#Love the interpretation of the true conflict

[lilliana17]

Look at the goobers!

gods (and their reluctant wingmen)

[monards]

listen I am soooo ready to bash on Rhinedottir as the next person is, because she’s so lovely and fun to shove into a open flame head first. BUT!!!! comma. there is a certain line i believe exists, where if you’re going out of your way to picture everything she does as explicitly cruel and ignore those good traits. there is maybe a little loss of the plot. somewhere

[woolydemon]

for ppl that know my tf fan lore you would think I'd be ryu/kita pilled since I was blur/bee CEO but actually I was driven by my shock/bee instincts to be drawn to ake/kita instead <- none of these words are in the bible

[millionsknives]

i don’t think i’ve rewatched atla since becoming a committed pacifist and i just finished what was probably my tenth rewatch and i have never loved aang more. i've seen it so many times but i still came away with a new appreciation for the way the end of the story was handled. aang is the only survivor of a genocide and he is clinging to the last remnants of his culture and religion, and everyone is telling him the only way to save the world is to kill the dictator whose regime is responsible for the genocide, but to do so would abandon the deeply held beliefs of his people. if aang goes against his beliefs and kills ozai, his people's way of life dies completely and sozin wins.

aang knows it would be wrong but he can't see another way out so he prays for an answer, and the universe hears him and the spirits send out the lion turtle, and the creator answers him. and here's the thing that i never put together before today: aang would not have been able to energybend ozai if he had given in and wanted to kill him. the lion turtle tells aang that only the incorruptible can bend another’s energy, or else they will become corrupted themselves. and i think that aang, because of his love for the fire nation as he had once known it, was never corrupted by personal hatred for the fire lord or the fire nation. he was able to expertly hold two conflicting beliefs in harmony better than any adult could, the belief that ozai is a horrible person and the world would be better off without him and that he's still a human being with a life that is sacred.

and i don't think it's a matter of selfishness like some people make it out to be. aang is not some immature little kid who doesn't want to kill because killing is for bad guys. he's an incredibly wise and spiritual person who was shaped by airbender beliefs and upholds airbender beliefs, and he can see beyond the scope of this war. the balance of the world depends on the existence of the four nations, and aang does not just represent the air nomads, he IS the air nomads. he's all that's left.

despite many people’s interpretation of the four past avatars’ advice, none of the past avatars outright tell him to kill ozai. they tell him to be decisive, to bring justice, to be proactive, to be sacrificial. but none of them tells him definitively to kill him. he doesn't disobey or ignore their advice, he follows their ancient wisdom while still staying true to his beliefs. yangchen actually comes the closest to outright telling him to kill ozai (even more than kiyoshi, surprisingly) but what she fails to account for is that aang is not just the avatar, he is the last airbender, and being the last airbender is far greater a burden than being the avatar. no matter what happens, once he dies, there will always be another avatar. but if he is not careful to preserve the airbender way of life, there will be no more airbenders. yangchen could sacrifice her air nomad way of life for the sake of her duty to the world because there were thousands of other air nomads to continue their traditions. aang has no such privilege.

and it's not that he doesn't want to kill, it's that he actually doesn't think he can do it -- both that he won't be able to emotionally bring himself to kili someone, and, prodigy that he is, he doesn't have the raw bending skill to overcome a comet-powered master firebender. and then it turns from 'i don't think i can do it' into ‘i can’t do it.’ and when the avatar state gives him enough power to actually do it, he changes the answer to ‘i won’t do it.’ he overcomes all the combined power of his past lives to say no, i have found another answer and i will remain incorruptible. to kill is to maintain the power struggle of the fire nation and to reject air nomad wisdom and without airbenders the world CANNOT be brought into balance.

the only thing ozai cares about is power, and that's what the entire fight with ozai is about, physically and ideologically, because ozai only sees power in terms of force, fear, threats, and violence. to ozai, aang (and his entire people) are weak and undeserving of life because they are largely pacifists, but he fails to see the magnificent power that the airbenders do hold, spiritual wisdom and mastery of the self and contentment and joy and harmony and a deep understanding of the world that a man like ozai could never obtain. to kill ozai would ratify ozai’s worldview that power as he defines it is the most important pursuit in the world and the only way to assert one's right to be in the world is to be cruel and violent like him. i think to ozai, becoming powerless might be worse than being dead. he wants power, or he wants death, and aang gives him neither. it upends everything he believed in. aang, the avatar, but more importantly, the last airbender, armed by his past lives' power and his people's love and the spirit world's blessing and the lion turtle's omniscience (and toph's mastery of true sight through neutral jing), ends the war 100 years to the day after the air nomad genocide, in the way that his people taught him, with power that goes beyond force and violence, with spiritual wisdom, with an incorruptible soul, with mercy -- mercy that is not weakness, mercy that brings justice.

[alfascorpiionux]

How to recognise the placements | Sun, Moon Edition ~ part 1

Sagittarius Sun: people who exude friendliness, are talkative, open minded, but also stubborn with their ideas. They can get mad about small things but usually don’t hold onto anger. Probably interested in some kind of sport or multiple. Talk freely about things many would shy away from: sexual experiences, family problems etc. Can be forgetful at times or overly insistent with their idea, blunt. They are pretty realistic people, with feet planted on the ground.

Some of the friendliest people you can find overall.

Gemini Sun: friendly, talkative but a little distant emotionally. Super smart, maybe a little nerdy. Interested in technology, new discoveries. May seem a little shallow or uncommitted.

Overall a great conversationalist with a wide range of interests.

Probably many acquaintances and/or friends (depending on other placements).

Could be quarrelsome or on the contrary resort to passive-aggressiveness. Very attuned to social dynamics in general.

As other air signs, he/she can seem a little detached from reality at times, with “his/her head in the clouds”.

Values friendships a great deal.

Aries Sun: changing when it comes to communication, sometimes talkative other times lost in their own world. Generous to people close to them; could be sort of mean/blunt with strangers. Explosive outbursts when angered. Could have a hard time admitting when they are wrong; sort of bossy at times; very hardworking and self-motivated people who always provide for people close to them and are dynamic and creative communicators with a special kind of charisma that draws people in.

True to their word, but impatient people. Could be passive-agressive about the most unusual things.

Words of affirmation is one of their love language. They like giving and receiving gifts too.

Aquarius Sun: can feel like a stranger in their own skin. They are super smart, individualistic and friendly people who have a really difficult time fitting in. They somehow always feel like the odd one and could at times push away people without really meaning to. They value friendships a great deal and would do almost anything for a close friend. They are super loyal at time to the wrong people. Compassionate, unique and insightful are words that would describe them well. They think outside the box and like being objective in communication. They can be sensitive in close relationships and people could take advantage of their kindness because they tend to ignore their problems and not always speak up when they need to. In fact when they do people always look at them strangely and give them the side eye. They can feel awkward about they way the speak and/or their personality in general. Could have trouble communicating their ideas and needs especially when young.

Libra Moon: these people will always be kind and polite in public, even when they’re seething inside. Have a sense of style and broad outlook on life, relationships. They like being liked even if that means not truly revealing themselves or keeping their anger hidden. They can be huge gossips at times and usually compare themselves to the people around them a lot or at least pay great attention to those around them, sometimes to a fault. They can falsely interpret people’s words/intentions at times. Wide circle of acquaintances is likely. Could be talkative or not. Quite idealistic in love.

Could have problems with passive-aggressiveness or fear of conflict.

Could be musically talented or love dressing up, decorating their home nicely.

Capricorn Moon: private, pragmatic, reliable people. They likely don’t talk about their private lives, not to just anyone and could take secrets to the grave. They are true to their words and constant in their actions. Could fear showing vulnerability and prefer keeping their emotions in check and solving their problems by themselves. They are always making plans, setting goals for themselves and like being productive. They cannot just sit still and do nothing all day.

Very hardworking and ambitious, sometimes to their detriment.

Very patient and calm in face of adversity.

Sagittarius Moon: it’s not that easy to recognise and it can go very different ways. They are people who love being active and hate feeling cooped up in any shape or form (of course this could mean commitment phobia too). Adventurous, love trying out new activities. Travelling is likely on their agenda as well. Highly philosophical and righteous people, at times egocentric. Friendly, talkative but not necessarily emotionally open. Very individualistic. It could take a while to really get to know them. Very curious people who love learning new things and expending their horizons in every way. Sometimes they can be emotionally unstable/have anger issues especially when feeling restricted in their activities.

Overall very optimistic and friendly people to have around who will surprise you with their questions and their special outlook on life.

Pisces Moon: have a truly charming aura that draws people in. They are kind, sensitive people who are somewhat introverted. They need their alone time and are likely musically talented. People want to get to know them but it’s not always easy. They can be a little changing in friendships or just ignore their friends altogether, especially when they fall in love. Many crushes are possible. They are idealistic in love. Very tolerant but also sensitive, they really absorb the energies of those around them. Could exhibit selfish behaviour as a manner of self-protection when feeling overwhelmed with life. Could be flacky with appointments and is rather moody. Emotional yet private, could keep secrets for a long time if he/she wanted to.

Likely loves being in nature and/or animals.

Aries Moon: very present and emotionally intense. Explosive outbursts when angered but usually they don’t last long. Doesn’t really hold grudges. Very active and curious. A little blunt in communication and doesn’t always notices subtleties. Steadfast and loyal especially to the people he/she loves. Very expressive emotionally (depending on the Moon’s position) and could have a hard time lying because their emotions are literally written on their face when they speak.

Likes making friends and talking to new people. Generous person.

Aquarius Moon: very tolerant, diplomatic and intelligent communicators. Very individualistic much like the Sagittarius Moon and needs their space in relationships. If the Sun is in Libra/Gemini it could lead to the person becoming very popular in their community.

Probably has many friends and is very intellectually curious and compassionate.

At times he/she could feel like an odd duck even when surrounded by likeminded individuals.

Creative, insightful but a little rigid in their beliefs. Could get offended if you press the right buttons but is not necessarily argumentative. Very loyal in friendships though it takes some time to really get to know them. They like being objective and not express their emotions as freely as other placements. They can be stubborn and unpredictable at times and definitely have a temper.

Leo Moon: loves attention and praise and adores being in the spotlight. Very warm, loyal and kind friend who’d always go the extra mile for you. Fiercely protective, especially of their close ones. Creative, passionate, a little dramatic, they’ll always have their way in the end. Creative, confident and charismatic individuals who draw people in. Likely very stylish.

Could become somewhat egocentric and shallow in relationships and loves being right.

Virgo Moon: is perfectionistic, detail-oriented and critical both of others and themselves. They like planning ahead and are constant and pragmatic in pursuing their goals. They can read into other’s intentions and can at times find faults when their is none. They like analysing themselves and others people. Are likely very health-oriented and conscientious people. Reliable, stable and good-natured are words that describe them well.

Scorpio Moon: very intense, loyal and highly serious about personal relationships. They know the value of a given world and can get really pissed off by dishonest, flaky people. They cannot but live their emotions deeply and they’ve likely have gone trough some really heavy, possibly traumatising experiences in the past that have shaped their current emotional world. They are the “ride-or-die” kind of people and it takes a really long time to gain their trust as they are typically quite distrustful of others, especially in the beginning. But if you’ve managed, they will never ever abandon you and would bring you the stars in the sky if they could to make you happy. They will listen to your problems and become your biggest confidant and friend. Be careful not to betray their trust, though. They aren’t known to be the most forgiving people.

Cancer Moon: very loyal, caring and kind but also private people. They would do anything for a family member and can be fierce and sassy when angered, contrary to what others may think. They are organised and rather methodical people but also sensitive, emotional and very in tune with what others are feeling. Can make extremely loyal and trustworthy friends.

At times they can be shy and secretive and don’t exactly like conflict. They could hold onto grudges as well, if someone really upset them.

[moonastro]

Juno persona chart

mercury in the houses

what is a juno persona chart? looking into juno persona chart gives more detailed insight of how the relationship and marriage overall of you and your spouse will be like. it also describes them in a sense as well. The Greek Goddess Juno is described to rule over love and marriage and hence why the asteroid is looked into for that theme.

mercury is a planet of communication, the mind and the way one talks about things. mercury in the juno persona chart gives insight on how the couple communicates and the mental connection between the two.

reminder: this is my interpretation from observations and first hand experiences, so don't take this to heart.

mercury in 1st house: since this house is ruled by mars lots of quick speech and lots of quick thinking within the marriage. lots of arguing and conflict when it comes to words like using vulgar language quite often and so on. They can quickly grow bored with routine and may need continual mental stimulation and excitement. They like expressing their thoughts, opinions, and ideas with others and may have a natural knack for public speaking or performing arts. They may influence people with their words and thoughts so they can easily get what they want from their partner. ego can be very pungent during communication, so you show your true self when in depth of conversation with your partner and are very ethical and true to what you say.

spouse may have their natal mercury in aries, 1st house, fire sign, fire house (1,5,9)

mercury in 2nd house: each party's thought process is very structured and this is the perfect example of thinking before speaking. whatever comes out of this placements mouth is meaningful and important. speaking pace may be sensual and slow, very clear communication between the two. likely to state the obvious and most predictable and logical things. this placements doesn't like to complicate things so they just get to the point. They may love looking into investment possibilities, analysing market trends, and developing smart financial strategies to increase their wealth and security. This placement may cause money-related anxiety or tension, particularly if they believe they have little control over their financial status so discussions about finance to their partner is common.

spouse may have their natal mercury in taurus, 2nd house, earth sign, earth house (2,6,10)

mercury in 3rd house: communication is very forward and free. no hesitations when it comes to talking to each other. talking is a very important part of the relationship and when something happens the couple just need to talk it out. its all about talking it out. it can be quite damaging actually if there is a block in free communication. Shared interests in studying, reading, and debating diverse topics might be a strong bonding aspect in their relationships. This location indicates versatility and flexibility in communication approaches. Individuals may readily change their method of expressing themselves to fit different situations to their other half. They are more inclined to appreciate their partner if they are as adaptable and open-minded in their communication style.

spouse may have their natal mercury in gemini, 3rd house, air sign, air house (3,7,11)

mercury in 4th house: lots of open and honest communicative styles for this placement. sensitive topics may be a theme for this placement also. both party's communicate with a respectable and loving matter for the other person. including family members or talking about them is common. The individual may come from a household that values open communication and engages in frequent conversation, debate, and idea sharing from what they learnt from their household. They may have learnt to express themselves vocally from an early age and are comfortable conversing with family members. They may find it easier to express their feelings verbally rather than physically, and they may seek intellectual relationships with family members to meet their emotional demands. They may also be prone to overanalysing or intellectualising their emotions in order to gain a better understanding of their partner.

spouse may have their natal mercury in cancer, 4th house, water sign, water house (4,8,12)

mercury in 5th house: very playful and unserious topics can be talked about in the relationship. this placements communication style is quite sensual but very fun and playful, which of course leads to arguments so be careful with that. They may have a way with words that is fascinating and captivating, making them exceptional storytellers. They may also have a sense of humour and wit, and they use words to express themselves and entertain others. These people can exhibit their creativity through writing, public speaking, acting, or any other means of self-expression. They may have a natural flair for presenting their thoughts in innovative and engaging ways, which sets them apart in artistic endeavours. They may love flirting, light-hearted bantering, and verbal expressions of affection. They may also value their intellectual relationship with heir partner and like engaging in fascinating talks.

spouse may have their natal mercury in leo, 5th house, fire sign, fire house (1,5,9)

mercury in 6th house: this placement enjoys mental stimulation and is constantly working their mind. for example in marriage, when going on about the day, this placement cant take their mind of what they did before they left the house, like thinking if they turned off the lights or if they locked the door and so on. lots of precautions and overthinking for this placement. which leads to being critical in everything that they say, like after a conversation between both parties this placement rethinks the whole speaking process and thinks of what they could have said and what they said that was wrong. likely to debate on practical things like where to go for grocery shopping or what gym to go to and so on. lots of conversations about work and routine for example asking 'how was your day', 'how was work?' and so forth. daily check ins and having a routine with their conversations are common. very honest when it comes to health matters, if they are worried about their partners health they take initiative.

spouse may have their natal mercury in virgo, 6th house, earth sign, earth house (2,6,10)

mercury in 7th house: They may express themselves freely and honestly to their partners while expecting the same amount of communication in return. Clear and honest communication is critical to sustaining harmony in their relationships. They may examine the benefits and drawbacks of their relationships, assess their compatibility, and use logic to better comprehend their partner's point of view. These people may be open to new ideas, prepared to negotiate, and find concessions in disagreements. They can readily tailor their communication style to the demands of their partners. They may settle issues by good conversation, identifying common ground, and achieving mutually beneficial agreements. Individuals may need to avoid being overly critical or nit-picky in their relationships with partners.

spouse may have their natal mercury in libra, 7th house, air sign, air house (3,7,11)

mercury in 8th house: very very intense topics. communication is very deep and spiritually inclined. lots of talks about taboo things that others may not feel comfortable with. communication can be full of secrets, discovery of each other throughout communication. this is a very 'i want to know all of who you are' kind of placement. very intense. questions everything about their partner to the tiniest detail. They want to understand the psychological undercurrents of their relationships and are interested in themes that delve into the depths of human experience. Communication in these partnerships is passionate, intimate, and transforming. Their intellectual curiosity motivates them to seek out hidden truths and go into the unknown, both inside themselves and in their relationship. They are more inclined to discuss common money, investments, or shared objectives, in order to build trust and mutual understanding in their marriage. They may be adept at expressing their deepest ideas and feelings, establishing intimacy and trust in their relationships via open and honest communication. They recognise the power of words to heal, empower, and promote progress, and they may actively strive to utilise communication as a tool for personal and relationship development. These people may be drawn to therapy or counselling for personal or professional reasons, and they may have an innate ability to recognise the underlying motivations and dynamics in their interactions.

spouse may have their natal mercury in scorpio, 8th house, water sign, water house (4,8,12)

mercury in 9th house: These folks' relationships rely heavily on deep, meaningful talks and the exchange of ideas. They are prone to admire conversations about broad opinions and an interest in investigating a variety of topics, such as philosophy, religion, or cultural differences. They can show their love and affection through vocal expression, exchanging ideas, and participating in debates or conversations. They value communications that are exhibited well and articulate their thoughts clearly. Travelling together or participating in educational activities as a couple may strengthen their relationship and promote mutual understanding. They may also be in long-distance relationships, having met their spouses while travelling or studying overseas. They like sharing their expertise and experiences with their partner and may feel satisfaction in assisting them to learn and grow. They also value their partner who can teach them new things and widen their horizons. Their connections may include a variety of cultural influences and intellectual hobbies, which enriches their shared experiences.

spouse may have their natal mercury in sagittarius, 9th house, fire sign, fire house (1,5,9)

mercury in 10th house: You and your partner may have a strong cerebral connection and like discussing, debating, and exchanging ideas. both party's perception is intelligent, intellectually fascinating, and capable of participating in meaningful talks. You and your spouse may assist each other's job ambitions by providing practical advice and networking opportunities. Your connection may be tied to your public image or require professional collaboration. You and your partner may approach difficulties logically, using facts and analysis to identify answers. You may also be skilled at talking with authoritative people or navigating professional situations together. Engaging in intellectual pursuits like studying, attending workshops, or discussing ideas helps to improve your partnership. You may also be concerned about how society perceives your relationship and how it affects your own reputations. You may need to be careful not to allow work-related stress or goals dominate the quality time you spend with your partner.

spouse may have their natal mercury in capricorn, 10th house, earth sign, earth house (2,6,10)

mercury in 11th house: communication style is unique for the both of you. maybe it's not something you are used to nor they are either. its a you and them only thing. lots of texting and messages can be sent in marriage, so even when you are not together you still get the time to communicate with them through your phone. lots of speaking with other people like social groups, work, colleagues that you haven't before. Individuals may clearly and precisely describe their future visions, communicating their intentions to others through verbal or writing means. They may also seek comments and advice from their social group in order to refine their goals. Individuals are more inclined to accept fresh ideas, differing viewpoints from their partner. They may be drawn to unorthodox or avant-garde ideas that challenge standard thinking.

spouse may have their natal mercury in aquarius, 11th house, air sign, air house (3,7,11)

mercury in 12th house: Individuals with this placement may have a highly intuitive and attentive communication style, catching up on subtle hints and nonverbal signs. They may have an innate ability to grasp unsaid thoughts and feelings, making them skilled at empathising and providing support in the relationship. this might suggest a preference for secrecy or prudence in communicating. These people may choose to keep certain thoughts and ideas to themselves or express them exclusively in private circumstances. They may be hesitant about disclosing too much about oneself, preferring to retain an air of mystery or seclusion in their dealings. so communication between the couple is very peaceful and intuitive. Individuals with this placement may thrive in areas requiring artistic expression, such as writing, poetry, music, or visual arts. lots of love notes and creating art dedicated to their partner is their love language. These individuals may have a great understanding of the human mind, including their own their partners underlying motives. They may be interested in psychology, psychotherapy, or other disciplines that deal with the complexity of human behaviour and emotions. They may have a natural capacity to connect with their instincts and gut sensations, which may help them navigate the hidden intricacies of relationships. They may also find fulfilment in discussing spiritual or philosophical issues, hoping to get a better grasp of the mysteries of existence.

spouse may have their natal mercury in pisces, 12th house, water sign, water house (4,8,12)

thanks for reading 🫶🏻have a nice day🤍

[casscainmainly]

if you had a graph with the x axis being from "doesn't view batman as a father" to "views batman as a father" and y axis being from "doesn't view bruce as a father" to "views bruce as a father", where would you put each batkid?

btw, i love your recent metas <3

This is such an interesting ask!! Here's my rendition of it:

I'm going to add a little reasoning because these are contestable!

Dick: I personally don't think Dick separates Bruce from Batman the way some other Batkids do. Even if he did, Dick has been with Bruce so long, is so steeped in both his vigilante and civilian lives, that he's Bruce's son in any identity. Their bond transcends any 'Bruce vs. Batman' division.

Tim: Similarly, I don't think Tim separates Bruce/Batman, especially since he came into his life knowing both identities. The reason he's lower than Dick is because Bruce wasn't his dad originally; I'm a little biased since I'm now reading Batman: Contagion, but the presence of Jack Drake in much of Tim's tenure as Robin prevents Tim from being as strongly attached to 'Bruce/Batman = dad' as Dick.

Cass: Of course Cass separates Bruce and Batman very clearly, as she does with many people, such as herself and Babs as Oracle. For the early part of their relationship she didn't know Bruce, nor did she care; Batman is her father, Bruce is just the guy Batman happens to be sometimes. (I think this is less true recently, but she still thinks of Batman first and Bruce second).

Damian: Struggled with him because he definitely thinks of Bruce as his dad under any name, but I do think it's Batman that matters to him. He is the 'blood son' but it's the Robin mantle that establishes his relationship to Bruce (Robin, Son of Batman, not Damian, son of Bruce). This may have changed recently with the current Batman and Robin run, but for the majority of Damian's time I think it's fair to say he thought of himself as the son of Batman, not Bruce. (He is not anti Bruce though, which is why he's not that low).

Jason: Jason for sure thinks of Bruce as his dad - the entirety of UtRH wouldn't have happened if Jason didn't believe to his core that Bruce loved him as a son. That belief is so strong that Bruce overshadows Batman, in a way. Jason spars with Batman on the moral front, but his conflict is ultimately always with Bruce, which is the name he consistently uses in UtRH. This is the one I'm least sure about though because I've not read lots of Jason's runs.

Stephanie: Like Cass, Stephanie didn't know Bruce at all, so a lot of her relationship to him is Batman-only. She definitely doesn't think of either Bruce or Batman as a father - her desire for Batman's approval has shades of him being a father-figure, but it never goes as far as an actual desire for a father-daughter relationship. The only reason she's higher than Duke is because of the somewhat complicated way he echoes a father (and she, to Bruce, echoes Jason).

Duke: Duke doesn't really care about Bruce, and he cares about Batman only as a mentor. He basically tells Bruce he's only useful as Batman; even then, Duke doesn't have a super deep emotional attachment to Batman. He also loves Doug, who's still alive (though MIA), and wouldn't replace him in any scenario. He explicitly calls Batman a 'mentor' and 'friend'.

These are just my takes, I'm sure there are other interpretations of every single one of these. It's one of those questions that highly depends on your preferred dynamics for the characters, where canon can go either way. Even if this is horribly incorrect, I hope it was interesting! Thanks for the ask <3.

[sapphicides]

although i doubt that this theory will end up being true, i’ve always loved the idea of the antler queen being some kind of supernatural entity/mass hallucination shared by the girls at the height of their insanity in the wilderness. what i mean by this is not that they’re all literally seeing this figure, but that they all feel its presence and worship it like a god. they offer pieces of their hair to it so they can keep it happy, in exchange for blessing or protection. their shared belief in the wilderness as a concept keeps them grounded out there, and maybe it manifests in the form of the “antler queen”

of course, this conflicts with what direction the show is going in, though. the draw of the queen card coupled with natalie being referred to as “my queen” by shauna implies that the antler queen will likely end up being a person (my bets are on shauna if we’re being realistic), but that doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be a living person. the girls who have already died out there haunt the narrative, with jackie in particular being honored as a “guide” by lottie in 3x01. in many ways, her death represented the loss of any remnants of civilization the girls had left in them, and her haunting them represents the mark the wilderness left and continued to leave on them

all that is to say, if the antler queen does end up being a supernatural being (or a mass hallucination that they interpret as being a supernatural being), i want it to be jackie. i want her character to come full circle; from being assigned the role of leader, to being dethroned as they descended into the throes of the wilderness, to becoming their leader yet again in death. i want her to serve as a symbol for what they’ve lost and what they eventually become, an ever-present reminder of the horrors they partook in. i want her to enact one last form of revenge by guiding them into further derangement, just to disappear when they need her most. i want jackie taylor to be the antler queen

i doubt she will be. but it would be so fucking cool if she was

[majikkulu]

━━ ❝ masterlist❞

these are my personal observations and may not resonate with everyone. please take them with a grain of salt, as i'm not a professional astrologer! :))

𓂃⋆.˚

♱ mars in the 12th house can lead to difficulties in expressing anger, causing frustration and misunderstandings as they tend to bottle up their emotions or find it difficult to assert themselves. natives often put a lot of energy into behind-the-scenes work, which can go unnoticed, leading others to perceive them as lazy. they may also face hidden opposition or secret enemies.

also mars in this house often brings intense, vivid dreams, usually tied to unresolved emotions. natives may dream about conflicts, struggles, or dangerous situations.

♱ any 12th house placements tend to be drawn to spiritual or mystical subjects in some way. while they may not actively pursue these interests, they often find them intriguing or fascinating.

♱ natives with north node in the 12th house often need time alone to process their thoughts and emotions. they are naturally inclined to help others and should pay close attention to their dreams, as they often hold important insights—making them great interpreters. this placement is about learning to accept things as they are and embracing the journey of self-discovery. their path involves connecting with others while realizing they’re part of something larger, and they often feel drawn to spiritual practices. they often have intuitive dreams that can offer guidance or even reveal future events.

♱ natives with venus in the 12th house often have many secret admirers, similar to how mars in this house attracts hidden enemies. romantic connections are usually kept secret. this placement can lead to a bit of delusion (i'm calling myself out fr). it encourages them to explore their true feelings and desires. they may struggle to recognize their own beauty. expressing love openly and vulnerably can be challenging, and they often prioritize others' happiness over their own.

♱ pluto in the 12th house often experience overwhelming emotions and intense emotional connections that can be both exhilarating and challenging. they may have lucid dreams that are unsettling and highly vivid, along with feelings of powerlessness and karmic baggage from past lives. this placement gives them subtle control over situations or others, though they may not always realize it. their energy can affect their surroundings, making them seem intimidating and mysterious. they might face hidden enemies or unexpected betrayals, which can force them to confront vulnerabilities and undergo deep psychological transformation. they often have a natural inclination toward paranormal and spiritual pursuits.

[mask131]

I want to briefly adress another BIG misconception about Greek gods that has (quite recently) been going on around the Internet. And it is again part due to the Percy Jackson TV show. I insist on the "TV show", because as we now know, the TV show made some changes to the book's original plotline when it came to the gods interacting with their children (like Athena's move with Echidna *cough cough*), and as a result here is what I have been hearing here and there.

"Yeah, well the Greek gods were all assholes, right, but what PJ REALLY got right was that they were especially assholes to their own children and the worst abusive parents ever".

... No?

In fact this is almost a counter-interpretation of Greek mythology, because in Greek myths and legends, the whole point was that, when a god was being an "asshole" as you say, they were an asshole to everybody... except their children. One of the reasons the Greek gods can look "bad" by modern standards is precisely because they had an habit of favorizing their own children, and taking care about them more than about other beings.

The most famous of these myths is of course Demeter's immense love and hyper-protection of Persephone - just look at the trials she went through to find her back after she disappeared.

Another famous example is how Poseidon turned on Odysseus and plagued him with curses and monsters for blinding his son - Polyphemus the cyclop (and the whole point here is that Poseidon favorized his son, despite his son being the actual criminal and monster in the case)

Ares, who was not one of the best gods, still went on an avenging mode every time his children were attacked, from the dragon slain by Cadmos to the rape of Alcippe.

There's how Apollo went berserk after the death of Asclepios. There's how Herakles had planned to be favorized by Fate since his birth thanks to Zeus, and how the entire reason Zeus inflicted on his wife the atrocious torture of hanging chained up by the sky was because he had enough of her constantly tormenting Herakles in the worst ways possible. Even Athena ended up taking care of Erichthonius as her own child despite her not being his true mother - showing that even the virgin, sexless, childless goddess has a mothering side to her.

It all goes back to Gaia, and how she keeps turning against Zeus for each time vanquishing her children - from the Titans, to the Giants, to Typhon - despite these children being again, bad news and even hurting Gaia herself. Another example of "primordial motherhood": Nyx shelters Hypnos from Zeus' wrath in the Iliad, and not even Zeus would dare anger such an elderly mother-goddess. And if we push beyond the boundaries of Greek mythology and into the very late Roman literature, we see this trend continues with Aphrodite's smothering-mothering of Eros during the Psyche legend.

A good lot of conflicts and feuds and problems in Greek mythology was precisely due to how much the gods loved their children, and how protective they were of them - with the problem that the god had the tendency to be blind to whether their children were good or evil, victims or criminals.

This is why, for example, Zeus and Hera's relationships to their children were especially important and unique in Greek myths, in the light of this god's tendency to favorize and spoil and protect their own children.

On Hera's case, her action of, for example, throwing Hephaistos into the sea at birth just because he is "ugly" is meant to come off as massively shocking. Remember that in a good bunch of Greek myths, Hera had a negative, evil, dangerous side to her, that popped up in various ways - from her jealous, vain, angry personality to how in some versions she literaly gave birth to Typhon... Unlike Zeus, who was the "ultimate father", Hera wasn't (in myths, I insist) seen as a postive mother, and was more of a mother-of-monsters avatar (after all, she did command a lot of Greek monsters), or an anti-mother (she was the one who prevented Leto from giving birth, a powerful symbol).

On the other side, Zeus was also seen regularly punishing or being very harsh to his children, but there was the secret to his character: Zeus had to act both as a father, and as a king. He embodied the all loving ancestor and the all powerful father, but he also had to act as the embodiment of law and of justice, and those two aspects of his personality clashed a lot. We see him punish his divine children regularly, but almost always because his role as the enforcer of the law primed over his role as a father - for example when he wanted to throw Apollo into Tartarus because he had caused a Cyclop genocide out of anger. But he still had this same "over-parenting" side as the other gods. Again, Herakles was one of his favorite children and he tried to arrange everything so that he could have the greatest life ever - but his official side as the "political" and "civilization" god caught up to him when Hera tricked him into swearing away the gifts he had intended for Herakles. Despite Zeus' immense love for his son, his oath and the law he embodies took over and prevented him from sheltering Herakles from Hera's hatred. The most revealing case of this "father vs king" aspect of Zeus' personality comes from the Iliad: it is the death of Saperdon.

When Zeus looks upon the Trojan War and sees that his son will soon die, he is very heavily tempted from interfering. He explicitely wishes to save him, and to change the scales of fate to avoid his impending death (because remember in the Iliad Zeus was still the god of fate who literaly weighed humans' destinities in his scale). That's his "father" side showing up. But then Hera, who is by his side, who is his queen and thus his "political" side, reminds him of his duty as a king and of his role as ultimate judge of the world and ruler of the gods. She points out he would break the very own law he imposed of not interfering with the mortal conflict. She reminds him that, as the setter of examples, if he saved Sarpedon, he would create a precedent and other gods could also start saving their own children from the war. She reminds him that he has a role as the god of law and fate, and that he can't allow his personal feelings to interfere in the matter, else he would be unfair and unjust. And thus, Zeus resignates himself to let his son die before his eyes - but he still shows his immense love for him by both sending a shower of blood as a sign of his grief, and then ordering Apollo, Hypnos and Thanatos in person to carry Sarpedon's corpse away (predating future legends about great kings and heroes taken into the afterlife by supernatural figures, like Arthur collected by Morgan and the ladies of Avalon).

In conclusion: having the gods act as if they were all bad, abusive, absent parents not getting involved in their children's life or not caring about them is actually going against what the mythology originally said in terms of characterization. The untold rule of Greek mythology was that, if gods were bad parents, it would be because they were too loving, too protective, too smothering, too spoiling, interfering too much. Not the other way around - unless you were Hera, of course. Meanwhile, having the gods act as "assholes" and bullies towards OTHER GODS' children, now that would be accurate to Greek mythology (this is the very basis of Hera's cycle of legends as a persecuting goddess). But the gods usually stuck by the side of their own children - a bit like how in a school's football or soccer game the parents end up fighting each other because of what their children did or did not do in the game.

[twilightkitkat]

Thinking about the role of the "love interest" in superhero media and how poolverine subverts this.

The "love interest" in most movies is just a placeholder. Boring. Tame, Predictable.

This is especially true in action media, wherein romance takes a backseat and is often seen as an add-on rather than a main plot point. Romance is either a source of conflict or motivation that serves to drive a character arc forward, but no more or less.

Take, for example, Vanessa. I love her character. Her personality and character are fascinating. However, especially in Deadpool 2 and 3, she serves more as a device to move the plot forward rather than a genuine character. The first movie established her character and importance, so it's understandable why Wade chose to hide his identity and how he slowly came to terms with his new identity. She helped move his character arc of self-acceptance forward, yes, but she also existed as her own entity.

In the movies after this, she isn't treated with the same care. She's used as a central motivation in Deadpool 2, a force that drives Wade to save Russel and confront Cable when his character motivations aren't easily tied to morals. However, that's it. She isn't fighting alongside him or given the same treatment as the other important "family" characters. In Deadpool 3, she's treated with even less care, only having short scenes at the beginning and end of the movie to give Wade a representation of "home."

This isn't to say Vanessa isn't an important character and shouldn't be treated as such. However, the purpose of having a "love interest" in an action movie's plot isn't just to have someone to love. It's almost always to have someone who can be kidnapped or killed to spring the main character into action. It's someone who fades to the sidelines so the main character can show off while showcasing their relationship success.

Consider this: in all of the Marvel comic universes, Deadpool and Wolverine have had many different partners. Different names, different faces. It's common for the "love interest" of a superhero to be seen as an accessory that changes shape depending on the comic artist or franchise. After all, they don't need a cohesive identity to serve their purpose as a "general, digestible reason for the main character to act."

Everyone understands how love can cause people to do crazy things. There is no further elaboration needed, even for morally grey or black characters. It's an easy way to make an understandable motive for the audience. Suspension of disbelief.

And yet, the superheroes remain the same. They get to keep their identity throughout different media. It's always Wolverine and Deadpool. Logan and Wade. Even if they have slightly different plotlines, their core characteristics and intrinsic identity are constant.

Logan could have Jean Gray. Or Mariko. Or Silver Fox. He can have anyone play the role of "love interest," a role that can be shapen by a ball of clay and changed entirely to fit the narrative.

But his "rival" and "best friend" in the multiverse will always be Deadpool. They're notorious for being referenced in each other's media. For fighting. For working together. They are A Set.

This is why I'm so much more drawn to Poolverine than other ships. Wade has different love interests depending on the media type. So does Logan. I can't tie in knowledge from different interpretations into the romance because the love interests are fluid. But with each other, they interact in almost every universe. Have a consistent bond. A "standard." They're soulmates, in a way, forever destined to meet and be important to each other.

This is setting aside how female love interests are treated in male-oriented media in general. They're normally seen as someone to be protected, to stay at home, and welcome back the hero when they return. Some are allowed to be strong, to have abilities, but rarely ever do they stand on equal footing with the male main character. Not where it matters.

This is exhibited in both Wolverine and Deadpool's movies. Vanessa is introduced as a "badass," someone who's part of the underworld and knows how to fight, yet she's often placed in the damsel in distress position. She could match Wade before his mutation, maybe, but after he dons the mask and becomes Deadpool, his work is over her pay grade. The same happens with Mariko in the Wolverine movie: she's initially introduced as someone who can fight, but Logan ends up protecting her almost entirely and is responsible for rescuing her from her kidnapping at the end.

It creates an emotional rift between the side of the "hero" and the side of the "love interest," because it feels like they aren't fighting together for the same cause. It feels like the love interest is treated more as a "reward" for the hero to come back to after saving the world rather than a person.

When the entire movie follows the perspective of the main character as they fight, and action scenes are primarily used to invoke emotion, it feels lackluster to have the love interest stay at home. The most intense moments of emotional connection are typically portrayed between the hero and someone else who understands their suffering who they're trying to reach, such as a villain or rival or friend.

Love interests are never on the same "playing field" as the main character and thus can't relate to their struggle. The director tells the audience that they should be happy or sad when a love interest is on screen, but they don't show the same level of emotional depth when the main point of an action movie is action. The entire premise of the main character is action, and yet the love interest is absent from it. Or a victim rather than a player.

This is why Poolverine subverts this trope. You have two people, each with their own franchise and life. Each with their own skills. Each with similarly powerful abilities.

They are equals and are treated as such by the narrative. They take each other seriously and have an emotional connection because they understand each other's suffering. They both are out on the battlefield, fighting the same war and overcoming their differences. They both are allowed to have "cool" scenes and "sad" scenes and "funny" scenes. They both are given the spotlight to experience character growth and have their own unique internal conflict because they both are strong characters who are narratively important.

They both have chemistry. Which is nearly impossible to attain when the love interest isn't even in the lab.

[meanbossart]

I have another intense ask about bhaalist AU drow...

Would drow be “forced” to procreate? And how would Asatrion take that information? If Astarion is his consort, would he be jealous of concubines? Would this also contribute to his overall dissatisfaction during his time trapped at the bhaal temple? Or Would he be happy that his lover has distractions, so he can have time alone - maybe plotting his escape?

I’m overall curious about how drow and Astarion’s relationship falls apart in your AU

I don't think so! Not that I care about biblically following canon or anything like that, but there was nothing throughout the story that made me think procreation was a requirement in Bhaal's plan. If you take the scrapped ending into consideration, it seems to be more of a punishment first and foremost.

Not to say I don't believe it to be a part of the man-made gospel in some form or another. Sarevok seems fairly invested in this idea of generating bhaalspawn that are pure of blood, and this is an agenda that he subtly pushes onto DU drow throughout their years operating the temple: that said, like it often is, Bhaal is silent on the matter.

There seems to be a lot of conflict within the cult about what Bhaal wants and how he wants it, and I choose to interpret his failure to clarify as part of the Murder God's nature, as well as a fun nod at the (dys)functionality of real-life cults where you have several people claiming to have a direct connection to a god.

But back on topic, there IS the heavily implied Dark Urge To Multiply. A few instances where durge or someone around them suggests that, eventually, having children will be an irresistible biological necessity. There are a few ways to interpret this! But I can't help but notice that this theme is absent in a route where you do willingly become Bhaal's chosen - maybe its a failsafe Bhaal cooked into The Dark Urge in case his child became a weenie? To possess them with the need to spread their seed around until SOMEONE down the family tree stepped up to the role?

This definitely turns out to be the case in DU drow's redemned route, where he is plagued with bouts of breeding-related mania and depressive episodes that come and go as a result of a nest remaining empty, But I hadn't really considered this for his Bhaal-embracing self He definitely harbors an obsession with procreating in that AU - but... I'm not sure that's Bhaal's doing anymore. I think he just wants for there to: A) Be more of him around. B) Create a tangible, undeniable connection between himself and Astarion that cannot be severed.

A theme with DU drow is that he is aggressively monogamous. This remains constant in every possible iteration of him and it's a pillar of the character - he is devout to a partner until the end whether they want him or not, and so, Bhaalist DU drow would be violently opposed to the idea of being sexually involved with anyone besides Astarion. If Sceleritas or members of the temple insisted otherwise, he would balk and them push them off into a Chasm. If Bhaal demanded him do it, he would jerk off into a vial and hand it to whoever he deemed pretty enough to mix up with, and then probably kill the child as soon as it was born, anyway - because it's not right.

DU drow (again, in all iterations) almost believes there to be a magical component to true love that affects a person's life beyond just their choice in long-term partners. Just like he once decided that Orin was his forever-mate, he's now decided him and Astarion are intrinsically linked, that they are stronger together than they will ever be apart again. And It is particularly romantic to him (a matter of ironic fate, really) that the Murder Prince's true love would be undead. In DU drow's mind, and SPECIALLY in his Bhaal-embracing version, this is simply the universe's plan for him, and to divert from it in any way (by, for example, procreating with someone else) would be blasphemous.

Now, obviously him and Astarion can't have biological children for a plethora of reasons. But this is fantasy. Bhaalist DU drow would simply not stop until he found the best way to create someone that could be, spiritually and physically, considered their functional blood-offspring. Through Alchemy, magic, ritual, whatever it may be - as long as it works and works according to his high-standards. I suspect he would have specialists shipped in from wherever they may be in the realms to look into the issue, and probably someone who's sole job is to research the matter, though I'm not sure he would ever be satisfied with the results.

I think Astarion would be utterly checked out of the matter.

[swanpyart]

I love how literally every version of the Princess could be interpreted as a piece of the Shifting Mound and, no matter how weird our relationship with her gets, it’s still applicable to our relationship with her as a whole.

Smitten and Damsel show how the Long Quiet and the Shifting Mound are star crossed lovers.

Skeptic and Prisoner reflect their inability to escape without working together. They are both Prisoners, even if only one is wearing a shackle.

Hunted and Beast present them both as archaic forces of nature that must change and adapt. As death, Beast is an offensive predator, and as life, Hunted is defensive prey.

Stubborn and Adversary demonstrate that the two gods are true equals in every sense, and that death means nothing to them in the end as long as they have each other.

Cheated and Razor show how conflict is in their nature, and that no matter how much violence the Shifting Mound dishes out, the Long Quiet is always strong enough to stand against her.

Broken and Tower show the contrast of Shifty’s embrace of her godhood vs the internal conflict of the Long Quiet, as well as the desire to embrace her for everything she is regardless of her flaws. Perhaps, in a twisted way, Broken shows an embrace of our godhood as a whole…

Cold and Spectre demonstrate the dynamic set by the Construct: a killer and his victim, as well as showing the true power of the Long Quiet, and showing that, underneath the struggle and conflict, LQ could end this all disturbingly quickly if convinced to.

Paranoid and Nightmare show the fear that infects the dynamic of the two gods, like Paranoid’s fear of the Nightmare and the Nightmare’s fear of sharing her heart, along with the desire to know the other but the inability to do so organically.

Opportunist and Witch, like Stubborn and Adversary, show the equality of their relationship, but rather than one built out of mutual respect, its mutual animosity fostered by the artificial tension of the construct. It’s the opposite of Skeptic and Prisoner, as, rather than realizing they can escape together through mutual trust, they both try to win against the other when it’s not a winning game.

Contrarian and Stranger show the inherent contradictions in the Gods’ natures; like Shifty says, aspects of who they are contradict themselves, and nothing can exist without contrast and change.

[ripplestitchskein]

Today I wanna rant talk about this

Versus

This

A lot, and I mean A LOT of people use these two moments as a way to compare Stolas and Blitzø with Fizz and Asmodeus. Specifically, Asmodeus with Stolas. And I get it, both Tiny Clown Imp with Giant Bird Aristocracy. Both dealing in different ways with the social hierarchy of hell. People keep using it as a “well Stolas HID while Asmodeus declared” and yes, that’s true but I don’t actually think we’re meant to be comparing Stolas and Asmodeus, at least not about this specific thing.

Blitzo doesn’t need someone to declare their love for him, he needs to declare his love for someone else.

People put the “Stolas is ashamed of Blitzo because of his station” on Stolas a lot and it is shown multiple times that it is not a factor for Stolas. He even like…sings about how it’s not an issue? Explicitly. The different stations was an issue for Asmodeus for awhile based on thier convos and the hiding. And it was for Fizz, though for different reasons I’ll get into in another post cause this is already going to be long as fuck. But this social hierarchy, famous person conflict is 100% Blitzo.

Blitzø is the only person who should be interpreting Stolas hiding his face as being because of the social disparity because that is a hangup of his. We, the audience, should know better because we’ve been shown the truth, or the reality of the situation in the scope of the show, MULTIPLE times. Blitzø is the one who harps on the class disparity, he’s the one who has the perception that Stolas is only looking for a fetishcentric fuck with the common rabble. The audience is supposed to see Blitzø’s reaction and know he is wrong, that this interpretation is because of one of his character flaws of feeling not good enough, and being compared to people, not because of the reality, because we have proof otherwise. Including the canon song where Stolas fucking says it outright.

There is a lot of talk about the “solution to Stolitz” being Stolas loudly and publicly declaring their relationship ala Asmodeus. But…Stolas already did his big public declaration at the BEGINNING way BEFORE Asmodeus. Stolas did it in The Circus flashback. He reinforced it at the Harvest Moon festival. He reinforced it at Ozzie’s.

His initial public declaration was following up a Imp leaving his bedroom in front of the Ars Goetia yelling “Sorry I fucked your husband” after a big aristocratic party by coming out well fucked and loudly screaming he was getting a FUCKing DIVORCE and ripping a banner in front of some of the most socially influential people in Hell. He then publicly thirsts over Blitzø at the Harvest Moon festival, multiple times and by name AND species. He takes Blitzo’s hand, and goes on a public romantic date with him, even reminding the doorman of who he was and who he was with and THEN when all eyes are still on them after the song at Ozzie’s, despite everything said, reaches out to him across the table and then gets up and leaves with him even taking his car home when he has the ability to just portal. No one who converses with him about Blitzø is left with any ambiguity that they are involved, not Stella, not Striker, not Octavia, he loudly declares he is into the imp to anyone who will listen, often in front of Blitzø, which he cringes away from and insists is just a transactional fucking.

The contrast to be drawn between Asmodeus making a public declaration shouldn’t be on Stolas but BLITZØ. He’s the one who needs to declare it, Stolas already has, repeatedly and out loud, and in public already.

Blitzø is the one who can’t say it out loud. He’s the one who shies away from conversations about it and dismisses it when anyone brings it up. He uses the excuses of social class and it being only for sex to justify his own inability to own it. There’s a reason all his exes are massively famous people who got famous after he destroyed the relationship. With Verosika it’s pretty clear she was super into him and he dipped. It’s not clear if it was because she was getting famous, that might be revealed, but the hints we have (her tattoo, his stealing her credit cards and disappearing) is that the end of that relationship was all Blitzø. When people find out he was in a relationship with her he is uncomfortable with the fact that she is famous, he goes out of his way to separate himself from her fame. Because people react exactly as he expected them to, incredulous someone famous could be into nobody Blitzø.

Somewhat ditto with Fizz, at least at first. Fizz was shown to be already pretty well known by the end of their friendship. Because of Blitzø’s self worth issues he doesn’t believe someone like Fizz could reciprocate his feelings, he sees him surrounded by people and doesn’t feel worthy to be one of them so he turns away and accidentally burns down a circus doing so. While a confession from Fizz first, if he felt the same way, might have prevented the catastrophe we have no way of knowing if Blitzø would have done the same thing to Fizz he did to Verosika and let his self worth issues eventually destroy their relationship too, especially after he signs on with Mammon. A big theme of their comments to each other before their reconciliation are about the disparity in fame, Fizz is also an imp so it’s not social class, but that Fizz is a beloved, famous figure and Blitzø failed at becoming one.

The Circus illustrates this so well, Blitzø is the failure who keeps trying his hardest and Fizz is the one who steps in and just kind of naturally does it. Blitzø’s dad makes no secret of the fact that Fizz is the more desired one. We also see Stolas appreciating Blitzø for who he is. Laughing against the crowd, just like during the sitcom taping, he doesn’t care about the public’s reaction to Blitzø, it doesn’t lessen Blitzø in his eyes at all.

We have also seen Blitzø be told very publicly a person loved him already as well and it STILL wasn’t what he needed. Verosika has it literally tattooed in a prominent place on her body, out there for everyone to see.

He doesn’t want a public declaration, he fears making one of his own and being compared to the one he declared for. “That guy is with THEM?!” It happens when Verosika steals his parking space and everyone realizes they dated, and it happens when the crazy fan goes after Fizz. People dismiss Blitzø in favor of the famous person he is with.

Hearing that, again, would invite the scrutiny that would just further validate that he’s not good enough, that he’s lesser and lower. That’s been his experience so far. Stolas declaring it would just put the spotlight on him once more, and I think it would actually make things worse for him mentally and emotionally. His reaction to Ozzie outing Stolas as his date to the crowd shows us this. I believe it’s why he split up with Verosika, the more famous she got the more eyes on him that could find him lacking. He’d be in the spotlight and his act wouldn’t be able to measure up to hers.

Just like at the circus with Fizz when they were kids, or during the sitcom, when eyes are on Blitzø he fails. Stolas gave him a bit more confidence each time. Not by loudly yelling “Hey, I like him!”to sway the audience, but just by quietly and genuinely laughing at his jokes and appreciating Blitzø for who he is. Stolas I think realizes this consciously, he sings it in Look My Way that the realm doesn’t appreciate what Blitzø is and because of this Blitzø built up walls around himself to protect from that lack of appreciation. Stolas tries to hype Blitzø up, he does so in the Harvest Moon Festival early on in their relationship but it makes Blitzø uncomfortable because the public declarations bring eyes to him. He has like….relationship stage fright in a sense. Imo the last thing Blitzø needs is another loud declaration.

Stolas though, he does NEED it. He has had one romantic partner publicly declare they don’t love him to all who will listen for like well over a decade, and now he needs a partner who will make it really really clear they do and I think preferably out loud where others can hear.

Stolas’s conflict and flaw is his family and his desire for reciprocal love. The shame of being an adulterer, of destroying the idealized family he strived for and the image he projected for so many years. And especially, the loneliness of his “romances” being one sided. With the exception of Octavia all of Stolas’s surrounding family and “friends” don’t give a fuck about him and he knows it. Why would Blitzø be any different? He also needs someone to choose him outside of a business or familial relationship. Stella was an arranged marriage to produce a heir. Blitzø was a sexual transaction for the grimoire. Octavia is his daughter. His relationship with his father shows that he isn’t special to him either. Paimon doesn’t even know his name. Stolas has no one declaring for him.

There’s a reason most of Stolas’s issues are told though “images”. The family portraits, the Sinstagram posts of Blitzø appearing annoyed or disinterested while Stolas does not see the picture Blitzø took, because that is his primary issue, he destroyed the image of himself he was trying to project for a chance at a reciprocal relationship. That image maintenance has nothing to do with Blitzø’s imp status, but more the public lack of perceived reciprocity in his romantic dealings.

He knows he looks like a fool, putting himself out there and not getting a confirmation back. This is why every problem Stolas had with his marriage seemed to come down not to attraction or status but mutual feeling. He doesn’t feel bad for cheating because Stella made it clear she didn’t care about him for him. Stella tells everyone loudly and publicly, even before Stolas cheated, how she feels about him. So as soon as Stolas can he jumps at the chance to say “HEY EVERYONE SOMEONE DOES LIKE ME! HE HAD SEX WITH ME AND EVERYTHING”and yelling out “THE ONLY MAN WHO CAN FUCK ME”. Flirting with Blitzø in front a crowd of people. He desperately wants to be publicly desired, to know he’s loved and for others to know he’s loved too.

I don’t think it matters to Stolas at all that who he cheated with was below him in terms of social hierarchy, or that people know about it, and he hasn’t ever indicated visually or with words that Blitzø being an imp was the root of those issues for him. Stella brings it up because she’s obsessed with status and EVERYONE KNOWS that her husband fucked an imp and is now divorcing her. Asmodeus brings it up because the entire Lust song at Ozzie’s is to distract the audience from his very real love affair with Fizz and maintain the public fiction that what he and Fizz have is just physical.

The whole social hierarchy issue is a deflection, and a misdirection.

This is further emphasized by the fact that Fizz and Asmodeus fucking isn’t even really an issue? People seemed to know they were fucking, like them being walked in on at breakfast and loudly declaring “ we are just banging, we are not in love”. The social hierarchy conflict as an external factor kind of falls apart on that alone but let’s move on. It’s not 100% clear if people outside of the household knew about Fizz and Asmodeus so we can maybe assume the public at large did not. But higher level demons being in a relationship with lower level ones doesn’t appear to be an issue? Like most of the powerful demons we see are actually in relationships with someone from a lower class. Even Mammon surrounds himself with imps and relies on one for his business.

Blitzø sure as fuck brings it up as a justification for why he’s not good enough. But Stolas doesn’t.

He’s even been shown visually and deliberately as forgetting that it’s even a factor, starting with his bowing to Blitzø as a baby owl and then again as an adult. So the comparison of these two moments as being about shame regarding social status for Stolas doesn’t make any sense to me. I don’t think it’s about social status at all really. I think that’s the excuse Blitzø uses to push people away and that’s just as much about social status as it is their fame. I’m not saying it’s not a larger theme of the show, but I think in this instance and for Stolitz it’s a distraction from the larger issues Blitzø has.

Stolas doesn’t need to publicly declare their relationship for an audience to solve their relationship issues because he already did, and I think we’ll see that the reason it’s such a huge plot point for Asmodeus and Fizz (beyond it being tied to their specific roles in Hell as the King of Lust and a public figure) is that it needled to be removed as an obstacle in BLITZØ’S mind.

Blitzø was the one present to witness the public declaration between Asmodeus and Fizz at the competition, not Stolas. If the comparison was between Stolas’s behavior and Asmodeus’s he would BE there, we, the audience, would have him there to connect that conflict in our mind as being rooted in Stolas. But he isn’t, because that conflict is 100% Blitzø. He won’t be able to use the imp versus demon thing as an excuse anymore as there is a very public example of someone even higher than Stolas loving an imp that he personally knows. Not only that but we see no indication in the episodes after Ozzie’s that there was ANY fallout for Stolas or Blitzø having their relationship outted so publicly. We see a big press todo about Stolas going to the hospital but not a single scene of like press asking Blitzø or Stolas about their relationship or the scene at Ozzie’s. Because no one but Blitzø actually cares? Scenes in media show us what’s important and if it was actually important to the larger world of Helluva Boss we’d have scenes to show that. There is no press coverage after the Not Divorced party, none after the Harvest Festival and none after Stolas officially makes moves to divorce Stella. He has assassins follow him around but not press. We DO get those press scenes when Fizzarolli and Asmodeus come out as being in love, because they are big public figures, but the only people who even mention Stolas and Blitzø are contained to Ozzie’s alone, and really it’s just Wally, Fizz and Asmodeus. The rest of the club is just interested in the spectacle.

The point of the hiding Stolas’s face behind the menu was not to tell audience he was ashamed of Blitzø, or that his being with Blitzø is a problem for him socially, but to reinforce Blitzø’s excuses to himself that it is, and highlight Blitzø’s self worth issues. This is further confirmed when Stolas reaches out to him across the table even though they are still in public and then later when he verbally expresses to Blitzø that he’d like to spend time with him without sex, tells him he enjoyed spending time with him outside of the arrangement, makes himself physically uncomfortable in the van just to spend more time with him. All of which Blitzø refuses to believe and dismisses. All of their interactions are shown as Stolas being the one to put himself out there, sometimes to a desperate cringe inducing degree, and Blitzø shutting it down and only expressing that his external protestations are not his true feelings by his avoidant looks, stumbling over his words and excuses, and his “protesting too much”. We as the audience see he’s full of shit through the reactions of others, Millie and Moxxie and Fizz specifically calling Stolas his boyfriend or being skeptical of the bullshit Blitzø spews to diminish the relationship.

For Stolas the song at Ozzie’s was a reminder that he had done something that fucked up his family and frankly his life as he knew it, tarnishing his image as a husband and father, and that fuck up has nothing to do with Blitzø being an imp, everyone knew that already for the most part from the very first time they had sex, but because Blitzø was the catalyst for the risk he took. He used to have the image of his family and his Princely appearance to hide behind and now we’ve shone a spotlight on who he really is, a lonely, soon to be divorcee, on a date with a demon who has acted completely dismissive of him, even outright ignoring him and ghosting at times.

A good way to highlight this issue with image is when Stolas nervously giggles and tries to over the top declare “we are having a perfectly normal date!” to the waitress by playing it off as being okay and trying desperately to get Blitzø to participate. He’s being publicly humiliated again and he tries to play it off and cover it up.

We see it again in his text messages from after Ozzie’s, he is so desperately trying to show Blitzø that it didn’t bother him, but that if it bothered Blitzø he’d like to talk about it. He tries to front it as “I don’t mind jokes about myself, it was pretty funny hahaha” but we as the audience see it for the pathetic attempt at faking it is. Laughing it off and pretending it doesn’t bother him is what Stolas does but he still made an attempt, he still tried. Stolas is from what we see extremely comfortable expressing his feelings, loudly and at length. It when he gets rejected for them that he pretends it’s not how he feels. And once again, he reaches out to Blitzø, gets shut down after putting himself out there and then acts as if everything is fine.

During the song at Ozzie’s , when the spotlight comes to Stolas, Asmodeus starts reminding him he “destroyed” his life, his family, and his image for a dude who does not outwardly appear to return his feelings, who is in fact just fucking him, and not even because he is interested in Stolas, but because he is using Stolas for the book. Every time Stolas tries for more he gets slapped back. He threw everything away for more of what he already had, a loveless business arrangement. He’s not shamed by the fact that Blitzø is an imp but that he ripped apart his picture perfect life for a guy who was acting distracted and ignoring him, who at times is completely turned away from him, and who is sitting across from him visibly uncomfortable at being called out as being on a date with him, and who he cannot get to agree to anything more despite his desperately trying.

Stolas’s part of the Ozzie’s episode opens with Gabriela yelling “Why won’t you LOVE ME ALEJANDRO” and then the man puts a streak in his hair to call back to it and people are still thinking it’s about status for him?

He just watched Blitzø stand up for Moxxie and Millie but when the focus turns to Stolas Blitzø cringes and makes himself small.

Lets break down what actually happens on screen because it is ALL in the visual choices made by the artists and what the song is actually about, lust being more acceptable than love because love is embarrassing and Blitzø hates to be embarrassed:

Moxxie starts singing, and after he sings “I loooove you” the shot jumps to Blitzø who CRINGES and shrinks a bit behind his menu. Publicly declaring your love for someone in public like that? Fucking Yikes. Bro.

Blitzø stands up and defends Moxxie and Millie but not necessarily to support their love, but their sexual relationship. This says a lot about which one Blitzø thinks of as being publicly acceptable.

Fizz turns his attention to Blitzø and the entire call out is about his bad love life, not his social status, and not even necessarily his level of fame but his failures as a romantic partner and the state of his relationships. It’s interesting that the song turns to this lack of love since just a few verses previously they act as though a romantic relationship is anthema to what they are all about. As soon as Fizz starts talking about his LOVE life Blitzø looks nervously at Stolas out of the corner of his eye.

Stolas is shocked as the song starts in on Blitzø but he doesn’t leave or shrink away immediately, he makes this absolutely hysterical face when Verosika is singing.

Blitzø does NOT like that Verosika is singing about their relationship. He crosses his arms and gets very sour pussed.

Then when Verosika starts getting more predatory, and going in on Blitzø physically, Stolas STANDS UP and looks as though he’s going to intervene.

The Wally Whackford yells “Are you sleeping with an Imp?” And Stolas remains standing, in the spotlight for several seconds. He doesn’t even start to move away to get out of it until Asmodeus comes up into his space and the scrutiny is all on him. He still doesn’t hide his face nor does it look necessarily shamed, it looks surprised and scared with where this is going and to have the attention on him but he does not look shamed. In fact, he doesn’t react to the imp comment at all, he is just as shocked and surprised as before Wally yelled as he is after. He keeps making this same shocked and scared face the whole time. We continue to see the crowd throughout all this and the scene is from a wide shot. It’s from the main POV, which is largely Blitzø’s.

The POV then switches to ONLY Stolas’s, we are seeing THROUGH his eyes and what HE sees is his family turning away from him and then they shove Blitzø in a chair, make him the center of Stolas’s vision and he’s left with Blitzø’s embarrassed, cringing face. The crowd, the club, everything else is painted out. From Stolas’s POV he doesn’t see or register the public, he sees and registers his family and Blitzø. They are center of his vision and the club and its patrons aren’t even present in the shot. If the issue was the social status we would have no need to remind the audience of Stella and Octavia by projecting their images and then having a sequence where they turn, walk away and burst into flames. Wally’s comment would be enough to establish it. The crowd would be visible because they would be what matters to Stolas. But it isn’t, we have to dive into Stolas’s POV, get a visual reminder of his family and see how Blitzo looks from Stolas’s POV.

We pull back to the outside POV and Stolas sits and stares for an entire beat after the POV shift (a technique used to tell the audience THIS was how Stolas saw the situation, now we’re back to the main POV), Blitzø is still shrinking away from him and THEN after Asmodeus says “you sold your life for a thrust” is when he hides his face. Yes, I did slow down the animation to actually see the sequence shot for shot and yes, it is a sign I have lost my mind.

But it’s important! This technique is really common in literature and media, you introduce one character’s conflict or flaw and then, to show that it contrasts with another character’s situation you jump into their POV, this is to remind the audience that there is a difference between them, that they are seeing this situation from two different places. The shots are wide for the social status implication that speaks to Blitzø’s issues with public declarations and his own self worth and we jump into Stolas’s just to remind the audience HEY, THIS IS ISNT WHAT STOLAS IS THINKING IN CASE YOU FORGOT ABOUT THE MAIN REASON THEY ARE NOT ON THE SAME PAGE, and then we just jump back to wide shots and bringing Blitzø back as the character whose flaw is being depicted.

The rest of the shots are from main POV and show Blitzo reacting to that. A deliberate contrast is set between what Stolas perceived and what Blitzø did. They present this direct visual contrast using a POV switch to show it. From Stolas’s POV he is being shamed not by the public, who didn’t factor into his POV at all, but by the loss or strain of his familial relationships and by Blitzø presenting himself completely differently when the focus is on HIS relationship with Stolas versus how he reacted to Moxxie/Millie and even Verosika.

From Stolas’s perspective and the audiences Blitzø was relatively okay up until Verosika pushed him, then we see Stolas’s reaction to that. That’s when Blitzø’s entire demeanor changes. He wilts, he shrinks, he makes himself small. Before that he winced a little but mostly he seemed annoyed. Until it gets turned on his date with Stolas. And we see this confirmed through Stolas’s POV, that we are seeing Blitzø how Stolas is seeing him looking sheepish and unhappy right in the center of the shot.

You sold your life for a thrust” is so important in this sequence, Blitzo just basically confirmed from his contrasting reactions and body language throughout the song that what they have is just sex, and we know from Stolas asking Asmodeus about the crystal and following up on it that he is really focusing on the transactional aspect of it and the situation he put an unwilling (at least in his mind) Blitzø in. This is just another bad arrangement like his marriage.

We don’t have onscreen confirmation, so this is more speculation but I imagine Stolas is probably comparing himself to Paimon a bit. His father purchased an unwilling imp to play with him as a child, the imp pretended to be into him to use him for the family treasure and now he’s essentially purchasing the same imp and that same imp appears to once again just be tolerating him for material gain.

Anyway, enough thoughts that depress the fuck out of me.

When we switch back to Blitzø after M&M finish their song we see the public again through their clapping and see his reaction. Now the issue at large is firmly back to the inferiority complex. Blitzø started shrinking and cringing away as soon as the famousness of his date was revealed, as soon as the crowd does exactly what he fears, comparing him to his partner and finding him lacking. Then we have Stolas reaching out, with no regard for the crowd who is back around them in the shots until the hand close up, and Blitzø shuts him down. Again. Once more we have Stolas visibly reaching out and trying to give Blitzø what Blitzø is outwardly projecting he wants (just like Stolas does with the dirty talk), and Blitzø being the one to say something annoyed or dismiss it. There is literally nothing Stolas can do to resolve this, because it’s an internal issue for Blitzø. Stolas externally declaring to every realm in hell won’t fix Blitzø needing to believe it and declare it for himself.

The conversation at Stolas’s house after reinforces everything, that Stolas is trying to do what Blitzø is projecting he wants. Blitzø appears to have an issue with their relationship being just about sex, the same person who goes out of his way to force all his non-familial relationships to be just about sex (even Moxxie and Millie, and when he turns a heartfelt reconciliation sexual with Fizz by asking to make out) and Stolas offers him multiple options for more of a romantic or comforting evening, because it’s what he wants as well, and Blitzø ignores that entirely, just outright refuses to acknowledge it. In the hospital we see Stolas tried AGAIN after Ozzie’s via text to work it out, and talk it out, but when Blitzø shuts it down again and when his initial approach didn’t work, Stolas tries just brushing it off and putting up that happy EVERYTHING IS OKAY image again.

So all this billion words and unhinged analysis to say that Stolas is not Asmodeus, he isn’t the one who needs to make the declaration, that won’t actually solve Blitzø’s problem and he already has put himself out there multiple times. Stolas is Fizz, obsessed with putting on a show.

Blitzø’s issues are internal and multiple people have tried to show him in external ways they love him and he either relates it back to sex, dismisses it entirely or physically removes himself from their lives. This is understandable considering when he does put himself out there he gets rejected, (circus audience, Barbie, his various gigs before I.M.P, Loona sometimes) or people act incredulous that someone could be with him. So the only way for him to complete this character journey is to internally reconcile and externally express.

Stolas is much more external about his issues, he tries putting on a happy face, laughing things off, trying to have a perfect day at LooLoo Land with a disinterested daughter, flirting outrageously with a disinterested partner, he wants the external situation to reflect what he feels inside but those around him don’t give that to him. He tries to have a perfect marriage, he gets a partner who throws obnoxious parties for what appears to be the chance to ridicule him publicly. He tries to have a perfect day at LooLoo Land to recapture happier times and accidentally alienates his daughter. He talks about how much he wants to bone Blitzø because that’s how Blitzø approached him and what he seems to be into in his relationships and is the only way he allows Stolas into his life at all, and in return he gets annoyed looks and insults.

“Or Is it Me?” In Look My Way makes me tear up every goddamn time because Stolas believes there is some internal problem within himself, that he cannot give Blitzø what he needs because he’s BEEN TRYING to be what Blitzø seems to want and gets nothing back no matter what approach he takes. No one will externally acknowledge him. Stolas doesn’t have an internal problem accepting his feelings and who they are for, regardless of status or consequences, he clearly says this in Look My Way and shows it before that with his over the top behavior, he needs someone from outside himself to acknowledge and reciprocate it.

So yeah, I disagree with the idea that Blitzø is the one who needs a public declaration. He might need a private one to take away his excuses but I don’t think he needs Stolas to do what Asmodeus did. What Blitzø seems to need is to be brave enough to declare his feelings for once and not shy away from the attention that comes with that. To accept himself as he is, like Stolas accepts him, and that realize he is just as worthy of love as the other people in his life. Stolas needs a declaration to validate his internal feelings, ease some of his loneliness with confirmed reciprocity and to have outwardly what he wants inwardly.

Thanks for reading if you did. I am sorry for being the way I am.

[karlatakicker]

RUIN SPOILERS!!

i’m very attached to roxanne, and after the dlc i am very attached to cassie too! so here’s my thoughts on the both of them and why their relationship is just so unbelievably special to me

1. it’s implied that they both don’t really have any friends, as sad as it is. Roxanne says to Cassie in their conversation that she thinks that her friends will come to her party this time, which obviously means Cassie’s friends are either nonexistent or aren’t very nice. it’s also implied that Roxanne is disliked by the other children in the pizzaplex because of her desire to win and lack of empathy thus unawareness that children are upset by the idea of losing. so, the idea of them both becoming friends and acknowledging each-other is truly special if they have nobody else.

2. Roxanne’s desire to win on her race track is overridden by her kindness and feelings towards Cassie. in their conversation Roxanne remembers Cassie because she beat her twice on the track, which leads to Roxanne almost sounding proud despite being beaten which she usually expresses anger for. (I’ve been told this doesn’t mean what I think, Number 1 twice refers to Cassie’s birthday, but you can argue that it still shows something between them by the fact Roxanne is willing to say Cassie is Number 1, despite Roxanne constantly wanting to be Number 1.)

3. Cassie’s clear empathy towards Roxanne as her favourite - she pities and feels for Roxanne when she’s crying in the salon. despite seeing the horrid conditions that all the other animatronics are in, Roxanne as Cassie’s favourite is the only one she truly feels for.

4. Roxanne’s infatuation with herself does not inflict with her remembering details about Cassie. Roxy asking about and sharing Cassie’s love of carrot cake (and remembering her birthday) shows an attachment that Roxanne seems to have with no-one else, as thinking of herself does not conflict with thinking of Cassie.

5. in the cutouts of Cassie and Roxanne standing side by side, they’re mirrored. Cassie has similar makeup on to Roxy, and is holding her mirror the exact same way. Cassie wants to be exactly like Roxanne, to the point of copying her actions and being dolled up like her. these images of the two of them are simply to establish a connection between them, so it hurts a lot more when it comes down to de-activating Roxanne.

6. Roxanne, despite being so angered at the idea of not being pretty and being so damaged, has no hesitation in jumping to save Cassie despite possibly getting more damaged or even being completely broken because of it.

7. the line “it has been some time since i saw you last” can be interpreted as Roxanne had thought of Cassie since the last time she had been to the pizzaplex. it makes their reunion all that more heartbreaking because when Roxanne meets her again, it’s for Cassie to deactivate her.

8. Roxanne asking if Cassie had booked her party yet, is essentially Roxy asking if Cassie was going to come back and see her - Cassie, the only kid that Roxy is shown to have a connection with.

9. Cassie stroking Roxanne’s fingers before deactivating her, as if to give her the last comfort she’ll ever feel.

anyway that ends my rant. they’re just so special to me despite them having like 3 interactions. they are the true little sister/big sister animatronic and human pairing we needed. if I don’t get an ending where they’re sitting on the hill eating carrot cake, the developers are going to get a very strongly worded email.

(just to clarify months on from this post, the developers have received a very strongly worded email.)

[mercymornsimpathizer]

per request of (checks notes) two people….the premises of my interpretation of the plot of gideon the ninth vis a vis cytherea and john are as follows:

i. the actions taken by cytherea and john are not consistent with their stated motivations

ii. this is on purpose

iii. we can work backwards from these characters' actions to determine their real motivations

because i am a funny poster and because i love my followers i will explain further under a readmore. abandon all sanity ye who enter here etc.

why canaan house: john and john's motivations

while john does not appear "on screen" in gideon the ninth, his actions set the plot into motion and shape the conflicts the arise. (1)he sends letters to the scions of each house, requesting that they come to canaan house with their cavaliers and no one else. he does not request the leaders of each house, or the best necromancers of each house, or the most experienced. (2)he does not provide information of what the lyctorhood trials will entail, either in the initial letters or upon arrival at canaan house. (3)during the creation of the first lyctors, he did not inform anyone that the death of the cavalier is not necessary, and (4)he interfered in the ascension of anastasia/samael, (5) the pair who spent the longest studying the lyctorhood process and (6)who we can presume were closest to achieving "true lyctorhood," which we can presume is (7)more powerful than "normal lyctorhood" and (8)does not kill the cavalier.

(9)the stated purpose of the events at canaan house is to create new lyctors to replace those that have (really or apparently) died to the resurrection beasts. (10)john further states that he did not intend for any unwanted deaths; (11)that he intended for the necromancers and cavaliers to enter into lyctorhood willingly; and (12)that, if the necromancers and cavaliers decided not to enter into lyctorhood, he intended that they should have been allowed to leave peacefully. (13)we can presume he also intends that any new lyctors created would be loyal to him, or at least not a threat to him.

are these actions consistent for these motivations? in my correct opinion, they are not. the secrecy of what the lyctorhood trials entail and the choice of very young, competitive people as postulants do not lend themselves well to the postulants making wise, well-informed choices. if john wanted the postulants to enter into lyctorhood willingly, and leave peacefully if not, he could have informed them of what the trials and lyctorhood entail, encouraged cooperation between the houses, and stated explicitly that they could leave at any time.

one way to interpret this mismatch is that john was careless or negligent in how he set up the trials, which is possible but not consistent with his characterization otherwise. another interpretation is that john was not sincere in stated motivations 10-12, and that he rather set things up as he did to create uniquely easy to manipulate per 13, which both makes sense and is in character but is not consistent with his other actions.

why canaan house 2: cytherea and cytherea's motivations

while john shapes much of the plot of gideon the ninth, cytherea as the primary antagonist drives the plot more directly. (14)she kills dulcinea and adopts her identity to pose as a postulant in the lyctor trials, and she poorly reanimated protesilaus's corpse. (15)she presumably is responsible for disposing of the transports, stranding the postulants at canaan house.  (16)she kills first the fifth house and the fourth house. (17) she prompts the ninth to complete the avulsion trial. (18)she attacks gideon, harrow, and camilla after being confronted by palamedes, but (19)repeatedly offers to spare gideon. (20)throughout her murder spree, she writes on the walls, questioning or criticizing  john for the events of her own ascension. (21)she did not participate in dios apate and is not mentioned by mercymorn or augustine as being party to their conspiracy to kill john (i think...correct me if this is wrong!). (22) her identity is not revealed by teacher or the other constructs at canaan house, despite the fact that they presumably would recognize her. (23)she does not contact or encourage the other postulants to contact john or anyone else for help.

(24)cytherea states that her motivation is to sabotage the creation of new lyctors and (25)to draw john to the nine houses, putting himself and the nine house in danger from the resurrection beasts. (26)she strongly implies that this is in revenge for her cavalier or possibly all of the original cavaliers. (27)presumably, she also wants both to survive long enough to accomplish these aims, though (28)she does not seem to intend to survive for very long beyond the events at canaan house.

are these actions consistent with these motivations? again, in my correct opinion, they are not. she does not send a distress call to draw john to canaan house, and she does not encourage anyone else to do so. she kills jeannemary and magnus, even though killing isaac and abigail would prevent the fourth and fifth from ascending; while it could be argued that she would have had to kill magnus to protect her plan, but this isn't true of jeannemary's murder. she further lets other necro-cav pairs live, despite the fact this allows for the opportunity for them to ascend. her stated goals (24 and 25) could be well achieved by (a, for 25) killing (simply or gruesomely) all or most of the necromancers, while allowing the cavaliers to live, and/or (b, for 24) calling or encouraging someone else to call for help or otherwise alert someone that things have gone wrong; neither of these actions would contradict her other stated or implied motivations.

(as an aside: i think many people believe that cytherea killed the fifth first because she suspected they were likeliest to figure out her plan, which is possible but doesn't explain why she would kill the fourth next or why she wouldn't kill the sixth or third.)

one interpretation of this mismatch is that she planned sloppily or haphazardly. while this doesn't directly contradict anything we know about her, it doesn't make much sense to me -- i don't think anyone, let alone a very powerful and reasonably intelligent person, would half-ass a revenge/justice plot as their last hurrah, even if she did not have long to plan or if her plan changed upon realizing that gideon is john's daughter. another interpretation i've seen is that cytherea is simply sadistic and/or dramatic, and that her actions are motivated by a desire to make the postulants paranoid and afraid. i think this is on the right track, but doesn't itself explain everything she does (and the things she does not do).

why be perfect when you could be normal: the original lyctors and perfect lyctorhood

what is "perfect lyctorhood" and under what conditions does it occur? when i use the term "perfect lyctorhood," i'm referring to a situation where both the necromancer and the cavalier ascend to lyctorhood and share their newfound power; this is in contrast to what i'm calling "normal lyctorhood," wherein the necromancer kills and consumes the cavalier and uses them as a power source. in text, john and alecto are the only example we see of "true lyctorhood," while the other original lyctors (and ianthe) are "normal."

while the creation of the original lyctors is not thoroughly described in the text, we do know some details. it is strongly implied that (29)mercymorn and augustine, the first two lyctors, ascended under duress after their cavaliers forced their hands, presumably by killing themselves. much later, (30) anastasia and samael attempted to ascend after (5)spending a long time studying the process, but are (4)interrupted by john, who kills samael. (31)john states this he interfered because anastasia and samael had made a mistake. (32)at no point does john inform anyone that perfect lyctorhood is possible or that the cavaliers do not need to die.

i think it's reasonable to conclude that (33)very skilled necromancers, with strong bonds of mutual respect with their cavaliers, given the right resources (i.e. the trials at canaan house, or something equivalent, and sufficient time) could achieve perfect lyctorhood, or at least come close to it. (34)fear, pressure, and devaluation of the lives of cavaliers, on the other hand, push necromancers towards normal lyctorhood.

i think it's also reasonable to conclude that, in line with (13)his motivation to maintain power over the lyctors, john does not want perfect lyctors to be created, and that (4)his interference in the ascension of anastasia and samael was not because (31)they made a mistake but rather (35)to prevent them from achieving power that would rival his own.

connecting the red string

if john and cytherea's actions are not sufficiently explained by their stated motivations (or of them the motivations commonly attributed to them by fans), what motivations would explain their actions? because john (by asking for young people as postulants, and by being secretive about the lyctoral process, and by not stating that postulants could leave) and cytherea (by killing people, and by preventing people from leaving, and by generally encouraging competition and paranoia among the postulants) both created an environment of fear and pressure at canaan house, and because cytherea (by letting both necromancers and cavaliers live in other cases) john (by not providing a deadline, and by not forbidding or obscuring parts of the trials, and by not directly or indirectly supervising the trials) otherwise do nothing to prevent to an outcome that they does not want, i think we can draw the following conclusion: john and cytherea are both attempting to ensure that normal lyctors, and only normal lyctors, are created at canaan house.

in other words, i think john tasked cytherea with going to canaan house to put pressure on the postulants to ascend quickly and to prevent them from leaving alive if they were likely to not ascend. i think he did this because he did not want the postulants to become perfect lyctors, and because he did not want the secrets of lyctorhood to be known to the nine houses in general, and because he did not want to take responsibility for the deaths. i think cytherea likely did want revenge against john, and likely did not want to live beyond canaan house, but did not want to kill john; rather i think she wanted to be killed by john or by one of the new lyctors.

i think that tamsyn muir is a talented writer who has demonstrated an ability to create twisty, multi-layered plots where characters are often working on incorrect or incomplete information and where characters are often not forthcoming or are dishonest about their actions and motivations, and that therefore the mismatch between characters' actions and stated motivations are intentional. i think my conclusion sufficiently explains the actions taken (and not taken) by both cytherea and john in the gideon the ninth, and while it contradicts their stated motivations, i do not think it contradicts any of their actions or any of their demonstrated motivations. moreover i think it is consistent with their characterization in general: cytherea is dramatic and emotionally distraught over her own ascension, but she is not part of the plot against john, and she encourages gideon in her role as cavalier; john is very smart, and has few compunctions about doing horrible things to children (especially to maintain his own power), but does not want to be blamed for the things he does, and so often outsources the dirty work to his followers.