#NARRATIVE PARALLELS HELL YEAH

[invinciblerodent]

i decided to play just a tiny bit of my Inquisitor-as-Tav game I had lined up, and I just.... god, i love this old man

he looks so tired, and kindly, and he's a good head taller than everyone

Lae'zel is so damn tiny next to him, I think he needs to pat her head very sweetly (and then succeed a DC18 dex save to avoid getting his fingers bitten off) (it'll be worth it though, maybe it'll calm her down)

[flugame-mp3]

SEASON NINE FINALE WAS WILD. I HAVE MANY MANY THOUGHTS. WHAT JUST HAPPENED. A FUCKING ROLLER COASTER FOR SURE

[liamgallaghermpreg]

So many things about Supernatural hurt but what they did with Bela may be one of the most egregious lol

[beesantennas]

can't decide if I should make my fic ending realistic (sad. very very sad) or self-indulgent (fluff on fluff on fluff)

[enochianforest]

i really would 250k word a post finale fix it with doom patrol. i truly would

[david-talks-sw]

I'd say where the dissonance really starts, when it comes to the portrayal of the Jedi in more recent Star Wars stories, is the perception of what the Prequels are about.

They're not about the Jedi.

George Lucas said over and over that they're about:

How a democracy turns into a dictatorship, we see this in the background of the films, as the Republic descends into becoming the Empire.

That first theme is then paralleled with a second theme: how a good kid becomes a bad man. We see this in the more character-driven and personal exploration of Anakin’s fall to the Dark Side.

The Prequels’ focus is on Anakin and the Republic, these films are not primarily about the fall of the Jedi. In fact, I’d argue they aren’t about the Jedi at all!

And when you look at the original backstory, you’ll notice that it also primarily focuses on:

The political subplot of the Republic’s downfall and Palpatine becoming the Emperor.

Anakin’s turn and his betrayal of the Jedi. 

So, there too… the Jedi themselves aren’t really that big a part of the Prequels’ original idea. They aren't mentioned much, beyond their trying to save the Senate and getting wiped out.

The Star Wars movies aren't about the Jedi, they're about Anakin and Luke, they're about Obi-Wan and Padmé and Han and Leia, the Rebellion vs the Empire, the fall of the Republic.

They're not about Ben and Yoda and Mace and Ki-Adi and Plo Koon and Shaak Ti and Luminara.

Just like Harry Potter isn't about Dumbledore and McGonagall. Just like the Lord of the Rings isn't about Gandalf.

On a functional level, the Jedi are:

POV characters who witness the events unfold with their hands tied, they're our anchors, whose eyes we see through to see democracy crumble into dictatorship.

Embodiments/vectors of the message George Lucas wanted to get across through these movies, which is the conflict between selfishness & selflessness, greed & compassion (Sith & Jedi).

But that's about it.

However, if you ask today’s fans and Star Wars creatives, most will say the Prequels are about the fall of the Jedi Order.

This is a take shared by a big chunk of the fandom, including various filmmakers, authors, and executives involved with Star Wars, so much so that the time period the Prequel films cover has now been redubbed by Lucasfilm as the “Fall of the Jedi era”.

Which leaves us with a question... why? Why the dissonance?

My guess? It's because the Jedi are cool. They're awesome.

And deep down, they wanted the Prequels to be about the Jedi. About the Jedi Knights at their height, errant warriors like the Knights of the Round Table.

And they didn't get that. They got a bunch of diplomats serving a political institution. And that didn't make sense, right? That's not what they expected so it's bad. And it's Star Wars. It's Lucas. It can't be bad, right? So like... what were they missing?

Oh... wait... what if... that's the point? That the Jedi were supposed to be Knight Errants and being guided by the Force instead of like - ew - space ambassadors for the Republic. Yeah now it all makes sense.

The Jedi in the Prequels aren't what we wanted them to be and that's their failure! Like, it's not just that I didn't like them because they weren't likeable to me, it's that I'm not supposed to like them because the narrative totally says so--

-- it doesn't.

The Jedi preach and practice the same Buddhist values as George Lucas, mirroring what he says in interviews almost verbatim.

The relationship between Obi-Wan and Anakin/Qui-Gon mirrors the dynamic between Lucas and Coppola.

The designs of the Jedi and their temple had to be toned down because they looked too bureaucratic and systemic.

This is Lucas we're talking about. "On the nose" is his middle name. He named the drug-peddling sleazebag "Elan Sleazebaggano." He ditched an elaborate introduction of General Grievous in exchange for just "the doors slide open, in walks Grievous and he's ugly."

If he had really been hell bent on framing the Jedi as elitist squares who lost their way and were mired in bureaucracy, he would've made them and the Jedi Temple look like the authorities in THX-1138.

They weren't likeable to some fans because, well, they weren't developed or shown as much as someone like Anakin. Because it's not about them. It's not their story. It's Anakin's. It's Luke's. It's their respective friends'. Or maybe it's an adversity to "perfect goody two-shoes" characters (which the Jedi are not). But hey, it's a movie for kids. Some 2-dimensionality is forgivable.

Bottom line, had more time been spent on the Jedi, had Lucas made the Prequels into a limited show and give them a whole subplot, had he decided to do away with the 30s serial dialog and let someone else write the dialog, maybe the reception might've been different.

But that's what we got. And guess what it's fine.

It's more than fine, it's fucking awesome.

I proudly and confidently say that I love the Prequels, with and without The Clone Wars.

I love my space monks, I love that they're diplomat wizards, I love that there's such a variety of them, I love that Mace is a no-bullshit guy who genuinely cares about his fellow Jedi and how screwed the Republic is, and Yoda is wise and kind but also a gremlin weirdo who'll embarass you in front of a classroom full of kids, and Ki-Adi has a penis for a head, is constantly calm and yet goes down like a champ even though they take him by surprise. I love that Shaak Ti can kung fu an army full of Magna Guards and still have the energy to charge at Grievous. I love that Obi-Wan is a sass machine who is also hilariously oblivious to the fact that he's just as terrible as Anakin.

They're awesome even if they're not perfect. They're awesome because they're not perfect.

But the movies are not really their story.

They're Anakin's. They're Luke's. They're the Republic's and the Rebellion's. And the fight against a space Nazi emperor/empire.

[trashyjester]

Btw, me and my friend were talking about Deadpool &(×) Wolverine bcs we both liked it a fucking lot and I'm in brainrotting and he's the only one who actually listen to me while I yap about Wade and Logan and this is what came out of it after I said that the fact that Vanessa is with someone else and Wade seems to totally respect that and he is not trying to go back with her means that they are both in new stages of their lives where they are just friends (thanks to @/charcubed for the analysis on that)

"I mean, in the ending Logan kinda acted like a wingman for Wade, telling him to talk to Vanessa, (maybe bcs he likes him but he doesn't think that he is good enough for Wade?) but yeah, Wade and Vanessa sure as hell are not back together, it's more of a "I am now at peace with you". Also Wade introducing Logan to Al had quite the romantic vibes, even though I'm not sure Logan is going to stay with him, as he said he wanted to part ways when they wasted the shawarmas (the pain I felt seeing them throwing the food...my lord lol).

But the super soft expression that Logan had while looking at Wade yapping about them and dogpool to Al makes me guess they didn't really parted ways in the end.

It's kinda left in the air. Probably left to interpretation.

It seemed like Logan wanted to go, but then you see them together and Wade introduces him to Al and they literally look like someone who is definitely gonna stay together from now on.

Wade frames it as "let's do this one last thing before you go". But Logan doesn't really have a place to go actually...

Also he's still there for the party, which I don't think happens on the same day as the Al scene.

Also also, I see a clear parallel between Logan's backstory and his current situation with Wade, in particular the whole "I didn't want them to know I wanted to stay with them", and also also also Logan said he wears his suit because it reminds him of his comrades, so the fact that it got destroyed in the finale has the clear symbolic meaning of him overcoming his grief and finally becoming part of a new group (other than being an excuse for showing off his muscles), which would also be the ending of his redemption arc, which in turn would not really sound that redemptive if he were to go back to the exact situation where he was at the beginning of the movie.

So yeah, narratively speaking, everything points to Logan and Wade staying together."

[visenyaism]

hello hello . seeing as ur the adwd scholar around here. what exactly is the connection between the varamyr prologue and theon describing the dead girls + women that were hunted by ramsay as coming back as the dogs. is there even a connection. i apologise but thank u for reading this if u do <3

hell yeah there is! at least to me. So both of those are elements of what I would consider to be the central theme of a dance with dragons: the idea that the distinction between what is Right and what is Abomination is not a hard binary, but a gently sloping path that pulls you in. The boundary between the correct and the abject has dissolved because of everything that has happened in the series. (the spiral-shaped tragedy!!! the narrative bringing you around exactly back where you started and the only thing that is different is that YOU are worse!!) It’s almost winter. the world is not alive and not dead yet, but some grey clinging-on stage.

the book’s treatment of cannibalism is a big example of this: when we look at it on the outside, it’s this extreme abject societal taboo, it’s a line we do NOT cross. but for the characters in the narrative, it’s not. It’s just the thousandth moral concession that they’ve had to make to justify their own survival. The horror is in looking up and realizing that not only are you doing things that you would have sworn off as abominable, but that there was never a line to cross at all for you: it always felt justifiable. The boundary between the abject and the just is completely dissolved by circumstance.

Likewise, the boundary between what is a person and what is an animal in adwd is also just gone. We see a little bit of that with the cannibalism theme and Euron last book declaring that “men are meat.” At the start of his arc, Reek is somewhere in between a human and an animal, made that way through extreme dehumanization and violence. So I think the thing with Ramsay naming his dogs after the woman he killed is that it’s an example of the extent to which he dehumanized them. They were always just sport for him, and now they have to be sport forever because all that’s left of them after he has ripped them apart mind and body is that act of carnage. Even after they are gone, they are not at peace because through naming his gods after them Ramsay owns them forever.

I think the parallel with Varamyr is that he contextualizes his skinchanging as an act of domination, obliterating an animal’s mind in order to own its body. Which is why it is so extremely horrific when he tries to skinchange into a person. we find out he was already treating women like that, using his animals as a violent threat in order to assault them, because the important part to understand is that his violent dehumanization is not the crossing of any kind of threshold but just an extension of who he already was. Like Ramsay and his dogs, it’s a horror story about how there is no boundary between man and meat for him anymore.

TLDR: the entirety of a dance with dragons is about the collapse of the distinction between human and thing at the end of the world, which is what both of those orbit around.

[anthurak]

One thing that always feels so funny for me when it comes to the Rosebird Parents Theory isn’t when people simply disagree with the theory, but rather people apparently seeing the prospect of a ‘Raven is Ruby’s real father’ reveal to be this totally unthinkable thing and how could anyone ever think this could happen?!

Because once you get past the whole ‘two ladies making a baby’ hurtle, Raven being Ruby’s dad really fits into so many well-known fantasy/sci-fi tropes. Many of which RWBY notably has not done yet, or have already been tied to Raven herself.

I mean, the mysterious villainous and/or anti-heroic loner with ties to the family pulling an ‘I am your Father’ reveal on the protagonist? That’s a fucking CLASSIC. Hell, let’s consider a few things about Raven:

Big, intimidating helmet.

Clear Samurai inspiration.

Wields a katana-like sword that technically has an energy blade (dust=energy) which is generally RED-colored.

Possesses mysterious and terrible over-worldly powers.

Has a mysterious past tied to our protagonist’(s) family.

Was probably in love with our protagonist’s (apparently) dead mother.

Yeah I’d say Raven makes for a pretty good Darth Vader-expy.*

Beyond that specific case, we’ve already seen the story connect Raven to a BUNCH of ‘mysterious and angsty deadbeat dad who left their kid for unclear reasons’ tropes when it comes to Yang. Why not have those apply to Ruby as well? People have been clamoring for years about wanting to see Summer’s narrative dynamic with Yang explored as much as the one she has with Ruby, so why not have the reverse be true with Raven and Ruby as well?

After all, it seems that the story has now given Ruby a reason to seek Raven for answers just as Yang once did.

And as I’ve noted in previous Rosebird Parents posts, No I don’t believe Raven also being Ruby’s deadbeat dad would be somehow ‘redundant’. Particularly because the context is completely different: Yang has known that Raven is her birth-mother for most of her life, whereas Ruby would only just now be finding out that Raven is her birth-father. Far from being redundant, this would allow the story to explore two very different responses of kids to an absent parent: One who has had to live with the knowledge of that absent parent for years, and one who hasn’t and has to deal with this NEW information suddenly getting dropped on her.

Plus, as I alluded to earlier, it’s rather notable that RWBY hasn’t done some big ‘dramatic parent reveal’, given how much of a staple it is to the genre. And given how reimagining, twisting and flipping classic and well-worn fairytale/folklore/fantasy tropes (often via playing with gender-roles) is basically RWBY’s bread and butter at this point, I’d say giving the series heroine an ‘I am your father’ reveal from a woman would fit PERFECTLY in this series.

And if you’re going to ask ‘but how do two ladies make baby?!?’,

Raven can be intersex. Boom. Done.

Alternatively, magic.

As an aside, yes Summer being trans is a perfectly viable alternative. I just think logistically speaking, Raven being intersex and being Ruby’s ‘father’ makes a dramatic reveal a bit more streamlined. Also, the idea of Raven managing to be BOTH a deadbeat mom AND a deadbeat dad is just too funny XD

*Of course, this comparison gets even more fun when we consider Summer having her own Vader-parallels, ie; Summer almost certainly being taken by Salem and given what we can probably assume to be a Vader-esque makeover via grimm-hybridization in setup for a big reveal. So when we combine this with Raven, I think we can view what happened on their last mission as ‘What if Padme/Obi-wan got turned into Vader INSTEAD of Anakin?’ Like Raven in the present is basically Anakin doing Obi-wan’s traumatized hermit shtick, except all angry and edgy because it’s still Anakin.

[applepixls]

hey guys. have you heard of hadestown.

(its a musical that meshes the myths of orpheus & eurydice and hades & persephone)

orpheus is a naive (sorta sheltered?) bard who acts on his whims while eurydice is a realistic and tough girl who's doing all she can to survive

hades is king of the underworld and keeps persephone there a lot of the year meaning there's a lot of winter up above

now hear me out.

3rd life.

scar as orpheus, grian as eurydice.

wedding song as scar proposing they take over the desert, the second verse being grian suggesting they take the dark oak. now, imagine all I've ever known as a dark night dancing in the desert not to mention, "its a sad tale, its a tragedy" (bonus: in a gathering storm eurydice calls for orpheus and he isn't there because he's off writing his song, narratively similar to grian calling for scar in double life when everyone was digging around for their sugar cane while scar was off accidentally lighting the place on fire and petting the jellie pandas)

extra bonus ideas:

persephone sounds like bdubs? like, listen to livin' it up on top. the gritty voice/singing and all her attitude (/pos) and some of the lyrics "who makes the summer sun shine bright?/thats right! persephone!" (he was the esmp2 sun god!) she sort of reminds me of the vibe bdubs gave off when he was ren the king's guy in s9 (my impression was he was kinda frantically running around at ren's whim, its not at all the same with hades and persephone but there's the sort of obeying a king thing)

leading me to my next thought of ren as hades. someone i was listening with said "winter has come" which made me think of "red winter is coming" dfhj

but another thought is just the last life ethubs divorce? seems very relevant with bdubs persephone parallels

also in hey little song bird hades refers to eurydice as a canary and we all know whos a canary

hermes (conductor of the train on the road to hell) and the fates play a narrator type role except hermes is more explicit while the fates are the humming in the back of your head they weave the path of how everything goes and you cant defy them

martyn throughout all the series is a sort of nomadic no solid home kinda guy and always self aware (he makes the lore-) which connects him to hermes for me but at the same time the fates are very much watcher/listener things so like bigb and martyn? (i don't know the lore sorry lol) i'd also say that somehow impulse's littlefinger flip floppy triple double agent character in third life gives a vibe like he knows whats going on in all the groups also connecting him to them for me

(i will say scar could fit hermes as well in being a sort of travelling sales person in last life and a bit in double life? also I've read dirges in the dark which means i see him and the devil and making deals with complicated clauses as very interconnected)

my final note (and being a devils advocate)

scar could also parallel hades.

if you watch his perspective he's very happygolucky and doesn't seem to get the real weight of the situation and such but from other perspectives his and grians deal seems kinda like he's had grian sign away his soul or he's kidnapped grian and there's some stockholm syndrome happening (its actually grians guilt but i digress)

hades convinces eurydice (scar is a silver tongued man) to sign away her soul to him and also the story of hades and persephone is that he kidnaps her and she eats some pomegranite and has to stay in the underworld for part of the year

sooo yeah. paralells between hadestown and 3rd life/life series. enjoy.

[anghraine]

I saw a popular author post about how, while of course Elizabeth has some obligatory flaws, Darcy's are exponentially more severe, and it was like stepping into a view so far removed from mine that it was almost disorienting.

The thing is, I periodically see people wondering why Elizabeth/Darcy is such a behemoth in Austen fandom when either/both of them have substantial flaws that the narrative doesn't shy away from. Their flaws aren't identical, but they do obviously mirror each other and are thematically intertwined, with reflecting character arcs and specific beats. As I see it, the novel maintains a tense and careful balance between them—not in terms of centrality (Elizabeth's mistakes and growth are more central to the narrative than Darcy's IMO) but in terms of the weight given their flaws and virtues.

And for me that's essential to their appeal!

I love plenty of other Austen characters and relationships, but for me, personally, none of the other canon pairings are balanced in such a fun and satisfying way. The closest (and the other most conventionally romantic pairing in Austen IMO) is probably Anne/Wentworth, where at least the choices of both of them are heavy contributors to their current problems. But a) the novel is ambivalent as to whether Anne actually erred morally in the first place and b) that is long in the past by the time of the novel; the Anne of the main story of Persuasion is a fairly idealized figure by contrast to Wentworth.

I sometimes see arguments that, say, Anne or Mr Knightley or Elinor Dashwood or whomever are actually as flawed and prone to error as their romantic counterparts, but I just ... don't buy it, honestly. As far as canon Austen goes, I only really see that balance in the course of the main story with Elizabeth/Darcy. P&P loves them and holds them up as admirable (and they are!), but it also loves undercutting them in clearly paralleling ways and does it over and over throughout the novel.

So the idea of an Elizabeth and Darcy where one of them has obligatory storytelling flaws that can't seriously be compared to the other's is just ... blah. It cuts out the fundamental interconnection and resonance between them that I think is built into the structure of the novel down to its bones and is what makes their relationship special. A lot of stories pay lip-service to that kind of dynamic, sure, but despite the many (many) imitators, I don't often see it done successfully. But P&P is the real deal.

So yeah, when people are like "why do people like Elizabeth with Darcy so much when she could have a different man who doesn't make serious mistakes" I'm just thinking ... why on earth would I want Elizabeth "there was truth in his looks" Bennet with someone who would never make mistakes on that level? Or when people are like, Darcy's just misunderstood, wouldn't he be better off with Jane [or another relatively idealized female character] it's like ... hell no, I love him, but I do not want to inflict him on that poor woman.

It's not that there's something wrong with multishipping them (I've written alternate pairings for both!) or shipping them with other people, but just in terms of the novel as it exists, I do think the balance and echoes between them are part of what makes the novel work and one of the sources of their long-standing popularity. And I feel that trying to pin the "real" blame on one or the other up-ends that balance and diminishes a lot of what I, at least, find appealing about the dynamic between them.

[moonstonediaz]

idk my whole stance on the “will they/won’t they” in regards to buddie canon is just. it’s loud, it’s oddly ironic, that these are the only two main’s on the show that are S I N G L E. still! in season sex six! that their relationship statuses have basically run parallel to each other, that they keep trying and failing to find a romantic partner. so let’s look at the other side of the coin. what’s the other option? introducing yet again brand new love interests for both buck and eddie and having these people be their endgame relationships?

eddie? who has always held his cards close to his chest, is extremely protective over his son and who he gets close to, who has already tried dating the seemingly perfect woman for him and his son?

buck? who’s going to be a harder sell than ever now that he knows not to settle? who’s going to be looking for someone that accepts him just as he is, someone that compliments him perfectly, who accepts his relationships with the firefam, with chris and eddie, without complaint?

if this were season 2, 3, or hell, even season 4, i’d say yeah maybe we have time for all that. but we’re nearing the end of season SIX and there have been no new love interests brought in. and i don’t foresee 911 being a show that runs for 20+ seasons. i mean it could i guess but like. we’re in it. the meat of the sandwich. narratively, i don’t see it making sense for them to spend precious time cultivating new endgame relationships for the two of them. they’d likely have to run them at the same time, parallel to each other. yet again. which would be a tell in its own right that they were actively avoiding buddie canon.

i’m not saying they absolutely won’t do that, i have no idea what their actual plans are. i’m just saying they’re boxing themselves into a corner. a great big rainbow-filled flaming gay corner.

[magnus-the-maqnificent]

Seeing people theorise about Magnus’s death in TWP and like. Yeah that makes sense ig? It's the last series, and what better way to force character development than to remove the safety net the characters have in the form of Magnus?

Also Cassie said that TWP will parallel TLH, and one of the points in TLH was that the characters couldn't go to Magnus with their problems as often cause Magnus was closer to the adults and would snitch. And one of the parallels here could be that both gangs can't rely on Magnus as much as the other series could.

Except Magnus is already getting released from the narrative, along with Alec and the rest of the tmi gang. Cassie mentioned they wouldn’t be much present in TWP because they'd be on a mission (presumably TBVOTD) and most likely get stuck in a hell dimension as Lucifer or Shinyun's playthings for a while.

Sooo yeah. I don't think Magnus is gonna die. He's getting Sealed, but he ain't dying

[sugar-crash]

🍬King Candy (Wreck-It Ralph) x (gn) Reader👑

(Picture’s not mine!)

(Request here! HAPPY BELATED HALLOWEEN!!🔑 oh yeah woo yeah oh yeah woo yeah woo yeah oh yeah oh woo woo yeah woo yeah

woo yeah woo time yeah yeah woo yea—)

- This is a hard thing for him to explain away as easily as he could with other things, for one you were the very thing he was seemingly against— A glitch—

- From another game of course but still a glitch nonetheless… So he doesn’t exactly tell anyone of your… Predicament, especially if you want to keep that to yourself considering the stigmatization of being a glitch.

- Before the incident, he comes to realize the link between your glitching and your anxiety and tries so hard to make sure most situations in his control don’t get you to that point, don’t want you to be at any level of stress so you don’t get to that point.

- But what happens when you both (more like he decides to cause… Yeah he’s an ass) finally decide to officially declare the relationship to Sugar Rush

- He knew you’d probably be angry, and a bit anxious, but not what happened— The feeling of not knowing what to do next ate him up alive at that moment to the point where he didn’t know what to do next…

- He’s used to being quick on his feet when it came to spinning a narrative, but with something like this?? How could he? So he of course calls everything off at that moment, yelling at the doughnut cops as they try to feebly protest against his order before he’s out the door in his kart to follow you.

- He can’t hide how much he cares for you at that moment, his obvious weakness for you practically screaming in his opinion as he tracks you down and comforts you— Not admitting what he did was a mistake for a while as you two talk and talk and talk until he begrudgingly relents.

- In his defense he didn’t think you’d react this badly, but he shouldn’t have expected you to have reacted positively to him doing this behind your back.

- The re-establishment of boundaries is like pulling teeth with him at this time, honestly, at any time it would be— But he must realize what he did was a complete violation of this relationship.

- It does take him time to realize the way he tackled this was godawful but you do have to give him credit, I think a part of him thought that talking it over with you would’ve caused you to panic over the paranoia of what the candy people may think of you two being a thing…

- The “ripping off the bandaid” method, something he would most certainly try to do with a situation like this. Loser.

- He’s unapologetic as all hell, something he displays throughout his appearance in the movie, but because of your importance to him, he does make a point to be there for you when it’s his fault you’re all torn out of shape and glitching all over the place.

- When you guys get back (if you’re comfortable with that), King Candy is quick to explain away your glitching as being far more “stable” in comparison to Venallope’s, therefore you should be treated properly as both King Candy’s partner and as a friend of Sugar Rush, glitch and all.

- Honestly with the candy people of Sugar Rush, I kind of see a parallel to how people are like in real life when it comes to things they consider abnormal… Take the Puritans for example, they were extreme with their attempts to get rid of sin… And people who didn’t fit the norm.

- It all ties into fear, and people like King Candy use that fear to manipulate the masses into thinking a certain way… Till it doesn’t benefit him anymore.

- Much like how the Salem Witch Trials ended, as a man of power, he may have let up on some of the stigma around being a glitch, but of course not all of it— He has to have a way to villainize Venallope after all.

- You’re his shining exception to his hate, you’re a stable glitch, something he never EVER says to your face, and he makes sure his people don’t say it either.

- He uses every trick in the book to cover his and your ass at that moment, pulling stuff right out of his ass, probably one of the most times he ever lied about something…

- That and when he got Ralph from wanting to crush him under one of those meaty paws of his to a somber hero who has to do the unforgivable for the sake of what’s good... And all that corny ass BULLSHIT.

- It isn’t exactly sunshine and rainbows beyond that either. Your outburst is something he uses as a manipulation tool later on as a thing to hold against you, it’s just second nature to him.

(Ok ykt wuwq sbcjf sbw nhiw lqwhskqr gkuwo sbwcq lqwhsckjr fjkvcjn sbwy vwqw ikqw sbhj dtrs hqs? Ok sbwy fjkv?)

[nat-20s]

God GOD okay okay okay okay okay I'm having thoughts I'm having FEELINGS im having a Moment SO

I waanna talk about Ten and Donna (shocker I know) but SPECIFCALLY I wanna talk about like. Them and being besties and soulmatism and red string of fates and what not. Also this post is long as rambly as hell so I'm putting it under a readmore for my non-tendonna girlies <3

So like. The Runaway Bride really does establish them as future besties so so well and some of it is the writing but I do think that some of it is that Catherine Tate and David Tennant, by all available accounts, ALSO immediately got on like a house on fire. Like genuinely i know Acting TM is a thing but I think them getting on is part of why their on screen chemistry is SO electric and dazzling to the point where Donna went from a one off one episode character to *checks notes* a character that came back TWICE and also fundamentally changed the structure and DNA of Doctor Who as a whole so. You know. Pretty impressive. Plus Donna gets to have her first adventure with The Doctor as their absolute worst: Ten is grieving from a FRESH wound of losing Rose, he's incredibly cruel and incredibly cold and straight up murders the Racknoss without a flinch or hint of remorse, and even before that he accidentally kidnaps her and then insults her as someone to dismiss. That's not to say that she doesn't also see The Doctor at their brightest: he ends up treating her with incredible kindness, and he's dazzling and brilliant and cares so much and shows her the creation of the earth itself to provide comfort. However it IS to say that because of the nature of his first interaction with Donna he CAN'T put up a facade she already knows the truth!! She is walking into their dynamic with completely open eyes and at first it fucking scares her! She doesn't dislike him in fact they already are friends after less than a day but

Then partners in crime happens. And she's realized okay no actually I CAN take the bad with the good and I WANT to participate in all of it and I DO want this friendship. The Red Strings of Fate (or maybe the TARDIS being like lmaoo you need this girlie <3) bring them back together and they are Officially Tethered from that point on which is so so so delicious. It's also so so so delicious that Ten's still at an incredibly low point and she's still going into this friendship without any ruses in place. Like oh shit yeah they are Bound together even if they did separate now they would almost certainly find each other again.

AND THEN AND THEN!!! We've already established The Doctor and Donna as fast best friends but holllllyyyy shit I think Fires of Pompeii is what establishes them as forever Soulmates. I meant canonically the ending of Fires of Pompeii where she has him save the family fundamentally changed The Doctor for the rest of their lives and gave them a guiding moral compass long after she wasn't there so yeah that's pretty fuckin soulmates of them. But I actually think them as a concept of two people sharing one soul (for the better!!) happens earlier in the episode. The exact moment in fact is THIS ONE:

The Doctor has to make a choice. There are no good options: both are mass destruction and death. And it's SUCH a Doctor choice to have to make: actively destroy Pompeii and everyone in it, or allow the entire world to be destroyed. Not only that but it will likely kill both him and Donna as well. It's a mix of self sacrifice and other sacrifice to save the world and it's a horrific situation to be in.

It is a narrative that parallels the choice he made in the Time War. It is an archetypical Burden of the Doctor.

And then she looks into his eyes, sees his fear and hesitation and remorse and guilt, and wordlessly puts her hands on his. They push the lever to destroy Pompeii together. And it becomes the burden of the DoctorDonna.

[sapphic-agent]

Vaggie's story would improve alot if she admitted in some form she didn't actually Believe in reformation tbh, and that is what caused a drift between her and Charlie.

Like there is this pre-canon (soft canon now but whaters) comic where the girls meet Angel- He is rude and dismissive, Charlie is too optimistic, and Vaggie is done with his ass. All nice and good- but then there is this page that is kinda funny is retrospect:

Vaggie, my girl, I understand Angel is a pain to deal with specially on this point of the show, but you are trying to redeem Sinners- people with a bodycount, at least. Drawing the line on "Sex workers that is being an asshole" and deeming him completely unreedameble is not going to help your cause girly 😭 (specially because yes, she clearly had an bias with him being an SW. On a prev panel her and Charlie are arguing about ever talking to him because he was smoking on a corner) literally nobody will want to change if someone that took that as their job gave up on them in five minutes of having an formal conversation. There is no such thing as a good candidate, is Hell and you guys have zero credibility. The good candidate is the one that don't attack you and is at least willing to hear you out. Beggers can't be choosers.

So yeah- have her in some point spill she doesn't believe that is possible to redeem a sinner, that hurt Charlie severally because "she is talking just like dad" who gave up on humanity (and both are fallen angels so they could explore an Bias) , in contrast to Lilith who loved this place- I am sucker for a couple having parallels with one of the people involved's parents.

Anyways the comic also has this page that had nothing to do with the convo, I just thought it was cute. They are adorable actually

Vaggie is exceptionally judgmental of Sinners, I've noticed. Which doesn't even have to be a bad thing narratively because Lucifer is the same way. But what goes wrong is that the story doesn't confront it the way it does with Lucifer.

Lucifer acknowledged his own prejudice and came around to Charlie's dream because she changed his mind, he says this himself. Vaggie looks down on Sinners and only supports Charlie because she's Charlie. She wants to fulfill Charlie's dream to make her happy (she literally says this in Whatever It Takes), not because she actually believes in what she's doing.

And the show probably won't confront this. I don't think Viv even realizes that this is the way Vaggie's been written. It's something that goes over a lot of people's heads (had a Vaggie defender on one of my posts this morning actually) because she's meant to be the rational to Charlie's irrational.

That last panel is super cute! I love Charlie and Angel's relationship