#also I just LOVE them both as characters individually

[wisteria-lodge]

What do you think a wizarding wedding would look like, and what do you think Lucius' and Narcissa's specifically looked like?

The book does show us Fleur and Bill's wedding, but that was a wartime shotgun-ish wedding in the peripherals of the story's focus. I'm also not ever sure how much of the details there are things joanne really thought about and decided to include in her representation of a Magical wedding, and how much of it are just modern social customs she might have considered the forever universal default and put in the book.

Narcissa and Lucius also seem to be the rare fictional couple who'd actually enjoy all the pedantry and tradition and specificities in a wedding to me. Seeing as you're writing a fic with them in it, I thought you'd probably already thought about this aspect of worldbuilding/character writing, so I hope you don't mind me asking abt it. Thanks and have a great day!!

Okay, I love this ask, and I'm going to lay it all out, but first I want to lay out my Reasoning.

Here are my rules, when it comes to expanding on/filling in the Harry Potter world building:

ONE: If we’re dealing with any sort of political or social structure, my reference is England, year 1700. 

This does make sense with the backstory we get: the Wizarding World split away from the Muggle world in the late 1600s, wizards live a really long time, and wizards also didn’t need an industrial revolution (because magic filled the place of tech) so they wouldn’t have gotten any of the social changes that happened because of the industrial revolution. 

Also, this particular time period generally fits with what we see on the page. Education, politics, the police force, mental health care - it all seems to work in a very 1700s way. We don’t have any electricity, there’s no industrialization. (Like, Umbridge’s pamphlets are made by hand. I mean obviously they’re made by magic, but an individual’s magic, they’re not assembled in a magical factory.) So when Draco brings up a “museum”...  it makes sense to me that he’s not not thinking of a modern museum with a ticketing department running off grants and public funding, full of typed-out little plaques written by scientists and historians, telling you the provenance of whatever you’re looking at. If we went to a museum in Wizarding World, I would expect the type of museum you saw in 1700: a cabinet of curiosities assembled by one single wealthy collector, arranged in some eccentric way, handwritten labels or no labels at all, very probably in a wing of a private house. That feels correct and in-universe to me. So… whenever someone asks me something like ‘how do taxes work in the Harry Potter universe,’ I take 1700 England as a starting place, and go from there. 

TWO: If we’re dealing with aesthetic details or inventions, I draw from England 1700 - 1880

There isn’t much that’s Victorian in the world building… but there’s plenty in the set dressing. We see lots of 1800s fashion: women wearing hats with birds and flowers on them, men wearing bowler hats and top hats. There are 1800s hedge mazes, most of the holiday decorations are from the late 1800s, we’ve got radios and trains… and I’m completely fine with all that. It seems to me that if you’re a wizard walking through the Muggle world, it’s a lot easier to see someone wearing a cool hat, and say ‘I would like a hat like that’  - versus walking around and picking up the concept of, idk unions. So cameras are okay: they’re 1800s. Note that Rita Skeeter’s photographer Bozo has a magical version of a 1850s camera

while Muggle born Colin Creevey has… a modded 1930s camera? To communicate that he’s got a foot in both worlds. 

My point is, if you saw someone riding a bicycle in Harry Potter, you would assume they brought it in from the Muggle world. Bicycles showed up in England in the 1880s, so that’s slightly too late. It’s important to the feel of the world to keep up a good chunk of separation between the aesthetics of the Wizarding World, and the aesthetics of the muggle world.

THREE: Gender politics/gendered customs basically don’t exist

This is one of the things that makes Harry Potter a J. K. Rowling fantasy world. Obviously, JKR the person has a lot to unpack about gender politics, and there are all kinds of Doylist differences between the way male and female characters are treated in the Harry Potter books. But in universe, there is no Watsonian benefit to being a guy or being a girl in any particular situation. We get gendered bathrooms (although the prefects’ bathroom and the locker rooms seem co-ed), gendered fashions, gendered dorms… and that’s basically it.  

Of course there are some very old and baked in gendered things I doubt JKR even thought about… a woman taking her husband’s last name for instance. (Honestly - I would have loved a posh doubled-barreled name for Draco. Draco Malfoy-Black sounds quite sharp and public schooly.) There’s a thing where Dumbledore mentions that the Blacks prefer it when a guy inherits… but in the same breath, he’s completely convinced Bellatrix is about to inherit, so clearly that isn’t that important.

The only other example I can think of is the way we’re told the unicorns prefer the female students. But, the boys in Professor Grubbly-Plank’s class unanimously think this is bullshit, and I would argue that the framing of the book supports this read. We haven’t seen magic work like this before, so did Professor G-P get it wrong? And/or just doesn’t want to deal with the boys? Presumably this is why we are happy Hagrid is coming back

FOUR: There is basically no organized religion/spirituality in the Wizarding World. 

The narrative does a lot of work to not tell us who the random officiant at Dumbledore's funeral and Bill and Fleur‘s wedding is. Who is he? Who does he represent? How do you find him? How does he have authority to do this? Not important, doesn’t matter, keep moving along. We are definitely in a world where there is a holiday named Christmas… but it’s like the women taking their husband's name thing, that seems too baked into JKR’s worldview to question. But there is no mention of any religious dimension, it’s just presents and feasts and balls. 

If I’m writing something that’s interested in what these guys consider to be the sacred underpinnings of their world (like something focusing on a wedding, for instance…) then I think I would end up expanding on important magical rituals. I’m thinking Fidelius, Unbreakable Vow, sacrificial magic. Not for nothing, but considering how much importance the moment where Severus and Narcissa make an Unbreakable Vow is given by both the narrative and the characters… it feels more like a wedding than the wedding does, and I’m not even a Severus/Narcissa shipper. 

*

So when it comes to weddings… I’ve honestly found it uniquely difficult to research the history there, because a lot of people are very motivated to suggest that every wedding tradition has some deep, meaningful ancient origin - or that it was just kind of always that way. Take the concept of a “best man” and the term “best man" for instance. That starts showing up in the 1780s (so it’s a social custom that doesn’t make my 1700 deadline.) Harry is of course filtering everything through his POV, but if I were writing a wedding thing, I’d want to say that Sirius is filling a different position. Like “godfather” seems a very legally important role in the wizarding society, so lean into that.  Maybe the “best man” equivalent at a wizard wedding is the person who you’ve picked to get custody of your kids if you die. 

We also see things like white wedding dresses and matching bridesmaid dresses being treated as an absolute given at Fleur’s wedding, when both of those things pretty much only exist because Queen Victoria did them in 1840. One interesting thing is that JKR doesn’t seem to do an exchange of rings, and she’s changed up that moment to make it more reminiscent of (I think) a handfasting ceremony? Which is fine, I can work with that. (Also rings are just treated very negatively across the board in the Harry Potter books. No idea why.)

But, in-universe, the Bill/Fleur wedding is really hard to use as a model for what a typical pureblood Wizarding wedding looks like. For all the reasons Anon mentions: It’s war time, it was put together very quickly, Harry is not paying the most attention, we don’t get to see the whole thing. I would also add in the fact that the Weasleys are political radicals, and at that point especially would be very politically motivated to have a wedding that looks more Muggle. 

Okay.  If I were writing a pureblood wedding… like Lucius and Narcissa’s wedding… what would I do.

First, I don’t think I want a typical wedding from the year 1700. I want 1700 does renaissance/medieval. (Kind of Sir Walter Scott.) I like this because it brings in/explains the Merlin thing - the purebloods all use ‘Merlin’ as an oath, so I guess Merlin (and Arthur, and that kind of romanticized middle ages) is important to them culturally. Also, medieval influences are going to make your wedding feel impressive and established… which is exactly what the Malfoys are after. Make sure everyone knows what an old family they are. All these pureblood families have crests, so put them everywhere, front and center. The decorations should be banners and flags with the crests of everyone attending, no florals.

I also love the idea of fossilized fashions, old-fashioned clothes that don’t come out except during a very ceremonial, traditional occasion. (Think of the ways that veils used to be a pretty normal part of a lady's wardrobe, but now you only see them during weddings.) I’d have it so that during a wizard wedding… all the ladies bring out their long, draping, evil enchantress sleeves and the guys are supposed to wear half-capes and swords. It’s also a good excuse to bring out all the really old family jewelry, of which I am sure the Malfoys have buckets.

I also want this to be a very magical wedding. Like, there are parts of it you straight-up could not participate in as muggle, because I think (sadly) that would be the vibe during the timeline of the main books. Weddings are for showing off, and part of that would be showing off your magical prowess. I’m thinking - light the dance floor on fire before the first dance, and then the couple has to perform a Flame Freezing charm. This tradition started as a screw-you to the Muggles after the witch trials… but now everybody just kinda does it because it looks really cool when the newlyweds dance on a bed of flame. Oh, and we’re definitely doing medieval-style palm-touching dances. No waltzing for the first dance at a traditional Malfoy wedding.

And they’ll go all out for the wedding feast, which will be long. The 1700s and middle ages were both really into food that did stuff - food that transformed, or food that looked like other food, or food that had birds flying out of it. So  just lean into that times a million with magic.

I am also such a sucker for slightly sentient magical houses, and Harry Potter absolutely has some of that, with the way Hogwarts (the building) has various ways to fight back against enemies and infiltrators. So I think a Malfoy wedding would definitely be taking place at Malfoy Manor, and that the house itself would be a part of the proceedings in some way. Like it’s got to accept the new family member (we know, from little moments like Umbridge being barred from Dumbledore‘s office… that sometimes magical buildings just reject you.) Integrating a new person into the new space would be a multi-step process. Maybe there’s a ceremony where they present the new person with the family spell books, and another one where they present them with keys to various parts of the house, etc.

You could tie this in with the idea of a bedding ceremony (which also hits my medieval + 1700s markers.) Maybe the house changes in some way when the couple first sleeps together, like it redecorates with the belongings of the person moving in, or grows them a rose garden or observatory so they feel more at home. I bet it’s fun for the guests to stick around and watch this change happen. (A trope like this might be especially fun in an arranged marriage or marriage-law type story.)

I’m thinking this would also be a very long wedding, and the wedding party is probably staying at the house for a week or so beforehand. That’s part of the flex, the family’s ability to adequately pay host to so many people for such a long period of time. Like that’s what a house like Malfoy Manor is for, there’s a reason those places were functionally small hotels. If at the end my old-school pureblood wedding feels like a modern muggle wedding... I don’t think I’ve done my job. A Muggleborn who’s been invited ought to have culture shock.

And yes. It goes without saying that Lucius and Narcissa would have eaten up all this pomp and circumstance, with a spoon.

[angelwishess]

I mentioned this before— But the character Kyra was originally meant to be shipped with was actually Jamil. But!! After some thought, I ultimately decided that Floyd would be a better partner for Kyra instead.

Soo, take this post as me rambling about how and why Floyra came to be, and why I scrapped the Jamyra concept all together.

Kyra already had an established character and backstory before being shipped with anyone. Usually, I like to create the characters and flesh them out before shipping them with anyone. Although there are times where I do create characters for the sake of shipping (*cough cough* Jester *cough cough*) my process with developing OCs usually focuses on them as a character individually first, then their relationships with canon characters after.

And at first, I thought the idea of Jamil x Kyra was interesting. My main reasoning for Kyra x Jamil was the idea of it.

Caged bird metaphors for days, both come from somewhat similar issues when it comes to not being allowed to be their own person, ect ect. (Also, if you couldnt tell already im a SUCKER for Opposites Attract and Grumpy x Sunshine)

In a way, I liked it because they were so similar yet so different lorewise, having this strict set of expectations put unto them and not being able to act against those expectations— but yet, despite how similar they are, they ended up completely different.

And while it is a good trope— It just simply doesn’t work. Why? Well, because Jamil, putting it bluntly, isn’t the kind of person that would be best for Kyra. (ITS OKAY!!! HES STILL BIG BRO!!!!! I saved him from a neverending headache w Kyra LMFAOO)

I started to take into consideration Kyra herself. What kind of person would she want? How does she love? What kind of person would she be attracted to? What does she need in someone? Who would make her happy?

after having to bottle up all her feelings and ignoring her own desires and wants— Kyra needs someone that would support her.

She doesn’t need nor wants someone to stop her from doing the things that she does, what she needs is someone to support her. And I doubt that Jamil would be supportive of her shennanigans LMAOO 😭

Then I got to thinking, if not Jamil who else could I ship her with ??

Then I realized, “Oh, Floyd would be perfect, wouldn’t he?”

Now, Floyd has always been my favorite character from TWST! But I just didnt want to be biased and miss out on good ship material with another character😭 funny how it worked out though WHAHAHA

Not only would Floyd support her shennanigans— he’d encourage her to do it. And while that probably isn’t the best in some cases, Kyra definetly deserves someone that would support her actual wants after all this time.

I mentioned this before, but Kyra sees alot of herself in Floyd. Yeah, they are weirdly similar (and that actually was not planned), and thats exactly the reason why Kyra was ever attracted to Floyd in the first place. (In general, not even romantically lmao)

And seeing him show all of these traits without a care in the world, to act out on what he feels and what he wants, it encourages her to do the same. And it encourages her to be herself even more, which is exactly what she needs!

There are still times Kyra is hesitant to do things, old habits die hard, but Floyd just being himself is enough to encourage Kyra to do the same. He influences her in a way others view as “bad”, but for someone like Kyra, its honestly the best for her.

Not only that, but I personally see Floyd as the kind of person to not really care about looks. Yeah, he can see when someone’s attractive and he acknowledges it, but he really does not care 😭

In my opinion, he values personality much more. Anyone who can entertain him or whoever he deems “fun”.

Kyra has never been seen for anything other than her beauty. Always seen but never heard. And while Floyd does think shes pretty… He really didn’t care about that when they first met LMAOO

It would be refreshing for Kyra to have someone who actually didn’t care all that much for her appearance. Instead hanging out with her for her personality. She was so used to men always sticking by her because of her pretty face that it was a breath of fresh air when she realized that Floyd wasn’t like that, and they were just genuinely friends.

The fact that Floyd doesnt care about appearances at all shouldn’t really be a big deal, but Kyra would be OVER THE MOON about it.

“Ah, I don’t care about that sorta thing. If you were boring, I would’ve ditched you a long time ago, hahaha!” And now suddenly Kyra is swooning and fanning herself and getting weak in the knees and blushing and giggling and kicking her feet and twirling her hair and—💥💥💥

Kyra needs a best friend in a partner. Someone that makes her want to open up and be vulnerable, but also makes her loosen up and have fun. She needs someone that can support her and can keep up with her regardless of how chaotic and rambunctious she can get— and who better than the menace himself??

No one can keep up with Kyra. And no one can really keep up with Floyd, either (Well, besides Jade, that is.). It was perfect! Because turns out, they’re the only ones that can keep up with eachother.

While continuing to think on it, I began realizing that they were also similar in other ways! And they can definetly understand eachother because of it.

Two people who have never had anyone bother to even try and understand them, no one really trying to look underneath the surface. Thinking that because of that, they dont “need” anyone to. But when they find eachother?? AUGH, they realize it really does feel nice for someone to “get it”.

Floyd understands and encourages Kyra in a way I don’t think Jamil could, and so !!! Floyra became a thing!!! YIPPEEYIPPEYIPPEEEE !!!!

My perfect little weirdos, even if no one really gets them they understand eachother better than anyone else can, and thats all that really matters. Their similarities in personality and ideals that brought them together, and I’m really just a sucker for the whole soulmates thing 😭

While of course, there are definetly flaws— with Kyra’s secretive nature and both of them being somewhat afraid of opening up and being vulnerable, its also because of those flaws that they end up working together. Because for once, they found someone that can truly understand them, and they’d be damned to let them slip away.

Anyways !! Ya thats all , ty for reading my silly little yap sesh !! 💗💗

Tagging!: @screamintoad @taruruchi 👁️👁️ floyra food …

[lifegoesonevenifeverybodyisgone]

THE Joe Character Analysis. Part 2: Individual Choice vs Collectivism.

"How does Joe fit in the overall 2.0 story?"

An important thing to consider when conducting a character analysis is the relationship of the character with the story they are a part of. In Joe's case, what is his relationship with the 2.0 event, Floor It! To The Golden City?

After rewatching the entire 2.0 event and taking notes, something came to my attention when I watched Chapter 9: Snake in the Grass.

"Two bags of gold in a cave"

To give background to this scene, Matilda receives intel from one of the arcanist vendors which can help in fighting the cult but may endanger Mercuria's life since she'll intervene. The dillemma: Should she tell Mercuria or not?

As pictured above, Matilda goes to the bar and asks Pioneer for advice regarding her dilemma by an analogy: two bags of gold in a cave. There are two bags of gold in a cave and the dragon will consume more and more of it the longer you don't take action. You can only grab 1 bag and your friend can help you with the other, but your friend helping you WILL endanger their life. Should you let them?

Pioneer responds with this:

It didn't immediately click for me until I connected it with a later part of this chapter. When Mercuria performs for the crowd and dances outside of the rhythmn, Matilda questions this.

Pioneer tries to show Matilda another perspective.

THEN WAIT! What was that?

This was when it first clicked to me that the theme of 2.0 may be heavily based on the concept of individual choice which is consistently contrasted with the collective community that they find themselves in.

Other than J, the other playable character from this patch is Mercuria. Unlike J, her work in the story was more in the sidelines. Regardless I should note that her actions heavily changed the plot because Mercuria literally foresaw everything that happened in 2.0 and served as a catalyst for the happier outcome.

Going back to this line:

Throughout the story, Mercuria has been fundamental to changing the views of Legers and Gio regarding their families and themselves. It may have even been possible that she foresaw how much Matilda was going to change J's life (which may explain how the inciting incident of Joe getting to know Matilda happened in Mercuria's tent). Mercuria represents the themes of freedom, individual choice, and self-reflection.

I argue that Joe (protagonist) and Legers (antagonist -> ally) represent the other half of this: community, brotherhood, and collectivism. Specifcally, both men are the considered the big figures of their respective gangs, highly respected in their communities, and have a deep interpersonal conflict that has to do with their siblings due to differing paths in life.

Another interesting thing to note regarding culture, both men come from cultures that are family oriented and collectivist. Legers is an Italian from Sicily, just like the Greco sisters, Schneider and Marian. I am pretty sure that Bluepoch is aware of this cultural effect.

As mentioned before, I suspect that J has Mexican descent (a culture known for being family oriented and collective). Other than that, it has been explicitly stated in his storyboard that his friends and family are a valuable to him. This is also what motivates him.

When it comes to indivualism vs collectivism, I do not suggest that one is better than the other since both have their place. It's important to have a balance of both, a community that supports their members in their self-development and living their good lives as well as the members doing the same for others in their community.

Going back to Joe and Legers, both men begin in the story lean into the collectivist point of view. They believe in their community and most importantly they are motivated out of the love for their family. But this love can lead them to do things that may not necessarily benefit their loved ones or themselves.

In Legers' case, he sold himself out to the Order of Enlightenment in order to find a cure for his brother (betraying his principles).

But his brother made those choices in life in order to give Salvadore a good life in the first place! By trying to prolong his brother's life, he was violating his brother's will. It was only when Mercuria gave him back his consciousness that the real Legers was able to speak out and tell his brother this.

This becomes the turning point of Legers' character when he begins to reflect on his dream and what he can do moving forward.

"You might do things which you think benefits the one you love, but is that what they really want?"

In the end, he becomes the head of both his gang and J's gangs. He ends up taking over the restaurant, making positive changes in Haight Street, and becomes the new beacon of change. Because he was able to improve himself first, he was able to positively effect his community.

Just like Legers, J is motivated out of the love for his family. This leads him to disapproving Paulina's choice to join the Foundation out of a well-founded fear of her being used. Not only does J protect Haight Street, he also represents every aspect of this: whether it be the positive (community and brotherhood) or the negative (being part of the cyle of violence). So when Paulina wanted to leave Haight Street, he saw this as her haughtiness to be associated with him and also her cutting ties with him.

Regardless of what J thought, Paulina wasn't motivated to join the Foundation for these things. Despite the risk of sacrificing her life, she dreamed of helping other people and making a difference in the world. Instead, the rift that she had with her brother was due to the flaws that he had before.

You see, the J we know in 2.0 and the J we see in the flashbacks greatly differ.

Due to the death of his parents, he had to serve as the guardian/parent of Paulina when they were both kids. This kind of responsibility really fucks you up.

This forced him to grow up early on and take charge as the head of his household. But just like a stern father, his word was the law (at some points even controlling). When he disapproved of something like Paulina's dream, he withheld the papers from her and even barred her from leaving (it is implied that he broke the bike so she has no means to get out).

Overall, Paulina can be justified in her feelings of being caged in Haight Street. Nonetheless, this was not the reason for their rift.

Other than pursuing her dreams, Paulina saw the cycle of violence in the crime-filled streets of Haight Street and wanted to end this cycle. Although J serves as the protector of Haight Street, he isn't immune to becoming cruel himself. Although he has a point, he didn't properly communicate this to Paulina by guiding her and respecting her choice. Instead, he imposed his own will.

Going back to the present!

After Mercuria confirms that Paulina is dead, J begins the journey of reflecting on his views. To push this even further, right after recently grieving the news of his sister's death, Matilda comes into his life during this time. He is initially amused by Matilda and takes great pleasure in teasing her...

but his views shift when she starts feeling familiar.

Ever since this moment, J began to see Matilda as a sister figure and became protective of her. Due to her similarities with Paulina, not only in manner but also in ideals, this allowed J to actually reflect on Paulina's dream and realize why she actually left.

(To be continued)

Link to the Ultimate Joe Directory:

https://www.tumblr.com/lifegoesonevenifeverybodyisgone/771822786973958144/the-ultimate-joe-directory?source=share

[mimsypoo]

(i also see smithers as transfem, i use she/he interchangeably due to my headcanons on how gender feels for her. hope u don't mind 👍)

i don't have time to respond to all of your individual points, but i will say a bit.

"just because it doesn't revolve around your ship." firstly, please don't condescend to me like that. yes, i enjoy burnsmithers, but that's not really the point i was making here. anyone who knows me personally will know that i don't care that much about canon/canon ships. even with burns and smithers, i don't actually think about them getting together very often. i like it, but i don't need it. my attention towards the ship comes more from the fact that i like both of them a lot individually, so it's convenient to have them in a little package like that. (and i like seeing smithers win.)

i am glad that you are able to personally enjoy and accept the characterization of smithers in more recent material, i truly am. having so much content of a character you love is very lucky.

i'm incredibly picky, though, and i don't think all of the changes in her personality can be reduced to 'character development.' she was written by people, writers who make decisions and have thoughts and change things based on their experiences and biases.

just because the writers may be trying to give their characters 'happy endings' as you put it doesn't mean i'm going to like their creative decisions. it's the simpsons, it's so highly episodic, and even moments that were advertised as big changes in the status quo were eventually abandoned. the writers do not like having to see big changes through. (cough cough cough the burns cage cough)

their dynamic, at its roots, is based around codependency. that's where it was born. without an understanding of that, they lose a lot of their nuance and depth because of how much they're defined by each other. this may not be true of modern writing, but it is true of the early seasons. i don't mean that they can't exist at all without each other, and i apologize if the way i said this lacked clarity, but what i meant was that their personalities were developed with room for their codependency. even when they aren't near each other, they are still people who are capable of relying on each other. the way their characterization has shifted does not often leave that space in their personalities.

i do not mean they always need to be around each other or thinking about each other. what i mean is that their personalities were created as foils, and they are losing that in the writers' inclination towards projected individualism.

in earlier seasons when they're pictured without each other, i like them just fine. i agree that there is more to them than each other. my critique was not that their characters have no potential, it was aimed at the writers' inability to properly utilize that potential.

they have their moments in modern simpsons, but overall, i think it says a lot that my favorite independent modern smithers appearance was one where she doesn't even talk. (werking mom)

on werking mom, i need to bring up that my complaints about smithers' identity come from ME being gay, transgender, and hell, even a doll collector! i see SO MUCH of myself in smithers. and yet, with modern smithers, i experience a palpable detachment. like suddenly, there's something off.

a lot of that does come from the new way they use smithers' gayness. i like it in earlier seasons because it feels so casual, like it doesn't have to be said for us to know it. it's more human like that. modern simpsons is OBSESSED with saying it. constantly. over and over again. in every scene. and it annoys me because it feels like they forgot that there IS more to smithers than that. smithers' experience with gender and sexuality will always inform her life and interests, but the modern emphasis on that doesn't feel like a nuanced exploration on the influence of lgbt identity on everyday life or something. it feels cheap and performative.

when i say "smithers has been reduced to his gayness," what i mean is that his characterization has become a lot more stereotypical. the fact that her writing has become more shallow makes this noticeable to me because most of her episodes revolve around gayness in some way. even if bottle episode wasn't about her being attracted to men, it was still dependent on gay stereotypicality to make the episode work. even the wine court stuff was tied to her involvement in the lgbt community. part of this comes from the simpsons' inclination to make her nicer- it feels like they see 'gay' as being a positive trait rather than neutral, so they struggle not to see gay people through a positive lens. that's stereotyping, even stereotypes that intend kindness can be condescending if they lack depth. smithers being depicted as better than he was in the past is, at least partially, intrinsically tied to her identity as gay.

lackey is in and of itself an example of this double standard. it's noticeable that nowadays, smithers doing good deeds always feels intrinsically linked to her gay experience rather than her individuality. along with that, it's hard to read as 'character development' because, to me, smithers already feels like a husk at the beginning of the episode. his being a good person is tied to his relationship with michael, how she wants love but won't take it at the expense of others... then keeps working for mr. burns. you relate this to in-universe explanations, but it isn't a real thing that happened. it was a thing that people wrote. along with that, it doesn't feel like a development or change. it feels like an easy thing for the writers to do because it would be annoying to let smithers have a new boyfriend. it would do too much to change the show's overall formula, and it's easier to just make smithers drop him to keep things the same. it doesn't matter if your excuse as to why is incoherent, so long as they've dropped the new player by the end.

when i say, "smithers isn't allowed to be gay for mr. burns" anymore, what i mean is that acknowledgments of that attraction feel half assed and chorelike. the writers do not care about the way smithers likes mr. burns. i stand by what i said. the writers don't want to write burns and smithers being codependent, they want to write AROUND it. as in, i believe they want it to affect their plotlines as little as possible. their lack of chemistry is an important signal at the writers' lack of interest in their relationship. to me at least, it just doesn't feel like the writers understand how or why the two could like each other, and bottle episode really encompasses that frustration for me.

i just don't like the decisions they make for their characters in modern simpsons. you mention flanders' grief, so i'll say i didn't like o c'mon all ye faithful's handling of that, either. it has the same problem as smithers' relationship with michael, it has to do with a fundamental fear of change.

at the beginning of lackey, smithers doesn't have a boyfriend. by the end, smithers doesn't have a boyfriend. at the beginning of faithful, flanders believes in god. by the end, flanders believes in god. any "changes" that occur in the plotline are illusory because these episodes pose no threat to the writers' routine. my complaints are not just me wanting burnsmithers fodder. i think the way they're handling the characters is bland, clunky, and uninventive. any 'innovation' is wholly performative or intended to lampshade a flawed understanding of the characters themselves and why they were entertaining and charming at their inception.

thinking abt bottle episode now -_- i think it's so exhausting to watch burns and smithers in recent seasons because it feels like the writers are trying to write AROUND their codependency? they can acknowledge it exists on paper, but in practice, they fail to anchor their interactions in a logical understanding of it.

like, they had burns pestering smithers for help early in the episode to the point it was a catalyst for the plot, and yet, when smithers is INCARCERATED burns doesn't notice until he's specifically told? it just feels like the writers don't want to engage with how these two need each other to function, not just from the watsonian perspective but doylian as well.

without smithers, burns becomes just an evil old rich man. without burns, smithers kind of just exists??? they are both SO important for contextualizing each other and creating respective depth.

along with that, i think smithers' personality has become way too reliant upon his gayness. in the name of "representation," they've brought it into the forefront of his characterization and, in doing so, dropped most of the shit that actually made him unique in the first place. of course the writers can't see why he would like mr. burns anymore! they just see him as a nondescript spineless gay guy! i believe his writing is way more homophobic than it was in the early years because it feels like being gay is all he has at this point. and yet he's also not allowed to be gay FOR mr. burns. and mr. burns is a pathetic old man, but he's not allowed to need smithers because he has to be one dimensionally evil and capable of performing functional independence.

their newfound lack of chemistry drastically impedes their ability to be enjoyable and entertaining, and i think the writers know that but don't realize it's their own fault. it seems like they don't have fun writing the two as the unit they're supposed to be, so they go to great lengths to mischaracterize them even further just to keep them from interfering with each other's plotlines. i mean god, take thirst trap for example. i'll just post what i said about that one on discord.

[text: they got the "smithers likes mr. burns" thing down and they don't seem to know anything else about them and i'm just staring at them like there is no world where mr. burns marries a random shady woman who is blatantly using him for his money and smithers is just like Yeah she's cool because she likes Mr. Burns too!

No. He would want to kill her and wear her skin]

more than anything i wish that burns and smithers would be allowed the codependency that defined them in the first place. they don't just like each other, they NEED each other, and that fact is supposed to create an obstacle that defines them intrinsically. that's where their writing begins. can we just go perform a simpsons coup d'état

[agrebel18]

I ADORE qpr Huntlow, and I’m happy on how many people are choosing to see them that way, ESPECIALLY since I recently discovered that I am on the aro and ace spectrum, but I ALSO REALLY LIKE THEM ROMANTICALLY because they kinda match the “girlboss x malewife” dynamic AND they’re QUITE DIFFERENT from some of the m/f ships I’ve seen IN A WHILE (and they’re probably both queer, or at least one of them is, let’s face it) and I haven’t seen enough of plus sized girls like Willow getting desired and found attractive like Hunter does (the fan fave white boy!!) plus I LOVE FRIENDS TO LOVERS. anyways, just feeling positive right now, and they’re just so neat to me. if you hate them DNI!!! 

[garvalhaminho]

i'm not usually a multishipper but i NEED y'all to understand how important one-sided jessamine x tessa is to me

[t-u-i-t-c]

Toku Pride Month Challenge│Ships

Koh & Canalo

[skitterjitter]

unsurprisingly to me, my favorite characters in Star Rail as of Penacony are Dr Ratio and Aventurine

Ratio because I too am an autistic in academia who wants knowledge to be widely and freely available. he might be cold and rude, but he genuinely wants to help people

Aventurine because I like characters with facades. pulling them apart and seeing what's underneath that mask is always Very Interesting

[sparring-spirals]

Went through my kith and kin tag after that last post and once again lying on my floor thinking about. vex snarling at vax about his judgement being swayed by a pretty face-

(another person vax is brave enough to love, even if its dangerous. looking for the good and the kindness and the humanity among the darkness, trying to bring it forward, let vex experience it, even when it can leave him bleeding)-

and vax snarling at vex about her judgement being swayed by her desperation to be accepted-

(another time vex sees a way to secure safety and security and approval, which is safety and security, in a different form. for her, her and vax and trinket and everything she loves, safe in one place, where they can belong, they can stay)-

and. oogh.

Holding these twins in my hands. squishing them like playdough. one of them fights desperately to find the kindness and good and light even when its a fools errand. leaves himself open and hurt for a little bit of light. if it keeps vex safe, happier. one of them counting and calculating and running and cruel because the world demands it. keeps the counter going and going and does the hard things if it keeps vax whole, and okay. one close range and one long.

they'll hurt each other if it keeps the other whole. they'll gladly get hurt if it keeps the other safe. the world is harsh, and they are surviving. what the fuck. theyre such a fucked up pair. they love each other so much.

[anthromimicry]

[lifegoesonevenifeverybodyisgone]

"How does Joe fit in the overall 2.0 story?"

THE Joe Character Analysis. Part 2: Individual Choice vs Collectivism.

An important thing to consider when conducting a character analysis is the relationship of the character with the story they are a part of. In Joe's case, what is his relationship with the 2.0 event, Floor It! To The Golden City?

After rewatching the entire 2.0 event and taking notes, something came to my attention when I watched Chapter 9: Snake in the Grass.

"Two bags of gold in a cave"

To give background to this scene, Matilda receives intel from one of the arcanist vendors which can help in fighting the cult but may endanger Mercuria's life since she'll intervene. The dillemma: Should she tell Mercuria or not?

As pictured above, Matilda goes to the bar and asks Pioneer for advice regarding her dilemma by an analogy: two bags of gold in a cave. There are two bags of gold in a cave and the dragon will consume more and more of it the longer you don't take action. You can only grab 1 bag and your friend can help you with the other, but your friend helping you WILL endanger their life. Should you let them?

Pioneer responds with this:

It didn't immediately click for me until I connected it with a later part of this chapter. When Mercuria performs for the crowd and dances outside of the rhythmn, Matilda questions this.

Pioneer tries to show Matilda another perspective.

THEN WAIT! What was that?

This was when it first clicked to me that the theme of 2.0 may be heavily based on the concept of individual choice which is consistently contrasted with the collective community that they find themselves in.

Other than J, the other playable character from this patch is Mercuria. Unlike J, her work in the story was more in the sidelines. Regardless I should note that her actions heavily changed the plot because Mercuria literally foresaw everything that happened in 2.0 and served as a catalyst for the happier outcome.

Going back to this line:

Throughout the story, Mercuria has been fundamental to changing the views of Legers and Gio regarding their families and themselves. It may have even been possible that she foresaw how much Matilda was going to change J's life (which may explain how the inciting incident of Joe getting to know Matilda happened in Mercuria's tent). Mercuria represents the themes of freedom, individual choice, and self-reflection.

I argue that Joe (protagonist) and Legers (antagonist -> ally) represent the other half of this: community, brotherhood, and collectivism. Specifcally, both men are the considered the big figures of their respective gangs, highly respected in their communities, and have a deep interpersonal conflict that has to do with their siblings due to differing paths in life.

Another interesting thing to note regarding culture, both men come from cultures that are family oriented and collectivist. Legers is an Italian from Sicily, just like the Greco sisters, Schneider and Marian. I am pretty sure that Bluepoch is aware of this cultural effect.

As mentioned before, I suspect that J has Mexican descent (a culture known for being family oriented and collective). Other than that, it has been explicitly stated in his storyboard that his friends and family are a valuable to him. This is also what motivates him.

When it comes to indivualism vs collectivism, I do not suggest that one is better than the other since both have their place. It's important to have a balance of both, a community that supports their members in their self-development and living their good lives as well as the members doing the same for others in their community.

Going back to Joe and Legers, both men begin in the story lean into the collectivist point of view. They believe in their community and most importantly they are motivated out of the love for their family. But this love can lead them to do things that may not necessarily benefit their loved ones or themselves.

In Legers' case, he sold himself out to the Order of Enlightenment in order to find a cure for his brother (betraying his principles).

But his brother made those choices in life in order to give Salvadore a good life in the first place! By trying to prolong his brother's life, he was violating his brother's will. It was only when Mercuria gave him back his consciousness that the real Legers was able to speak out and tell his brother this.

This becomes the turning point of Legers' character when he begins to reflect on his dream and what he can do moving forward.

"You might do things which you think benefits the one you love, but is that what they really want?"

In the end, he becomes the head of both his gang and J's gangs. He ends up taking over the restaurant, making positive changes in Haight Street, and becomes the new beacon of change. Because he was able to improve himself first, he was able to positively effect his community.

Just like Legers, J is motivated out of the love for his family. This leads him to disapproving Paulina's choice to join the Foundation out of a well-founded fear of her being used. Not only does J protect Haight Street, he also represents every aspect of this: whether it be the positive (community and brotherhood) or the negative (being part of the cyle of violence). So when Paulina wanted to leave Haight Street, he saw this as her haughtiness to be associated with him and also her cutting ties with him.

Regardless of what J thought, Paulina wasn't motivated to join the Foundation for these things. Despite the risk of sacrificing her life, she dreamed of helping other people and making a difference in the world. Instead, the rift that she had with her brother was due to the flaws that he had before.

You see, the J we know in 2.0 and the J we see in the flashbacks greatly differ.

Due to the death of his parents, he had to serve as the guardian/parent of Paulina when they were both kids. This kind of responsibility really fucks you up.

This forced him to grow up early on and take charge as the head of his household. But just like a stern father, his word was the law (at some points even controlling). When he disapproved of something like Paulina's dream, he withheld the papers from her and even barred her from leaving (it is implied that he broke the bike so she has no means to get out).

Overall, Paulina can be justified in her feelings of being caged in Haight Street. Nonetheless, this was not the reason for their rift.

Other than pursuing her dreams, Paulina saw the cycle of violence in the crime-filled streets of Haight Street and wanted to end this cycle. Although J serves as the protector of Haight Street, he isn't immune to becoming cruel himself. Although he has a point, he didn't properly communicate this to Paulina by guiding her and respecting her choice. Instead, he imposed his own will.

Going back to the present!

After Mercuria confirms that Paulina is dead, J begins the journey of reflecting on his views. To push this even further, right after recently grieving the news of his sister's death, Matilda comes into his life during this time. He is initially amused by Matilda and takes great pleasure in teasing her...

but his views shift when she starts feeling familiar.

Ever since this moment, J began to see Matilda as a sister figure and became protective of her. Due to her similarities with Paulina, not only in manner but also in ideals, this allowed J to actually reflect on Paulina's dream and realize why she actually left.

(To be continued)

THE Joe Character Analysis. Part 1: The Greasers and J's Mexican Heritage

Merry Christmas, especially to the dedicated Joe fan, @barbieb0y! After torturing myself by recapping and taking notes of the entire 2.0 event, Joe's character story "The San Francisco Kids", looking at his storyboards and comic, getting Joe to 100% bond, having him as my main in the Series of Dusks, and reading + re-reading all of his voice lines/mini stories/descriptions; I can confidently say that I have gained more insights about his character and formed theories of my own that we shall tackle today.

While looking at J's character storyboard I noticed something interesting about his fashion style.

J's fashion style is inspired by the Greaser's aesthetic. Considering that Bluepoch pays attention to character details and their outfits, this is an intentional choice. By briefly looking at the Wikipedia page for the Greaser subculture, I noticed that the most prominent adopters of the style are Italian Americans from the North and Hispanic Americans in the South (including places like California, in this case, Haight Street).

This brought to my attention that J, in fact, could have Mexican heritage. Specifically, he is a mixed White-Mexican American.

Why so?

J's paternal side is the legendary arcanist family, the Waylands. The last name Wayland derives from the Norman French word Wēland, which may also derive from the ancient Germanic words wēla-nandaz, which means "battle" and "brave." This means that his father is most likely a typical White American.

Since J is a mixed arcanist, I would assume that his biological mother is a human Hispanic considering the significant percentage of San Francisco's Hispanic population and also due to J's identification with the Greaser subculture.

A mixed child has a higher chance of learning their mother's culture especially if they grow up around other maternal family members or people of the same culture. I noticed that my mixed-race cousins whose father was an American, identified more with their Filipino side especially since they live in the Philippines. I identify more with my mother's ethnic group due to the same reasons.

Besides his tanned skin, his love for Mexican food and drink and his mastery of cooking the cuisine may suggest that he is of Mexican descent.

Examples:

The most telling of these examples is J's cooking ability NOT his preference for Mexican food. In the first example, he managed to make a hot sauce AUTHENTIC enough that Centurion, a CANONICAL Mexican-American character, was taken back to her hometown. This is a big deal considering that in the 1990s, there wasn't Youtube or online sources that could spread authentic recipes for Mexican food! Due to the limited educational resources in that era regarding cooking Mexican food, this means that he most likely learned it by being taught by someone who could make Mexican food, which I conclude is his biological mother.

Tang Ji, the chef who raised J after his father died, is a Chinese immigrant so it's unlikely that he knows how to cook Mexican food from the get-go. J himself also knows how to cook Chinese food because of this. There is a chance that one of the Mexican immigrants could have taught J how to cook Mexican food but due to his tan skin color (that he had even before he began blacksmithing) this leads me to assume that my conclusion is the more likely option.

But why? I am led to believe that his mother passed down her recipes to her husband and son just like how some of my mixed family members exchange recipes and traditions amongst each other. A fast way to connect to one's culture is by knowing how to make food from THAT culture. Since J lost his mother at a young age (but not too young as not to remember her), I think it is his way of remembering his mother and connecting to his culture (since he cannot speak the language I assume).

So going back to the Greaser subculture that J identifies with, it emerged amongst lower-class teenagers and young adults. The Greaser subculture was associated with motorcycle gangs, their attire, their greased-up hair, and their rebellious attitude.

This is reflected in J's fashion:

(His hairstyle is a more tousled version of a flop)

(His jacket seems to be a modified Perfecto Motorcycle Jacket)

(His jeans are Levi's dark blue jeans that are inspired by the 50s with the cut of the jeans being a bit wider near the end to make way for boots)

(His boots are partially hidden by his jeans but it is a Winklepicker boots which are characterized by their slick body, pointy toes, and straps)

(The Greasers were oftentimes bikers and were fond of the hot rod type of bikes. "Hot Rod" is a way of modifying classic vehicles by stripping them of their parts, which exposes insides like the pipes, to increase speed.)

The original Greasers were from ethnic minorities like those from the Mediterranean, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Italian. They felt united in the feeling of being left out of the post-war economic boom and also experienced discrimination and poverty. The theme or main philosophy and ethos of the Greaser and the cultural aspects of Mexican-American culture are essential in understanding J, his understanding of the world, and his background in Haight Street.

In three posts, I will discuss the three themes that explore 1) collectivism vs individual choice, 2) masculinity, family, and community, and 3) J's philosophy regarding blades and metals (and how it connects to his views of imperfection and culture). I will also be comparing and contrasting him with characters like Legers, Argus, and Isolde. I will reblog these posts when they come, so sit back and enjoy!

[todayisafridaynight]

I’m fairly new to the fandom, but I do have a question if you can answer it! Why do people ship Daigo with Aoki / Masato? I tried looking to see if they’ve interacted before, but couldn’t find anything! Sorry for asking I’m just </3 dumb AND I LOVE YOUR ART OF THEM!!! Nerd looking ahhhhhh

hi ! welcome to the community i hope you're having a lovely time so far and ty for enjoyin my stuff :) no need for apologies it's a very fair question to have :]

i cant speak for everyone (all. ten people into masadai anyway) but Personally To Me i just think the idea of them together is very funny. thats quite literally it im afraid..

[hollow-vok]

Ohh im obssesed

[maliro-t]

as a bona fide vaxleth lover i am more confused than ever about how they are portrayed on the animated series i'm not gonna lie 😭

[paradoxikalli]

Keep seeing people talking about how the V9 finale was followed by Rosebird shippers screaming about gay moms going on a super secret mission together before Ruby's character development, but did anyone talk about how after V9E8 the Spicecream shippers went fucking insane over one (1) briefly shown painting made by Neo's Semblance before following up about the psychological trauma, mouse murder, suicide allegory, and demonic cat possession?

[txxxciii]

unpopular (maybe?) opinion: the kombat kids would've definitely worked better if they weren't introduced as the next generation