#No this isn’t intended as a metaphor.. but i mean… it can be…

[flowersforfrancis]

I adore messy annotations.

A page suffocated by scrawls, scribbles, lines, arrows, circles, highlights, all near illegible. As though the reader couldn’t contain those thoughts. They were overpowered by emotions and ideas. A ruler-less underline because you read that quote and the pen couldn’t be in your hand any quicker. Scribbled sentences that require the book to be turned upside down or on its side to be read again. Exclamation marks, because you’re at loss for words and the author said it best. Books of mine start with ruled lines and perfect hand writing, but by the end are sometimes too messy to be reread. I find messy annotations the most beautiful, the most intimate.

[lightseoul]

cw. gn!reader, worker!reader, prohero!katsuki, aged-up (25), pining (again, if you look extra closely), a lot of cussing (are we still surprised)

masterlist | part 1 (although ig this makes sense on its own), part 3 (i didn't plan this), part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9

“What.”

It’s less of a question and more of a statement—a statement sputtered in the typically demanding way characteristic of the one and only Bakugou Katsuki.

The Bakugou Katsuki who happens to be your boss for a good (debatable) three and a half years now, who you also have to spend overtime with until who knows what time to discuss what’s become rocky employee relations in the Ground Riot agency.

Your eyebrows furrow in confusion or irrational annoyance—both, really—before you quickly school your expression into a neutral one. You riffle through the documents rather absentmindedly, avoiding his gaze before shooting back with: “What do you mean what?”

“I meant,” he leans back on his office chair that you know he singlehandedly picked out for its superior ergonomic design because he’s meticulous like that, “what the fuck is wrong with your face.”

“Excuse me?”

Your retort is laced with more indignant anger than intended, but at this point in the night, you cannot for the life of you bring yourself to care about your tone. It’s been a long day, and you weren’t about to let your stupid boss make fun of your appearance, of all things.

Bakugou probably senses the significant change in your demeanor, because his eyes widen in surprise ever so slightly before he sits up and opens his mouth to explain himself.

“You’ve been looking like you accidentally drank spoiled milk for the past hour and the shit aftertaste isn’t going away.” He haughtily shakes his head, and it takes everything in you not to jump him and choke your boss.

To your disdain, however, he continues.

“It’s either you spit it out or I’m going to have to force you to tell me what’s wrong.”

You gape at him. Whatever you expected him to say, it wasn’t that.

As quickly as you can, however, you attempt to regain your bearings and at least try to seem nonchalant, clearing your throat as unbothered as possible to top it all off. “Well, working overtime to iron out office squabbles isn’t exactly my idea of a relaxing Friday night, thank you very much.”

He scoffs. “Bullshit.”

You almost get whiplash from how quickly you look at him. His brazen rudeness—which, right now, is worse than usual which is saying something, mind you—renders you incapable of saying anything aside from another winded: “Excuse me?”

He rolls his eyes. “Miss me with that bullshit, dumbass.”

You feel yourself heat up in irritation. “I thought I told you to stop calling me dumbass.”

“You’d rather I call you princess?”

At that, you break eye contact despite yourself, choosing to stare at his forehead instead. It’s still unnerving—looking at any part of his body, really—but it’s better than looking at him squarely and witnessing the smirk you know has taken over his unfairly handsome features.

Your voice is small, to your chagrin, when you reply. “That’s actually a lot worse.”

The man dares to bark out a laugh.

You continue to metaphorically choke him in your head.

“Okay then, dumbass,” he emphasizes the nickname and you are about 99% sure a pained expression is dancing across your face because Bakugou is observing you with even more amusement before his features settle into a look of seriousness.

“As I was saying before you missed the point entirely—I highly doubt you’re this bothered because of fucking overtime,” he eyes you cautiously before pressing on. “Something’s wrong.”

You don’t know if it’s the exhaustion of the week filled with workplace conflict, or the crushing news you received this morning in the mail, or the very fact that Bakugou, despite his roughness and the annoyingly persistent way he’s been poking at your mood like it’s an itchy scab, is looking at you with genuine concern—but you end up doing it.

You give in.

You feel the tears welling up in your eyes before you even get the chance to deny them permission to, and at the sight of them Bakugou sits up even straighter in alarm—and you don’t know what comes over you because you start laughing so hard, your hand shoots up to your stomach in an attempt to keep it from cramping.

“Oi.”

The expression on his face is so unbelievably baffled that you only end up cackling to yourself more.

It takes a few more minutes before the sillies are fully flushed out of your system and really, it only took you a glance at Bakugou to realize you probably looked demented just now.

Feeling self-conscious all of a sudden, you quickly wipe away the tears in your eyes and muster enough courage to flash him a genuine smile.

To your delight, he flashes you one right back, albeit tentatively—one that is boyish and charming under the rather dim lights of his corner office.

Although he seemingly reboots to his default state because it’s immediately replaced by a frown and followed by: “You’re so weird, you know that?”

You snort and, before you can stop yourself: “Not as weird as my ex.”

At that, Bakugou’s entire countenance changes—he visibly stiffens in his seat and his eyebrows furrow in what you believe is confusion at the sudden mention of your past lover.

Bakugou says nothing, however, and so you take that as a sign to continue.

“Remember that meeting we had last March with Chef Asahi about our collaboration with his restaurant where I was late and you gave me shit for it? And when you asked I told you it was because I just got dumped over the phone?”

He gives you a curt nod, lips tight.

“Well,” you chuckle nervously, feeling embarrassed at your upcoming revelation, “I just found out that that ex is getting married in two months, and I’m invited.”

Neither of you says anything for the next—what feels like—hour.

Until Bakugou takes a sharp inhale, leans forward on his desk, and stares you down straight in the eyes: “I’ll do it.”

“What?”

He scowls at you like you’ve got a pea for a brain. “Don’t make me say it twice, dumbass.”

You frown at his hostility, your own bewilderment chipping away at your already thinning patience. “You’re not saying anything.”

Bakugou sighs, and he looks like what he is about to say next physically pains him.

“I’ll be your fucking date to the wedding.”

tagging. @kitthepurplepotato @chelbyisbord @lovra974 @katsukis1wife @brunnetteiwik

special shoutout to @he3v4n for reading the prequel to this and following thereafter--inadvertently making me check out past writing and get inspired to write this <3

[togglesbloggle]

Evolution, Metaphor, and the Meaning of Gay Alligators

A few times recently, I’ve run across discussions about animal sex that are wrong in interesting ways.  I don’t want to derail those conversations, and I certainly don’t want to call out anybody in particular, so I’m branching off here- but the most recent one was in the notes about the discovery (original paper) that most alligator sex is between two males.

Anyway, a not-uncommon element of these discussions is for somebody to frame animal homosexuality as ‘confusion’, particularly with simpler animals.  The idea behind this isn’t too tricky: it proposes that the animal’s sexual instinct is functionally oriented towards (or intended for) heterosexual coupling and reproduction, but that the perceptions and processing power of the animal’s brain are too limited to reliably distinguish between the sexes.  As a result, simpler animals of the same sex may occasionally copulate with one another by accident, as one of the failure modes along the way to biological reproduction.

If you are a card-carrying member of the Tumblrati, the word ‘heteronormative’ might well be in your brain already, and fast approaching your tongue.  You might be building an argument about how sexuality has social as well as reproductive functions, that a lack of human imagination doesn’t prevent evolution from building towards homosexuality for its own reasons, and anyway human sociolinguistic concepts are a lousy fit for animal behavior.  These are pretty good arguments, but I’m asking you to pause that line of thought briefly; it’s not where I’m going.

Animals confound us in an interesting way: their agency is without question, but their sapience is limited, and we struggle to imagine ‘what it’s like to be an alligator’ for that reason.  What is it like, after all, to be conscious but not self-aware?  So when we ask ourselves why an animal does what it does, we tend to use evolution as a way to paper over that gap, and say “well, the alligators must be having sex in order to reproduce and succeed as organisms.”  Persistently, in odd and elaborate ways, we make this assumption that animals are themselves pursuing adaptive fitness in a way that’s much more direct than humans do, as if natural selection were a motive for animal behavior and not just an explanation for it.

This is the deeper and more interesting error that I’m trying to chew on.  The ‘mistake’ theory of animal homosexuality assumes that animals are motivated to pursue biological reproduction, not because of what we know about them as individuals or as a species, but because of what we know about the forces that produced them.  This assumption gets silently made in the case of alligator sex in part because we often make this assumption, it’s nearly our default way of thinking about these things.  

I’m very sympathetic to this error!  Biology and especially anatomy is our go-to example of purpose in nature; questions like “what are your lungs for?” have obvious (if surprisingly sophisticated) answers.  Behavioral instincts are a little more complicated, but it’s still kind of the same thing- we can cogently talk about the reasons why we shiver when we’re cold, for example.  And every time we have this conversation, natural selection is looking over our shoulder waggling its eyebrows at us.  This kind of language can be very, very misleading, inviting a slip from “we <are born with an involuntary reflex to> shiver in the cold because it helps us survive,” to “we <agentically prefer or choose to> shiver in the cold because it helps us survive.”  It’s practically designed to trip us up like this.

I think this happened in our language because of the theological fights around evolution in the early days of its discovery.  You know how it was- Darwin, the monkey trials, all that nonsense.  Natural selection accounts for biological diversity and the seeming-purpose of natural forms in a way that requires no conscious designer (or Designer), and so what might have been a purely scientific discovery also ended up blowing a hole in the social and religious functions that that sense of purpose provided- and was called upon, in some ways, to fill that hole again.  Evolution got smooshed into a sort of theological shape, and now we have the sort of culture where the phrase “evolutionary imperative” feels like it makes sense to us instead of being an obvious contradiction in terms.

That theological shape comes back again and again when we try to speak poetically about natural selection, because it’s always lurking very shallowly under the surface.  In these failure modes, we talk about natural selection in almost filial terms, a generative entity that hangs out in a workshop occasionally holding up new animals for our perusal; it’s hiding behind Kipling’s ‘gods of the copybook headings’, NRx’s ‘gnon’, Scott’s ‘Goddess of Cancer,’ and so many others.  I did it a little bit myself, not three paragraphs ago!  I called evolution “a force that produced them,” like it was some sort of creator-deity sculpting gay alligators out of clay.  Like “what evolution wants” is something that a person can talk about…

Metaphors and language are hard, but I’ve been trying to think a lot lately about how to build a story about evolution in my head that doesn’t have this problem.  Something passive, you know?  Something that doesn’t have the property of being a designer, doesn’t tempt us into treating ourselves and the organisms sharing our world as if we were all agents of some Lovecraftian entity.

I’m not entirely satisfied with my answer just yet, but for now, I’m trying to let evolution be a labyrinth.  It’s filled with twisting corridors and strange rooms, dead ends and loops, and terrible, deadly traps.  It’s unfathomably large, and mostly empty- even though trillions and trillions of us have explored this maze, we’ve only really seen a small part of it, and out beyond the edges of our knowledge, there’s still mile after endless mile of quiet, dark corridors that have never known a footfall.  

It’s not a comforting place, and even though we were born here, it’s not really home; it’s not something built for us, or one that’s especially concerned with our wellbeing.  But the thing about this labyrinth is that most of the rooms have prisoners in them, strange and unfamiliar beings held in stasis and waiting for the door to open so they can spring into life and begin their own wandering.  And this is a treasure of a kind, if you want to see it that way; not wooden chests full of gold coins, perhaps, but something new and beautiful all the same.  And if that’s not reason enough to explore the maze, to go out beyond the relative safety of the room you were born in- then, well, there’s always the rumors that there’s a real exit, hidden somewhere among the twisting corridors.

It’s… not bad, I guess?  The metaphor has its uses.  

I think it does a decent job of capturing and illuminating lots of our moral intuitions; bioconservatism (and to a lesser extent, social conservatism) as a refusal to explore the maze, rejecting the insane dangers of exploration and the questionable rewards of the search and instead preferring to stay at home in the room where we were born– still trapped in the labyrinth, but at least alive, at least for a while.  It shadows that position with the correct amount of irony, reminding us that human existence follows from a four-billion-year history of discovery, adaptation, and mutation by nonhuman organisms; it reminds us that the discovery of human beings came at a terrible cost for those who came before us.  And importantly, it allows any given organism to be a thing-in-itself.  Sure, life originates in certain places and certain patterns according to the latent shape of the labyrinth (though my metaphor isn’t very good at describing that shape…), but it’s free to act as it prefers, and live or die by those choices.

My hope, anyway, is that by dwelling on this metaphor, and stepping back from all the talk about creators and purposes and imperatives, you’ll find it easier to see what ought to have been fairly obvious to us: alligators have gay sex because they think the other alligators are sexy, and they want to have sex about it.

The questions that follow after, like “why do alligators find each other sexy?,” are also important!  It is vital to learn as much about the shape of this labyrinth as we can, the better to traverse it safely, to explore it comprehensively, and maybe even to find the exit.  But those are different questions, and conflating them can only lead to confusion.  We must begin by acknowledging that we and our fellow-travelers on Earth do not exist for the sake of natural selection, and that any willful concessions to it are strategic, not moral.  The creatures all around us- human and otherwise- carry their own motives and their own reasons within themselves.  To live in the world as it is, we have to confront that radical pluralism head on, and not try to wipe it away by pretending these are all just masks over some domineering force of nature puppetting them towards inscrutable ends.

[breelandwalker]

Wolf Moon - January 13 2025

Shake off the cold and sing to the sky, witches - it’s time for the Wolf Moon!

Wolf Moon

The Wolf Moon is the name given to the full moon which occurs in the month of January. The name is said to be derived from the sound of wolves howling with hunger while prey is scarce in the midst of winter. Given that we now know that wolves howl mostly for communication, my personal opinion is that people huddled in their homes during a very dark and dangerous time of year probably noticed these sounds a lot more readily with little else to occupy their time as they waited out the winter, and thus were set to worrying about ravenous beasts invading their villages and farmsteads. (It’s worth noting that wolves preying on livestock was a very real concern for most people outside major cities for many centuries, so this isn’t entirely unfounded.)

The name also calls to mind the howling of the wind during winter storms, or whistling around the eaves during the long cold nights. And for those of us who might not have been careful with our spending over the holidays, I might cite a tongue-in-cheek reference to the wolves being at the door when those credit card bills come due.

[For those not familiar with the English phrase, to have “a wolf at the door” is a saying that refers to some imminent hardship or disaster. In modern parlance, this is usually applied to poor finances or looming bankruptcy.]

This month, the moon peaks at 5:27pm EST on Monday January 13th, so the moon may appear to be full on the nights of the 12th or 13th, depending on where you are in the world.

Some North American indigenous names for the month of January and its’ moon are Cold Moon (Cree), Center Moon (Assiniboine), Severe Moon (Dakota), Ice Moon (Catawba), and Spirit Moon (Ojibwe). Other names include Mantis Moon (South African origins), Quiet Moon (Celtic), and Moon After Yule (Anglo-Saxon).

What Does It Mean For Witches?

As a new year dawns, it’s time for rest and reflection before we set out on the next phase of our journey. While the cold weather lingers, take some time to sit by the fire, literally or metaphorically, and take stock of where you stand, what resources are available, and what you plan to do with them.

Check in with your near-and-dear following the mad rush of the holiday season as well. Make sure that friends, family, and community members around you are doing all right. Offer support and kindness where you can, but don’t overextend yourself. It’s your time to recuperate too, and it is good and healthy to set boundaries which allow time and space for yourself.

While it's a bit early to expect progress on our goals and resolutions, the beginning of a new calendar year is a good time to lay the foundation for what we intend to do with the year to come and to reflect on the year that has just ended. It's also the perfect time for self-assessment in your craft. Take a moment to acknowledge where you are, how you've grown, and what you might like to do next. Perhaps do some journaling on the subject, if you're so inclined. You can outline your craft knowledge and beliefs, mark the lessons you've learned, or record your progress. (This is a great way to measure future milestones and personal growth!)

What Witchy Things Can We Do?

Winter is a prime time for storytelling. Back in the days before internet or television or radio, people would often read to each other or tell tales to pass the time. Consider re-reading a favorite book that inspires you or exploring some region of folklore or mythology you’ve been meaning to look into. If you have children who are of an age to enjoy stories, read them some of your favorites or introduce them to something new. Share stories and discussions with your witchy circle too!

While you’re at it, take a moment to examine the role that folklore and stories play in your practice. If you subscribe to a particular mythos, be it through deities or just general belief, consider which parts of it resonate the most with you and why.

Consider also the lessons of the winter season - the necessity of rest between periods of growth and activity, and the role of death, cold, and darkness in the natural cycles of life. What do these things mean to you and your practice? Are they a source of fear or fascination? Do you come alive in the winter or bundle up and wait for spring? How can you best remind yourself to pause for breath as the year goes on?

And of course, the beginning of a new year is an excellent time for goal-setting and divination. You’re making resolutions for your mundane life, so make a few for your craft while you’re at it, and pull out your cards or runes or pendulum for a New Year forecast on how things might go. If you need some ideas or inspiration, you can check out this article on Casting The Bones or try this craft-building exercise to Create Your Own Personal Runes.

Happy Wolf Moon, witches! 🐺🌕

SOURCES & FURTHER READING:

Bree’s Lunar Calendar Series

Bree’s Secular Celebrations Series

Wolf Moon: Full Moon in January, The Old Farmer’s Almanac.

Why The 2025 January Wolf Moon Is So Insanely Powerful, The Peculiar Brunette.

Casting The Bones: How to Read and Throw Bones, The Peculiar Brunette.

Witchcraft Exercise - Creating Your Own Runes, Bree NicGarran. (Masterlist here)

Moon Info - Full Moon Dates for 2025

Calendar-12 - 2025 Moon Phases

Everyday Moon Magic: Spells & Rituals for Abundant Living, Dorothy Morrison, Llewellyn Publications, 2004.

Image Source: What Is A Wolf Moon?, The Fact Site.

(If you’re enjoying my content, please feel free to drop a little something in the tip jar, check out my monthly show Hex Positive, and find my published works on Amazon or in the Willow Wings Witch Shop. 😊)

[saphronethaleph]

Destined Trials

Link frowned, concentrating ferociously, and considered all the information he had available to him.

There had to be a weakness…

He glanced to his side, at Zelda, then glowered at Ganondorf… and, suddenly, he saw it.

Time slowed for a moment.

“What time did this take place?” Link asked.

“Oh, ah…” the Rito said, frowning to herself. “I suppose it was… yes, it was the day after the solstice. I remember I was very pleased with the balalaika my wife had got me. The window was closed when I went into my room, then I was playing the balalaika, and when I went into the room the next time it had been broken – I don’t know when.”

“The day after the solstice,” Link reiterated, looking up at Ganondorf. “And yet the previous witness said that my client was present for every meal during the solstice day celebrations, and for the three days afterwards. There simply wasn’t time for him to get all the way there and back during the time the crime was committed.”

“There are, of course, high speed connections between the cities,” Ganondorf said.

“Not during the day after the solstice,” Zelda spoke up. “That day is a nationwide public holiday and public transit is on a volunteer only basis. All long distance train travel on those dates is stop to stop only, which doesn’t leave enough time for the crime to be committed.”

Ganondorf glowered at them.

“Then who do you suggest was responsible?” he asked.

“That isn’t something we have to prove,” Link replied. “This is a trial of a person. It’s not a trial to punish someone, it’s a trial to determine if a specific person should be punished.”

Later, after the decision had been reached, Zelda approached Ganondorf with Link a pace behind.

“You knew the person you were prosecuting hadn’t done it,” she said, without preamble.

“That’s quite an accusation,” Ganondorf replied, urbanely. “If you intend to sue me over it, I can identify a very good prosecutor I suggest you use… of course, I’d need to be assigned a public defender team.”

He smirked. “And, besides, I’m a lawyer. My job is to argue in favour of my side. That’s it. When you’re defending someone, do you defend them any less well if you think they’re guilty?”

“It’s a lot harder to defend someone who’s guilty, but mostly because they did it,” Link contributed.

“Our job is to make sure that justice is served, and that means making sure you have to work for everyone who gets punished,” Zelda declared, then frowned slightly. “But… why are you a lawyer, exactly?”

She indicated the seven-and-a-half-foot, immensely strong man facing her. “I know it’s a bit off topic, but… you look like someone who should be a prize winning athlete.”

“Destined combat,” Ganondorf replied, blandly. “Make no mistake – you, and I, and the twink over there are destined to battle down the ages, again and again. The Princess, the Hero, and the Beast of Despair.”

Zelda and Link exchanged confused glances.

“But this time… I wasn’t feeling it,” Ganondorf continued. “Being slain is extremely painful, you know, and I didn’t much fancy being stabbed to death with eleven hundred arrows made of magic superlaser this time. I’d much rather do all the epic prophesied battle, then settle down to a retirement somewhere in the upper slopes of a mountain range overlooking Gerudopolis… and enjoy some wine, once in a while.”

“...so… you became a lawyer?” Zelda asked.

“Of course,” Ganondorf agreed. “Being stabbed to death with eleven hundred arrows made of magic superlaser is extremely rare in a courtroom, and I figured you two would end up following me anyway so being a prosecuting attorney seemed like the profession with the highest salary while involved in combat. Though do let me know what you think of the alternatives… I was wondering about archaeology, but that seemed to have entirely too high a risk of accidentally uncovering a magical artefact that would need to be destroyed and an epic non-metaphorical battle.”

His voice became distant. “Perhaps I should try a band, one of these lives. Ganon and the Dorfs. It might catch on…”

“Do you have any idea what he’s talking about?” Zelda whispered to Link. “Because if he’s trying to get me to question my life choices and why a royal princess is working in a public defender’s office, it’s kind of working.”

[catboxcoffin]

On Furniture

(Apologies for discursive definition-talk..)

I believe the label of ‘furniture’ itself, like anything that isn’t given a complete answer, to host a catbox of meanings, so I’ll list some thoughts and categorize them by factual/thematic v.s. (meta-)fictional. I am separating these categories based on the word’s two ‘origins’: [1.] the ‘in-universe’ coinage; and [2.] the first usage within the episodic structure.

Regarding/defining categories:

Factual/Thematic:

The canon, chronological storyline [1.] underneath the story’s presentation tends to connect more to the Factual—I use this term to refer to the material events upon which everything else is built (‘Prime’) because Umineko likes to play with the word ‘Truth.’ Extra-gameboard events are as close to ‘factual’ as we can hope for, as they should occur outside of the Catbox. I willfully ignore the gestures pointing otherwise, as that would completely ruin the entire game’s truth-search, but I will concede differing ‘perspectives’ as a means of obscuring, and stories told by catbox pieces to be dubious. Literal and Thematic are not oppositional here; all metaphor/hyperbole/concepts in this category are rational extensions of the in-universe ‘reality’ because they remain as such—by this I mean that they are not visualized as chairs or rabbits, but instead concepts as intuitive as love and evil that exist among the world's inhabitants. Although these themes are delicately woven into the meta-fiction, they are born from ‘reality,’ not personified from a third source or a tool within the game.

2. (Meta-)Fictional:

The story’s presentation [2.] aligns more with the subjective, fantastical elements within the story. Considering the nature of an ‘endless witch’ and voyager witches in general, the Meta-World falls into this category as well (Also... take my usage of 'Meta' lightly—I am referring to fiction-within-fiction and the common term for the worlds, not asserting that Umineko is an effective work of MetaFiction). The gameboards in their entirety cannot logically exist without Meta interference, because their planes often (arbitrarily) merge. To simplify the discussion I’m treating the layers somewhat like this: —> (Note: it would take me ages to map out a consistent meta layer system for Umineko, so bear with the simplicity)

Prime - Umineko’s ‘real’ universe. The fragment of authored message bottles and (pardon my presumption) Ange/Eva’s survival. + What can reasonably be gleaned chronologically from the following layer (2) along with flashbacks.

Gameboards and the pieces within them. Were written with an intended purpose & elements of reality. In order of importance: 1, 2 > 3, 4 > Chiru

The Meta-World 1. Where Battler and Beatrice fight & the presentation/narration of the board. Seems to seep into every other layer somehow. Hypothetically contains Yasutrice as-author

The Meta-World 2. Whatever the hell was going on with Featherine and Ange reading about MW1. Arguably any extra-catbox people (voyager&endless witches of the future) contribute to this layer.

My Factual-thematic category focuses nearly entirely on layer 1, with extrapolation from persistent themes/discussions in 2. My (Meta-)fictional category encompasses layers 2 & 3. 4 can be relevant but I largely dislike using it for theories. In other words, category 2 is everything that is non-factual, meaning mostly presentation and interpretation.

I. Factual / Thematic

The in-universe coinage of ‘furniture’ is only disclosed in Reqiuem. I find this to be an interesting choice considering the inverted ‘answer sheet’ theme of EP7; Ryukishi is handing us a short, retrospectively logical explanation, but its brevity leaves much to be interpreted.

"This body that isn't even capable of love...!! / What's...what's the point in living like that?! / This isn't a Human's life...!! / It's like being furniture!! / That's right, I'm...furniture...!!"

The term is suddenly flipped on its head. Prior, furniture was presented as unable to love because it was furniture (implied to be status-based, seemingly just an effect of inferiority). However, it’s the other way around: one is furniture because it cannot love. The condition of the body precedes & defines worth. Unlike the dramatized, bodiless nature of Beato’s fantasies, this solution is grotesque and earthly. Being physically alienated from the universe of two makes one sub-human. Yasu-Shannon-Kannon’s—I’ll use ’YSK’—mutilated organs make ‘them’ (collective, not gender-neutral) unable to form a sexual union with any of their respective partners. Shannon cannot fulfill the marital duty of motherhood or even sex with George, Kanon is literally impotent, both physically and emotionally/volitionally in his pursuit of Jessica, and Yasu is so alienated from the feminine ideal that she cannot allow herself to ‘exist’ without performing through the former two (&Beatrice). None of them are sexually ‘complete.’

Continuing the material interpretation, its application to Genji is obvious: He loyally serves Kinzo as a friend and confidant, possesses a flamboyant, flirtatious fictional counterpart, and remains unmarried with a certain sterility towards women... He is gay. Blatant subtext aside this answer also ties up some of my personal qualms with his characterization. His senseless, sociopathic dedication to the head and his successor, complete unwillingness to intervene regarding Kuwatrice, and legitimate desirelessness can at least partially be humanized by lolgayforkinzo… If anything, a possible envy of Beatrice(s) could have solidified their doom. This unrequited love makes Genji too ‘sexually incomplete.’ While not literally mutilated, there is metaphorical castration in being a sexual minority. Kinzo would never love him, and I doubt Genji even respected himself enough to wish for it. He is the other half-universe that complements YSK, and possibly the only one who could begin to understand them. Their dramatically fatalistic tendencies can be narratively justified by their banishment from (yet proximity to) the world of love. There is no purpose in ‘living’ without the single element of life.

On a simpler note, we can also reverse-engineer the label simply based on those excluded. On my first read, ‘furniture’ initially, obviously seemed to be a hyperbolic representation of servitude. Being barricaded from the rest of society by class would certainly render one ‘sub-human.’ This, however, is self-eliminating by exempting Gohda and Kumasawa from the label. My immediate conclusion then was that the basis was not physical status, but psychological servitude. KumaGoh always felt far more human to me, which I chalked up to abysmally poor writing of ShKaGenji—a belief I still hold to an extent, but have found ways to cope with. Kumasawa and Gohda are distinctly rebellious, obviously thinking little of their status as servants. They are petty, greedy individuals who fit in well with the Ushiromiyas despite their class differences. Kumasawa is a pathological slacker, and Gohda is a skirt of responsibilities, but this doesn’t make them 'bad' in any sense. They have a passion for and qualms with their employment because it is their job, not their identity. The same cannot be said for SKG, who literally embody their vocation. I could never take their little spats with Beatrice seriously because of how bizarrely complacent they were in the face of reality; to this day I get irritated with searching for satisfactory answers in EP2. Thus, ‘furniture’ can be taken to mean a lack of humanity constituted by a lack of will & individuation.

In a similar (& more personally satisfying) vein, ‘Furniture’ can represent a debt and unbreakable tie to Kinzo. ShKanon and Genji are closer than anyone to being his property, yet they obtain strange respect from him, bearing the One-winged eagle as both a brand and honor—prized possessions. The magical perspective refers to them as his ‘creations,’ which works literally with Yasu/Lion as his paternal creation and Genji-as-servant as a circumstantial creation. Genji owes Kinzo as his savior, his remaining existence eternally devoted to paying back the favor of being spared from death in the seizing of Taiwan. Serving for so long, and so absolutely, definitely degraded his sense of humanity and began to merge his identity with his master’s.

(GEN): ”......We must continue to return the favor we received from the Master...until our final moments."

YSK, on the other hand, are tied to Kinzo by blood. Even in their ignorance and physical distance, and much to their personal detriment, they cannot escape him. They merge with projections of Beatrice without even meeting him, they come to work in the mansion without knowledge of their ancestry, and they become treasured servants seemingly by coincidence. Both ShKanon and Genji have a sense of being Kinzo's above all else, to the point of being distrusted as servants by the rest of the family, an unfortunate state since neither has families of their own. I think of this as a semi-intended and enforced alienation by Kinzo, furthering their already lonely situations for the sake of dependence and loyalty (I do not find this entirely loveless, though…). This loneliness could explain the affective resignation felt by furniture, and their inability to ‘love.’ YSK’s case is cemented in youth due to special treatment both inciting bullying and cultivating a strange relationship between them and Kinzo—Kanon’s mention of shooting with Kinzo and participating in pranks tugs on a heartstring I can’t explain. I am particularly fond of this interpretation…

II. (Meta-)Fictional

There is a stupid amount of facets to furniture in the 'fictional' portion of the story, to the point where it’s difficult to speculate on a cohesive definition. 50 new characters now fall under the label, and they must be encompassed as well. Is the term simply an extension of its connotation in reality, or is it morphed by meta-context like many of the other themes? My vote? Entirely Meta.

As I did earlier, I will begin with the first usage—this time, the coinage within the episodic structure [2.]. Doing this, I found something interesting:

The first use of furniture is Self-Referential and used as a reason to not do something: Kanon not giving a real interactive greeting, or accepting sweets; Shannon not fighting off Battler’s assault. It actually takes a while for the term to be used by non-furniture, making it appear entirely self-imposed. The word is persistently used despite the discomfort and intervention by others. It’s not self-deprecation or knowledge of one’s place; it’s a rule—a rule seemingly ingrained into the fabric of their existence. This is what I assert in this section—it is.

Shannon, Kanon, and Genji to a lesser extent, are wholly pieces owned by Yasu as their author. Not in the sense that Piece-Maria or Piece-Eva are pieces—I mean literal fiction. SKG are Yasu’s characters. Their differentiation from ‘humans’ all hinges on what can be ascribed to their fictionality.

They have an unchangeable position in the world because they are born with a singular practical purpose: to facilitate the gameboards’ culprit. (The strife that appears down the line is due to the conflicting purpose of creation) They cannot obey promises, only orders. Furniture does nothing but rot with the passage of time (…due to the triumph of new truths, I presume). Furniture is a reliable ‘tool,’ aptly fitting for characters who exist to fit neatly into the logic of murders, allowed meta-sentience but not autonomy. Writing about Humans is inefficient; you must cater to their flaws and desires, bound by what they Would or Wouldn’t do. What they are shown to be like is what they are like; the room for duplicity is small in stories corroborated by the Truth of the outside world. To surpass this—to create the perfect culprit without constraints, morals, or ties to reality—one only must ensure they are embodied. Embodied, they must be, by someone who could feasibly be them, due to an intentional lack of information. The benefit of the ambiguous identity is the excusability of multiple identities and secret motives. Yasu, with the least history, is the default, practical culprit for such a scheme. It would be entirely possible for Yasu to have no motive against the family at all, and through a simple desire to write the most effective story possible, just happened to write herself as the villain (though I obviously do not believe this, based on… well… everything).

Genji is not quite ‘fictional’ in the way that I’m claiming ShKanon are, but his nature makes him the perfect culprit-tool. Little can be known regarding prime-Genji aside from his undying loyalty to Kinzo and his successor (and how this makes him starkly morally bereft). Without family or distinct loyalties aside from the aforementioned, he too becomes a motive-mystery, and can be written to feasibly facilitate and assist almost any act if dictated by the ‘Master.’ The role of Master is pretty significant regarding Genji’s utility, considering that if the boards are chronologically honest (which they must be), Kinzo is dead and Yasu is ‘the Master.’ This aggressively recontextualizes most of Genji’s references to being furniture:

(GEN): ".......I believe everything has proceeded as the Master has hoped and arranged for. ...To distrust that would exceed my role as furniture in service to the Master.”

(KAN): "...............I wonder if this means the Master's ceremony has already begun." / (GEN): "...Probably. However, that has nothing to do with furniture like us.”

Obviously, we could read this as commentary on Yasu literally carrying out the murders, but the passivity and strange sentience regarding the ceremony leads me to believe this comes from a character aware of his narrative function. He was Yasu’s original ‘piece’ in reality, remaining her greatest asset in fiction as well. His loyalty was not just feasible, but real. Like ShKanon, he functions as a limitless Queen. Unlike SK, though, he does little to ever interfere or reject his status. Although, there is that scene of him knifing the butterfly…

Before I discuss the other(s)’ fictionality, I have to preface: I will not suspend my disbelief—I do not think ShKanon was a ‘thing’ in prime. I don’t doubt the mental manifestation of Kanon as an ideal, and am even open to a Kanon ‘alter,’ but I cannot accept that YasuShannon regularly dressed up as him or that anyone knew of a Kanon (besides maybe Genji, and even that’s tenuous). I honestly don’t mind the impracticality of performing Kanon, more so the meaninglessness. Within a gameboard ruleset where absurdities being ‘technically possible’ warrants its writing as truth, why would Kanon be real? Wouldn’t that be stripping Yasu of her hilarious authorial tricks? His existence as “extra person without extra body” is the perfect tool for a game, but totally worthless in reality. It’s not unreasonable that he ‘existed’ at Jessica’s school festival as a favor, but I wouldn’t push further than that. Besides, he was 90% covered and still considered strikingly young and androgynous, which only confirms the difficulty of genderswapping in reality. Plus, most of the ‘confirmation’ of PrimeKanon exists among swaths of half-truths (i.e. Requiem stating that a whole separate kid is being summoned out of thin air and Yasu is doing magic). Don’t take this as discrediting his significance, though; Beatrice also isn’t ‘real,’ and she’s more interesting for it.

As for Shannon, she is also largely fake. Yes, the servant named ‘Shannon’ exists in Prime. That is Yasu (or, well, what was left after the Clair-trice fragmentation [Ironically enough, I do actually take this absurd plot point at face value. Because it’s interesting]). However, I truly believe that Gameboard Shannon (GS) is a fictional entity born to serve (exempting murders) the desire for conformity and traditional femininity as much as Kanon was born from loneliness and repression. Again, these facets and desires absolutely existed in reality, I just don’t see them as being sustainable, performed identities. The fact that Battler’s memories of his first love aren’t remotely jogged by GS, and the fact that such memories would make the culprit obvious, insists upon the idea that GS is an intentional construction for the sake of the story. Battler isn’t an idiot, his androgynous intellectual gf just morphed into a moeblob tradwife over 6 years…

I feel like there’s a sticking conception that either: 1. Shannon is literally mentally Beatrice le evil culprit mastermind and is just inhabiting a servant body; or 2. Shannon is completely disconnected and the evil witch is hidden in her head as a separate consciousness and possesses her and seriously fights her alternate personas. I find these neither compelling nor reasonable. As for the first, I really do not feel like labeling a character’s entire real-world existence as a facade, no matter how boring they may be. Besides, it would be quite difficult to earnestly repress your true self enough to love not one, but two other people on the side. As for the second, a split personality is meaningless and nigh impossible when within the board’s logic you can literally kill, resurrect, and swap identities at will. They’re all fiction. That’s it. They’re all Yasu’s characters. Granted, they each contain large, separate amounts of herself, but none are uniquely her. As Zepar and Furfur said, “Their soul is less than a single person.” Existent, in a sense, but not fully ensouled.

It should go without saying that I reject Prime!JessiKanon or and ShaGeorge (for the most part). I think their inclusion in the story is a mechanic to solidify just how disconnected Yasu’s desires and ‘selves’ are, and to provide ample commentary on Love. It’s entirely likely that Yasu fantasized a romantic pursuit of George to distract herself from Battler, but I have a hard time reconciling her character with that sort of activity unless, again, Shannon was a literal split identity. Besides, the love square serves to soften the absolute disingenuousness of ShKanon for being what they are—tools.

However, Shannon does have an undeniable centrality, a ‘Heart’ that the others are not afforded, including Beatrice. My answer for this is that she is the only one truly Embodied outside of the board, pushing her into a strange half-furniture, half-human category. Kinzo is said to have made her by hand without a demon and to have given her a heart. This alludes to her being a child born from flesh, not contrived by circumstance. As always, Kinzo is paralleled by Yasu, who has a similar (meta-)relationship to Shannon.

Gameboard-Shannon does not ‘exist,’ but she surely contains the most real rudiments of Prime-’Shannon.’ Though less than human, she is Named and privileged with a body the others could never have. Her higher existence can also be explained by her being the simplest to potentially ‘exist’ (no gender-bend, no blonde witch). The conflict between her narrative role as Yasu’s piece and the narrative constraints of her ties to reality affords her a special rebelliousness, manifesting as a stronger Heart. Shannon’s bindings to Prime are a hindrance from an authorial perspective, narrowing culpability, but a privilege to the piece herself, who may circumvent fate with her ‘humanity.’ This is why she always precedes Kanon, and why she wins the love duel (Yes, I think the duel was identity>love). I also believe that Yasu envied the conceptual GS (The Beatrice/Shannon clash is enough to evidence this) and that Shannon’s internal strife is a consequence of Yasu’s teetering consideration of embodying her completely—hence the “heart that can know love.” By abandoning her Self and personifying this ideal, she could pursue a love beyond Battler, but it would be a charade. Thus the ‘Shannon’ character was trapped in a dream she wasn’t allowed, with a new purpose outgrowing the old, fighting her own authorship.

“…Burning with infatuation and worried by love, being tempted constantly and eternally with a way out was truly a cruel trial.”

This could easily be read as Yasu’s conception of Shannon—her last way “out.” However, her piece is not allowed to transgress its role, or the catbox games would shatter.

Though I have agonized over it, I don’t think my thoughts here ignore the heart. To understand the nature of furniture, one must deconstruct each character and what makes them human. Metaphors & representation are crucial to Umineko and, by extension, Yasu. The motive compelling one to author iterative ‘selves’ containing neuroses invisible in reality yet contained in one body for the sake of their nature being solved is far more bittersweet than reverse-engineering a split personality because it’s the only way to make the Logick Work. Applying the sentiment of Eva-trice and the black witch, internal conflict may be made comfortable through literal bifurcation, but the mind in reality is painfully united. The possession of multitudes can justify the inability to understand or accept yourself; to love yourself. Many but one.

I consider the Golden Land’s ‘liberation’ of furniture into love & bodies of their own to be the opposite of what it seems—instead of external fabrication, the identities unite cohesively within the single mind, thus allowing them ‘each’ a body and the capacity to love.

TLDR; Furniture in the meta-perspective is the role of a character & narrative tool. Furniture in ‘reality’ is a physical, psychological, and relational condition.

[daisyswift3]

KAYLORS I JUST DECIPHERED THE PR MESSAGES FROM PRESENT 🎁 ANON AND AM NOW VERY CERTAIN THEY’RE LEGIT TOO. So we started receiving these very interesting anon messages exactly 2 months before the release of TTPD (release was 4/19)

We were told to keep our eyes peeled for a present or gift we would be receiving and well we got it

There are P's and R's repeated in the messages. "The hint is in the words." P = PETER. R = ROBIN. Those songs are a gift to us kaylors. They're separated by just one song, the Bolter (which I'm 99% sure is related to the 8th 🎃 message bc Taylor almost drowns and a bolter is a coward which was the main point of the message); and Taylor mentions CPR in So Long, London which means they're all related. Bc Cassandra = Taylor, Peter = her second kid, Robin, = her first kid. They're related bc they're a family. I think it's possible those are the actual names of her two kids

"This is not the manuscript" i.e. the manuscript (closing track) is not the gift, it's the songs right before it! Robin is the 2nd to last song, Peter the 4th to last, and Cassandra the 5th to last. "It has been hidden well, look where the above may find you." They can be found in the track titles themselves. "Plausible deniability. Think of the one we continue to revisit"--K and T have plausible deniability since everyone thinks those are JK's kids. BUT "the volcano will soon rupture, whoever is to defame" which means that one day all the truth will come spilling out regardless of the defamation that will happen. "Restful, reticent, restraint. And PUBLISH!"--perhaps a tell-all memoir??

"The predecessor was the crumb" in other words peace "I'd give you my wild, give you a child" (see this post) was just a faint hint but now she's getting really close to revealing everything which is what the volcano 🌋 represents! THE DANDELIONS IN THE ROBIN LYRIC VID. Robin is the single dandelion floret (secret) she was so worried abt sending into someone else’s yard in the 7th 🎃 message (see this post). She was afraid that sending this song out into the world could expose the truth she’s worked so hard to protect before she’s ready but she did it anyway. “Once you blow a dandelion, you never get it back. It isn’t yours anymore.” “But the story isn’t mine anymore.” 🎃 mentions how the recipient of the dandelion would also blow and spread the florets which might mean kaylors would catch on and spread the secret. The 8th message also mentions a dandelion that the enemy has and spreads but I’m not yet sure who this person is—also this person could be the “recipient” and not kaylors but I’m not sure. And I’m not sure if this means they’d like us to kinda keep this to ourselves and not use Robin as a gotcha since it’s meant to be more of a seed planted for future use (no pun intended). But it definitely seems like they aren’t ready to reveal everything just yet

"As the neighbor holds the lamp to witness her Goodbye" = "Now you're in my backyard turned into good neighbors" and "But the woman who sits by the window has turned out the light"

"Reach those lanterns a little bit higher for you shall receive a metaphor so dire"--a jack-o-lantern like pumpkin anon? These metaphorical messages will help us to understand K and T's entire complicated situation?

"When I cannot see words curling like rings of smoke round me"--"breath of fresh air through smoke rings." Haven't quite figured out what this part means yet but it reminds me of blowing smoke which means to deliberately confuse or deceive (lavender haze mv)

This is as far as I've gotten w decoding the messages. This all adds a lot of context to those 🎃 messages and makes them a little more clear. There’s definitely more clues in there we have yet to decipher so pls share your thoughts

[writergeekrhw]

I just want to offer an alternative take on Kira’s behaviours being queer coded (Is it the short hair? The anger? I don’t know what people mean tbh, sounds… stereotypical and rude to queer women tbh), I never got those vibes as a young person watching her, never would have occurred to me at the time. I’m not judging I just have a very different view the character let me explain.

What I did get from her was that she was young and female and religious and angry and she was ALLOWED to be all those things. And I was ALL those things too, and it meant, and still does mean, the world to me that she was like that but ALSO competent and respected and loveable even though she was so, so angry, frustrated, and DONE at the injustice in her life. I (also some close friends) was going though some dark times myself when I was young, and Kira was a beacon of hope. And as she grew in her character arcs, and faced her own prejudices from Marritza to everything else, to me that was saying you can do it. If Kira can do it, can look her shitty past in the eye and say I will break this cycle and do better and unlearn and grow, you can do it too. Back to dark stuff and queer coding - I’ve seen people blast Kira getting more “feminine” (again, what? The hair? Softer personality? She learned to be gracious, is that so bad? Angry redhead stereotypes aren’t great) over time as bad and anti-queer, but to this young person it was… sometimes young women go through things at the hands of oppressors and making yourself unappealing and masculine is a choice for safety. Men don’t want ugly. So seeing her grow past that too, seemed like a culmination of her safety and maybe by extension bajor’s as metaphor.

Maybe this is a stupid interpretation but I did not see kira queer, I saw her as a hurt person who was allowed to heal and that gave me hope. I’m sorry if this is not what you intended but Kira kinda saved me from giving up and I want to thank you (and all involved) for her. Sorry this isn’t super well organized thoughts. I really am grateful for all of ds9. It was a very good show.

Without getting too deep into critical theory and Writer Intention vs. Viewer Interpretation, this is also a perfectly valid interpretation of Kira's character and it's yet another lens through which we saw her/wrote her, probably even the dominant one (and the one I suspect Nana drew most from for her performances).

Which is not to invalidate people who saw her as queer/repressed or people who saw her as a colonized woman wrestling with her ambivalence about her new, arguably more benevolent colonizers, or people who saw her as a person of faith struggling to see past her religious prejudices, or people who saw her as a terrorist trying to overcome her past sins.

Over 172 episodes, multiple writers wrote her thinking about different things. Sometimes the very same writers would draw from different inspirations from episode to episode or scene to scene or even line of dialogue to line of dialogue. And of course, Nana and the various directors would bring their own takes to every moment.

All of which, IMHO, helped make her a terrific character.

Also thank you for the kind words and I'm glad we helped! LLAP.

[mjrtaurus]

I feel like Doflamingo is credited with being Crocodile's equal in intellect a lot, but Doffy seems to think he's a lot smarter than he actually is. On top of having a cunning intellect, Crocodile has contingency plans upon contingency plans and then a few extra contingency plans in case something comes up. He's very quick to adapt, even if his people skills aren't that great.

Doflamingo is clever and a bit more battle-hardened, but he's not wise. He's great at manipulating people and he can play the long game so long as he has benefits to tide him over, but none of his underworld connections seemed to help him out that much in Dressrosa. And most importantly, as soon as a few variables change it's harder for him to bounce back, like when Caesar was kidnapped or Sugar passed out. That's when his Celestial Dragon impatience and instinct to just destroy everything until he gets what he wants kicks in.

That's why he was eager for a team-up in Marineford. He wanted to use Crocodile's brains to his benefit.

I don’t think Doffy is less intelligent than Crocodile, in fact, I do firmly believe that he and Crocodile are on par with each other when it comes to intelligence. The thing is, Doflamingo and Crocodile are intelligent in different ways.

Doflamingo’s edge over Crocodile is that he knows how people tick. He knows that loyalty and trust are not things to be balked at. He understands how far charisma can take him and how to utilize others to pick up the slack for the technicalities. Simply put, Doflamingo understands people better, but can get lost in the finer, impersonal details that Crocodile excels in.

Crocodile’s edge over Doflamingo is that he knows how to plan. He knows how to lay a firm foundation for a strategy that’s meant to last, yet he fails to account for the human element in which he must work with. He knows where to place the metaphorical support beams to keep the core plan standing with all the backup and contingency plans built in, he just needs the extra sets of hands to do the labor. Simply put, Crocodile understands how to put a plan together better, but he lacks the ability to be personable with his underlings, whereas Doflamingo comes by that ability naturally.

Doflamingo is aware of his weaknesses and Crocodile’s strengths in planning. He wants his reign in Dressrosa to be long and profitable. He wants to keep Kaido off his ass long enough for him to achieve his real goal: destroying the world the Celestial Dragons have made for themselves, and ruling the new one he intends to build on their bones.

And for all of that he needs somebody who can plan better than him. Somebody who has a similar moral deficit. Somebody who the world government and the marines won’t think twice about him talking to.

Somebody exactly like Crocodile.

The only- and I mean the only- problem? Crocodile isn’t interested in being anyone’s underling, and especially not Doflamingo’s. He is too willful, too independent, too untrusting to be for anyone but himself.

To sum it all up, Doflamingo wanting Crocodile for his brain isn’t because he isn’t as smart as Crocodile, it’s because he understands that Crocodile’s expertise is ideal in achieving his goals.

As for how things went down in Dressrosa… Doffy did everything right. I dare say he did even more right by treating the Strawhats as an actual threat from the start, whereas Crocodile didn’t until it was far too late for him. He went into the threat assessment with the Strawhats with the bar set very high, he was just not prepared for the fact that the Strawhats A) don’t give a shit about his bar, B) don’t play by the same set of rules in which his bar is designed to account for, and C) will take his bar that he so graciously presented them with and beat him unconscious with it.

[ghouljams]

Hey so, I’m the anon that sent the initial ask with the Sire and Dam terms and I’m just confused and looking for clarification

I’m aware they aren’t dogs. But the term itself isn’t uncommon in the a/b/o community at times; in any case, most terms in the community compares them to dogs or other animalistic sayings. (ie. Calling babies ‘pups’, using the concept of ‘heat cycles’, using the term ‘packs’, rutting, mating, to say a few)

And even you, in the omegaverse headcannons ask said “I think I've called alphas "herding dogs" before and that's such a great way to think about them lol”. You’ve compared them to dogs too, in a way.

I don’t intend to come off as rude, I’m just seriously a bit lost on what you mean considering everything. /lh /genq

The terms sire/dam make me incredibly uncomfortable because in my mind they break so.ething complex like gender into strictly biological parts. I also would call this a recent addition to the omegaverse Canon because I had never heard the terms used until you sent your ask.

Perhaps I don't view mother/father as gendered terms, in my mind it's just the "role" that one fulfills. Not even in terms of mother=birth giver, father=sperm donor, more in terms of labor, emotional education, perhaps a form of distance from the child. Idk

I would say me using "herding dog" as a metaphor is different from using dog breeding terms to refer to human people. Is any birth giver who hasn't been mated referred to as a bitch too?

I have made a concerted effort NOT to use dog/animal terms outside of heat/rut only because those are the accepted terms for the fertility cycle that exists within omegaverse. I don't call them packs, I don't really talk about mates, I don't call children pups, but I'm sorry I used a metaphor to describe an abstract concept that happened to also be dog related.

This is not a reflection on you but it is a little frustrating for me to create what I consider to be an "untraditional" omegaverse au where: betas have an actual endotype, omegas are not weak simpering submissives, alphas aren't sex crazed rapists, and where sortie dynamics are actually interesting and have social implications, and people still will come into my ask box and ask like really aggressively traditional omegaverse questions.

"What if a beta!reader wanted-" then they could do that.

"What if the reader went into heat and alpha!x-" they'd be fine, alphas aren't hormone monsters.

"Can alphas be parents?" Yes because they're people and alpha =/= absent father.

I am sorry, I was more confused than frustrated by your original question I just am a little tired of doing all of this world building and people just seem to ignore that. Like I'm really proud of the work I've put into my au! I wish people would read it before sending me really really "traditional" omegaverse questions. This will never happen though.

[leportraitducadavre]

About DoA and its use by the fandoms

It's been quite a while since I've been here, I wasn't sure about posting anything new (more so this, as it's still incomplete) but dear lord, every couple of weeks I receive a notification of someone demonizing me because I decided to critique their character instead of Kishimoto, using the "blame the writing and not the character" and all that idiocy as their primary argument. So, I've decided to post this in order for you to understand what that type of "defense" actually entails.

I should note that this post has no conclusion of its own, I personally won't be dictating what you should think about this matter as that's a personal conviction, it's my desire to give you different perspectives on the subject (of course my own ideology is intertwined with the text, so it should be easy to see where I stand) as to give you tools to understand, basically, the arguments you're using.

It's a long post, so everything will be under the cut.

“Death of the Author” is a theory created by Barthes in 1967, roughly speaking, it’s presented as a juxtaposition to the idea that the Author, as a metaphorical God, has imbued the text with a single meaning–what Barthes does by presenting this idea is to argue against the power that the Author continues to have inside the text because he says, “writing is the destruction of every voice”; therefore, imposing the Author on a text limits its meanings, as then only one true meaning exists, which is the one “Author-God” gave it.

Barthes’s concept isn’t without logic: if The Reader does not bring the fictional product/situation/character to their own perspective (that is, their individual reality), it is impossible to give it verisimilitude. Only through this process can we appropriate fiction. And we can’t “appropriate it” in the same parameters or spheres of understanding (social, political, economic, and cultural) of the Author. What Barthes says is that the textual meaning can’t be located in its “origin” but in its “destination,” thus,  Readers are constantly working to create the meaning of text.

The main issue with this perspective is that it implies that the relationship with a text is bipartite, as the text either exists in relation to its Creator or in relation to its Reader; it also implies that a work of literature (as Barthes calls it a “tissue with signs”) is of no more value than a User’s Manual or a flyer as they too contain signs to communicate information.

The most important thing about this essay, however, is the notion that a fictional work stops being from The Author the moment they write the last paragraph, as it now belongs to The Readers; in this process, each Reader performs a different work, as they bring their own ideology to the text.

The existence of the relationship between text and Reader isn’t questionable, but it doesn’t exist in a void: in order to believe, we have to detach the text from the Author’s intent (which they definitely gave, as every writing is ideological) and their framework. It’s true that we can read a work without knowing the Author’s name, nationality, and social and economic background; but we see their ideological position through their creation, as all of those aspects we don’t know about were intrinsic to the text at the time of its creation and development. This is not to say that The Author’s “intention” will be one hundred percent understood or will translate as intended to every Reader, but their “death” isn’t as spontaneous nor as definitive as some might think.

“To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing. Such a conception suits criticism very well, the latter then allotting itself the important task of discovering the Author beneath the work: when the Author has been found, the text is 'explained' - victory to the critic.” Barthes.

The thing about this phrase is that the “Critics” Barthes speaks of no longer exist, as they don’t hold the same level of power inside literary works as they used to. To understand what he meant we need to take into account the context in which he wrote the piece and the intention behind it, that is, we should ask Barthes what he meant; and if he denies those that go against his original intention, he’s contradicting his own principle.

Literary discourse is opposed to truth—truth as in the culturally affirmed “truth”. This distinction between truth and fiction allowed the author to avoid the “appropriation” that overwhelmed science discourses. Michel Foucault, who like Barthes was against structuralism and opposed the concept of expression, asked the question as to why the author even assumed the position of the “ideological figure”. That, Foucault stated, resulted from considering the author to be the source of meaning—authorial intention. That’s the reason why Foucault and Barthes both opposed this method of “closed reading”. As the author functions as the figure who controls meaning, his “mystification” in this regard is linked to the control of distribution and profits.

Now, the power is no longer of the “critics” Barthes antagonized, but with the masses' interpretation of the text, which is not one but multiple ones, as not one reading stays the same in the vast ocean of consumers. It's there that the debate starts, and it's there that the debate ends because it becomes the "let's agree to disagree" ad infinitum. There's, again, no exact reason why the debate should have an ending, as the text trespasses time, and its reading is modified by historical events that impact the cultural spheres.

“The Reader” here is a figure of speech because it is a term used to define a large group of people with different histories, cultures, and interpretations.

If The Reader approaches the text (by taking ownership of the story and its characters) and decides, for instance, to give a character what “they truly deserve”, then they strip that character of their overall value. A character exists within the story for a purpose; and if we strip Shylock (Merchant of Venice) of the context Shakespeare wrote him for, he loses his long-term importance as he exists as the opposing force in the narrative. If he suddenly has nothing to oppose, then he ceases to exist as Shylock. If he’s suddenly given a “happy ending” (as him obtaining the pound of flesh from Antonio’s heart; or him rebelling against Antonio’s and Portia’s revenge request, because Portia as a lawyer not only saved Antonio’s life but also gave him the retribution she thinks he deserved), he stops being the Tragic Character and loses the relevance. By taking away a character’s place in the narrative and giving them a new story, personality, or actions (which The Reader thinks a specific character should’ve had), readers create an entirely new character inside an entirely new story and framework that simply shares some vague similarities to its canon counterpart; furthermore, they’re not giving the character what they deserve; they’re giving their own character (as the story is nothing but their own interpretation) what they think they deserve.

In the same manner, The Author is no longer relevant or talented, as now, the brilliance lies in the readers' interpretations of the writing, not in The Author’s work that, apparently, simply “allowed” The Readers to reach their brilliance.

Two “new” approaches to a story, Watsonian and Doylist, add layers to this issue: the former implies that we can answer questions about the story by simply looking inside the work’s universe and not outside it, whilst the latter is concerned with answers outside the framework of the text–meaning, in real life. 

If a person considers the Watsonian approach the only well-founded one, then the answers are subjected to The Reader’s interpretation, which as I’ve said are many; so if the Author gives their input, they do by becoming a Reader, which makes their vision just as valid as the one of any other. With this approach, the Truth (implying that the text has a singular meaning) does not exist, or rather, there isn’t a single truth as there is a “coexistence of truths”. 

If, however, they decide to see the story through the Doylist approach, The Reader assumes they know the only intention the Author had; but how do we know the author's “true” intention? Even the use of interviews to state what they did or did not achieve is… debatable because the interviews are clippings of conversations not chosen by The Authors themselves but by PR teams –never mind the fact that if there are many of these “PR members”, The Author can appear to contradict themselves or be untruthful.

So how do we try to (try, is a keyword in this) reconcile the Author's intent with the Author themselves? We look at the story and its framework and at the structure and the plot as a whole.

Shakespeare’s narrative introduces Shylock as the antagonist; we aren’t supposed (in a very generic manner) to care for him or his destiny, because what we should want is Antonio’s safety; those who read the story today and see this structure will quickly draw the conclusion: “Shakespeare was an antisemite, so Shylock deserves better.” Yet Shakespeare, who again, built Shylock as the opposition to the framework’s stance, gave him the strongest, most humane speech inside the story. We’re given his perspective; we are told of Antonio’s mistreatment towards him; and we are forced to learn the reasoning behind his animosity:

To bait fish withal. If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies, and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

Shylock exists as a villain-like figure, yet “villain-Shylock” doesn’t exist outside this speech. The reason why we care for Shylock is that we know about his pain, and we know about his pain because Shakespeare allowed us to see it. The Reader gave Shylock complexity because the complexity existed prior to The Reader’s intervention; it’s, however, The Reader that vindicated him, but they didn’t do it alone.

Characters aren’t independent of the Author’s decision-making process, Readers can't “blame the author” and spare the character from any responsibility as they are the vehicle The Author uses inside the story; neither the story nor the character or The Author has to endorse The Reader’s views because that doesn’t diminish the work’s value.

There are many ways in which a reader becomes frustrated with a story; a very common route of this event transpires when the consumer finds the ending dissatisfying. The dissatisfaction with the conclusion (and I’m using that word as reading or engaging with any form of art it’s both an ideological and emotional process) does not detract from the “brilliance” of the plot.

If we decide to forever and ever separate the Watsonian and Doylist perspectives to study them in a manner that they shouldn’t interact then we take the events that don't fit our perspective of the text as mere coincidences; furthermore, we kill the author because our brilliance, our appreciation, our “writing” of the story is better. The Reader becomes the Author’s murderer by “divine right”. The children rebel against their parent, who metaphorically created them for that specific fictional universe, and they murder them, creating, at last, the creature: the text. The inheritance that is “rightfully” theirs.

Detractors of the theory accuse DoA of becoming a means for cultural erasure, in their words, if they’re going to read everything of themselves into the work, then what happens to the cultures that are told through art? Is their art meant to be repackaged, remodeled—or erased for The Reader to find their brilliance through fiction? There’s a case that perfectly exemplifies this where a Western portion of Naruto's fandom considered Tobirama to be “femininely” designed because of his use of “make-up,” yet if we look further inside the same story and the author’s origins, we can easily draw a connection between that specific character’s design and Kabuki Theatre, where actors use Kumadori in bright colors in order to emphasize veins, muscles, blood vessels or the connection of the Samurai to a Kami, becoming Hitokami. The lack of knowledge from Western Readers about Japanese Culture prevented them from seeing the reasoning behind specific aesthetic choices giving sense to a specific design by coding it “feminine”, instead of tracing down its conceptual roots.

But, with all these points made, various questions arise: if the Author’s Intention doesn’t necessarily translate into the Readers’, which text is more important? It’s the text to be read as the Author intended or as the Reader interprets it? Could both of these visions coexist or are they bound to fight for dominance indefinitely?

[lostyesterday]

I have a lot of Star Trek trans headcanons, and I realized that there are some fundamental differences in the reasons why and the ways in which I picture various characters as trans, so I made this chart to try to categorize my headcanons.

This chart is specifically meant for categorizing trans headcanons, not canonically trans characters, which is why I didn’t include Adira, Gray, or Zero on here. The characters here are just the characters I personally like to picture as trans, not some kind of statement about what I think should be canon. Also, I personally headcanon some of these characters as binary trans, others as nonbinary, and others as just vaguely Not Cisgender.

“They're trans because of extensive narrative or allegorical evidence” means either that I personally think canon supports the idea of them being trans even if the writers didn’t necessarily intend for that to be the case (e.g. Seven being coerced by other characters to perform gender in ways she clearly isn’t comfortable with), or something about that character is metaphorically close to being trans (e.g. Dax having previously been a man). “They're trans because a thing they said or did once would make sense if they were trans” refers to things like Jules seeming a bit like Julian’s deadname.

The rows basically refer to whether I can plausibly imagine that character realizing that they are in fact trans, and whether I think it would make sense for them to be openly trans within the canon timeline (again, just my own subjective opinion).

[starbylers]

This is a response to the person who sent me an ask about their doubt last week, just hiding it below incase people don’t want to see that :)

For context this is an in-depth explanation of:

Why Mike’s monologue had to happen

Hi! And yeah of course I can try. I fully understand why the monologue is throwing you off and as someone who doesn’t believe Mike was consciously lying you’ve come to the right place lol. I explained a little more about why I think that in the tags here if you wanted to read more about that perspective. I’ll probably link to a few other posts in this aswell because it ties into a lot of stuff I’ve made Byler analyses about before.

So the thing you said about his arc being ‘does he love her or not?’ is what I think is causing the issue, because that isn’t Mike’s arc. You’re right in that that’s the question that is being posed to the audience at face value, but that’s not his character journey. I have a long post about this here but essentially, the core driving force of a character cannot be another person—Mike needs to, and does, have his own personal inner conflicts which the Byler perspective provides (pressure to perform being grown up which is made incredibly obvious to us in s3, and dealing with the tumultuous process of figuring out that he is not straight in s4—I personally don’t think he’s there yet though, I think the full realisation of why he’s been having all these problems with Will & El is still to come).

The perspective of ‘yes he does’ love her just because he said the words is the crux of the entire plot twist, because it’s the conclusion people inevitably come to when they don’t pay attention to the details. (I don’t mean this insultingly at all btw! The whole thing is very subtle and easy to misinterpret). And ST is all about details, something which has been told to us by the creators and is also obvious in their use of foreshadowing/hinting/referencing in all aspects of the show, not just Byler.

Mike’s arc didn’t finish a season early. This has even been told to us i.e. by David talking about how s5 will pay off big characters including Mike, and Finn himself saying Mike still has a ‘journey’ to complete, and also just the fact that we don’t have the final season means no-one’s arcs are complete because the story isn’t complete. The fact that a “love confession” occurred at the midpoint (s4/5 are basically intended as two halves of one story—post explaining this here) is what makes it extremely obvious that Mlvn is not the conclusion of this tale.

The monologue can probably be said to have many purposes, but here are the main ones to me:

It presents a solution that ultimately ends in disaster, and associates that disaster with Mike and El’s romance. The monologue is so, so important in showing that Mike and El’s love did not, could not save the day. That it wasn’t strong enough—further proof from the script here. It shows that El got what she thought she wanted, only to discover it wasn’t what she really needed. It may have helped save her but it didn’t help her achieve her goals (save Max, kill Vecna). Kind of a metaphor for their entire relationship lol. It’s also supposed to show that not even an ‘I love you’ can fix their issues—they literally don’t speak afterwards. I’m not sure El’s fully processed all this yet, but figuring it out is what’s going to drive her arc towards self-actualisation and allow her to win next season.

It furthers the miscommunication plot between Mike and Will. It’s an indisputable fact that Will’s lie influenced that monologue. (We can tell just by watching but it’s also in the script if we needed even more proof lol. Not to mention: the track that plays behind it is You’re The Heart. The episode is called The Piggyback. Will’s face is right over Mike’s shoulder when he says ‘I love you’—Will is integral to and inseparable from that confession). That is so important, and something we’re supposed to notice. The whole point of the monologue is who’s really behind it (aka who’s really behind the painting & words that drove Mike’s speech), because this sets the stage for the Byler confrontation next season. It’s literally the Benverly poem plot from IT, something we know the Duffers have taken inspiration from.

If Mike hadn’t gone through with it, there would be no movement forward in the story, we’d enter s5 with exactly the same plot we just watched in s4—Mike trying to say he loves his girlfriend for the literal third season in a row. It’s boring, it’s not good entertainment. Mike finally saying it (and yet there still being problems between them & it occurring under questionable circumstances) pushes development in the narrative, sets up new conflict for the next season. Or, if Mlvn had decided to break up because of Mike not saying it in s4, that would’ve led to Byler becoming painfully obvious and ruining the twist they’ve been setting up for literal seasons. Everyone knows Will loves Mike, and if Mlvn broke up in that same season the entire audience would see the ending of the show coming from a mile away. Remember, Byler is being written as a plot twist. It’s very likely tied up with the supernatural plot too.

The content of the monologue itself is supposed to demonstrate precisely why Mlvn are finished, why they don’t work, and should raise people’s eyebrows about the legitimacy of Mike’s “confession”. Like you said…he remembered her t-shirt lol. It’s impersonal, nothing about why he loves her or what he loves about her; he literally, proveably, lies in it and anyone can verify that by watching s1; and he makes comparisons to superheroes which is the exact opposite of what El needs (her whole issue is thinking she’s either the monster or the superhero, when what she really needs is to stop thinking in such a binary, and learn to be El the teenage girl, the sister, the daughter, the friend, the human being, and find her power in that).

And something else they purposefully do this season is give us examples of other love confessions to contrast and show how ingenuine Mike’s really is: Jancy & Will (not my original post! I just expanded on op’s point).

Now as I said before I don’t think Mike intentionally lied. My opinion is that he knows deep down something is not right with their relationship and that he doesn’t feel how he should, but after Will’s speech and encouragement he choses to believe that he can love her, that he can be what she needs (except it’s not what she needs, it’s what Will needs lol). So not lying, but the monologue is basically a desperate attempt to a) grasp at straightness and b) save her life. He’s in denial, and also terrified of her dying. Very bad combo.

So yeah there’s my reasoning :) what you were saying about the potential of a familial ‘I love you’ is true, yeah it could’ve ended the plot line. But that’s the kind of thing that should be a conclusion to the entire story, something that occurs right before victory not disaster. Because then what would the implication be? That El’s family’s love isn’t enough for her to save the world?

And the way they will explain the monologue is so simple. It’s Will. It’s Will’s feelings that inspired Mike. All that needs to happen is for Mike to realise that, and the audience will realise it along with him. Mike: I only said that because of how much Will loves me? Audience: Oh! So he doesn’t actually love her! It’s Will, Will is who he’s meant to be with! It’s a classic ‘the person who was right in front of them all along’ trope. Once people understand that, it basically makes truly romantic interpretations of the monologue invalid.

I can’t say exactly how the ending will play out—I expect we’ll see the cracks in Mlvn shatter rapidly as s5 progresses, maybe more arguing/demonstration of their incompatibility or El asking Mike to say it to her face and he still can’t, Mike and Will simultaneously getting closer and it becoming increasingly obvious that Mike is in love—but I’m choosing to trust they’ll do it justice. Mike’s monologue is just a key turning point in the larger story.

Also just one last thing, you said he seems sincere and I do agree but I think it’s because his fear in that moment is extremely real, and there are truths within his monologue i.e. that he doesn’t want to lose her etc. so that’s where it’s coming from in my opinion :)

[bestworstcase]

Wait, hold on, does Salem not know about Oz's whole like. Security measures Light put in. I feel like if she did she'd be more forgiving bc Oz is literally constantly being subjected to psychological and even physical torture (if he fights the merge). He's on The Tightest Leash Ever and basically has very little to no control on what he does. Like it's pretty clear he secretly agrees with Salem, but he can hardly think about it (seemingly has to communicate that vaguely via fairytales in a book) let alone actually act on it.

I feel like she likely doesn't know. I think if Salem knew about the metaphorical shock collar she'd be pissed on his behalf and probably be more forgiving. Granted it doesn't undo the hurt she's experienced but I think it'd make a lot of things make more sense to her. Can only imagine how that revelation would go down

yeah exactly literally all she knows is that

he was given a choice to come back

to unite humanity on light’s behalf

he said yes

he intends to see it through

he reincarnates by taking over somebody else, almost instantaneously*

because that is everything ozma knew when he told her the truth.

(*this changed after he divided his magic to create the maidens—using what magic he has left accelerates the merger; getting rid of most of his magic was likely ozma’s best effort to stop killing his hosts, even if it didn’t quite work)

hence "why do you keep. coming. back." to salem this looks like oz has been choosing to come back, over and over and over again, killing someone each time, solely for the purpose of enacting his god’s genocidal design—and she’s laying that next to her memories of the person who rescued her from her abusive, tyrannical father, and her memories of the person who lied to her for more than a decade to manipulate her into unwittingly serving her own tormentor, and going WHY while also, i’d imagine, questioning whether that person she remembers from millions and millions of years ago was ever even real, or if she was just too naive and too blinded by infatuation to see his true self.

after all… she only knew him a few years, before he died, and then she was alone for all that time, and then he came back and deceived her, tricked her—she absolutely does not believe anymore that he truly loved her at all, the second time—and he has to all appearances spent thousands of years since then DETERMINED to rid the world of her at any cost. what’s more likely? that he really was this wonderful person she remembers, or that a girl who’d never left her cell before and never known anything but cruelty and abuse saw her rescuer through the rosiest of rose-colored glasses?

with the history and the scant information she has it is so much easier for salem to believe that ozma is just…awful, and she was a naive love-blinded fool not to see it before he stabbed her in the back, than to hold onto “no, the good person i knew for a tiny fraction of our lives millions of years ago is the one who’s real, something is wrong.”

but yeah like. the instant she learns what’s really going on here, that ozma agreed to something he didn’t understand once and he’s been shackled to it ever since by a curse designed to destroy his sense of self and Force Him to obey… like at that point it isn’t even really a matter of forgiving him, it’s all of the hatred and anger and hurt and confusion she feels toward ozma now wrenching away from him onto the god of light. i think she’s going to snap to HOW DARE HE DO THIS TO YOU so fast it’ll even make her head spin.

esp bc like, waves at 6.4, salem is already boiling alive in guilt over her part in their daughters dying. as soon as she has the information to put together that ozma has essentially been psychologically tortured into becoming light’s weapon i think she is going to immediately realize that light set her and ozma up to fail on purpose, counting on her to lash out when ozma betrayed her so as to seal off the only possible escape he might have, meaning she has been manipulated into becoming an instrument of ozma’s torture just as he has hers. which 1. will obviously inflame her self-hatred to horrific new extremes but also 2. this woman is going to be out for BLOOD.

this is the why and the how of the ozlem reconciliation; ozma is cursed and salem doesn’t know that yet, so she’s furious and vengeful because she doesn’t understand why he’s doing this but she’s also just one revelation away from snapping back emotionally to the time she tried to Bodily Shield Ozma From Divine Fire.

[hawkogurl]

Hi! 😊 I saw you post something saying it was clear to you that raimi harry Osborn was schizophrenic do you think you could please explain that a bit? (If you've already made a post about it and I've just missed it I apologise) Have a nice day!

Probably won’t be the best worded so I’ll be happy to elaborate further. Also feel compelled to state that I probably view that constitutes canon pretty differently than most people. What I mean by the idea that Harry having some sort of psychotic disorder in the raimiverse is at least semi-canon is generally pretty complicated so bear with me.

A lot of what has brought me to this conclusion is pretty doylist. It’s not a plot hole that Harry’s hallucinating in the second movie, the way the first two movies are written in this regard before Sony decided to fuck with things in the third is too deliberate. Raimi’s history as a horror directors shows in a lot of areas, but it never really feels like he’s throwing elements in for the hell of it, whenever something feels horrorish, it’s pretty deliberate. All this to say that Harry’s not hallucinating for the hell of it.

When it comes to specifically raimiverse based interpretation, there’s generally four things I see a lot. The first and in my opinion weakest being the idea that it’s happening as a result of the serum in the nearby hidden room leaking. I understand how this is seen as appealing or interesting, especially in any case where someone might think it doesn’t make sense for Harry not to have developed a goblin persona like Norman had. In the past I’ve gone into how I believe that’s also a pretty deliberate narrative choice, so putting all that aside, I don’t think it makes sense for this to be intended by the creators. From a writing standpoint, if that’s what we were supposed to think, you’d be shown shots to indicate things like that. Additionally, the serum itself is always shown to be stored in a liquid form, only gas when it’s applied to a person, a process that consistently requires quite a bit of machinery. I understand the appeal of the theory, but if I’m looking at what I think is most likely to be the thought in the creators heads, I don’t think this is likely.

I also see it generally get dismissed as ghosts a lot, which also feels strange to me. The only other instance of something happening that could be seen as similarly supernatural would also be in this movie, being the scene where Peter, conflicted about how being Spider-Man effects his life, has a conversation with Ben, who is also dead, in the car from the first movie in the middle of a white void. This scene occurs in an ambiguous white background using imagery from the last conversation Peter had with Ben before he died and also draws on how that conversation has affected Peter’s worldview. This scene ends by cutting to Peter, who’s sitting in bed with his eyes open as he comes to the conclusion he can’t keep being Spider-Man. Because of the framing of it in a space that isn’t recognizable as the normal physical world and the fact we’re shown Peter in the physical world after it, we’re not meant to be taking this scene literally. This scene is a metaphorical expression of Peter’s internal conflict, not a literal event that’s physically happening in any sort of meaningful capacity. It’s a visual expression of a non physical story element. This isn’t all that important for my point, but I find it important to state for later comparison.

This leaves Harry’s interactions with Norman after he’s died as the only remaining event that can be simply explained with the supernatural. That being said, it doesn’t really make internal sense for this to be the case. Though fantastical, every superhuman element of this story has been at least connected to some sort of scientific idea that grounds it in reality, never something more fantastical. The Green Goblin is the result of a performance enhancing drug created for the military. Doc Ock is the result of malfunctioning AI and his most dangerous goals rely on using nuclear fusion to create energy. Sandman was created by the writer’s rather incorrect idea of what a particle accelerator is. Venom is an alien, but still connected pretty blatantly to real life biology ideas of real word symbiotes. It’s all rather fantastical and implausible, but it’s all still connected to real world familiar scientific ideas. To randomly bring the supernatural into it for scenes it could be easily replaced with something else to accomplish the same end results and never elaborating on the idea that apparently ghosts are real would be a really bizarre world building choice.

But going back to the scene with Peter, unlike that this scene is not framed to be metaphorical. It’s happening in the real world right before and after real physical events with Harry and has physical results on the world and the characters. In some capacity, what’s happening here is literal—but I don’t think that means some piece of Norman is physically there. The audience is viewing this alongside Harry and from his perspective, there’s never any other character who’s present for scenes where Harry experiences things like this. The events are literal and intended to be something physically happening, but only from Harry’s perspective. There’s no other set of eyes to establish the reality of this from beyond Harry’s sole perspective.

Among the common theories I see, I probably like the idea that it’s alcohol induced the second most. I don’t really like to demean it because I think it’s very likely that this idea is important to people in the same way it being psychological is important to me. That being said, I don’t know how much I think it holds up to scrutiny. Yes, Harry’s shown to be drinking pretty heavily around this period, but in the moment he first experiences his hallucinations, he’s not shown to be drinking. He at least appears to be somewhat sober. In the second instance, he is shown to drink, but only in the literal seconds before he hallucinates. If this is intended to be the actual cause, the creators would more likely put more emphasis on him drinking in relation to the hallucinations or similar. That being said, I have reasons I think it was kept more vague that I’ll get into.

If I’m looking at what was likely intended, the most likely doylist explanation for why these scenes exist, the idea it’s psychological for him is the only thing that’s going to consistently check out. For one thing, in the comics, Harry is schizophrenic! That’s outright the word used to describe what he has going on, he is diagnosed with schizophrenia. Additionally, in a lot of comics with Harry at the time, he’s hallucinating Norman as an expression of a lot of his internal conflicts, similarly to what we see here. In the comics that Raimi Harry most closely follows the broader beats of, he has persecutory hallucinations of his father as an expression of his internal conflict, hallucinations that target the things that he feels make him weak and drive him towards his worst behaviors while also being specifically schizophrenic. In the raimi trilogy, Harry develops persecutory hallucinations of his father that particularly target the idea that he feels weak and drive him towards his worst behaviors. From that alone, it’s not irrational to conclude that it’s at least something of a reference towards his schizophrenia in the comics.

What’s more, in the novelizations it appears to be rather explicit. While interviews and Reddit AMAs have made it somewhat clear that Peter David, their author, did have quite a bit of freedom, they also made it clear he was still obligated to follow the scripts he was given rather closely and his writing still had to be approved. The novels were primarily only allowed elaboration, not outright reimagining. In the novelizations, Harry is written to hallucinate much more frequently. He’s often paranoid of the world. His behavior is more erratic. He experiences moments of Cotard’s delusion. His behavior through the third movie goes from likely being inspired by or intended to reference and imply Harry’s comic-canon schizophrenia to, in the novels, being outright written to resemble and follow the symptoms of schizophrenia far more closely. While they very much aren’t the movies, the fact that they were being written from the scripts at the time of the movies release and a lot of the information we have on how they were written does point me towards the idea that while you can’t exactly treat them as above the movies in terms of what’s canon, you can treat them very fairly as auxiliary information in terms of interpreting the intended story.

Additionally, I think they provide a pretty interesting piece of information that also sort of solidifies the idea for me that what Harry’s experiencing is some form of psychosis. Harry only develops these issues after learning Peter is Spider-Man. Not after taking the serum, specifically immediately after learning Peter is Spider-Man. At this point in the story, Peter is Harry’s closest friend and arguably the most important person in Harry’s life. I don’t need to explain that Spider-Man is the exact opposite. It’s likely rather shattering to how Harry perceives reality to realize the most important person in his life is the person he hates the most, and that he’s been lying to him after in Harry’s perception killing his father for multiple years. Psychosis is specifically a break in someone’s grasp on reality. I don’t think it’s that hard for me to believe that a revelation that shattered how Harry perceived reality that severely might risk causing a psychotic episode of some form.

Additionally, it’s the most consistent with how the world and writing of these movies work internally. It’s never really about the fantastical elements narratively—these movies are about people. The internal, human elements of these characters lives are the most emphasized, the supernatural elements are almost always allegorically connected to some aspect of humanity or very human flaws. That’s always what’s emphasized. Narratively, the goblin is representative of Norman’s greed and ego, his conviction that he is superior to others and entitled to power and control. Otto isn’t about the arms, not really, it’s about selfishly motivated ambition even with the best of intentions and turning those motivations into selfless ones. Flint being Sandman is secondary to how poverty has fucked him over, how he’s been forced into crime in his desperation to help his ill daughter. Eddie wasn’t really corrupted by Venom, he was a selfish and self centered man with a massive sense of entitlement to what he wanted who was given the power to do what he wanted. By extension, it makes the most sense that Harry, who’s already defined by trauma, cycles of abuse and identity would be far more connected to the very human idea of mental illness than something far less poignant like inexplicable supernatural elements.

All this to say that when I, guy who’s always going to feel compelled to take doylism and authorial intent into account when doing my analysis, look at all the information that I have, I think it’s very likely that Harry’s comics schizophrenia or hallucinations were on the writer’s minds when they were planning out or writing the scenes I am referring to. I don’t think that was ever likely to end up explicit—it’s not practical for a movie with its demographic, with a studio prone to intervention, especially with how messy SM3’s development was. It’s not practical for it to be super explicit in a movie of its demographic in 2007, but I think it’s very likely to be on the writers minds when it was written.

[thealogie]

like genuinely what kind of author would A. take a such a stupidly hardline on audience interpretation when like. That wasn’t even an interpretation of the line it was just remembering and repeating it!!!! And B. why would you WANT your audience to only take your work as completely literally and on the nose as possible?? Like does he not realize how stupid it makes him sound to be like. This show isn’t saying anything about homophobia at all, only about how awkward all the other fictional creatures find it when angels and demons become close in an unspecified way that is beyond human interpretation but can also be summed up as bosom buddies 🤪

Literally this guy is always going “I won’t answer that! it’s for you to interpret” except if he woke up in a different mood then he’s like “this scene was NOT intended that way it’s all in your head. Thanks for thinking this exchange could have a deeper metaphorical meaning but I’ll choose the option that makes me a less good writer ❤️”