really can’t catch a break.

I have SO MANY thoughts about this. Wverything is so nuanced but especially for Roman. What fascinates me is rewatching the episodes in order in quick succession we see Roman starting to make sure he doesn't use negative nicknames and then he's used like a puppet in the courtroom but its not Janus thats the problem, it's THOMAS who asks Roman for punishment.

Janus wanted him to go to the callback and the courtroom was specifically for the purpose of making Thomas admit that he would rather go to the callback because it would be good for him so he would stop listening to Patton telling him what he wants and doesn't and actually make the nest choice for himself mentally and emotionally.

But it backfired and when Thomas admitted he was a liar he wanted punishment for being that way and so Thomas looked at Roman, his ego, his desires, the thing responsible for his wants and hopes and dreams, the root of his supposed evils and looked at him and said what you want is bad for me and selfish so I need to be punished for listening to YOU.

That's what happened in that courtroom, that's why Janus was like what the fuck you missed the point that's why Roman did a 180 and called Janus a villain later because Janus was on Roman's side but THOMAS'S GUILT turned against him and so he punished himself by focusing Thomas to do the one thing he didn't want to do as penance.

And the worst part is that Janus didn't realize that was happening. If Thomas felt that strongly against his ego as being bad for doing that then Roman would have to do better- have to listen to what the guilt has its chokehold on- Thomas's morality. So he absolutely tries to follow Pattons call because it's clear to Roman that Thomas wants to listen to Patton and even if Patton openly admits that he doesn't know what to do, Thomas has burdened Patton with needing him as a guide. And Patton of course is trying his dawned best even though all his morality is basically learned from parents and religion and life doesn't prepare you for the complexities of it all so he's struggling too!

This here is why i don't see any sides as villains- none of them are deliberately trying to harm Thomas and the problem is actually Thomas trying to expect too much of himself.

There's my theory that Guilt is actually a side... but I don't think it would be Orange because that to me seems lore like something subconscious and potentially louder and more self-preserving than guilt. But I digress.

[anthroparis]

I think what makes disney's hunchback so incredibly touching and effective to me despite all the. well. bad parts. is that for myself (and I'm sure, many others) it does a really good job of encapsulating what it's like to be catholic. I relate to every singe character in that movie because every single character represents a different relationship to religion and it's so. gorgeous. esmeralda is a pretty good example of what it's like to feel abandoned by god (especially as a woman- in god help the outcasts she directly addresses mary, which always hits me really hard because mary has always been important to me) as someone who goes through intense hardship. and it's like, yes she feels abandoned and lost and outcasted by the very church that preaches acceptance and tolerance but she's also drawn to the religion itself as a source of hope and comfort during dark times and it's just ah. then there's frollo. I always think it's SO funny when people act like frollo being an insanely humanized villain despite all the terrible things he did is something revolutionary. like every single catholic on the planet has felt the same way he does by age 8 (minus the racism, hopefully). where everyone else sees yandere I'm seeing someone who is so weighed down with guilt and self-disgust for being unable to achieve an impossible goal (perfect purity) that the very thought of sin, whether from himself or others, is so utterly revolting it makes him violently obsessive. I think the big thing here is that he deflects blame onto others, but still knows deep down that he's at blame and he pities the people he can't stop himself from hurting. like we need to discuss the very concept of hell and eternal damnation itself when we talk about him cause. sigh. YES there's confession but that feeling of doing something "bad" never really leaves. it feels like once you've done something evil you will never save yourself no matter what you do to right it. I believe many people (myself included) have at one point or another, given up and chosen to just dig themselves deeper since we're already damned to hell anyway. I see that in frollo. then there's quasimodo. who I think reflects a lot of frollo's traits but to a separate degree: instead of blaming other people, he directs blame inwards. he believes he was born evil and wrong and he has to do things to make up for that. which is literally just like. ORIGINAL SIN. catholicism is very different from other branches of christianity in many ways but one of them is that you don't just. get into heaven for believing. you actually have to do good things. at least that's what was taught to me in church. I get that it's, you know, the setting (the book has a very different theme and tone imo but that's again for another day), but quasimodo literally being trapped inside a church is so. hm. his character arc centering around his freedom, rediscovering his self-worth, escaping oppressive morality... sighhhhhhh. I get it. but also at the same time I like that this movie takes the time to address the multifaceted aspects of religion. catholicism? not inherently evil or bad. there are certainly dated aspects of it but as we've seen, people tend to pick and choose what they follow. however, we also take the time to address how the doctrine can be twisted to support literal genocide. so. you know.

I really like this movie

[whatyourusherthinks]

Dune Part Two Review

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT'SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS HHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What's The Movie About?

SAME THING AS THE FIRST ONE!

Ahem. Sorry, excited. This is the follow up to the first Dune movie and portrays the second half of the Dune Novel. Mostly Paul and his mother imbedding themselves into the Fremen and amassing an army to take on the re-enstated Harkonnens.

What I Like.

These movies are fucking gorgeous. There are quite a few jaw-dropping compositions and the designs of all the technology and outfits are very cool. The story is excellent, although it should be a surprise since the book is a classic and as far as I can tell the movie is mostly faithful to it. The few changes they made I actually think are for the better, like not jumping the story forward or changing how a certain character dies. I really liked the Fremen society. It felt like a real society that would exist on a planet like Arrakis. The pool of water they add their dead people's water to felt like something that would actually come to be. And I dug Paul's downfall at the end. The Bene Gesserit are so sleezy that I felt genuinely bad for everyone who fell for their religion. I also felt like Stilgar is probably completely broken by the end, and that sucked because I really like Stilgar. (Sucked in a good way I mean. It was definitely intentional for the audience to feel bad.) I also weirdly like Feyd-Rautha. Like he's absolutely a villain, but I like his personality, how he's supposed to be an opposite to Paul, and I kinda liked him more than Paul at the end of the movie. He's just a silly guy, it's not his fault he was born on the German Expressionist planet to a family of snuff film makers. Christopher Walken as the emperor is also pretty awesome, very inspired casting. The score is great. I'll catch myself wanting to belt out the wailing used every so often. The action was also pretty awesome. The high frequency shields is an inspired bit of world building, because it brings more of the fighting into the realm of desperate knife fights, which I find more interesting than just people shooting back and forth. Also, as someone who's played the Dune board game before engaging with the Dune story at all, was was neat to see the characters take actions that could be done in the game and where some of the names of cards come from.

What I Didn't Like.

So I was praising how cool some of the shots were right? Well guess what. Pretty much all of them are in the trailer. Also, while I like how well built the Fremen society was, the Harkonnen planet seems like it should have flamed out in three generations. All they do is kill each other and they especially mistreat their women, so I don't know why they still exist. I get it's just supposed to be the evil guys so they took every opportunity to have them be evil, but it's kinda lazy writing. Speaking of Harkonnen, and this is gonna be petty, but I and everyone I talk to about Dune pronounces the name "Har-Ko-Nen". The movie pronounces it "Hark-En-En" and it was really distracting. There is also a major plot reveal 45 minutes before the movie ends, which happens to be when we drop checks in the theaters at my work. So I got fucking spoiled, thanks Denis Villanelle or whatever you name is.

Final Summation.

It's awesome. It's all the climax to make up for all the set up of the first movie. If you put a knife to my neck and made me choose which one I liked more, I guess I'd say Part 2 since more cool stuff happens, but like all stories split into two parts you should really treat it as a whole. And as a whole, Dune is fucking awesome. I cannot wait for the sequel.

[calzonekestis]

When the Jason Apologists at the wiki have locked the page you can’t add interesting sourced trivia like

Mason believes Chrissy deserves better than Jason and supports the Chrissy/Eddie pairing

Mason was instructed to emulate Tom Cruise in both being charismatic and being a little Off and fanatical about his own cult religion

Mason studied videos of evangelical preachers working their followers into hateful frenzies to prepare for Jason’s town hall speech

Mason doesn’t think Jason was Evil so much as self absorbed - that in an ideal world he would have been willing to fight with the Good guys he just spiraled and lost his head and couldn’t/wouldn’t let Lucas’s get through his thick skull

Like sorry not sorry. That’s not character/ship bias… that’s an actor giving insight into both his character and how he went about portraying him. It’s relevant.

Jason may be tragic but he forsook all sympathy with his own actions. Was he capable of being redeemed? Mayhaps. Was he an intentionally sinister or malicious person? No, but like. The best villains never are. The ones who think they’re right and they’re the hero. Like this is a Known thing.

And it just. It reminds me of Joe fans dismissing Joe re Eddie/Chrissy because they don’t want to hear it.

Jason apologists don’t want to hear that he was a Dick.

Mason be out here like “no he’s not a terrible person but he’s a Jerk” and there are literal comments on his wiki page saying he Did Nothing Wrong. That’s not hyperbole, that’s an actual comment.

Brutalizing Gareth, siccing his friend on Erica, pulling a gun on Lucas, trying to pursue vigilante justice by way of an angry mob.

Making Chrissy out as a martyr and doing all that shit in her name, because he couldn’t accept the fact he didn’t actually know her and was oblivious to her struggles.

Like rather than waking up and feeling guilt, he still refuses to believe there was any sort of problem - because the notion of her not feeling like she could come to him, but that she could go to Eddie…

Like I believe Mason when he says Jason loved Chrissy, but when he didn’t really know Chrissy!completely… did he? Did he love her? Or did he love the curated version of herself that she felt she had to present to the world? The perfect little doll that he had in his head?

It was less about Chrissy herself and more about Chrissy as she pertained to him… because homebody didn’t actually know or care about Chrissy Herself.

Like. Jason might not be as Trash a person as say a Billy, but he’s still… his apologists are still infuriating.

Mason Dye has my sword. Love that dude.

Jason Carver can get fucked.

[captnjacksparrow]

So Kishimoto had apparently intended for Hidan and Kakuzu arc to be longer until his editors forced him to cut it short. What do you think about this? Bad move or not?

Hmmm, Never heard of this interview... But I feel the Editors were Right!!!

Hidan and Kakazu Arc kick-started at 313th Chapter called "The New Pair" and concluded at 341st chapter named "The Training Pays-Off!!"... So it's exactly 28 Chapters dedicated to this Arc.

Compared to Kazekage Retrieval Arc which lasted for 33 Chapters (Ch.247-Ch.280), I think it's almost very similar in terms of number of Chapters and the type of Villains. Probably Kishimoto wanted to do 4 or 5 chapters more in this arc to which I can't guess what exactly he wanted to do.

Because with Gaara Arc, we had so many things going on...

We had Granny Chiyo as the emotional compass (From the opposition side) to get more exposition about Akatsuki, Sunagakure and of course about Jinchurikki.

She did some questionable things out of necessity in her past but she ended up doing something in the end to correct her past mistakes.

And of course, Sasori's connection with Granny Chiyo.

Then Itachi and Kisame's intervention.

Kakashi & Naruto Vs Deidara.

Chiyo & Sakura Vs Sasori.

Suna's politics.

Compared to that

Hidan and Kakuzu Arc had more expositional plots rather than the emotional ones....

Kakuzu going for the Bounty Hunt.

Akatsuki's overall Ideals.

A Short chapter of Tobi and Deidara hunting Sanbi.

Naruto training for Rasen Shuriken.

Asuma & Co team failing. This is the only emotional part in this Arc.

Team 10 getting their Justice.

When an Arc has very little content for emotions, and considering the Villains are more on the Evil side.. I would understand if the Villains had some Ideals like Pain.... But One fights for the Religion and Another fights for the Money... Not very serious, is it???... I don't understand what the Author truly wanted to expand upon in this Arc.

Probably, the Editors noticed that Naruto (the Character) had taken a Backseat for 2 Arcs (in Both the Arcs I mentioned above, Naruto was not the MVP) and the Editors asked Kishimoto to cut short.

Sure, I would love to see anything that comes out of Kishi's brain and I believe I (& Everyone) would have loved whatever he might have offered if he were allowed to. But not at any moment, I felt that any of those plots in Kakuzu-Hidan Arc were sudden or rushed that I could pin it on Editorial Decision unlike the Kaguya Arc or that Ending.

[karuuhnia]

what were the unfinished ideas from 3 hopes you most wish they would have fleshed out?

Oh boy, I don't even know where to start.

Well, I should probably state right at the beginning that I didn't know anything about this game beside the very first trailer. I also never interacted with anyone from the fandom and went into the game completely blind.

So the only thing I knew was that Three Hopes would be some kind of alternate timeline. What I hoped and kind of expected from the game was more information on things that were not fully elaborated in Three Houses.

I'll contrinue my thoughts under the cut because, you know, spoilers.

In particular I hoped that we would learn more about Agartha, Almyra and the Nabateans. And that we get some sort of "Golden Route" where all three lords and their comrades team up and fight the true evil in Fódlan together - which are the Slitherers who infiltrated all sorts of political or otherwise important ranks and corrupted the people around them, turned them against each other and spread lies. The true villain in Fódlan is not Rhea/the church (albeit I'm the very first to admit that Rhea is seriously messed up from all the trauma she and her people had to endure during the last centuries).

Anyway, those were my wishes. But nope, we just got a slightly different spin on Edelgard's stupid war again.

About what I was disappointed in:

In general:

I was kinda baffled by Count Varley's characterization tbh. From what we learned about him in Three Houses, I had imagined him as a stern, unrelenting patriarch who keeps his daughter down and tries to force her into the role of a submissive wife for a high-ranking nobleman. Not as an even bigger bag of nerves than his daughter. I got massive Jerry Smith vibes from the guy. lol

What the hell was wrong with Sothis?? Since when does she view Byleth as just her vessel and forces her power upon him/her? Why is she acting so out of character???

Who exactly was Epimenides and what/where is Zahras? How did he incarnate his soul and powers?

On a similar note: It was never fully explained who or what Shez was, right? Apparently he/she is a vessel for Epimenides' consciousness and powers, but how did that happen? Was Shez used in Agarthan experiments? Who were Shez's birth parents? Who was his/her adoptive mother???

No matter if you recruit Byleth and kill Epimenides or don't recruit Byleth and ultimately kill him/her, the outcome is really boring and anticlimatic and doesn't really affect the rest of the storyline. Huge disappointment. :(

Scarlet Blaze: We didn't really learn anything new about the Agarthans and never truly got rid of them either. Edelgard continues her war against the Kingdom and the Church despite knowing the Slitherers are still out there, causing a mess.

Edelgard started a war and wanted to rebuild society from the ground up, abolish nobility, crests, get rid off the established religion to replace it with a church that is only a mouthpiece for her propaganda pretty much.

She also wants to give all people equal opportunities to climb the ranks if they just work hard enough. Sure sounds nice in theory, BUT SHE DOESN'T EVEN LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR THAT TO WORK IN HER OWN DAMN COUNTRY! She wants all people to be equal and give power to the commoners without providing them with better living conditions and adequate education first!! When I read her A-support with Ferdie I was shocked. How did she imagine this to go? Imagine giving power to a person who can't read or write or knows anything about what goes on outside their tiny village. Like, WHAT?!?

Seriously, without Ferdinand and Hubert Edelgard would be completely LOST.

Her route in Three Houses was incredibly flawed already, but this here is outright dumb. I felt so bad for every single one of my actions...

*cough* but I digress.

Golden Wildfire:

I expected most of this route and was let down the worst. It was all over the place. I hoped for Almyran lore, insights in Claude's childhood and family etc.

But then this Shahid guy appears twice and then just dies. Like, seriously! When he fell off that cliff I thought, surely this was a fake-out and he'd show up again later. But nope. I felt really baited by this whole Almyran subplot.

What I also found incredibly ironic was how they constantly tried to push the message that the Almyrans are just misunderstood and aren't as vile as the people in Fódlan view them.

But hey, guess what: Not only does their king not give a shit about what his stupid Shahid does, he doesn't even seem to know what is going on in general, seeing that Nader can just make him sign random papers. Like, WHAT?!?²

Also, Shahid calls the people from Fódlan barbarians, but it is HIS people who invade a foreign country and plunder and destroy everything in their way. And it's not like they're a poor and starved country like Sreng. No, they have plentiful food and treasures in their homeland. They just do all those invasions for fun, I guess??

It is also directly confirmed several times in the game that Claude and Nader actively have to stop the Almyran troops from plundering the Kingdom! Can you imagine that? Claude's dream of opening borders to other nations might sound great on paper, but it is an incredibly naive thought that it would just work out like that when one nation is so aggressive. Fódlan would be a wasteland in no time if they just let the Almyrans in!

Speaking of Claude: He was my favourite of the three lords in Three Houses, but now he's dead to me. They butchered his character big time. In Three Houses he was always wary of the Church (and for good reason!). But his curiosity drove him to find out what REALLY happened in the past. Who the Ten Elites and Nemesis really were. What the Heroes' Relics and Crest Stones really are. He was shocked by the revelation. And then he used this new knowledge to set an end to Agartha and Nemesis, the real threats!

In Three Hopes everything was just: "RhEa BaD bEcAuSe LoNg ChUrCh TrAdItIoN bAd!" And then he joins whoever has the upper hand, only to turn on them the first opportunity. I'm really glad Lorenz and the others called him out for leaving Randolph and his troops - their allies - to die. But that didn't happen often enough sadly. I wanted to grab his shoulders and scream at him constantly!

He berates Acheron for being an opportunistic flag in the breeze, but then he does exactly the same thing - just 100 times worse.

During the whole playthrough I had the feeling that nobody really trusted Claude, not even his closest friends. And how could you blame them? He throws valuable allies under the bus and switches allegiances constantly. Who would ever trust a leader like that? You'd always be scared you'd be next if you're not useful to him anymore.

Urgh. I have so much more to say about this hot mess of a route, but I'll stop now. Just know that I was absolutely enraged when I finished Golden Wildfire.

Azure Gleam

Since I hated both Edelgard's and Claude's routes, I was really about to drop the game completely. I'm glad I didn't because I overall really enjoyed Azure Gleam. Still, it had its flaws too.

The biggest letdown to me was, of course, that we didn't really learn anything new about the Nabateans. I was so hopeful because we saw Indech and Macuil in the opening cutscene. But nothing ever came off it. :(

Also, I was really disappointed that nothing became of the whole Hegemon Husk Edelgard thing. I was absolutely sure Thales would transform her into the monster in the second phase of the battle, but nope. It was utterly anticlimatic. :(

Also also, what happened to Hubert and Ferdie? It said they went missing after Thales took control of Edelgard. So I thought they went into hiding and waited for the right time to save her from Thales’ grasp, maybe join the final battle as yellow or even green units. But nope, they were never seen again.

Then I have some questions about the sidequest where you get the Ochain-Shield. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that shield an heirloom of the Aegir family in Three Houses? Why is suddenly long-lost now and shows up in Indech's workshop after hundreds of years?

Another thing that I found kind of confusing was Yuri's and Seteth's support. In Three Houses I always assumed that the old man who saved Yuri's life and gave him the crest was a decendant of Aubin. But apparently it was Aubin himself??? That raises many questions: Why is Aubin the only Nabatean who was old? Seiros is probably the oldest living Nabatean and she still looks like she's in her prime. So why did Aubin age so much compared to the rest of their people? Also, Yuri said the old man died of natural causes. What happened to his body then? If he really was Aubin himself the Agarthans must have found and taken his bones and crest stone and turned it into the Fetters of Dromi. How and when did that happen? If that really was the case, the Fetters of Dromi can only be ~10-15 years old. How does Yuri know about this "relic" so much then?

Oh well, I guess I'm overthinking. I'm just starved for Nabatean lore. ;__;

______________________________________________________

Okay, now I guess I should conclude with what I actually liked, huh?

Lorenz. Honestly, without Lorenz, Golden Wildfire and Scarlet Blaze would have been an even worse experience. Lorenz, to me, is really the hero of those two routes. I really, really love how he was portrayed. His struggles, his doubts, his convictions. He also had some really great scenes with his father. Definitely a huge plus! He's a great character!

I also liked Felix in this game. I like him as the responsible, mature Duke Fraldarius who still shows his sassy and blunt behaviour too. Never really was a fan of his attitude and tsundere bs in Three Houses, so this was a huge improvement.

All Blue Lions were great! They have by far the best chemistry and closest bonds of all houses. They're supportive of each other and build each other up. And they fully trust each other. I love them so much!

Jeralt (and Rodrigue) don't have to die and are both playable! ;__;

Holst's butt-chin, my beloved (also, ProZD ftw!)

Apart from that I really liked the gameplay. It was fun and rewarding and made you feel badass. lol The expeditions feature is really cool too. And there were a few really great support conversations. <3

Anyway, that concludes my TED talk, I guess lol I want to start a petition to rename this game to “Fire Emblem Warriors: One Hope and Two Dumpster Fires”.

[attemptsonherlifepdf]

modern gothic, sci-fi, and the moral binary: why the matrix is one of the most relevant gothic pieces of the last twenty five years

the gothic is a genre that is designed to explore transgressive behaviours and private desires, and often does so by having these explicit acts committed by a supernatural character. this serves to not only characterise the behaviour as monstrous but ‘Other’ people who behave that way. while this is typical of traditional gothic literature, modern gothic tends to present sympathetic villains, who suggest to audiences that transgressive behaviours are not inherently threatening or deserving of punishment, but simply different. as put by kelley hurley, ‘through depicting the abhuman, the gothic reaffirms and reconstructs human identity.’ in order to understand the progression from traditional gothic to modern genres that stem from it, namely science fiction, psychological thrillers and murder mysteries, we must first understand it’s basic timeline.

gothic literature began as a genre with very little positive reception, originally seen as a frivolous, and unserious style of writing. often called ‘dark romanticism’, the genre used the ‘purple prose’ and decadent architecture of romantic literature, but associated it with more sinister narratives concerning religion, murder and both sexual and identitiy-oriented transgression. originating from horace walpole’s ‘castle of otranto’, the genre was used to reflect the cultural anxieties of the time period, and thus gained traction by being temporally relevant. modern gothic’s deconstruction of the ‘good vs evil’ binary is a reflection of contemporary understandings of the aforementioned topics, which address the complexities of transgression. notable examples of later gothic literature include susan hill’s 1983 novel, ‘the woman in black’, a pastiche of traditional victorian ghost stories that utilises sympathetic villains to add complexity to the idea of villainy. additionally, the work of angela carter, particularly that of her 1979 collection ‘the bloody chamber’ which uses gothic conventions to subvert more conservative fairytales and fables, another instance of this ‘dark romanticism’ technique.

by presenting transgression as complex, rather than fulfilling one side of a binary, modern gothic allows us to consider if transgression is even that dangerous; it serves to dismantle the idea that ‘different = threatening.’ a brilliant example of this is the previously mentioned work of carter, and her short stories ‘the tiger’s bride’ and ‘the courtship of mr lyon.’ these stories are subverted retellings of the traditional ‘beauty and the beast’ fairytale. While maintaining the general events of the original ending, where beauty stays with the beast of her own volition, carter offers up two dynamics between the human and abhuman that serve to recharacterise ‘Othered’ creatures as less threatening and more sympathetic and innocent. ‘the courtship of mr lyon’ mimics the original story’s ending, with beauty’s understanding of the beast resulting in his transformation back to human. ‘the tiger’s bride’ offers the reverse: in beauty’s acceptance of the beast, she transforms to be animal-like like him as well. this appears almost as an act of solidarity. perhaps an incredibly modern reading of carter’s metamorphosed characters is as an allegory for transgenderism. discussions around gender identity during the 1970s in britain, even in second-wave feminist circles, were more concerned with rejecting and redefining traditional gender roles than they were with the personal identity of individuals, so we can assume this was not carter’s intention when writing these stories. however, ideas of physical transformation, and how proximity to the ‘Other’ can ‘radicalise’ one’s own identity are very fitting with treatment of transgender people both historically and presently. genres that stem from the late gothic, namely sci-fi, have been known for using metamorphosis as an allegory for marginalised identities, using physical transformation as an allegory for ideological or emotional transformation. a prime example of this is lana and lilly wachowski’s series ‘the matrix.’ written as a trans allegory, the movie series criticises the social pressure for conformity the way carter does and attempts to explicitly recharacterise trans people as an innocent non-conforming identity rather than a threat. carter’s exploration and reproval of established values similarly tends to centre around ideas of gender, making this reading not entirely unreasonable. she suggests that societal fears surrounding gender identity and liberation are unfounded.

ultimately, carter paints various traits and identities that are widely considered ‘threatening’ to be multifaceted and liberating instead, as she views the established values that they ‘threaten’ to be restrictive and in need of changing. the matrix represents these established values with ‘agents’ who attempt to hide the true nature of the world from the population. in the preface to the bloody chamber collection, helen simpson writes that 'human nature is not immutable, human beings are capable of change', arguing this point as the core of carter’s gothic subversions. she suggests through her writing that what is perceived as a social threat is often based upon what is uncomfortable rather than what is actually dangerous. her work is partially ambivalent in that it does not instruct what is right or wrong, but instead depicts societal relationships and allows the audience to interpret it.

the matrix achieves a similar result, with gothic elements and subversions supporting it’s messages.sci-fi takes gothic settings, ideas of liminality, decay, transgression and the Other, and recontextualises them with in the hypothetical far future. traditional gothic settings such as the ruins of decadent mansions become abandoned high-tech buildings. the binary between conventional and transgressive shifts from being a contrast between catholic ideals and more modern behaviours to being a contrast between those profiting off capitalism and those suffering from it.

implicit in the matrix’s notion of discovering a newer world more true to reality is the idea that ‘different’ or ‘unconventional’ experiences and identities are not threatening, but liberating. the matrix suggests we can unlearn our villainisation of trans people, and does so through the use of various gothic conventions. to begin with, gothic texts are often written to reflect the cultural anxieties of the moment. lilly wachowski has stated that the movie was ‘born out of anger at capitalism and the corporate structure and forms of oppression.’ the late nineties in america was certainly a time of tension for lgbt people. frank rich sites ‘the homophobic epidemic of '98...spiked with the october murder of matthew shepard’ as an era of extreme difficulty for the lgbt community in the usa. this hostile environment is reflected in the nature of the matrix’s ‘agents’ and their insistence on maintaining the illusion of free will that comes with the false reality they push. they are in no way open to ideas that differ from their own and actively come down on those who suggest them. this anxiety for the lgbt community is reflected in the movie; the anxiety itself is expressed through a combination of subverted and traditional gothic tropes. gender itself is a topic highly relevant to the gothic. the wachowskis utilise binary oppositions, the most obvious example being the red pill vs blue pill’ scenario. the movie poses a stark contrast between two approaches to life: ‘the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth, by taking the red pill, or remaining in contented ignorance with the blue pill.’ its interesting for a piece that is intentioned to deconstruct binaries to construct this binary, but it does serve a purpose. this binary serves as a device to show, allegorically, the experience of trans people in western cultures. belinda mcclory’s character, switch, is a specific representation of the gender transition process. in the matrix she appears as a woman, and in the real world as a man. while the wachowskis may not have had the creative freedom to include an explicitly transgender character, this was the closest and most specific hint they could have given the audience, right down to the character’s cratylic naming. switch��s experience presenting as both man and woman, and only one of her presentations occurs in the ‘true reality’ that is representative of people’s true natures and personalities. this use of metamorphosis mimics the way many trans people must present as their assigned gender at birth in public, and their true identity in private, that their physical body and their perception of themselves when they have control of their appearance are not necessarily aligned. this parallel relies upon the binary consisting of a false reality and a true one to illustrate its point.

it has also been suggested that the red pill is representative of a hormone pill, and many viewers have likened neo’s mental restlessness to gender dysphoria: ‘what you know you can't explain, but you feel it. you've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. you don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.’ these small parallels coalesce to form the movie’s representation of the trans experience in a way that is arguaby subtle to the cisgender viewer. neo openly rejects being called ‘mr anderson’ or ‘thomas anderson’ from our first introduction to him. he replaces his given male-coded name with something seemingly androgenous for his own comfort, and ‘mr anderson’ almost serves as a deadname, which only the agents who enforce a false reality use to refer to him. agent smith uses neo’s two names to frame his two separate lives very distinctly; ‘one of these lives has a future, and one of them does not.’ with an understanding of the trans subtext of the movie, this appears as a thinly veiled reference to the difficulties openly trans people face. coming out, in most places in the world, can result in loss of employment, loss of contact with family, and so on. as put by lili wachowski, ‘transgender people without support, means and privilege do not have this luxury. and many do not survive.’ agent smith appears to be warning neo of the dangerous of living as his true self, insistently referring to him with his given name rather than his chosen one, even if just for bureaucratic reasons. neo’s name is a vital to his defiance against both agent smith and the false reality he seeks to maintain:

agent smith:

you hear that mr. anderson?... that is the sound of inevitability... it is the sound of your death... goodbye, mr. anderson...

neo:

my name... is neo.

in defiantly maintaining his chosen name, neo pushes for the true reality to be accepted and understood. this is motivated by the fact that ‘i don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life.’ this is an instance of neo taking control, by asserting his identity. the high stakes of this scene mimic the high stakes that trans people face in asserting their identities in an unaccepting social climate. the movie also acknowledges the public perception of trans people as a threat: ‘i know that you're afraid... you're afraid of us. you're afraid of change...the matrix is a system, neo, that system is our enemy.’ appearance vs reality is yet another key aspect of the gothic that is utilised in the matrix, and the narrative forces the viewer to consider whether they would accept a harsh reality or prefer total ignorance and accept what appears in front of them.

the movie’s treatment of violence against its protagonist is particularly relevant to the gothic. typically, queer-coded men or people of colour in fiction experience physical violence allegorical to the way female characters are written into sexualised danger: for trauma-based character development. violence against minorities in media, specifically gothic media, is often symbolic rather than just plain horrific. female, queer or bodies of colour are seen solely as political identities, so the violence they face is violence against an idea, not a person. queer or queer-coded men like neo are often feminised to a certain extent, even if its simply rejecting the title ‘mr’, to allow the violence against them to be symbolic or political rather than personal. often with cisgender, heterosexual, white or male characters, any cruelty they face is considered to be senseless and is characterised as brutal, pure violence, as their bodies are simply allowed to exist as bodies without a political statement attached to their existence. they are not making a statement or defying standards simply by having bodies. the gothic specifically uses symbolic violence in its later stages, and it is often faced by characters who are ‘Othered’ such as frankenstein’s monster being faced with angry hordes of people, or the suicide of jennet humfrye, the titular character of the woman in black who had a child out of wedlock. this symbolic violence in the matrix is particularly relevant to the above scene between agent smith and neo, where neo’s retaliation involves not just physical fighting but defiance over his own identity.

setting in the matrix is quintessentially modern gothic, and is an integral part of characterising the differences between appearance and reality. the real world and the matrix are characterised both by their physical appearance and the characters associated with them. the whole movie is shot with relatively bleak green, grey and blue tones; the unnamed cities in the matrix were filmed in sydney, australia, but are supposed to appear as a city that could be located anywhere. this makes viewers somewhat comforted as the cities appear familiar, but their association with the antagonistic agents makes it difficult to truly identify with them. in contrast, the real world appears cold, crude and difficult to survive in, but is home to a crew of sympathetic rebels that the audience is supposed to root for. the city of zion is all harsh metal and can feel like a very temporary, unsafe residence but scenes such as the party in matrix reloaded characterise it as a place of community. the duality of each setting is typical of the gothic, and allows the viewer to explore the complexity of the movie’s conundrum. no option is the easy, immediate or obvious choice. the viewer must consult their own morals and values. ideas and anxieties surrounding moral decay are vital to the narrative of gothic tales; the genre explores and seeks to define humanity, and doing so often involves ethnocentric set of morals associated with good and bad. concepts like metamorphosis, identity, and the rejection of religion or christian/western ideals all play into this, but this is where modern gothic’s acknowledgement of complexity reframes things. most developments described as ‘modern gothic’ apply to sci-fi as it is an extension of, or evolved from,1960s-1990s gothic.

in presenting the aforementioned topics as multifaceted, the genre is able to imply or sometimes directly suggest that the ways in which presentations of them differ from established values is not immediately threatening, but simply different or even sympathetic. the matrix almost reverses traditional expressions of transgression by suggesting that those seeking to maintain the status quo are enforcing restrictive and immoral ideals, and that those whose agendas differ from the status quo are seeking liberation. this appears very similarly in angela carter’s previously mentioned work, exemplifying the parallels between sci-fi and the gothic. ‘the matrix stuff was all about the desire for transformation but it was all coming from a closeted point of view.’ lilly wachowski states. transformation and metamorphosis are topics so in line with the content of the gothic, allowing authors to explore and compare different states of being in order to eventually, sometimes implicitly, condemn one and promote the other. in reference to how she was drawn to use sci-fi as the medium for this story, she says that ‘we were existing in a space where the words didn't exist, so we were always living in a world of imagination.’ things that cannot work in our social climate can be allowed to work in an imagined scenario, with imagined consequences separate from the real world, similarly to the gothic’s use of the supernatural as a vehicle for taboo actions and values.

the wachowskis select science fiction tropes that are core to the gothic as a medium for the matrix’s allegorical meaning: taboo subjects, metamorphosis, binary oppositions, moral questions and stark settings. the matrix arguably serves as a bridge between the two genres, while also being unmistakably modern in its support of trans people and its open criticism of capitalism and social systems. this is not to say that earlier texts do not argue similarly points, but that the popularity of the matrix means that these points and messages are widespread and consumed by a massive audience. the movie was released in early june of 1999, and by august 2000, the matrix dvd had sold over three million copies in usa, making it the best-selling of all time. its unlikely that those three million dvd owners had all interpreted the movie the way the wachowskis had intended, as is the case with all media, but their anti-capitalist and pro-lgbt rhetoric was still present in the movie and has become glaringly obvious to more viewers over 20 years beyond its release date. using binaries as a tool to deconstruct other binaries is a device used more and more within sci-fi and the exploration of morals, systemic structures and the role of lgbt people are both vital to both genres. trans people are originally characterised as ‘Other’, but are rightfully humanised and encouraged to pursue their true identities: ‘to deny our impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human.’

i.k.b

[where-theres-smoak-2]

Sorry, I saw this article about why the book Darkling is a great villain and burst out laughing. It’s just hilarious to me how some people still think his characterisation there makes any sense whatsoever. And I also can’t take anyone who thinks book!Alina is a good person,IMO: https://thecreativedominion.com/2020/01/29/crafting-the-perfect-villain-the-darkling/

(Book Spoilers!)

Yeah to be honest I love show Alina but just found I didn't like book Alina all that much at all. You're right its very difficult to see her as a good person. Not that I think she's evil or anything but there is something about her characterisation that I dislike.

See there are some things I agree with in that article and they make some good points about Aleks' character, these parts for example:

He cares passionately for the betterment and safety of his people. He is capable of leading well. He sees people’s talents and needs and how to address them. All of this is good and true. He desires many of the same things the heroes do, safety and improvement.

His methods are effective and benefit many more than just himself.

For the first two books, the Darkling is rarely the worst person in the room. There is the king, who abuses his power against many of the female servants, the prince who is so apathetic he lets the northern country invade while he rides horses for recreation, the Apparat who manipulates an entire religion for his own personal gain, and all the snobby higher ups who are content to sit by and watch people suffer. The Darkling is a horrible person but he’s set in a world where everyone else is by their apathy or selfishness. His motive for his terrible deeds is selfless. He wants a safe country for his people. Almost everyone else’s motive is selfish.

I agree with that last one in particular where it is talking about how he is rarely the worst person because you have the king, the prince and the apparat who are all about personal gain and selfishness whereas the darkling's goals and motivations are selfless. However I would make the argument that whilst these things are all true they not only make him a bad villain but they make it so he's not really a villain at all but more an antagonist. The funny thing is the author of the article says this about villains at the beginning: All too often they’re either pure evil to cartoonish extremes or they’re just boring and forgettable. We’ve all seen villainous characters go from phenomenal villain to poorly written villain in a single scene.

Here's the thing though this is exactly what I think happens with the darkling. In one scene he goes from a phenomenal 'villain' a character that is complex, who does morally grey things but who is sympathetic to a poorly written villain that is pure evil and cartoonish. That scene is when he destroys Novokribirsk in the books. I've said it before but in the show I understood why he did it but in the books it makes no sense and very much felt like it was written in just to reinforce the idea that this guy is the bad guy. After that scene the darkling continued to behave and be written as a moustache twirling cartoon villain and continued to do things that made no sense to his character. Things that just left me feeling confused and frustrated. Why would he attack Novokribirsk instead of Shu Han or Fjerda who are his actual enemies and who hunt and kill grisha? Why would he mutilate Genya for not killing Alina when he had made it clear that he wanted Alina alive? Why would he attack the LP when he was the one to build it and wanted it to be a safe place for Grisha? Those are just a few. Then apart from these overly evil and out of character actions there are the ones where we are told they are villainous but really they are very sympathetic and make you want to route for the darkling like throwing over the monarchy who lets be real are more villainous than the darkling. It's just very frustrating. I will agree with you I don't think the darkling was a well written villain at all.

[intheshadowofsignificance]

Season four is such a train wreck in so many ways. I understand the recurring theme that basically everyone lacks boundaries, but there are times the forceful disregard for them doesn’t have a point.

Just because June is the MC doesn’t mean she’s a sympathetic character. That’s one thing I appreciate them boldly addressing. Her tunnel vision is affecting more than just her and Moira is right that living in anger is clouding her judgment. June should be hellbent on justice. She should be angry. I just wish some part of her would be angry and reflective at the same time. She’s not immune from facing scrutiny for the suffering she caused just because she’s a victim and I hope we see her grapple with that. She’s been traumatized and broken. She admitted to wanting to make people hurt the way she hurt. “An eye for an eye is bad” the narrative screams. “We know,” I want to scream back.

June doesn’t have the right to force her coping mechanisms on other people. She has raped Luke. Used Luke. Blatantly disregarded Emily’s feelings and consent, whether or not it happened to “enlighten” her by the end. Emily was allowed to be privately angry and her private anger was valid without June dragging it out in public.

Gilead didn’t just screw with sex, it screwed with her views of consent across the board. I really want some kind of closure on this even if it’s not for the good. Show June facing this even if she stays a fucked up mess after. Don’t keep throwing these bold concepts in our face and not letting the characters do anything useful with them.

Luke’s character is frustrating, but realistically there’s not a whole lot to expect. Someone who hasn’t been through Gilead trying to understand what it was like is always going to fall short. He’s trying to connect the only way he knows how, and idealizing to get by. Just like June getting to Canada was one step forward, two back, so is Luke trying to navigate their relationship now. Ultimately if things fall apart between them it’s not because he’s a bad person who didn’t do enough. He wasn’t equipped for this. No one is. He’s still trying to cope with losing Hannah and the June he knew, and on top of that is caught in the crossfire of June’s trauma. The man is allowed to grieve his losses. He should confront June for making him a sex object, both for himself and to make her recognize and own it. That said, any mention of moving on was wrong at this stage. Not even remotely possible.

Also, Lydia holding Janine and crying? Why? That was ill-timed and poorly executed. We have always known about her soft spot for Janine, it doesn’t make her a good person but a more complex and layered villain. And as much as I absolutely love that, and love the show for letting villains be villains even if they’re not pure, unadulterated evil every waking second (though with Lydia it’s close) we should not have been focusing on /Lydia’s/ emotions while Janine is begging for the remnants of her life.

Yikes.jpg

Fred needs to go down brutally and publicly for what he’s done. Seeing him and Serena in a battle of manipulation continues to turn my stomach. When he stood in that courtroom and spewed his zealotry and nonsense I kept waiting for someone to shut him up. Please. He would’ve been charged with contempt so fast. Trial or not.

“Did you believe all that you said just now?”

“Of course I did.”

He believes it when it’s convenient and gets him what he wants. Religion is a crutch and a pedestal for him. It has been the same for Serena especially in this season. Even if her part in Gilead came from a brainwashed evangelical upbringing, she had plenty of clarity when she tortured June. She believed it was all divine until she was the one suffering. Then God’s sacrifice couldn’t be “her” baby. He couldn’t want “her” Nicole. And submit to one’s husband? Yeah, no, he’s just a sperm donor in Canada. Until she needs him. My goodness, these people and their thinly veiled “godliness.” June called that part so aptly.

I want to see them both face humane justice. As much as Serena being a handmaid would be cathartic, I’m not gonna advocate for it. Having the world know her for what she is, charging her with war crimes / convicting her in Canada, and putting her son in a loving foster home away from her is enough for me. Also maybe having her and Fred in (separate) mandated group meetings with Gilead’s victims as “therapy.” Because they deserve to feel powerless and understand the gravity of the world they helped build.

Of course I couldn’t stand seeing anyone praise the Waterfords, especially Fred, but my god the glimpse it gave of Serena in that moment was worth it. Despite her seeming to have some flash of understanding for June in the courtroom later, in that moment, under that recognition, she held her head so high. Like she was powerful. Like it was the first time in so long she felt worth something.

Holding the hand of a man who doesn’t even use her name anymore, but rather calls her by the extension of himself — Mrs. Waterford — listening to Fred feed the world so many lines of absolute bullshit, knowing he doesn’t believe a word, let alone practice a word.

She caused so much pain just to have something, and I hope all she gets are those small, meaningless moments of praise as her life circles the drain.

But ultimately the men of Gilead did this and they should face the worst of the consequences for it. I think when the defense started questioning June in the court room was when Serena realized, even in Canada, that would never happen. I’m sad the baby is clearly just a tool for Fred to use to manipulate Serena and the world around him, even losing access to their son won’t really hurt him. And Canada’s cushy joke of a prison sentence doesn’t seem to be doing much either. That’s what’s really pissing me off the most, Fred is still having the time of his life.

[hamliet]

I’d like to give an explanation for Hawks.

As a child no one aided Hawks. We could argue the commission did , but in the end he not there different from a child solider, the viceversa of Shigaraki: groomed to be an hero. While Hawks could accept this because of his desire to save others, he had little choice in merit.

One of the main narrative I’ve found is that he defined his parents as broken, and he basically put some distance - left them behind - to not be “broken” like them, as to mark an inherent conception of passing down being rotten. My theory is Dabi went there just to film hawks reaction it i hearing his name or the truth. This mean that in his original retoric he also found (or better hori made him say) exactly what Hawks fears: being broken. This also collided with Dabi rethoric : you reap what you sow and you can’t escape from this.

In this chapter Hawks evilly glare at Enji asking about Shoto’s scar. This means while Hawks still has a weak spot for Endeavor , he has started to lose his “idol”. This also bring up another theme similar to Touya: Endeavor “has to be perfect and flawless”. Now hawks is confronting with the reality Enji is extremely far from perfect. However his needs to prove of not being broken, of being useful and in general a good person is starting to falter.

Imo hawks was so (rightly) terrified of being broken and craved for being like Endeavor (flawless and perfect) because he was not for his parents. But Enji was admired , he saved him so... being like him it’s a good thing right? Thought this I think Hawks built a rigid standard of criteria to divide good and bad and to keep on using this values as a moral compass , so that he would always be a good person. If you had the commission way, you’d obtain such a rigidity so hawks is down to do everything to be a “good person”. This is evident when he bow to the commission: he being a good person is even more valuable than his own life and health (a day passed, he’s severely wounded and he had already started to work again).

To me this rigidity is pervasive to anything and matches with the “greater good”: it’s like a chess game and hawks is nothing more than a pawn in his own head, for the greater good, but it is? It’s not changing society , but rather I think it’s to be a good person at core

Part 1

This also matches Dabi: both of them will answer that they do this for something great (stain and heroes vs society sake and greater good) but really, I think that at the base there are their personal issues: being recognised by his father and being a good and useful kid for his mother.

And in fact since his first introduction Hawks always had this type of dichotomy: he’s willing to be stained if it’s for the greater good. And this is contradictory: what is it the great good ? And how can be good if you re stained? And in fact he never accepted such a thing. Yeah we could argue it was the commission , but the reality is that Hawks is not willing to give “his all”: he wasn’t willing to let Dabi attach the city of fukuoka ; he wasn’t willing to kill Jeanist for real. Because if he allows such things he would be a bad person. So greater good is a facade, much like society is Dabi’s facade for craving Enji’s attention (in a pulsion of death style aka the destruction of what it’s loved).

But he met Twice. And twice was the worst to him. Dealing with Dabi is easy: he behaved very evilly, he broke their pact, he asked for someone corpse. So dabi is “evil” and Hawks is “good”. But twice ? He was sweet. Caring. Trusty. Fun. He really felt close to hawks. And once again hawks tries to be a “good person”. But twice is a problem because while he’s a villain (he kills , he steals he kidnaps) but Twice is a good person. I think Hawks never meant to kill him. Instead he was facing a deep crisis: if he left twice alive and he rampaged killing tons of people , hawks would have been a good person? But if he killed a “friend” a nice guy and wonderful friend , someone who welcomed him, would he be a good person? Before dabi arrival I thin hawks was just threatening twice. If he wanted to kill him he could have done sooner.

As fat gum said , there’s only ONE way for an hero to win: no causalties and make the villain lose his will to fight. And this is the route hawks wanted to take : make twice surrender. It was the only way to solve the dilemma : killing twice meant killing a good person. Sparing a villain means to be a bad person. Howeve then Dabi arrived and he posed as a threat. In the first part of the battle hawks saved twice. Meaning that he and twice allign: Dabi is the villain. But this isn’t the case. Exactly because twice is a good person he can’t leave the league. So this is another stall: hawks has to kill twice (he can’t see others right thanks to the commission i think ) but at the same time the reason is the twice is indeed a very good person at his core.

Hawks is capable of incredible speed and cutting power, so I’ve always wonder why he was stalling over twice corpse like that.

There’s a movie , I don’t recall the title, in which a ss soldier asks a Jews teacher to prepare him for an exam in a lager. The teacher knows ethics , philosophy and religion. The teacher takes the occasion to prove the moral law (the universal law inside of any of us to decide if something is right or wrong). The ss answers “you’re are Jews, you are the evil!” But the teacher proves him wrong again and again. Finally the ss pull out a gun but he then is not able to shot. The professor says “this is the moral law. It doesn’t matter what you’ve been taught. Deep down you know it’s wrong”.

I insist hawks is numb to moral law. He instead seeks “greater good” to prove is a good person. But twice tested him. Toga question “So jin wasn’t a person?” It’s fitting : in that moment to hawks jin wasn’t a person. He saved jin. He gave him a chance. He was a good person. But jin refused , high fives dabi he would have killed anyone. It was “Jin” . It was “Twice” and a good person must end a bad person. Especially after this one refuse any “chance of redemption”. However the way he was bent all over twice makes me think he knew it. He knew he had done a bad thing. That was the moral law: he seemed exhausted

Part 2

Thank you for this! I found it very insightful and interesting to read :D

[bitch-for-a-rainbow]

Lex Luthor: I actually really like him and Supergirl made me mad

     So, Lex Luthor is a very interesting, sometimes thought provoking, but most of all very enjoyable character.

     Lex is many things, a classic egomaniacal villain, an example of what lies can do to a relationship, a walking, talking red flag, a warning of how hubris and jealously can destroy you, and much, much more. He is not the typical strain of insane— if crazy at all, highly competent, and best of all knows every one of Superman’s buttons and exactly how to press them.

     I love watching Lex in every media I’ve ever seen him in going back to the original Christopher Reeve Superman. Every media, that is, except Supergirl. Why?

     Because she isn’t fucking Superman.

      Obviously, I love Supergirl— I run a blog with her in my icon— but there are certain things she is not and was never meant to be. Nemesis to Lex Luthor is right up there with a mass-murdering nazi (which is why the multiverse exists-- so that you can make her the first super on earth, Lex Luthor’s ex-friend, and not completely ignore the foundation of who they are as characters)

     Lex is fun because he’s so smart, but also because of the personal stake he has with Superman. Lex felt jealous. In many cases, he felt betrayed. He let that fester into mania and then he built an evil radioactive robo-suit and committed mass murder. You know, like reasonable people do.

     Lex was Superman’s friend and that gives his hatred of Kryptonians not only purpose, but emotional weight. Their relationship has that itching tension of painful history. In addition, Lex is extremely prideful. To him, Supergirl would be second class, she’s backup. And there is a story there: a story when Lex has a breakdown when backup knocks him into the sun, or the (in my opinion, less entertaining) version where Superman shows up to save her, reaffirming Lex’s worldview that he’s everything and defeating Superman means that Lex is the greatest and smartest, and even more stories beyond those that still adhere to its core principles— Kara and Lex as characters.

     But Supergirl chose neither. Instead they chose another recycle Superman plot. And then another. And another.    

     I should make time to say that I like Jon Cryer; I think he’s doing a great job with what he’s been given. He’s got the charisma. He’s got the smarmy self-congratulating swagger down perfectly. The scenes where the real Lex pokes its ugly head through his facade are just great. I think in anything else he would have made an excellent Lex Luthor, but not here.

     I was… disappointed with season 4. I liked 4x20– Kara and Lena investigating was fun at worst and at best had some really good edge of my seat moments. I thought that 4x16 “The House of L” was one of the best episodes of supergirl in a very long time and it still holds its place at least in my top 10, probably my top 5. But you will notice Lex wasn’t even in 4x20 and his places in 4x16 I actually enjoyed could easily have been occupied by any other intelligent villainous character. From a very basic point of view Col. Haley would have fit the mold of the manipulator training the compassionate but confused alien to kill— Wouldn’t have been her first time.

     The later usages of Lex in Supergirl are also attempting a common Superman plot. Lex “redeems” himself, tricks the public into trusting him again by framing Superman for something, and eventually is once again revealed to be evil. It sounds like a repetitive, boring plot that would lose the audience suspension if belief after a few tries— “Seriously, this again. How are they not expecting this by now?” And that complaint works for Supergirl. Because Supergirl isn’t Superman.

     Clark Kent was Lex Luthor’s best friend. Clark Kent ignored every warning sign and red flag waved in his face because Lex Luthor was his best friend. Clark Kent harbors a deep, abiding hurt and resentment from Lex’s betrayal. He has no trust for Lex, just like any hero would, but he also has the built up anger from repeated clashes with Lex and the initial betrayal. So when Lex returns, once again proclaiming he’s changed his ways, Superman’s response is a very public, very obviously bitter “yeah, right.” When Lex lays one of his traps for Superman, Clark is a little too rash. Lex Luthor knows how to push all of Clark’s buttons, even if he doesn’t know that they’re Clark’s. Lex can play him like a fiddle, and as for the general populace— would you be so steadfast in your trust of the invulnerable alien that could laser you in half in the blink of an eye and seems to be getting a little too comfortable in his role as peacekeeper? Would you, when even the slightest chance could slaughter your entire planet and you would have nothing and no one would could stop him— except, of course, Lex Luthor?

     We’ve been shown through many media that when Lex can’t manipulate his opponent, when villain comes that is simply too big for him to work on, he is at incredible risk. There are several stories I can think of of the top of my head where Lex becomes a temporary ally of the heroes simply because he realizes he can’t manipulate this new, powerful player and that therefore they are a risk to him (I actually really like those stories because the dynamics between him and the heroes are incredibly fun and interesting— you start to get an idea of who Lex is underneath all of the wit and ego).

     This is Supergirl’s great failure with Lex. The show understands that he is a genius— makes a great fuss about it. They understand that he is a manipulator— it’s his entire plot line with Lena. But they fail to understand that Lex’s ploys don’t work because he’s just so smart like the smartest ever. They work because he knows Superman and he knows that people are afraid of him— even the ones who trust and love him live with the knowledge that if he gets mind controlled or goes crazy, he could kill them all with ease, and that it’s happened before.

     Supergirl wasn’t around for Lex’s turn. This Supergirl wasn’t even in that steady of contact with Clark. She has no stinging betrayal, no anger and bitter history to make her rash and predictable. Certainly by now, two seasons into Lex’s placement in the show, she is angry— but by all the evidence we’ve been given, Kara’s anger just makes her more volatile, unpredictable and sometimes genuinely down for murder, which is definitely not something Lex needs. We have seen her both let Lex “fall to his death” (when she wasn’t all that angry— she just accepted his suicide without trying to force him into prison) and nearly shoot him with laser vision (this time she was angry and emotionally unstable after the death of Argo and the more Lex centered anger that he revealed her identity and destroyed her relationship with Lena. There is no question that she would have killed-- or at the very least maimed-- him if The Monitor hadn’t intervened). If Superman just murdered Lex when he got angry, he would have died a dozen times over.

     Lex doesn’t even have a basic understanding of Kara’s mindset. He can’t. Superman was raised by American humans in Kansas— he has a worldview that Lex could easily pick up on because it is at least based on watching most of the same events unfold as they grew up— and that’s if they had never met before they started fighting. Sure, he could assume Superman had some quirks from being an alien, but the base Americanized cultural standpoint was already affecting Lex’s machinations because he was an American. He’s familiar with the culture and values Superman follows— not so with Kara. I don’t even know if it was possible for him to obtain information on her religion, let alone the cultural views on justice. His research on her past fights would have been choppy at best, given that there are so many things that only Kara or the other Superfriends were there for. He can’t have the information about that fight on Mars where Kara literally disintegrated at least 3 white martians. He can’t know what happened with Reign beyond “she’s not going to be a problem anymore”. He might have more information about the Daxamite invasion through government records and his mother but the information is still limited. As for Non and Myriad, we don’t even know what happened to Non, and did they report to the DEO that J’onn literally tore Indigo in half (very graphically I might add). Or did they just say “They won’t be a problem anymore.” Lex may have been spying on Kara since Season 2, but how much is watching her civilian life going to help him understand her, when Kara’s civilian life was constructed to hide? Kara Danvers doesn’t say a lot of what she thinks to avoid notice, and even Supergirl keeps her mouth shut a lot of the time to try and maintain human-alien relations. The episodes where she squabbles with the Col. Haley and President Baker are full of her smiling and gritting her teeth through statements that clearly make her very angry.

     Lex “falling to his death” and then getting shot at the end of season 4 was a great moment— it fit with the characters motivations, but it also unfortunately illustrated the problem with Supergirl characters interacting with Lex. J’onn was a soldier who kills people. Kara has killed people. Alex has killed people. This scene was not the first time we watched Lena try to murder someone with that gun. They are not restricted by the moral code Superman uses, which makes it both more difficult and more dangerous for Lex to try manipulating them— so he doesn’t and instead they skip the intermediary and rely wholly on him being able to manipulate the public. This works to an extent with Red Daughter, but only because anti-alien sentiment was at an all time high with the Children of Liberty, and because Lex lucked into an amnesiac supergirl clone. So little of the heavy lifting was actually done by Lex it feels less like his accomplishment and more like he cheated off of 3 different people and then bragged about his math skills. I said it before and I’ll say it again. The season 4 villain could have been anyone with moderate intelligence and resources. After crisis, the excuses just get weaker and weaker. I mean come on, he confessed to trying to mind control the whole world in front of the jury while screaming vile things at his sister who’s sitting there visibly flinching at his words and they unanimously voted not-guilty? Are you kidding? (Also after watching all the courtroom scenes in Supergirl... do they know how courtrooms work? I mean, I laughed as hard as anyone at the “I plead the 5th” line, but seriously. Do they?)

    And Crisis was… a choice. I personally hated that they brought Lex back to life— more so because the in-universe reasoning was so weak. Lex Luthor does not face a whole lot of consequences, it’s true, but that’s because he has the genius, guile, and money to avoid them. To give him such an unearned out— especially after all the damage he’d done by dying— really hurt the both the stakes and the character. Lex is a human, and he fights Superman by taking advantage of very human things: corruption, anger, and fear as well as ingenuity and resourcefulness. He loads the deck in his favor— he doesn’t win on luck. And Lex in the CW Supergirl, seems to only win on luck. First he finds Red Daughter right when anti-alien sentiment is blowing up, then he is resurrected, then he finds out the crisis world loves him. He has had exactly 1 major victory based on his own work— manipulating Brainy. A manipulation which was really hard to believe when Brainy was, in canon, much, much smarter than Lex, familiar with his tactics, lying to the superfriends for no reason, and had no emotional reaction to cloud his judgement. 

      And even so, this one plot line was one of the more interesting ones in season 5 and the most Lex Luthor-like plot line the show has had. Even when I felt my suspension of disbelief slipping, it wasn’t entirely in tatters. Lex’s win felt somewhat earned. 

     He has been in the show for 2 1/2 seasons and he has had 1 major victory that felt at all earned. 2 and 1/2 seasons. That’s currently around 45% of the show’s run time.

     All in all, we have 4 deeply related problems that plague the CW Supergirl Lex Luthor:

Lex Luthor’s plans rely as much on effective manipulation of Superman as they do on his own genius. Without that manipulation, his victories rely much more on happenstance and luck, making them feel less earned.

Lex Luthor cannot effectively manipulate Supergirl— at the very least, not in the beginning of their relationship, which CW Supergirl focuses on— nor does he try to manipulate her or much of the cast beyond Lena and once with Brainy.

Supergirl kills people. Supergirl has killed Lex. Superman doesn’t kill people.

Lex fighting Supergirl does not have the kind of inherent emotional weight that Lex fighting Superman does.

     There are some other issues I have with the CW supergirl version of Lex, but I think if it was a Superman show I wouldn’t have minded. The large amount of screen time dedicated to him would make sense there, and the fact that he’s a cockroach seemingly impervious to any plot consequences would also fit more in line with Superman’s increasing frustration and make his manipulations more effective.

     The only problem I have that wouldn’t been solved purely by making it about Superman is the crowding problem. In season 1, Non and the DEO were highly connected and fed each other as villains. Season 2 also fit that same block of alien vs. anti alien. Both of those secondary villains (the army/DEO in s1 and Cadmus in s2) were very much not as big a villain as the main. Season 3 sort of had a secondary villain with Morgan Edge, but he was mostly just a Lena problem. All of these seasons had a good balance between the villains screen time and also between the villains and heroes. It got a little more complicated with the extra world killers in s3, but still functioned fairly smoothly with focus on Reign. This is one of the main reasons that seasons 1 and 3 are my favorites. S4, however, got more cluttered. A lot more cluttered. Manchester Black, the Children of Liberty, Lex Luthor, Red Daughter, and Eve Tessmacher were all villains with multi-episode arcs handled directly by Supergirl herself. There was too much to cover, not enough connection, and not enough time— plus 2 new main cast members (Look, I love Nia and Brainy but that season had way too much going on). Season 5 had Leviathan, Lena Luthor, Lex Luthor and 2 new mains. Each of those villain arcs had their own distinct plot from one another and screen time started to become more choppy and spread out. Season 6 now has so far Lex Luthor, the phantom zone, and Nyxly, as well as the Zor-El mini-arc, and while I’ll give them some leeway for Melissa Beniost’s maternity leave, there is again too much in too little time. Villains are underdeveloped or not given weighty closures, each main gets less and less personal screentime, and every shot that doesn’t serve a good or entertaining purpose feels like pouring out water from a canteen in the desert, especially now in the last season. Lex has greatly suffered for this both in the rage at how much screen time he gets compared to other characters, Kara in particular, and because of how his arcs are still hobbled by the lack of it.

    I just find myself wishing they’d restricted Lex to a 3 or 4 episode mini-arc, or just season 4 and saved him for the Superman and Lois show. They could have played the crisis resurrection as just an unfortunate coincidence of fate and had it be Superman’s problem from there on. 

    To Jon Cryer, may you never see this. It’s so very not your fault.

If anyone actually reads this whole thing and I got something wrong let me know. I’d love to discuss it. Today, I’m just trying to isolate the main issues I have with Lex in Supergirl. 

[spidey-strange]

The Devil All The Time - review

I’ve just finished watching this movie by Antonio Campos, adapted from the book by Donald Ray Pollock.

I deliberately didn’t read the book beforehand as many have done, purely because I didn’t want to a) know what happened or b) be constantly comparing it to the book (as that usually is a bit of a let down).

There is so much I could say, but without giving away any spoilers I can tell you this – this is a film that will stay with you for a long time, whether you liked it or not.

This movie is all about internal conflict. Wars play out overseas while in tiny rural America, wars play out in people’s minds – the battle between right and wrong, good and evil, heaven and hell.

That internal conflict comes with the guise of religion. It’s laced throughout, from iconography, cinematography, language, even the music on the radio – and yet I don’t think I saw a single cast member wearing a crucifix necklace. All of them seemingly turning to God, yet all of them using Him as their excuse for the inexcusable.

The main character is Arvin Russell, the most wretched of children. No child should ever have to witness what he did. You can tell as he moves into adulthood that he is walking the fine line between succumbing to his trauma and rising above it. The tension resonates throughout, at times he speaks without really opening his mouth his jaw is so set – which makes the scene at the end all the more poignant.

Tom Holland is a great actor but the world hasn’t really seen it yet – but they will now. That tension I just wrote about is through his whole body. Even though he’s doing bad things (not really a spoiler – everyone does bad things in this film) you can’t help but root for him. Everyone else is doing bad things for sexual thrills or power – or delusions – but Arvin does it because he just needs to be free. To right all the wrongs in his life as far as he can, and release himself from the shackles of grief and abandonment.

The rest of the VERY impressive cast deliver too. When Robert Pattinson enters the stage, there is an initial moment where his Edward Cullen was showing but that was quickly replaced by a villain camp in nature but predatory in action. Sebastian Stan is, frankly, unrecognisable at first, everything about him from his puffed out cheeks to his slovenly gait taking him a million miles from Bucky Barnes.

Arvin’s father, Willard, played by Bill Skarsgard, is a complex character, well played. Consumed by memories from the war, he’s troubled – so much so that buying a candy bar for his son was, as Arvin recalled, the best day he’d had with him.

Riley Keough (Sandy Henderson) and Jason Clarke (Carl Henderson) play, in my opinion, some of the sickest people I’ve ever seen on screen. They are the whole package of depravity and they do it with a cold indifference that makes it chilling every time they’re on screen.

There’s also great performances by Mia Waskiowska and Eliza Scanlon as the meek mother and daughter Helen and Lenora.

It might not be to everyone’s liking but I really liked the narration from Donald Ray Pollock, it almost felt like he was Arvin, speaking as an old man, recounting the tale from a rocking chair.

Overall, as many will have warned, it’s not for the faint of heart. But if you watched it as I did, I wonder if you’ll find yourself with your own internal conflict. Just like the characters, you ask yourself, how far would you go for your family?

[zevlors-tail]

Villain Deku Playlist

Here’s a list of songs on my Vil!Deku playlist on YT. This playlist is basically Not/SFW so be mindful of that. These are in no particular order. I put the lyrics I felt fit him best from each song under the title. :)

TW: Not/SFW, poor taste in music, and lots of curse words for some reason.

Mind Games - Sickick (Slowed Version) Sin after sin you won’t feel no more, and you’ve lost your trust again. I know you wish you could let me know that you’re praying for an end! ... I can lie to you and tell you you can get me out your head, but I’m loving watching you think you’re controlling me instead! There’s another side that you don’t know, you don’t know. I can’t wait to get you all alone, all alone! Once I’m in there ain’t no letting go, letting go... Watch me turn your mind into my home!

Desire - Meg Myers (Slowed Version) See, I gotta hunt you, I gotta bring you to my hell. Baby, I wanna fuck you, I wanna feel you in my bones! I’m gonna love you, I’m gonna tear into your soul! Desire; I’m hungry... I hope you’ll feed me. How do you want me, how do you want me!? Honey, I wanna break you, I wanna throw you to the hounds. Yeah, I gotta hurt you; I gotta hear it from your mouth!

Bruises And Bitemarks - Good With Grenades You bring the ropes and chains, I’ll bring the pills and games! I can show you pain and make you say my name! You will believe my lies that I’m not like other guys; that sparkle in my eyes is part of my disguise! You’re in a place for fear, lips are for biting here. Let’s make this moment worth the while! Let’s kill the night and go down in style! Feel the magic rise; we’re plotting our demise of perspiration and alcohol as I introduce the bedroom brawl!

Vacation Bible School - Ayesha Erotica And baby I know, I know whatever city you’re in, you’re still the boy that I’d pick in a line up of like thirty hot guys. Your eyes are so, so pretty; I bet your lips are probably wet with the lies of our relationship. 

Teeth - Lady Gaga Show me your teeth. Don’t want no money, just want your sex! ... Got no salvation, got no religion (my religion is you). Take a bite of my bad girl meat; show me your teeth! ... Tell me something that’ll save me; I need a man who makes me alright. Tell me something that’ll change me; I’m gonna love you with my hands tied. Show me your teeth!

Monster - Lady Gaga He ate my heart, he ate my heart, instead he’s a monster in my bed. He ate my heart, he ate my heart! Instead, he’s a monster in my bed... I wanna just dance, but he took me home instead. Oh, there was a monster in my bed! We french kissed on a subway train, he tore my clothes right off; he ate my heart and then he ate my brain! That boy is a monster!

I’m Bad At Life - Falling In Reverse I’m not well; I am sick...the best kind of sick that one can get, so you can’t believe a word they say about the person I am today. If all else fails, just think instead, at least you know I’m good in bed! So trace the lines of my tattoos, whisper that you love me too... So don’t hold your breath for me, but watching you turn blue would be comforting. I told you once, I’ll tell you twice! I’ll give you bad advice because I’m bad at life!

Suffer - Get Scared How will I last from all the hell in my past!? A battle out of my hands! Call me disaster; I’m filled with disdain. So many moments that I can’t erase... Cut you open and make you sick, suffer suffer suffer like I did. Take the poison and lock your lips, suffer suffer suffer!

Problematic - Get Scared I’m growing madder by the day. It doesn’t matter anyway, overdramatic and insane! But you look at me so differently, oh me specifically, ‘cause I’ve got all these little things. Laugh at me, “tragedy!” Fake apologies! Can I just call it quits? I can’t take all of this.

Voodoo - Ghost Town My habit of crawling in your bed at night is leading you to thinking that this is for life, but I’m starving for your attention, while you’re begging for my affection... Suffering is easy with a villain like me! Now you’re contemplating leaving, but you can’t escape the thoughts of what they told you would happen in the end. Now I bet you’re really wishing that we had never met! I think about you when we met in that ghost town, and how it felt to be held and never let down. My lifeless touch was just the touch that you were waiting for; my evil ways were always there, just couldn’t see before!

Bitches - Mindless Self Indulgence Bitches love me ‘cause they know that I can rock. Bitches love me ‘cause they know that I can rhyme. Bitches love me ‘cause they know that I can fuck! Bitches love me ‘cause they know that I’m on time! ... Bitches love me, bitches love me, bitches love me, bitches love me, bitches love me, bitches love me, love me, love me, love me, love me!

High Enough - K. Flay (Slowed Version) I used to like liquor to get me inspired but you look so beautiful, my new supplier! I used to like smoking to stop all the thinking, but I found a different buzz! The world is a curse, it’ll kill if you let it. I know they got pills that can help you forget it; they bottle it, call it medicine, but I don’t need drugs! I’m already high enough! You got me, you got me good! I’m already high enough; I only, I only, I only got eyes for you!

Hollow - Nvtvs x Torchfvce Imma choke this bitch’s throat ‘till she gasping and shit, rip her fucking pussy like I’m downloading it, bitch I’m going fucking rambo when I’m beating the clit, make her look me in the eyes while she swallows the dick!