#accurately and in good faith

[alyimoss]

!!!!!!!!!!!

Biggest psych nerd pet peeve is when people use mental discorders inaccurately. For example people saying a character has DID without looking into it (ie. the only trauma they’d ever experienced was an adult, which is not grounds for being diagnosed with DID) instead of any of the other dissociative disorders that very well could fit this character. I mean what

[linka-from-captain-planet]

Counsellor Florrick, the woman you are…

[bvckbiter]

me going into the rr crit tag lately: perhaps you would be happier writing your own books

[jester-step]

just girly things: reading batman: dark victory and feeling nauseous every time harvey dent gets mentioned 🌸🥰💕

[tethys-the-aquatic-sea-godness]

I was having fun then this happened

[derelictheretic]

may I offer u youth centre faith in this trying time

[sewersewersewercouch]

trying to put my microphone related thoughts for the new episode into words

Should I be trusted to Mic post without going off the rails agin? Probably no, but too bad, you're all stuck with me. I'm glad other people had like...mixed feelings on how Mic was written in the episode. and I'm not just using mixed as a euphemism for bad here. I felt like it was very much so close, and yet so far for me? I'm gonna brain dump here for a minute, because I like Mic a lot, and I want to discuss what I liked about her in the episode, and what I would have changed. also, spoilers obviously

So, I said in my Big Long Mic Analysis Post (tm) that I didn't really care whether Mic and Taco ended up on good or bad terms. Now is the time when I expose myself as a filthy liar. Okay, not really, I would have been fine whether they did or didn't, but...I'm a big softie who likes when characters overcome their issues and end up with a stronger, healthier relationship for having done so. So sue me. But my first thought upon watching this was...wow is this not the way I wanted this to happen. I'm not gonna speak to the way Taco was characterized, because I'm not that good at Taco, but I would say I'm half decent at Microphone, and I think I can take a stab at how I felt about her in this episode.

I've heard people say that Mic is out of character in this episode, and that's not how I'd describe her (I'm not coming for anyone who has, though! I get why you'd say so!) The thing is, there's really nothing I can point to in this episode and go "she would not fucking say that." Because most of what she said, she would fucking say! She just...wouldn't say them in these circumstances, in this part of her arc, I don't think?

To clarify---Mic felt very "Mine Your Own Business" here. And I love Mine Your Own Business! One of my favorite episodes, and honestly the one that made me love Mic as much as I do. And I did sorely miss the comedic dynamic in that episode between Mic and Taco, and was excited to see it back. Microphone's "violence is bad in general, just fyi" made me smile so much and go !!!!!! Because that's pure Mic, baby! And aside from this, on a positive, Mic felt very confident and self-assured here, and that warmed my heart! Seeing how assertive and honest she was with Taco was great. And I loved the little moment where she notices the TV is plugged in and raises her voice to say games are not the focus. It was such a small thing, but it shows how far she's come that she's able to casually use her volume modulation like that, after it was something that she was so ashamed by earlier on in the season.

But on the other...it didn't feel like the right time for Mic to be talking with Taco the way she did before Hatching the Plan. We're in the after now, and surely it would take a while for Mic to be comfortable buddying around with Taco the way she did then. (Granted, it does help that this time Taco is coming at things with the genuine want for friendship.) But...the only acknowledgement there is of what happened in Hatching the Plan was Mic saying she thought Taco would drop her as soon as she got the chance, and Taco replying that Mic beat her to it. That feels like something they should maybe...unpack? It seems odd to me that Mic is just acting like the most impactful moment in her own arc just...didn't happen.

There is a way this could be pretty easily justified, that being: PEOPLE ARE FUCKING DYING! Mic doesn't have time to process her complicated feelings on Taco. She doesn't have time to deliberate back and forth on whether she's ready to forgive her, or decide she wants to but she needs some space for a while, because they don't have a while! Either Taco, or Mic, or both, could die at any second, and the truth of the matter is, badly as they left things, Microphone doesn't want them to be on bad terms if that happens. She wants her friend back, even if it doesn't feel entirely right, because that's better than either of them dying and leaving things unsaid. And Brian has said some things that back me up that he was thinking the same thing.

But what bothers me is, we never see her have that thought process. Maybe it would have killed the pacing and all, I can respect that, but...Microphone is an open book. She rarely feels something that you can't clearly tell she's feeling. (That, or I've spent so much time analyzing her that it's rotted my brain and now there is only Microphone up there. That's also an option.) I feel like if she is having those thoughts, the viewer would be able to pick up on it a little more? The whole reconciliation felt very Taco-centric, and that was exactly what I didn't want it to be. I wanted to see more of how Microphone was feeling and thinking, see her make a more active choice, and it didn't feel like that. After all this about her having her own voice, that wasn't what that felt like to me.

I don't think, to fix this, you'd have to get rid of anything that was shown onscreen. Like I said, it wasn't exactly that she was out of character, it's more about what we didn't see. There are a few scenes I'm maybe gonna write that I think having them there would help me be a bit more positive to Mic's writing in this episode. One being, the conversation between her, MePad and Baseball before she talks to Taco. I did honestly feel a bit cheated by the fact that we never got to see MePad and Mic talk, because I was fully expecting that going into the episode, and like...maybe that's on me, for sure, but I feel like there's important things that would have been said there that just weren't included. The other---and this feels less necessary for me, but it'd be fun---is another Taco and Mic conversation, maybe at Purgatory Mansion (I don't know if there's any point they'd have time to do this, I'm not sure how tight the timeline is, but whatever.) I think they could do to have Mic talk more to Taco about where they left things, rather than just kind of briefly addressing it and then acting like it didn't happen.

Now, if we ever see these contestants again (I'm operating under the assumption that we will?) they'll probably have this conversation, if Brian's vague Twitter implications have anything to say about it. And I'd really like that, because I want my girl to be done justice. But for now I just kinda wanted to get this off my chest.

[puppyeared]

who up seeing their disorder in a fictional character but feel like its not their place to put a name on it

[pearl-kite]

I think the main reason I rewatch Bly Manor is because of Hannah Grose. I can't even really figure out the proper words, but I've reached episode five again and my heart is just !!!

[lxgentlefolkcomic]

Bonus Content: Jack Seward Kiss Calendar, Days 11-15

[jingerpi]

tme ppl be like "transphobia can't be real because sometimes cis women are wrongly read as trans. therefore everyone experiences this "transphobia" construct of yours and its useless. stop being so divisive :("

[lelianaslefthand]

dragon age fans will be like "mind if i make the worst skintone swatches of characters you've ever seen?" then not wait for an answer

[shorthaltsjester]

i say this with all the kindness i can muster. the way some of y’all take with complete earnestness the statements made by characters who have been proven to be unsavoury/villainous/evil/(insert other suitable adjectives here) to be word-of-god factual is deeply concerning actually. like fiction is fiction and this is far from being an accusation about the morality of those who are curious about/compelled by the motivations of immoral characters. this is a deep concern i have for people who exist in a time where media of all kinds, fiction and nonfiction, is used to embed values in its audience. a concern i have for existing among people who don’t even question the truth/accuracy of statements made by the textual villains of stories before accepting them.

[wonder-worker]

"...Walsingham, the monastic author of the St. Albans Chronicle, was by far [Alice Perrers'] harshest contemporary critic, who in his venom has (somewhat ironically) left us with the longest and most detailed account of her background and personality, her influence as Edward’s mistress, and her subsequent trial. He describes Alice as a shameless lowborn meretrix (a word variously translated as mistress, whore, or harlot), who “brought almost universal dishonour upon the king’s reputation […] and defiled virtually the whole kingdom of England with her disgraceful insolence.” Although Walsingham was not always accurate and, specifically in this case, clearly heavily biased against Alice, he nevertheless provides a truly contemporary account, and his importance as a source should not be underestimated. Likewise, the anonymous monk of St. Mary’s York recorded that in the Good Parliament the Commons (represented by their speaker, Sir Peter de la Mare) stated that it “would be of great gain to the kingdom to remove the said dame [Alice] from the presence of the king both as a matter of conscious and of the ill prosecution of the war.” During the same assembly, the bishop of Rochester, Thomas Brinton, preached from St. Paul’s Cross that “it is not fitting nor safe for all the keys of the kingdom to hang from the belt of one wife.” Although the word wife (uxoris) is used, it is widely accepted that this is a reference to Alice.”

-Laura Tompkins, '"Edward III's Gold-Digging Mistress": Alice Perrers, Gender, and Financial Power at the English Royal Court, 1360-1377", "Women and Economic Power in Premodern Courts" (edited by Cathleen Sarti). Italics by me.

[chiropteracupola]

sometimes you start to wonder what the historical record for the guys you made up looks like in the fictional world where they existed. and then you make some fake documents about it.

[moth and compass is a collaboration with @natdrinkstea!!!]

[toonfinatic]

Sherlock Holmes (2009) is an alright movie but why on earth is Holmes wearing a belt. Like yeah first of all not historically accurate, but second of all... WHY is he at times wearing BOTH a belt and suspenders??? That's fucked up don't do that. One of those things does fuck-all in that case.