#The most important people in my stories

[crmsnmth]

Mannequins

This room is filled with mannequins Some dressed up as people from my past There's the girl with the ocean blue eyes Who I still love even after all this time Dressed in sunshine and forgotten dance steps

There's the violent codependent abusive With red blood painted on it's pale plastic skin I stare at it, daring it to make a move because this time I won't let them in

There's the gay man who sold me drugs sometimes for money, sometimes for love Where I learned I have no limits for depravity and that I never really knew my own sexuality

Here's the girl from California who I think of daily my best friend when I had no friends the one who listened to me cry on late and lonely nights And I'm reminded of how much I miss her

Leaning haphazardly against the wall is kid a tragic romance if there ever was one five years of each other's life we wasted before we realized we just didn't work

With missing limbs is my junkie angel And her last words to me play like a scratched vinyl "You need to get clean or your going to die" And a month later she swallowed her tongue and i skipped out on the funeral

I walk through this room of memories The most important people in my stories And I am overwhelmed with nostalgia and sadness I miss you all so much, so so much.

I see my best friend growing up we stopped talking ten years ago because he said he didn't want to watch me burn And I can't say I'd ever blame him

I love you all. I'm sorry.

[technically-human]

Can you draw something with Doom Patrol!Edwin and Netflix!Edwin?

Maybe something about Dp!Edwin talking about his feelings for Charles with N!Edwin?

It's just something I've been thinking of, make it a little angsty?<3

Glad you asked

ko-fi

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Good morning, Sleepyhead.

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[chaosinterlude]

“lucifer is sadistic and mean!! he’s so serious and scary!!”

meanwhile,

he’s just a silly man who wishes for a domestic life with his partner and dog <3

[aceredshirt13]

Having read a fair amount of Poirot as of late (the first two novels and most of the short stories in Poirot Investigates), the thing I’ve overwhelmingly come away with is that Poirot and Hastings both are and aren’t what pop culture would have you think that Holmes and Watson are like.

Poirot is outwardly conceited, thinking the best of his own abilities while deriding those of the people around him. Hastings especially falls victim to this, being teased for “not seeing” and manipulated more than once as Poirot withholds the facts, and being resentful of Poirot’s arrogance while also being unduly arrogant himself - nearly every single one of his own proud deductions turns out to be intensely wrong, and he is also prone to foolish or reckless acts in the name of trying to score one off Poirot. Holmes and Watson, on the other hand, certainly have their faults, but their relationship is not so tempestuous, and Holmes is kinder and Watson less foolish than is often presumed by those who have not read the canon. Holmes, while possessed of some immodesty, never flaunts his intelligence so dramatically as Poirot does, and Watson is largely faithful and amazed by Holmes’s deductive capacity, and though occasionally annoyed is almost never resentful.

However, what I like about Poirot and Hastings is the way in which they aren’t like Holmes and Watson as painted with the pop cultural brush - namely that, like the original Holmes and Watson, Poirot and Hastings are unquestionably fond of each other. Their tiffs and petty spats are always contrasted with their affection, if not shot through with it in the first place. Poirot may speak ill of Hastings’s intelligence, but it is shown multiple times that he does not genuinely want to hurt his feelings, and he always asks Hastings to come with him on his cases - not because Hastings always provides any material aid, but because Hastings is his friend. Hastings may tease Poirot and think condescendingly of his mannerisms, but his laughter is always fond, and he admires him and desires his praise and respect just as much as he worries for him and wants to help him in potential times of need. Most importantly, despite their arguments and many differences (age, culture, temperament, just to name a few) they remain steadfastly together (with many year living voluntarily under the same roof!) and ultimately both wish and facilitate each other’s happiness.

They are more difficult than their Doyle-penned forbears, but for that there is no less love.

[luceafarul-de-dimineata]

Expanding on my previous post, I think having to take care of child of the enemy would be such a wonderful deconstruction of Leviathan's character.

Leviathan's main motivation for everything he does is to protect the future of Hell, to protect the children and avange the ones that were lost in the experiments. He eliminates anything that might be dangerous for Hell because if there's even a 1% chance of someone suffering he would blame himself for it. He wants to go find the seed of the fruir of knowledge even though he knows it's a dangerous journey, just because it might save his subjects.

Also, Leviathan (as far as we know) has the most personal reason to hate angels. He's seen them at their cruelest and they've always been a traumatic force in his life. While the other kings got to have more peaceful childhoods (again, we don't know if they were abused, I'm just going off what we know) Leviathan never had that priveledge. Even before the war he was abused by them, and now, in his adulthood, he still can't move on because he sees his subjects being killed and tortured by the same people that abused him.

I think that out of all the characters, Leviathan would be the most... interesting father. Don't get me wrong, he won't be bad, but the sort of abuse that Leviathan had to go through changes you in ways you might never expect. He loves kids, the main reason he fights this war is to make sure the children in Hell get a childhood that isn't characterised primarly by war and death. But if he had to deal with a child 1 on 1 for long stretches of time...

He'll probably be extremely overprotective of them, going by the same rule of 1% change of danger = death. The way most parenting works, especially from people that were abused in their childhoods, is that of trying to protect the child from the trauma they experienced. I doupt Leviathan would even let angels look at his kid, or anyone that he percieves as dangerous for that matter.

We also see in the Orias event that Leviathan can be very nice to the people he likes, and I think that it would be the same for his kid. It would be something like

Leviathan strangling MC: I need to kill you, MC, for your life is bringing certain doom amoungst my people

Levi's kid: Dad, can you help me with my algebra?

Leviathan dropping MC to the ground: Yes, sweetheart, what is it? Do you want us to repeat your multiplications table?

Tl;dr of this post is - stop saying Leviathan would be a shit dad. He'll be overprotective of his kid, but he'll never in a million years hurt a child

[crookedfivefingers]

3.13 | ᴛʜᴇ ʟᴀꜱᴛ ᴏꜰ ᴛʜᴇ ᴛɪᴍᴇ ʟᴏʀᴅꜱ

link to the post I accidentally wound up prattling endlessly about in the tags 💀

[lillymakesart]

my new OC: cempaka!

she is based on the story/universe that my friend @haydardotjpg's OCs indra and yuwei exist in! pls go checkout haydar's art he is amazing!! his ocs can be found more easily on his ig but if you're lazy this is his oc indra (cempaka's one-sided love interest) and yuwei (indra's fated lover)

also, cempaka means "magnolia" in malay!! (she gets a flower name bc my name is lilly which is also flower c:)

bonus first iteration under the cut!

i accidentally had "poinsettia" flower in mind when i did this iteration instead of an actual magnolia, hence the color scheme. but yeah, this is as self-insert as it gets LOL like she's literally MEEEEEE but still very different and i love her as she is <3

[tollsoftheclockwerkbelle]

sega please do not save maria please do not save maria PLEASE do not save mariaaaaaaa sega PLEASE

[moeblob]

OC again gomen ... (her name is Yuma)

[thebluemoo]

I'm so tired. And Frustrated.

I'm tired of characters needing to be "in love" every time they love each other. Especially when the media goes out of the way to make it clear that they love each other without ever trying to define that as "in love". They love each other. That is just as valuable. That is Just as worthy. They can be partners without romance. They can be partners without sex.

They Can Be Partners Without Romance.

I am so Sick of not only the idea that for some god forsaken reason, Every single queer relationship needs to be labeled and categorizable to "count" as explicitly queer, but the idea that it needs to be romantic. The notion that characters and stories cannot be queer until you get to see a kiss or people are declared "boyfriends" or something else like that. We are Woefully shy of queer representation on the whole— I'm not saying you can't interpret media however you like. Do what you want.

But I am so sick of characters that Clearly mirror aromantic stories or stories about queerness that just don't focus on romance be called "not good enough" or "homophobic". Not every story is about romance. Not every partnership is romantic.

That doesn't make them not queer. That doesn't make them not important. I can promise you, those of us who don't or can't center romance in our lives? We Are living a queer experience. We are antithetical to amatonormative allonormative expectations for how life "should" be lead.

We get to see ourselves in those stories you're calling "not queer enough". Queerness is complex and weird and Fucking Queer. It's not an analog of straightness or cisness. We're not playing opposite to straightness or cisness. We're not operating in the same Framework— that's what makes us so goddamn queer. We aren't easily definable, and when we try to force ourselves to find one definitive way to be queer, we leave community behind.

So yes. We need more queer stories. We need more queer stories of all kinds that are messy and weird and romantic and aromantic and trans and ace and nonbinary and all over the place because every single story about queerness is going to be different. And that's good.

[keepingmyoptionsfluid]

The idea that Tommy, a closeted gay man who was desperately trying to fit in in a hyper macho and discriminatory environment, isn't allowed to have any growth from when he was over compensating and was a dick to Chim really pisses me off. He literally had canonical growth to the point he was going for drinks with Chim and Hen in Bobby Begins Again and they got him a fancy leaving cake.

Why isn't he allowed to grow and be better? Because he's white? Because he "gets in the way of buddie"? Because no one is allowed to say and change at all over a decade?

Like this is a queer fandom and I'd bet a lot of money that a ton of people in this fandom said and did things they weren't proud of when they were younger, especially before they came out so they could try and hide it.

I know this is quite a young fandom too but like, it was literally only a decade ago when "gay" was an insult at school and doing anything that could be get you accused of being gay was fucking social suicide. You guys have no idea how lucky you are that people at least get called out for that shit now cause they didn't when I was a kid. I would have done almost anything to just be ignored, let alone accepted, rather than being openly bisexual.

So yeah, I think Tommy is allowed to fucking change as a person because Bobby, Chim and Hen came into his life and allowed him to stop repressing. Stop being such fucking assholes. You aren't any better than him, and frankly the way some of you behave makes the way Tommy acted when he was first in the show look like a fucking saint. Touch some grass.

[fromtheseventhhell]

I ignore about 95% of the conversations surrounding Arya having killed people because, outside of Arya stans, people refuse to include the context of the very violent circumstances she experiences + her trauma which influences her actions. She wasn't destined to be a killer and her being forced on the run, having to survive during a war (at times on her own), having to witness countless people being tortured and murdered, being enslaved as a prisoner of war, having to witness the deaths of her family, etc. are all hugely important factors. Not to mention the times when her life is literally on the line and she has to make tough decisions to ensure her survival. The only time her trauma is acknowledged is when people are using it to prove she's "too far gone", otherwise it's essays on how she hasn't suffered that much. It's so boring how people ignore well-developed characters just to reduce them to one or two aspects of their story. And this treatment is only for certain characters; let someone mention Sansa being part of the plot to poison Sweetrobin and all of a sudden, people can understand being forced to make questionable decisions under difficult circumstances.

[s0fter-sin]

i have no stake in this whatsoever since i’ve never even watched good omens and absolutely 100% unequivocally think it’s a good thing that an abuser is seeing the consequences of his actions but i don’t really see the point in shortening the 3rd season? rewriting it so he doesn’t get money from it? yes absolutely, but if that’s the reason, why not delay the season and do a full six episode rewrite? or just cancel it altogether instead of an inevitable disappointing finale. he’ll still be receiving royalties from the first two seasons and whatever ideas they use for the episode plus whatever he’s already contracted to receive so making a short season feels like it’ll impact the cast and crew more than him; they won’t be paid for a full season of work that they were expecting to have in an increasingly unstable industry

[hauntingofhouses]

i know I've mentioned my interpretation of mizu's gender a million times on here but i don't think i ever fully elaborated on it.

so on that note i just wanna ramble about that for a bit. basically, it's my reading of the show that mizu is nonbinary, so let me dig into that.

putting the rest under the cut because it ended up being pretty long lol. also here have a cute mizu pic of her being happy and most at ease with herself, symbolised by her letting her hair down. <3 ok let's proceed.

thus, when i refer to mizu as nonbinary, i am interpreting mizu as a woman, but not ONLY a woman. not strictly a woman. she is also a man. she is also neither of these things, she is something in between, while at the same time she is none of these at all. i've said as much many times, but i just don't want people to think that when i say nonbinary, it inherently means a "third androgynous gender" that essentially turns the gender binary into a gender trinary. not only is that going against what the term nonbinary was crafted for (to go against rigid boxes and categorisation of gender identities), but also, not all nonbinary people fall under that category or definition, and that's definitely not the way i interpret mizu.

okay before i go deeper i'd just like to address some important things. first of all, this post is an analysis of canon, and thus everything i am arguing for is about my own interpretation of the show, and not some baseless projected headcanon i am projecting onto the character. please remember there is a difference between an interpretation (subjective; interpretations will differ from viewer to viewer, but ultimately it is firmly rooted in evidence taken from the source material) VS a headcanon (unrelated and often even contrary to what is presented in canon; opinions wildly differ and they cannot be argued for because there is no canonical evidence to back it up).

ALSO please note that nonbinary is an umbrella term. this means that it applies to a vast range of gender identities. other identities that fall under the nonbinary umbrella include agender, bigender, genderfluid, and so on. however, it's my personal preference to use the term nonbinary as it is, simply because i'm not a fan of microlabels (more power to you if you do like them and find they suit you more though!).

also, before anyone fights me on this, let me clarify further that gender means something different to everyone. it's not your biological sex or physical characteristics. but at the same time, gender is not mere presentation. you can be a trans woman and still present masculine—either because you're closeted and forced to, or because you just want to—and either way, that doesn't take away from your identity as a woman. same goes for trans men. if you're a trans man but you wear skirts and don't bind or don't get top surgery, that doesn't make you any less of a man. because gender non-conformity exists, and does not only apply to cis people! some lesbians are nonbinary and prefer using he/him pronouns while dressing masculinely, but that doesn't mean they're a man, or that they're any less of a lesbian. neither does this mean that they're a cis woman.

the thing about queer identities in general is that, like i said, they mean something different to everyone, because how you identify—regardless of your biological attributes and fashion or pronouns—is an extremely personal experience. so a nonbinary person and a gnc cis woman's experiences might have plenty of overlap, but what distinguishes between the two is up to the individual. there's no set requirements to distinguish you as one or the other, but it's up to you to decide what you identify as, based on what you feel. either way, by simply identifying yourself as anything under the LGBTQ+ umbrella, you are already communicating to the world that you are not what a conservative, cisheteronormative society wants you to be.

which is why i find all this queer infighting on labels to be so ridiculous. because we're all fighting the same fight; the common enemy is a societal structure that divides us into set roles and expectations purely based on our biological parts. that's why biological essentialism in the queer community is a fucking disease. because by arguing that women are inherently weak and fragile and soft and gentle and must be protected from evil ugly men, while men are inherently strong and angry and violent and exploitative of women, these people are advocating for the same fucked up system that marginalises and abuses women as well as effeminate and/or gay men.

anyway. i'm going on a tangent. this was meant to be a blue eye samurai post. so yeah back to that— the point i'm trying to make is that there's no singular way to identify as anything, as everyone's views on gender, especially their own, is specific and personal to the individual.

so with that being said, yes you can definitely interpret mizu as a gnc cis woman and that's a totally valid reading of the text. however, interpreting her as nonbinary or transmasc also doesn't take away from her experiences with misogyny and female oppression, because nonbinary and transmasc folks also experience these things.

me, personally, i view her as nonbinary but not necessarily or not always transmasc because i still believe femininity and womanhood is a very inherent part of who mizu is. for example, from what we've seen, she does not like binding. it does not give her gender euphoria, but is instead very uncomfortable for her both physically and mentally, and represents her suppressing her true self. which is why when she "invites the whole" of herself, she stands completely bare in front of the fire, breasts unbound and hair untied. when she is on the ship heading to a new land in the ending scene, she is no longer hiding her neck and the lack of an adam's apple. we can thus infer that mizu does not have body dysmorphia. she is, in fact, comfortable in her body, and relies on it extremely, because her body is a weapon. instead, what mizu hates about herself is her face—her blue eyes. she hates herself for her hybridised racial identity, hates herself for being a racial Other. hates that she has no home in her homeland. thus it is important to note that these are not queer or feminist themes, but postcolonial ones.*

* and as a tiny aside on this subject, i really do wish more of the fandom discussion would talk about this more. it's just such an essential part to reading her character. like someone who's read homi k bhabha's location of culture and has watched this show, PLEASE talk to me so we can ramble all about how the show is all about home and alienation from community. please. okay anyway—

nevertheless, queer and feminist themes (which are not mutually exclusive by the way!) are still prevalent in her story, though they are not the main issue that she is struggling with. but she does struggle with it to some extent, and we see this especially during her marriage with mikio, where we see her struggle in women's domestic spaces.

on the other hand, though, she finds no trouble or discomfort in being a man or being around other men—even naked ones—and does not seem stifled by living as one, does not seem all that bothered or uncomfortable navigating through men's spaces. contrast this to something like disney's mulan (1998), where we do see mulan struggle in navigating through men's spaces, as she feels uncomfortable being around so many men, always feeling like she doesn't belong and that she's inherently different from them. mizu has no such experiences like this, as her very personality and approach to life is what can be categorised as typically "masculine". she is straightforward and blunt. her first meeting with mikio, she tells him straight to his face that he's old while frowning and raising a brow at him. she approaches problems with her muscles and fists (or swords), rather than with her words or mind. compare this with mulan, who, while well-trained by the end of the movie, still uses her sharp wits rather than brute strength. this is a typically "feminine" approach. it's also the approach akemi relies on throughout the show—through her intelligence and persuasive tongue, she navigates the brothel with ease. mizu, in contrast to someone like mulan and akemi, struggles with womanhood and femininity, and feels detached from it.

thus, in my opinion, mizu is not simply a man, nor is she simply a woman. she is both. man and woman. masculine and feminine. she has to accept both, rather than suppress one or the other. her name means water. fluid.

as a side note, while i do believe mizu is nonbinary, i also primarily use she/her pronouns for her, but this is a personal preference. i find it's easier to use in fanfic (singular they is confusing to write stories with, but again, that's just my feelings on it, and this is coming from someone who uses they/they pronouns). i also lean towards she/her because it's what the creators and all the official promotional copywriting of the show uses. and even though i am a "death to the author" enjoyer, i feel that when interpreting things that are left open-ended, it does help to look at the creators' take on things. also because, in general, being nonbinary simply doesn't necessitate the use of they/them pronouns. nonbinary is not just a third gender. it's about breaking the binary, in any which way, and that's exactly what mizu does, constantly.

also, i'd also like to mention that one of show's head of story even referred to her with the term "nonbinary", rather than simply "androgynous" (see pic below). and it's possible this could be a slip up on his part, in which he believes the terms are interchangeable (they're not btw), but regardless i find it a very interesting word choice, and one that supports my argument.

so anyway yeah that's my incredibly long rambling post.

TL;DR nonbinary mizu rights 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 congrats if you reached the end of this btw. also ily. unless you're a TERF in which case fuck off. ok i'm done.

[lettersregardingjeeves]

My Man Jeeves vs. Carry On, Jeeves: A Choice On the Basis of Charm

So as I was having a go at putting the letters together with Mr. Wooster, I realized that the versions of the early New York saga on Standard eBooks, where I sourced the text, were taken from the 1919 collection My Man Jeeves, rather than Carry On, Jeeves - the latter being how I presume the majority of fans read the stories. Naturally, I figured that I really ought to get the most recent public domain versions of the stories, to best represent the current nature of the series. So I had a look at Carry On, Jeeves, curious about the differences therein. And the ones I found were... kind of disappointing.

So, if you haven't read the stories, or just aren't bally interested, then I'll just say that I think the versions present in My Man Jeeves are an awful lot more fun than their rewrites, and am making the executive decision as Woosterian Substack Secretary to use the old instead of the new. For those who are bally interested, I'll chat a bit more under the cut.

All in all, the differences aren't extreme. None of the plot elements have changed, most of the lines haven't changed, and really, if you know one version of the story, you won't have trouble conversing with someone who knows the other. But I find the changes made in the nature of baffling. Some are very tiny changes, but odd nonetheless. Here's Bicky in "Hard-Boiled Egg", talking about why he doesn't want to go in for ranching, in the original My Man Jeeves.

And here's the same passage in Carry On, Jeeves.

Why cut the line about Bicky hating horses because they bite? It gives a more interesting context to why he doesn't want to ranch than the one in Carry On, Jeeves. He doesn't just not want to do the work out of laziness - he's afraid of horses! It's an unexpected and interesting thing for him to say, and it builds a sort of unique speech pattern of short, snappy sentences that fire one after another. It's such a tiny thing that I'm not even sure why it was deemed necessary to cut, unless there were length requirements, but it sands Bicky down a bit.

However, some of the other changes are much more considerable. Take the intro to "The Aunt and the Sluggard" in My Man Jeeves...

...and compare it to the intro in Carry On, Jeeves.

Not even close! What possessed anyone - Wodehouse or editors - to make this sort of cut? On some level I suppose I could understand it if it were purely for the sake of not needing to introduce the character partway through a book, when you'd certainly need to in a magazine, but clearly My Man Jeeves didn't see a problem with having Bertie repeatedly introduce Jeeves this way - and as a reader, neither did I! It's a very charming paragraph full of Bertieisms, and the nervous sort of hesitation upon wishing to call him a friend is even more endearing. Sure, the "guide, philosopher, and friend" quote is later used in the first chapter of 1923's The Inimitable Jeeves, so I can see why Wodehouse and/or editors might have thought the sentiment too repetitive to stick in a collection published afterwards, but the two are subtly different. Here, Bertie is unsure that he can call Jeeves a friend, but in The Inimitable Jeeves below, he says it with surety.

It's especially sweet with the knowledge that My Man Jeeves was published before The Inimitable Jeeves, because that shows this as growth! He's more willing to let himself acknowledge their friendship, and that's a wonderful thing! And even without that linearity, it's just so much weaker of a start. You aren't as drawn in by the significant blander intro as you are by the acquainted birds of poet Johnnies, or the "guide, don't you know" that Bertie relies on at every turn. It's more conversational, engaging, and just plain fun.

But that's not even really the most egregious removal. No, the biggest difference is the excising of the entire intro to "Leave It to Jeeves".

This whole section, which later segues into a sum-up of the events of "Extricating Young Gussie" and a description of New York, is just plain gone in "The Artistic Career of Corky", which this story has been renamed in Carry On, Jeeves. No "Melonsquashville, Tennesee", no horses named Banana Fritter, no Bertie trying to give Jeeves racing tips because he's fond of him. It's peak Bertie silliness, and I remember that I really loved reading it. And yes, again, maybe it was cut just because it follows "Jeeves Takes Charge", which already introduces the character, but I certainly don't see a reason why none of it could be kept - especially since the conceit of the series tends to read as if being told aloud to someone else, and thus it makes sense to repeatedly introduce the character in such a way to new listeners and audiences. Instead, we are given this by way of introduction.

This goes straight into the "Gussie" sum-up and the description of New York, as well as the subsequent description of Corky. All that fun before, reduced to a paltry bit of introductory exposition before the exposition that already happened in the original. Was it cut merely for length? Why else could this possibly have happened? Why remove all that delightful humor and prose in favor of something so much weaker and less interesting? It boggles the mind - boggles it.

In short, I've decided to keep the My Man Jeeves versions of these stories as they are. While some of the changes I saw weren't bad - saying that Rocky's poem went on for "three more verses" got a chuckle out of me, I will say, and the connective tissue with the other stories wasn't bad, either - it was not enough to sacrifice all this. Bertie's narration is always a delight, and I think that delight should be preserved. But if anyone has rebuttals as to why they think the Carry On, Jeeves versions should be used instead, I'd honestly love to hear them!

Thank you for reading!