#also it would fit it with the examples above being specifically characters

[tumblezwei]

Hold on

Acheron. One of the five rivers of the underworld from Greek mythology. Associated with misery or woe.

March's companion mission, whereupon being completed the player is given the achievement "The River Lethe's Taste is Bitter." Lethe. Another of the five rivers, associated with oblivion or forgetfulness.

There isn't a third yet, I can't set a proper precedent right now. But I'm thinking thoughts.

[blindbeta]

Exploring How Toph Beifong Could Be Played By A Blind Actress and Refuting Reasons Some People Believe She Couldn’t

[Image Description: Toph Beifong from Avatar: The Last Airbender. She is waving her hand in front of her face after joking that she spotted the great library, tricking the Gaang only to remind them that she is blind. She rides on Appa who is flying above a desert landscape. End I.D.]

The live-action adaptation of season 2 of Avatar: The Last Airbender is underway. This means people are discussing Toph again, much like they did during pre-production of season 1. I have seen and even participated in promoting the idea of Toph being portrayed by a blind actress. Similarly, I have come across push-back against the idea.

Instead of if Toph Should Be Portrayed by a Blind Actress, Let’s Focus on How She Could

(should and could are bolded for emphasis)

This post will address common misconceptions that serve as barriers to the idea of a blind actress portraying Toph.

A Few Notes Before We Start

These points come from posts on online forums, YouTube comments on videos related to the casting of Toph, and tumblr posts. No one will be specifically called out here, as while these points may be attributed to certain individuals online, they represent much wider views that are shared by many, even without malicious intent. These common misconceptions stem from unchecked ableism and general lack of information. Keep in mind that my intention is not to call out any individual person, as ableism is a widespread, collective problem. The reasons I refuted in this post showed up repeatedly and were not isolated opinions of one or two people.

1. No, it would not be too difficult to find an actress who is Asian, blind, and the right age

[Image Description: Toph as The Blind Bandit uses earthbending to create three pillars of rock that shoot at an angle from the ground and smash into her opponent, throwing him against the arena wall. End I.D.]

This point suggests that it is difficult to find candidates fitting Toph’s description. I suspect this is due to racism and ableism, in that a white and abled person is considered default and therefore believed to be more common, especially by Western studio standards. This is not truly the case. People of color and disabled people are auditioning, especially for the comparatively few roles that seek them out specifically, such as Avatar: The Last Airbender.

Blind Asian people exist. Some of these people are also actresses. Some have backgrounds in dance or martial arts, especially because many actors do similar activities to increase endurance and versatility. Finding a pre-teen or teenager to play Toph would not be as challenging as many people believe, especially those who already underestimate the amount of blind people in the world and their abilities.

Those who argue this point may be under the impression that a blind actress would be out of reach due to low numbers and lack of interest in auditioning. Blind people are auditioning. The reason you don’t see them on screen is because most of them are ignored in favor of abled actors. For example, in this video, Molly Burke discusses not being chosen to play a blind character whom she was told was based on her own life. The actress chosen to play the character was not blind. You can watch it here.

Additionally, Netflix has the ability to hold a widespread casting call. They are not a tiny studio doing productions in someone’s backyard. They have access to a wider pool of actresses than the average person might think, particularly if said person is not familiar with the resources big studios often have at their disposal.

In fact, Netflix is doing just that. Below is a link to their casting call, which encourages blind and low vision actresses to audition.

Link to casting call here with alt text.

2. Some people believe Toph isn’t really blind and therefore the actress who plays her needs to be able to see

[Image Description: Toph as The Blind Bandit using bending, with shots showing her hands and feet. As her bare foot slides sideways across the ground, the camera zooms out to show her sensing vibrations. The image turns greyscale, with circles of white vibrations emanating from around Toph’s body, where they expand and flow outward. End I.D.]

The rationale behind this is probably the same as it is for Daredevil, meaning some don’t consider Toph to be blind because of the way she uses her bending.

An argument could be made that Toph’s powers erase her blindness or that her powerful abilities make her less relatable to the average blind person. However, I suspect that many sighted people engaging with these discussions of Toph’s casting are not also concerned with questions of erasure or relatability. In discussions questioning her blindness, the evidence given mostly centers on Toph’s physical abilities rather than relatability to real blind people.

Her bending aside, Toph is certainly blind. She experiences ableism from her parents and general community. Blindness shaped her life in a lot of ways, even with her bending, which is also influenced by her disability.

We see Toph being guided while running on the airship, needing assistance while walking on ice, and struggling to travel in a desert. She uses her other senses, including hearing and tactile senses. She has limitations regarding how she is able to interact with an unaccommodating world, such as inaccessible reading and writing systems.

There are also lifestyle and cultural implications of blindness extending beyond the inability to see. Being blind is not only about what one can and cannot do, which is true of Toph’s experience as well. Blind people may have different values, experiences with family and friends, different senses of humor, or may place higher value on other sensory experiences compared to sighted peers.

Whether or not Toph is good blindness representation can be argued. However, she is still a blind character. Her blindness influences her whole life, even as she is more than her blindness at the same time. Her life as a blind person is about more than limitations and abilities. Reducing her, and any blind person, for that matter, to only these facets of her experience oversimplifies what it is like to be a blind person.

Claiming that she isn’t a blind character because of her ability to do x, y, and z can be incorrect for a lot of reasons.

Blind people are more than what we can do or what we produce. Our experiences are rich and varied. Our lives are inherently meaningful no matter our abilities or limitations. It is both ableist and inaccurate for sighted people to attempt to put us all into boxes.

Additionally, blindness is a spectrum. [Bolded for emphasis.] You can read about it at the following posts on my blog:

here

here

here

and here.

Here is a good list of legally blind YouTubers with various types of visual experiences.

According to various sources on the blindness spectrum, about 85% to 95% of blind people have some remaining vision:

93% according to RNIB

This Perkins School For the Blind fact sheet estimates about 90 to 95% of blind have some remaining vision

American Foundation for the Blind estimates about 15% of blind people are totally blind and discusses the spectrum of blindness here

The spectrum of blindness is important because our experiences become even more diverse when the spectrum is considered. This means that assumptions about what we can and cannot do become even harder for sighted folks to guess accurately.

This accuracy is important if sighted people are going to try to put limitations on blind people, which they have no business doing anyway. They are not the authority on what blind people can do, what we cannot do, or what is good for us. Only blind people can answer that for themselves.

Lastly, blind people are already used to navigating and interacting with their surroundings. They have had anywhere from months to a lifetime of experience, which would translate better to Toph’s ease with her blindness and confidence in her bending.

While an actor wearing contacts to obscure their vision might stumble around and have difficulty on set, someone who is actually blind could lend Toph’s character a much more relaxed, confident attitude in addition to possessing experience navigating in a way that works for her. She is used to being blind. Therefore, an actress who is also used to being blind brings a lot to the performance in terms of physicality, attitude, and the ability to focus on portraying the character, rather than simulating blindness.

Which leads me into the next point.

3. The idea that Toph doesn’t move like a blind person relies on stereotypes of blind people

[Image Description: A GIF from the episode “The Runaway”. Toph, Sokka, and Aang all con some con artists and cheer after their victory, Toph raising her arms high before snatching the prizes. They all run away. End I.D.]

There is no specific way of moving like a blind person. Like sighted people, the way blind people move may be influenced by many factors, such as level of vision, how long they have been blind, their mobility aid, navigation techniques, familiarity with their environment, level of confidence, feelings of safety, other disabilities, energy levels, cultural factors, and more.

While there are mannerisms that are recognizable to blind communities, there is no one way to move like a blind person. Just as there is no one way to look blind.

The ideas of “not moving like a blind person” or “not looking blind” come from stereotypes of blindness. In fact, these ideas can be so pervasive that blind people who don’t fit stereotypes may be accused of faking. I explore this subject here.

In this video, Sam from The Blind Life discusses the experience of performing blindness or being pressured to act more blind than he is. Link here. He explains while he has some vision, he uses his cane to indicate to others that he is blind. This is one of the main functions of a cane. Sam explains feeling pressure to adhere to certain stereotypes about blindness or risk being accused of faking.

Similarly, in this video linked here, Molly Burke discusses the stereotype that blind people’s eyes look noticeably different from sighted eyes. This includes the inaccurate belief that all blind people have cloudy eyes, blank eyes, eyes that are always closed, or eyes that simply must be covered in dark sunglasses to protect the sensibilities of sighted people. Molly explains that while blind people can certainly have these attributes, not all of us do. Molly laments that the phrase, “You don’t look blind,” is either used to invalidate her or to praise her for passing as a sighted person, which is ableist.

Just as blind people don’t look the same way, we don’t move the exact same ways either. That applies to Toph as well. For example, she prefers to keep her feet on solid ground for bending purposes, orientation, and possibly due to cultural factors valuing stability and connection to the earth.

4. The idea that accommodations would be impossible to provide is rooted in ableism

[Image description: A GIF of Toph and Zuko sitting beside each other on the floor at the Ember Island theatre episode. Toph punches Zuko’s arm. Metaphorically for the purposes of this post, she is punching ableist ideas that have nothing to do with Zuko. End I.D]

Here is a thread I shared in the early days of this blog, wherein the topics of blind actors and accommodations are discussed. The entire thread might also be helpful for this post, as I explore the same points, which shows how common these misconceptions are. While this may seem to be an isolated online disagreement, none of these arguments are new. That is why I believe this topic is important— these arguments about accommodations being too difficult or a burden on others also pop up in conversations about other workforces and other disabilities.

A blind character not being played by a blind actor is one thing. A blind person not being hired for a job they are qualified for due to resistance to providing accommodations is not so easy to ignore, not so seemingly isolated a concern. These barriers don’t only apply to blind actors looking for work. They apply to all blind people looking for work.

That means most of this isn’t really about Toph, nor the opinions of random people online. Instead, I hope to highlight common patterns in ableist thinking and dispel these ideas using a character people care about. This is, of course, in addition to my own desire to have a blind actress play Toph.

With that said, let’s explore what work accommodations might look like using examples of blind actors.

Dionne Quan is a blind actress who has an extensive filmography for voiceover work, including popular characters such as Kimi from Rugrats. In this article from when the character was first introduced, she discusses how she performs. Link.

Quote from the article: “Most of the recording was done in a studio with just a mike and a stand for the script. I had the lines in braille, and I would read them on the way over to get into character. You have to have your bag of tricks ready to go.”

Most of the work Quan discusses involves typical acting stuff. The accommodations given to her are similar to adaptations that might be made in an office setting. Additionally, with all the technology available now, it is easy to make a script accessible through large print, VoiceOver and memorization, Word document instead of a PDF, a Braille display, etc.

And as of August 2024, Quan can add adult Toph Beifong to her list of characters. Which is super exciting and, I thought, an appropriate fact to include in this post. You can read more here.

To continue the discussion of accommodations for actors, I would like to discuss Ellie Wallwork. Wallwork is a blind actress who has performed on Doctor Who.

She describes her experiences on set, such as blocking scenes and using tactile accommodations in this short video from the SeeSaw podcast. Link here.

Transcript:

Elie Wallwork speaking:

“Obviously, markers are just normally flat bits of tape on the floor. I had to have some sort of tactile ones so I knew where I was stepping onto. And it takes longer. It definitely takes a bit longer. I guess the thing that frustrates me about the industry is that sometimes casting directors will think, ‘Well, how could a blind person possibly do this, do that? How could they do stunts? How could they even navigate around set?’ But it’s perfectly possible if you— for example, with the crew that I had on all the productions I’ve been on, they’ve all been really kind, really patient with me and able to understand that, yeah, okay, it might take me five minutes longer to block a scene, but that’s fine because it means it’s authentic.”

End transcript.

You can listen to the full episode here.

Lastly, I find that many sighted people are not generally knowledgeable when it pertains to what blind people can or cannot do. Examples of this lack of knowledge include frequent questions about how blind people read, exist in online spaces, cook, etc—and these are simply from posts on my own blog.

Here is a link to a discussion thread that explores ableist assumptions people often make what blind people are or are not able to do. It particularly relevant for this topic. Link can be found here. Please remember that while I did respond to some folks who expressed opinions colored by ableist assumptions, that post is not about them. Just as this post is about addressing ableism in general rather than from a specific source.

The point is: consider why abled people are so comfortable stating what blind people can and cannot do, when one of the most common questions about blindness is still “how do you use a phone or the internet?”

People who aren’t blind often fail to grasp what our limitations actually are. Many people are still surprised to learn that technology or accommodations exist for us, despite having access to various forms of technology themselves. They struggle to understand that we can live our daily lives, possibly because they personally cannot imagine themselves without the vision they rely on, such as that time a professor asked blind content creator Stephanie Renburg [quote] “How do you live?” when the conversation was supposed to be about school accommodations [Link here].

This brings me to an assertion that is often made when sighted actors obscure their vision in order to play blind characters. It is often noted that it was too hard for them emotionally, mentally, and physically. Because of this reaction, the assumption is made that a blind person cannot possibly perform the role.

For example, in the article linked here, this is stated about Jamie Foxx in his role as Ray Charles. “Some actors, including Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles in “Ray” (2004, best actor) and Blake Lively in “All I See Is You” (2017), have chosen to wear ocular prosthetics, rendering them literally blind during their performances. But this creates a new problem: Unlike real blind people, who can spend years honing their orientation and mobility skills, the blindfolded sighted person becomes lost, confused and frightened with the sudden loss of sight — Foxx told interviewers he began hyperventilating as soon as his eyes were glued shut with the custom prosthetic eyelids that the filmmakers affixed over his eyes.”

Being blind is different from a sighted person temporarily obscuring their vision. Blind people have a better handle on being blind because we’ve been doing it longer. Blindness is part of our lives. Of course blind people are going to have an easier time portraying blind characters. This means most of the concerns people bring up when discussing sighted actors struggling with being unable to see won’t actually apply to blind people who have been at this for far longer.

I also wanted to address the idea that hiring blind actors would cost more, according to the assertion made in that thread about hiring blind actors, which you can read here if you haven’t already. While I can understand why someone might believe hiring a blind actor would cost more, I believe it would actually cost less.

Blind actors can use their own canes or other assistive devices used by the character, which saves money on expensive materials

Blind actors likely already have experience with O&M training, saving money and time that would otherwise be spent training a sighted actor, such as described here

Blind actors don’t need contacts or prosthetics, which may otherwise be used help an actor simulate blindness

And blind actors would have an easier time navigating sets, dancing, or doing required physical activities while blind, which reduces the learning curve that sighted actors with obscured vision need

A few Disclaimers:

1) Blind people learn from our communities and through life experience. While we naturally have more experience being blind, our knowledge is enhanced through learning from other blind people and participating in training designed to improve our life skills. I maintain that a sighted person obscuring their vision for a few hours will not have the same level of experience.

2) Reminder that blindness is a spectrum that a blindfold cannot replicate.

and 3) This post is not to say that sighted actors cannot do well or cannot put effort into their performance. According to the article above, Charlie Cox won an award from the AFB for his commitment to portraying Daredevil. However, just because there are sighted actors willing to put in the work does not mean blind actors can’t. I wanted to include this disclaimer in case someone sees the AFB article I shared and worried I’m trying to disparage actors who have already portrayed blind characters and happened to do a good job. After all, I love the original performance we received from Michaela Murphy, who originally voiced Toph. That doesn’t mean studios should not make an effort to cast more blind actors moving forward, nor does it justify any of the silly or explicitly ableist reasons people give for why sighted actors must be chosen over blind ones.

Let us return to refuting those excuses with the last thing I wanted to address.

5. Some people are concerned that a blind person might get hurt doing martial arts, but so can literally anyone else

[Image description: GIF of Toph dressed in Fire Nation attire. She punches through a rock.]

Kids can get hurt in any kind of sport, yet society doesn’t try to keep children from these activities for their own safety. However, disabled kids—and adults for that matter—are often reminded that we are being kept out of spaces for our own protection. Which we didn’t need, nor ask for.

This need to protect disabled people can be not only infantilizing, but hypocritical as well. For example, a blind person might be discouraged from playing recreational sports in a misguided attempt to protect them. Conversely, structures that keep blind people at risk are allowed to stay firmly in place, such as discrimination around transportation, inaccessible infrastructure, and poverty.

Blind people play sports anyway. Often, these sports carry their own risks of injury, as most sports do. Blind people have the agency to understand this and consent to it. Examples include blind football [link] and goalball [link].

Here is a video of Sadi the Blind Lady discussing goalball with Eliana Mason, a Paralympic athlete who plays goalball professionally.

Transcript: “Goalball is sport for blind and visually impaired athletes. It was created after World War II for blinded veterans and is now a Paralympic sport. The coolest thing about it is that everyone wears eyeshades so no matter what your level of vision loss is—because blindness is a spectrum— it equalizes it. The ball has bells in it and the court is straight with tape over it. It’s on a volleyball sized court. It’s three on three. And basically in offense, we are throwing the ball as hard as we can with a lot of technique involved, about 30 to 45 miles an hour to have it hit the ground and roll and hit the other players on their bodies. And on defense, you are throwing your body out and diving in front of this 3 pound ball and blocking it. So essentially you want to get hit with the ball.”

End transcript.

Getting hit with a ball, especially in the face or stomach area, is going to hurt. That is okay, because as long as safety precautions are taken, pain might be part of the experience depending on the rules and anticipated possibility of injury.

Martial arts and dance, which are backgrounds sought specifically in the Netflix Toph casting call, can also lead to accepted forms of pain or discomfort. While one could argue that sports injuries could and should be preventable, this post is more concerned with the expectation of pain, injuries, and what steps are taken to prevent them, such as protective gear or an experienced coach / teacher.

A blind person auditioning for Toph knows that martial arts will be involved. She will spend time learning choreography, building trust with co-actors, and figuring out works best for her. This structure is similar for blind people playing football or goalball or tennis or fencing or whatever else they want to do.

Lastly, people who aren’t blind also experience pain or injury during sports. Same with martial arts or dance.

The actress who plays Toph might get hurt. She might not. Some pain might even be an expected part of training. That is no reason to exclude a blind person from participating. That is no reason to say Toph couldn’t be played by a blind actress. [Bolded for emphasis]

Lastly, anyone training actors on fight choreography already knows how to do so safely. That fact that this is choreography is also helpful, allowing for memorization of actions and reactions. Conversely, the sports and physical activities I listed above are not choreographed, with the exception of dance, and are therefore less predictable. Therefore, if blind people can get head injuries playing on a recreational blind football team, a blind actress can handle fight choreography.

Closing

Thank you for reading all of this. My points still stand whether or not a blind person is actually cast for Toph.

Too Long, Didn’t Read:

Unchecked ableism can lead to oppression even if it is unintentional

Blind actors exist

A blind actor would better capture Toph’s ease and confidence with her blindness

Blind people can do a lot more than sighted people usually think they can

Blind people also face discrimination and limitations that sighted people may not have considered

Blindness is a spectrum and most blind people can still see something

There is no one way to look or move like a blind person

Accommodations are not that difficult to provide

Hiring a blind person would actually cost less money

Most of the popular reasons people believe Toph cannot be played by a blind actress are rooted in ableism

This post is not only about Toph or actors, but an example of how unchecked ableism can be harmful

For example, low employment rates for blind people, inaccessible online resources, or Toph-related posts shared without image descriptions

Toph Beifong could totally be played by a blind actress

[playerprincess]

Why the Sol Soulmate Theory SUCKS

I‘m kidding (sorta), this is clickbait.

But let’s actually talk about it!

Disclaimer: This is no hate to the people that came up with the Soulmate theory, it is in fact a very good theory! The title is really just clickbait and I thought it was funny. English isn’t my first language, but I tried to explain everything well. If something is hard to understand just ask and I‘ll try to explain it differently. Contains spoilers for the tkatb game.

For those of you who don’t know the theory: It‘s kind of hard to pinpoint the exact post everybody is talking about since there’s more than one, but if you want to get a feeling for what it‘s about I‘d recommend reading this or this.

————————————————————————————

"Well, if the theory doesn’t suck, then what even is your problem??"

While the theory in itself doesn’t suck, I do have a few issues that I would like to go over just in case anybody feels the same way. There is a lot of indications that this theory is true (see the links above for more), and obviously if something is hinted at this much there will be some truth stuck to it.

I personally feel like the theory that MC and Sol are actually soulmate kind of defeats the purpose that Sol is supposed to be a delusional Yandere. It gives him an actual "reason" to obsess over MC, because in the grand scheme of the universe, MC is actually connected to him in a way. The soulmate troupe is generally used for romance after all, wich kind of goes against what the visual novel is supposed to be.

I enjoy Sol‘s character as much as the next person, but from what I‘ve gathered from fantasia-kitt and the information that were given, tkatb is not a dating sim, but rather a horror visual novel. At least that’s how Fantasia wants us to see the game as. And again, while I believe the theory in itself fits into the story perfectly fine, I think fantasia didn’t really intend for it to be taken the way that it is.

"My game is not a romance game, it's a thriller/horror game." - Fantasia

When I first played it, I only had the free version downloaded. After enjoying the story however, I decided to go back and pay for the additional nsfw version (for educational purposes of course ;) ), and I feel like the games’ horror aspect shines through so much more because of those few added scenes. Obviously part of me enjoyed the spice, I‘m not going to sit here and lie in your faces, but the information that was added with this specific version also helped me see Sol in the way fantasia initially intended us to; a fucking weirdo.

Take the highly controversial infamous 🍇 scene for example. Of course it’s already weird enough that he breaks into MCs house and drugs them in the sfw version, but to me it really conveyed the type of yandere Sol happens to be. The lengths he is willing to go to satiate his delusions, how deranged and mentally unwell this guy actually is. People tend to forget that yanderes aren’t only obsessed jealous people, and I think fantasia did a fine job at conveying that. Sol is in fact not a good person.

What does this have to do with the soulmate theory?

Like I said before, Sol is highly delusional. And not in a "I‘m so delulu I‘m just a guy" way, but he is actually delusional enough the believe that MC is in fact his soulmate.

You know how people for example take everything as a "sign" that something is supposed to happen? Like when you see your initials next to the person you like in a TikTok post and think "damn, this can’t be a coincidence", or when a horoscope gives you advice that perhaps fits your current situation perfectly well. Those are delusions. You’re being delusional.

Sol is obsessed with the MC to a degree he actually believes that they must’ve been together in every lifetime. That just has to be it, there’s no other possible way. But MC knows nothing about this guy. They didn’t even realize they shared a class together. Sol stalks MC probably every day, drugs them, and sneaks into their house to live out his weird ass fantasies for a reason we don’t yet know. He‘s deluded himself to a point that he actually thinks that it’s fate, that it must be destined by the universe.

Fantasia says themselves that Sol is narrow minded and deranged. We know he’s a virgin with no former experience in romance and dating. Perhaps he’s never even had a crush before. Maybe his first reaction to all these new feelings that he doesn’t understand is that this must be sent by the universe. The pull he feels towards MC must be something out of this world, it can’t just be normal romantic attraction. I mean, he asks Hyugo to kill him after MC dies in ending 1, this guy is absolutely fixated on the MC to a point where it’s just plain psychotic.

I‘d also argue that Sol‘s feelings towards MC can be described as "Love", but we won’t get into that now.

"The yandere is not in love with you, they lust after you, they are delusional enough to believe that what they feel is genuine love when in fact, love like that is never real nor to be accept in the first place. You should feel repulsed by their actions." - Fantasia

And while he does feel all these strong feelings, he can’t even explain why he views them as a savior/angel. He might be MC‘s stalker, but he doesn’t truly know them. He just idolizes them.

"[…] that I finally got to write down what he is capable of, that he is irredeemable and having Crowe as his source of hatred just because he is close to the MC shows his narow-mindedness, he is sick in the head. Sol is not mild, he is on the EXTREME level of yandere, he is DERANGED and I will keep writing him like that." -Fantasia

"The way Sol sees MC is special, he sees them no one else can, just like a lover would. A lover would see their significant other that other people don't understand." -Fantasia

The soulmate theory is good. But I feel like because it is so good it would be so much better if it wasn’t actually true (or if it had some sort of twist to it). Everything aligns perfectly. Sol used to be the executioner in a past life and couldn’t be with the MC, so naturally he’d try everything to get them to love him in this life right? Except there is no past life. Sometimes coincidences line up so perfectly that we actually believe that there’s value behind it, a greater meaning. The bruise on his neck, his tendency for violence, it just has to mean something right?! Maybe he can make MC see, make them realize that yes, Sol is absolutely right with his Soulmate theory, they’re meant to be!

"He says that you're the one even though you've only met him once." - Fantasia

It feels like such a perfect theory to make the MC believe that they’re really destined to be together by the universe. The perfect theory to manipulate a naive person into thinking that their hearts beat as one, that their Soulstrings are carefully tied together by fate‘s own hands. Except they’re not. It’s all made up. A well conducted story to lure MC in and make them believe they’re his.

It’s easy to slip into the "Oh, but we’re actually soulmates so he can’t really help it" in my opinion, so I‘m not really fond of this theory. MC is just a normal person. They’re not special, not tied to him in any way. He just let’s himself believe it. And he wants you to believe it too.

"[…] I don't want people to excuse Sol, I don't want people to develop an unhealthy relationship and idea with a yandere." - Fantasia

"You could already tell he's trying to charm you (and its working) to get you to trust him so he can do all the nasty stuff. […] Not only he got to fool the MC but YOU, the player, as well." - Fantasia

Maybe I‘m just biased since I don’t particularly enjoy the amnesia and/or reincarnation trope very much, I feel like it has a lot of potential that never gets fleshed out in a satisfying way. In the case of tkatb, I think I wouldn’t really enjoy the reveal of it if it were the case. But at the end of the day fantasia can do whatever they want with it (as they should), and if that’s the course they want to take then that’s perfectly fine.

What kind of stops me from having a strong opinion is that we don’t really know what Fantasia’s understanding of Soulmates is. Maybe they have a special way of viewing the trope, maybe they don’t even believe in it at all privately! Some people for example think soulmates are always romantic, while others think they can be platonic as well. How do they categorize its meaning? Does their personal opinion influence their story?

But that’s just my opinion. It’s totally fine if you have a different theory or if you don’t agree, it’s just a game after all!

I think the idea that they’re soulmates in itself isn’t bad. It could be a device to show the player that even tho there is a soul connection, it doesn’t justify Sol‘s behavior and he’s taking it way too far. And if the reincarnation theory is true, maybe Crowe could be our true soulmate. He serves as a direct counterpart to Sol after all, so why not? Sol says "It‘s always him", in regards to what he thinks about Crowe. Maybe he’s trying to convince himself that it’s not Crowe who is MC‘s soulmate, but him instead. Because in his mind, that makes much more sense.

Conclusion

I think that the theory in itself works in the world of tkatb, however I feel like the issue lies more in the way that people receive it. It gives the player a reason to sympathize with Sol, after all he "just wants to be with his Soulmate", right? But I think Fantasia wanted to implement this trope to empathize how selfish Sol is, and that he doesn’t actually care about what his Soulmate wants. Personally, I believe that if you’re someone‘s soulmate, you should want to see them happy. And Sol clearly isn’t happy with MC when they pick Crowe over him (wich results in Crowe‘s brutal death). It’s something that he‘s using as an excuse to justify his obsessive behavior and should perhaps be treated as such.

"You hate him? That's good! That's the whole point of his character! You're SUPPOSE to hate him!" - Fantasia

And again, we know way too little of the worldbuilding and plot to actually know for sure. I think it’s way more likely that I‘m proven wrong in the future than the others. I just wanted to share my thoughts hihi

Pryn out.

[hotcheetohatredwastaken]

Hello everyone! A group of friends and I got into a discussion that spanned multiple weeks about the true definition of a "babygirl" in media. It started as a discussion of "babygirls" in Linked Universe fanfiction but soon expanded to mainstream media, and as such most examples are from this mainstream media for a wider audience (aside from War Crimes Warriors from Call Them Brothers by @wutheringmights, whose fabulous work sparked this debate). Please note that the definition is still under construction, and that all examples may not fit within it 100%, but I believe still generally match the vibes of babygirl. Now, without further ado:

Babygirl Definition

Committing/has committed war crimes (*)

Has Emotions TM about the war crimes, often doubles down

Usually male?

Is, at some point in his life, a sad wet cat (**)

Has experienced the Horrors (***)

Make the Horrors everybody else's problem

Attractive (????)

To fans: endearing but also frustrating, misunderstood

To non-fans: hateable

(Used to) have an ego/pride/"reputation" (which may lead to the aforementioned war crimes)

Has a vulnerability they're stupid about, are aware they're being stupid about it, and yet continue to be stupid about it (passion project, child, etc).

Babygirl examples: War Crime Warriors from Call Them Brothers, Jayce Arcane, Hohenheim FMAB, Zuko ATLA, Boromir LOTR, Elphaba Wicked, Anakin Star Wars, Odysseus, Bill Nye, Stanley and Stanford Pines Gravity Falls, Jamie Lannister, Obama, Howl Moving Castle, Katniss and Haymitch The Hunger Games, The 9th Doctor, Dean Winchester, Bucky Barnes.

(*) War crimes do not refer specifically to acts that violate the Geneva Conventions, but rather to any general act that would be considered inexcusable or otherwise extremely unsavory by the in-universe population. Ex: Jayce accidentally killing a Zaunite child.

(**) For definition of sad wet cat, just imagine a sopping wet cat caught in a sudden, unexpected rainstorm and you're there. A full definition list, like the one above, has not been made: but this term, generally defined, is a period of time in which one feels self-loathing, disgust, hatred, and powerlessness towards oneself, others, and/or the current situation at hand. Often at least partially self created. Ex: Zuko's banishment arc

(***) A traumatic experience (sometimes more than one) that changes them irrevocably. It propels the character forwards into the plot in a way that they do not anticipate, enjoy, and/or completely understand, but have no choice but to adapt to anyways. Ex: Katniss' reaping Thank you to @bittirsweeteer @not-freyja @life-in-winter @elle-rosewater @hytiaa @cinis0 @anime-obsessed @whatvioletdoes-blog @lunaopus @glowingmin @gia-d and @undertheopensky for contributing to the discussion, that was a fun few conversation (if I've forgotten anyone, please let me know). This is mostly being posted for my own amusement, but I hope that anyone else who stumbles across this post finds it mildly amusing! You're welcome to reblog with your own babygirls, lol

[lightandfellowship]

The Sewer Squad's designs are fine, actually

If you ask me, the Sewer Squad from KHUX are a really great visual example of Kingdom Hearts' approach to writing and design.

That approach being: it's fine to make design and writing decisions that come across as silly, campy, unbelievable, or "cringey" if those choices are meaningful in context and contribute something significant to the story.

On the whole, the Sewer Squad are a mess of character designs. Minus the Leader who just kinda looks like a normal character tbh, the remaining 3/4ths of the group don't look particularly cohesive or even...aesthetically pleasing? At least for me. If you were to judge these designs purely on a visual and technical level, using commonly accepted character design guidelines, I personally don't think they would score very high.

Function has been thrown out the window with their accessories, with a lot of said accessories looking either bulky, heavy, face/movement obstructing, or just plain uncomfortable, despite them presumably fighting Heartless on the daily.

Color palettes are all over the place, especially with the Gummi Girl who's sporting three different hues of pink all conflicting in one design. Themeing is likewise all over the place—using the Gummi Girl once again as an example, she's pairing futuristic Gummi ship wings with a ninja outfit and a modern-looking frog hat. Which like, normally you can marry vastly different themes/time periods together into one character design just fine if you do it well, but here these elements are just kinda pasted all over the design separately with no blending/discussion between them. (Yes I know this makes perfect sense given the lore; I'm getting there.)

And then characters like Fancy Bowtie Boy are wearing gimmick-y clothing pieces based off of canon characters, such as Ansem SoD and...Halloween Town Goofy, for some reason. Which makes the design look derivative and nonsensical. (There's a way to justify this in canon thanks to the Book of Prophecies and the medals, but it's still kinda weird and offputting to see one of the Big Bad's gloves on a silly side character.)

It also doesn't help that their outfits/hair/facial features weren't designed specifically with them in mind, and instead are comprised of various disparate, pre-existing Player assets slapped together haphazardly. And not being able to give these characters more thoughtful, bespoke design elements means losing the opportuntiy to communicate who these characters are more precisely.

They do have recognizable silhouettes though (along with some much needed diversity), so I'll give them credit for that.

But, everything I just said and criticized above? THAT'S ENTIRELY THE POINT, BABY!!!

They're not supposed to represent a typical character with a typical character design that follows typical character design rules because they're not typical "characters"—rather, they're supposed to represent the average, real-life players playing KHUX. The people who buy random outfits with whatever Jewels they have and then mix and match the pieces together regardless of whether or not they actually look "good" together or logically connect. The people who are just having fun with customization.

And this distinction is meaningful because the whole idea behind these characters is that they belong to the same party that the Player belongs to. They're not like Player's other friends such as Ephemer and Skuld who are main characters in the plot and thus require more visually pleasing and thought-out character designs; they're not "generic" NPCs that Player runs into only once or twice like the "my friends aren't my power" guy who can just wear one of the basic default outfits and it'll serve its purpose just fine; they are, specifically, Player's fellow party members. And if the Player themself is wearing a silly costume too, well, they'll just fit right in with the Sewer Squad, won't they?

Thus, they're meant to mirror the visuals and dynamics of real KHUX parties comprised of real people, hopefully making it easier for the person playing the game to relate to them (if said person belongs to a party themself) and intuitively understand the role these characters play in Player's life. And despite how unrealistic their outfits are (considering most of them are running around fighting in outrageous, cumbersome costumes), I would argue that their closer resemblance to the actual playerbase gives them the potential to feel more real, paradoxically.

This also just demonstrates KHUX's commitment to its story and gameplay integration. It doesn't matter how "silly" a gameplay feature might look or feel in practice, it is going to be properly represented in the story regardless. Lux, Guilt, Power Bangles, Spirits, Shift Pride, player costumes, it doesn't matter, if it's a part of the gameplay, it's going in the story somewhere. The game takes a risk and trades a little bit of immersion/suspension of disbelief for pure gameplay and story synergy. Perhaps it doesn't work for everybody, but in general it works for me, and I respect it.

[cripplecharacters]

Alright, I'm just gonna bite the bullet. Worst that can happen is I make a fool of myself. I've been working on superhero stories, versions of the same universe since I was in 8th grade and what I want more than anything is to modernize superheroes, create a world where they act for all people's social good and take representation to the highest level I can think of. From your position of expertise, what can I do with the creation of disabled characters that would buck the trend, do some good, and show a good side. The non-prosthetic and non-corrected for disability rep in the genre is basically nil, I have no ideas and nothing to draw on. I guess I just wanna know what disabled audiences might like to see for once in their lives.

Hello!

Disabled superheroes are awesome. There's really few of them but the ones that we do have are often really important to us - you can look at the reactions to Sun-Spider being first introduced to the Spiderverse, back then I couldn't open my fridge without seeing that one panel where she explicitly says she has hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos.

Here are a few suggestions of what I'd like to see in the superhero genre:

Superheroes with facial differences. Comics love to use us for their ugly disfigured evil villains but not much else unfortunately. I'd kill for a superman type hero who saves people with a smile and a facial difference on his face. Especially for superhero stories that are geared towards kids and teens, we just desperately need something to help with shifting the public perception of people with facial differences from "evil and ugly" to "people that can be awesome". A hero with burn scars, with Treacher Collins syndrome, Bell's palsy, neurofibromatosis... anything.

Superheroes who use disability aids (and still need them when doing their job). Sun-Spider is an awesome example, she swings from her crutches and has a spider wheelchair. That's cool as hell. But even a less in-your-face aid would be great. A superhero flying above the city with her ankle-foot orthoses visible would go really hard. Also, superheroes who are concerned on how much these things cost and try their best to make sure they're still functional while they save the city.

Heroes with different causes of their disabilities. The vast majority of morally good disabled characters were involved in An Accident or some sort of Attack that disabled them. That's not bad or wrong at all, but I think in media is kind of oversaturated with this specific portrayal when a lot of people have progressive or congenital conditions. We need more stories that show those who were born disabled as heroes equal to those who were born abled and spent most of their lives abled. Superheroes with cerebral palsy, chromosomal disorders, congenital rubella, achondroplasia, all the disabilities that tend to get ignored despite so many people having them. Same for really common chronic illnesses, diabetes or COPD are criminally underrepresented.

Disabled superheroes that aren't saints because of their disability. This is the whole "disabled person can do no wrong" trope that appears sometimes. I'm mentioning it since superheroes are more "perfect" than most characters in other genres, so try to not make it so the disabled ones can do no wrong. Disabled people can still make mistakes that are their fault, make poor decisions, or just simply be angry sometimes.

When there's no active superhero action going on, show the normal human parts of the disabled experience. Depending on the demographic you're writing for it would be different things, but there are some fairly universal concepts like inaccessibility, microaggressions, or just boring things like the prosthetic leg no longer fitting well after the character gained some weight. If your characters are from the US, don't be afraid to mention that their insulin costs are barely affordable with their superhero pay. Show how the common everyday kind of ableism affect them when they're in civilian mode. This will make it much more authentic to disabled readers.

These are my suggestions, and I hope they are helpful. My last advice is to have multiple disabled characters, and in different roles. Maybe a character with ALS can no longer do superhero fighting, but he can still be a wonderful parent. Maybe the character with Usher syndrome is more interested in the hero than being a hero themselves (disabled heroes in relationships!). Maybe the character with phocomelia can't be a hero yet because she's six, but she can train hard to be one when she's older. Keep it varied, have them come from different life situations and have different goals just like abled characters do.

I hope this helps,

mod Sasza

[utilitycaster]

I think that discussions of TTRPGs would be much more productive if the advocates of moving from D&D could separate out the ideas of "WoTC is part of the massive Hasbro conglomerate which engages in the shady capitalist practices massive conglomerates do"; "D&D is not suited for every single type of story or gameplay style"; and "here's how to pick a different TTRPG that suits you needs" because as I've said many a time like 99% of them are just trying to sell you on their favorite game, which might be out of print, prohibitively expensive, something no one around you is interested in playing, or is just as bad if not worse a fit for what you want to do as D&D.

I also think said conversations would be more productive if acknowledging many people came into TTRPGs via Actual Play but would be willing to branch out if you weren't the world's most condescending dickhead towards them*; if people considered the hard truth that if you're fluent in D&D and own the materials and have a group already the pitch for Pathfinder specifically actually becomes much harder, not easier; and, as always, if people tailored their recommendations. I agree that heists or space operas or low-combat social games don't play well in D&D; they also don't play well necessarily in your favorite game that you recommend for everything that isn't magically better or more versatile just because it's from a smaller company.

Anyway the point is if you just want to whine about D&D being a dominant force be my guest but you will probably lose all but the most impressionable/desperate for the validation of strangers portion of your D&D-playing audience. If you're actually interested in changing minds and not jacking off to how much cooler and better you are be prepared to ask or answer these questions:

Is D&D genuinely a bad fit for what they want to do, or are you just an intrusive hater?

What is the person you're trying to convert interested in doing at the table? This is is a complex question that covers genre and tone; session-to-session gameplay such as combat vs. RP balance but also (for example) granularity of rules; and overall scope of the game (eg: is this something that you can play a long-term campaign in with character progression? Or is it fairly static and intended to be a few sessions at most?)

What games are accessible to them? This means within their budget (unless you advocate for pirating from small indies, which will not really help with the whole WoTC dominance situation); within what they and their table have time to learn (or, if they are looking to get into games in the first place, what they might be able to find a group for); and again, I can't believe I have to say this but I really do because I've seen it multiple times: whether the game is in print.

Have you considered gently directing them to their friendly local gaming store with answers to the second and third questions above and unleashing them upon a person who knows the gaming scene in their area and (while I've dealt with a Comic Shop Guy or two in my time) is less likely to call them a dumb bitch to their face if the answer ends up being "I'll stick with D&D"? Again, is this about them having a good time? Or is this about you?

*the best way to describe this, since I've been talking a lot about people attempting to claim the status of the systemically oppressed, is that a lot of non-D&D/non-AP fans of TTRPGs on Tumblr act like they are an oppressed class and it's like Kevin, you are a white sysadmin Monte Hall Games fanboy, you are not oppressed by the girlies making Keyleth-inspired D&D characters. You are not part of the more popular fandom and indeed dislike it; this does not make you of a lower class.

[saintsenara]

Why Harry being short and frail (or even petite and delicate) past puberty is such a popular take these days? Sure, he is not bulky, but don't we know from Voldemort himself that James was tall and don't we know that Harry was exactly the same height as James during the final battle? Don't we know that Harry works out 3 times a week and is generally athletic? Is it the same thing that is happening with fanon Sirius or is it something different? Is it because he was short as a child and grew up in a cupboard, thus unlikely to end up like he did at the end of the series? What do you think about it? How likely is it? I keep seeing it in many slash ships and I am genuinely baffled. Is it me who has it backwards? Please solve this mystery, dear Asenora!

thank you very much for the ask, anon!

i think several things are at play, tbh - some of which are more understandable than others.

the first is that daniel radcliffe genuinely is short [for a british man, at least] - his height is given online as 165cm [or 5'5], but looking at pictures of him leads me to suspect that's an exaggeration - and was, unsurprisingly, even shorter when he was a teenager. many of the other actors in the films are much, much taller than him - especially people like alan rickman and david thewlis, both of whom were over six foot - and since the films inevitably influence how people picture the characters physically, the height differences we see on screen end up becoming part of that.

the second is that, while harry is described as "tall" in canon, that term appears to be doing a fair amount of heavy-lifting. numerous male characters are described as taller than him in both half-blood prince and deathly hallows - with the example which always stands out to me being the fact that fred and george weasley are said to "shrink" when they polyjuice into harry before the seven potters chase. fred and george - like charlie - are described in canon as being noticeably shorter and stockier in build than bill, percy, and ron. unless ron et al. are so tall that it would be thought of as really unusual - let's say above 6'6/198cm - harry probably isn't over 6'0/182cm tall.

thirdly, it's worth saying that what is meant by "tall" is culturally contingent. i've said that daniel radcliffe is shorter than average for a british man - and that's true - but his height isn't going to be thought of in that way in different parts of the world. similarly, there are parts of the world where describing a man who was, say, 5'10/178cm as "tall" would be considered quite strange - but i don't think the uk [where the average male height in 1998 was just over 5'8/174cm] is one of them. certainly, i picture harry as around that height [allowing characters like ron, sirius, dumbledore, and voldemort - who are all described as such - to be noticeably taller than him, but not so tall that their height would be considered abnormal], and i don't think it precludes him still being thought of as "tall" within the context in which he lives. but an author from, for example, the netherlands - where the average male height is 6'0.5/183cm - would probably think differently.

[there's a point about cultural contingency in the quip he makes about being short because of the cupboard too: i would read that as a dark joke which he doesn't actually think has any truth behind it specifically when it comes to his height, but which nonetheless expresses that the dursleys abuse him generally and this abuse has had a long-term impact upon him; readers from other parts of the world take it more literally.]

and finally, harry is definitely physically fit and - of course - works out a lot as part of playing quidditch, but both he and james are emphasised in canon as having slender builds - and it's also implied in the text that seekers are generally slim. harry doesn't need to be seen as any less sporty if we presume that he has the physique of a distance runner or triathlete rather than that of a sprinter.

however, there are definitely some aspects to the tendency for harry to be written as short and slender which do bother me a fair amount - and i do think that these have something in common with what we see with fanon sirius.

that is, that harry and sirius aren't written as short and slender because the author wants them to just happen to be short and slender. they're written as short and slender because the author wants them to be passive. their height/build is emphasised in the story in order to hammer this home - and it's often accompanied by them being assigned other aspects of physical appearance, personality, dress, or manner [especially ones which might be considered as "effeminate"] which, once again, aren't intended to communicate anything other than this passivity.

and - of course - in the writing of vast amounts of slash, any indication of passivity, submissiveness, or femininity - and the physical traits which end up equated with them - is taken as an indication that the character in question would be an exclusive - and submissive - bottom, who defers to the whims of their partner, an exclusive - and dominant - top.

and - unsurprisingly - topping ends up being associated with masculinity - and the personality traits and physical characteristics - above all a tall, muscular build - which are equated with that.

frail!harry seems to be most prominent - in my experience - in ships like tomarrymort, not so much because people really care about the implications of harry's characterisation, but because they're hugely opposed to the suggestion that characters like tom riddle would ever bottom [since - of course - they associate the act of being penetrated with femininity and femininity with weakness...]. great lengths have to be gone to, then, to emphasise that voldemort - or whoever else - is powerful and proud and authoritative and masculine and tall. and, for some reason, this is apparently incompatible with the idea that he might also like to get railed... which means that harry has to make sure nobody is in any doubt about who's the woman bottom by becoming as teeny tiny as he possibly can...

[howlsofbloodhounds]

I guess no one has ever ask you this before, but what animal would you think Killer could be? I know some people would say cat because of obvious reasons, but what you think?

Personally I think giving specific somewhat accurate answers to this question would mean having to do research into the actual animals themselves, which I don’t have the spoons for rn.

I’ll just say that the way I’ve always read Killer’s character is not that he is cat, but that he is connected with (or perhaps connected to) cats. His relationship with and views of felines may not be what is considered typical, that of an owner and a pet, he learns from them just as much as they learn from him.

There is an understanding here, between him and them. He may even adopt some of their behaviors and mannerisms, but he doesn’t consider himself one of them, really. Id like to think he considers them above him, even, above most people.

I do believe Killer, particularly Stage 2, vastly prefers animals over humans and/or monsterkind. I think relating to and with them, connecting with them—comes a lot easier to him than attempting with humans and monsters. He is neither a human nor a monster, and he struggles to connect with/to and therefore care about either.

I can see arguments with Killer having varying traits between different animals, such as canines and felines. I’ve always been fond of the hyena interpretations with Killer, personally, though.

I think Killer wishes he were more like a cat, as independent and free as they are. And I think, to outward characters in universe—especially those who Nightmare has sicc’d him onto—to characters who don’t know or understand Killer’s inner thought processes and motivations, he appears more like a dog or a canine.

The one that prowls the halls, hunts and attacks on command. That type of dog that was trained to attack and drags them all back kicking and screaming after hunting for miles. The one that follows wherever Nightmare points. If he’s not a machine-like tool, then he’s a dog.

In actuality, I tend to think Killer—particularly Stage 2–leans a lot more towards animals like hyenas, jackals, or even foxes. Some fanon interpretations of Killer definitely read as foxes to me.

I could even see something like a feral, solitary wolf or tiger or even a jaguar —given that we all know how ruthless and unrelenting Killer can be, with his treatment of Swap being one of the biggest examples of how far his violence can go. And how far he’s willing to let it go—but also, how his violence in this particular instance was somewhat calculated.

In that he was intent in making Swap give up (on trying to make Killer “feel again”), and I have no doubt he takes similar approaches went hunting down runaways like Murder—he wants them to give up, and he’s willing to go as far as needed to do so. All that matters is that Murder doesn’t dust, and doesn’t stay dust.

(Which also fits how hyenas are cursorial hunters, persistent hunters—they run their prey down to exhaustion, or in Killer’s case, is also willing to beat prey into exhaustion or submission.)

Mostly though, I don’t think Killer is specifically cat or dog—despite how people may see him as or call him Nightmare’s dog, despite how he may wish to be cat. But I can definitely see him as feline, canine, or something in between.

[ausantana]

The Role of The “Weird Girl” in Movies

Written by: Au, also known as @ausantana on tumblr

click below to read more! ↓

Introduction 🪱

Nowadays, the trope of weird girls in movies has begun to become more visible, and as a society, we are beginning to increasingly normalize teenagers who identify themselves as "weird" or "awkward" and there is nothing wrong with both words unlike how they used to be used previously.

Types of weird girls ⭐️

There are various types of "weird girls", however they are usually categorized into 5 types (although in my opinion the complexity of each person goes far beyond each of these labels, and although we as teenagers try to fit into a specific type, we will always have characteristic features of each of these characteristics and personalities)

The goth

Known for their dark ways of dressing and acting, they mostly have alternative and gothic tastes.

Moodboard!

Characters: Lisa Frankenstein, Lydia Deetz, Nancy Downs & Morticia Addams

The Smartass

They are known above all for being sarcastic and having a great sense of humor, they tend to be the intelligent and smart ones.

Moodboard!

Characters: ‘Lady Bird’, Janis Ian, Robin Buckley & Kat Stradford

The Awkward

They are known either for not talking much or for talking too much, they are usually introverted for the most part and overthink all the time.

Moodboard!

Characters: Melinda Sordino, Carrie White, Juno Macguff & Nadine Franklin

The Basket Case

Normally, they tend to be girls who go through such a strong trauma that they express an unhealthy obsession through competitions, whether it be a frustrated dream or substance abuse. They are also called "the lost cause."

Moodboard!

Characters: Nina Sayers, Pearl, Daisy Rondone & Marla Singer

The Space Cadette

Those girls who are given the term "weird" for being daydreamers and being in their own world, are usually absent-minded.

Moodboard!

Characters: Luna Lovegood, Cassie Ainsworth, Cecilia Lisbon & Davina

Movies and Series with the weird girl representation on it 🎥

- Dinner in America (2020)

- Juno (2007)

- Lisa Frankenstein (2024)

- The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)

- Lady Bird (2017)

- The Edge of Seventeen (2016)

- Fleabag (2017)

- The Craft (1996)

- Beetlejuice (1988)

- The Virgin Suicides (1999)

- Little Woman (2019)

- Speak (2004)

- Girl, Interrupted (1999)

- The Diary of a Teenage Girl (2015)

- Garden State (2004)

Songs attributed to “weird girls” on social media at the moment 💿

- The Promise - When in Rome

- Teenage Girl - Cherry Glazer

- Watermelon - John + Jane Q. Public.

& more!

Video in representation → millionhawks on TikTok has perfectly represented the feeling of not fitting in anywhere, the typical attitudes of this trope such as awkwardness, overthinking and other things are also present in this video!

Which I absolutely love, as it also represents weirdness from a real point of view by adding characters from movies known to audiences familiar with this topic.

(Click on “video in representation” so you can watch the video!)

So this is my third post on this blog! I hope you liked the brief analysis I made about this plot, because I am another example of a weird girl.

I would like to encourage you to follow this blog if you want to see similar content, because even though I am not very well known on this platform, I would like to create a space full of people with the same tastes and interests as me, feel free to comment, give your opinion and ask questions in the comments of this post and any other!

I have a question for you readers! So feel free to reply: What kind of weird girl are you?

I myself am the composition of the 5 types, but above all, the awkward and the space cadette.

Xoxo, Au.

[pangaeaseas]

Petertha: My Semi-Serious Ship Manifesto

This is a darkly comedic headcanon but also like: think of the shade it throws on canon. And I LOOOVE villainous Peter. Make that man more evil!

But like also. Going through the mentions of her in canon and like...babes...I think we were sleeping on this one....I think it is genuinely a reasonable interpretation...

So our first mentions of Bertha are in the very first chapter of GoF, setting up her death as crucial to the mystery of that book. And what's the first thing we learn about her as a person? Well, we learn that she RECOGNIZED Peter, even though he presumably looks very different after years living as a freaking rat and without a finger:

“Wormtail, Wormtail,” said the cold voice silkily, “why would I kill you? I killed Bertha because I had to. She was fit for nothing after my questioning, quite useless. In any case, awkward questions would have been asked if she had gone back to the Ministry with the news that she had met you on her holidays. Wizards who are supposed to be dead would do well not to run into Ministry of Magic witches at wayside inns. . . .” (GoF Chapter 1)

Peter is also pretty cagey and doubtful throughout this conversation--he expresses his doubts at the reliability of Voldemort's plans, and he also mentions that potentially they could have wiped Bertha's memory. As though he feels guilty for her death...and we know Peter is capable of guilt bc of the whole strangled by own hand thing...

We next learn that Bertha is 'more trouble than she's worth' from Percy Weasley (interestingly enough, Percy is also of course the original owner of Scabbers). You know what might make someone bad at their job and get them shunted from department to department? Well, being the victim of a Memory Charm--but also GRIEF at your Hogwarts boyfriend being murdered! And Percy being an employee of Crouch-->Bertha being an employee of Crouch-->Percy is the original owner of Scabbers...idk if that's anything but maybe it is.

Sirius also knows a lot about Bertha Jorkins, including that she ended up working for the Ministry (the kind of thing you find out about someone you knew well), and confirms that he knew her in school--which means the other Marauders knew her as well. He has a strong opinion on her character, the way you do with someone you know well, like, for example, them dating one of your friends...:

“Listen, I knew Bertha Jorkins,” said Sirius grimly. “She was at Hogwarts when I was, a few years above your dad and me. And she was an idiot. Very nosy, but no brains, none at all. It’s not a good combination, Harry. I’d say she’d be very easy to lure into a trap.” (GoF)

This is a REALLY strong and confident character judgement and he's confident enough in it to make a whole argument about Voldemort's plans from it. And Sirius is not actually someone who generally leaps to conclusions, especially about something as important as what Voldemort is planning. He has to be very confident in his assessment of Bertha. Like he knew her more extensively than her simply being a few years ahead of them.

And no wonder he wouldn't mention her dating Peter, considering he'd likely not want to remind himself of his positive memories of Peter. Bertha isn't the only character Sirius potentially had more knowledge of he's cagey about in GoF: he does the same with Bellatrix, another painful topic (never mentioning he's her cousin).

And Sirius later makes another confident character judgement of Bertha, claiming that he wouldn't have expected her to be a liability because of poor memory specifically because she was a gossip (how do YOU know that Sirius?) Again, he knows her really well and feels safe leveraging this knowledge in a (completely accurate) read that it seems like something happened to her. The way you know your friend's ex-girlfriend.

(Now, this is all for the crack theory: I actually think the Bertha stuff is more Sirius being a lot more perceptive and interested in other people than he's given credit for. )

Also, Peter goes for older women apparently!

“He put a hex on me, Professor Dumbledore, and I was only teasing him, sir, I only said I’d seen him kissing Florence behind the greenhouses last Thursday. . . .” “But why, Bertha,” said Dumbledore sadly, looking up at the now silently revolving girl, “why did you have to follow him in the first place?” (GoF, The Pensieve)

Now this bit is really interesting. Who do we eventually learn 'go around hexing people for the fun of it?' The Marauders. So maybe this is Bertha being jealous of Peter, him hexing her, and her playing off the jealousy as 'teasing' even though her feelings are really hurt Because Peter is an asshole.

(I actually think this *might* be a reference to James...)

And now for the real juice:

"But Wormtail — displaying a presence of mind I would never have expected from him — convinced Bertha Jorkins to accompany him on a nighttime stroll. He overpowered her . . . he brought her to me. And Bertha Jorkins, who might have ruined all, proved instead to be a gift beyond my wildest dreams . . . for — with a little persuasion — she became a veritable mine of information." (GoF)

So this is Voldemort's Bond villain rant at the graveyard. And Voldemort is a big gossip too he enjoys talking about stuff like 'oh hey Lucius and Narcissa and Bellatrix your niece is fucking a werewolf nanny-nanny-po-po this is totally relevant information'. He likes to humiliate people by talking about, like them and their families' love lives...so he's bringing up Bertha/Peter...especially now that Peter's purpose has been served by resurrecting him. He is even going like 'what a GIF. For ME." Like basically being...Peter I fucked (murdered) your girlfriend. (More on the murder bit in a second.)

And damn. Like, imagine you are Bertha Jorkins. You go on a fun vacation to Albania. You meet a guy in a bar. Oh whoops he's actually your ex. You ex who is dead?? And you...go with him on a midnight stroll??? Instead of like...calling the police? Questioning further at the very least? Maybe you are still into him...

And midnight excursions are consistently associated with romance. See people going to the Astronomy Tower to hook up, or Snape hexing amorous students apart once it's late at the Yule Ball (because now that it's late it's the season of romance...). So it's an interesting choice of words by both Voldemort and the author.

It's also never explained how exactly Wormtail 'overpowered' her. Could totally be a seduction.

Then Bertha comes out of Voldemort's wand. Ok. So Voldemort definitely killed her, right? Except...Voldemort was a spirit at this point! How was he corporeal enough to kill someone with his wand? He wasn't even possessing Wormtail...and Wormtail is the one who made the rudimentary magic-capable body he uses to kill Frank Bryce.

We also have an example of a victim of Voldemort's wand who wasn't killed by Voldemort appearing from the same Priori Incantatem: Cedric. 'Kill the spare' Cedric. In fact when Dumbledore discusses the Priori Incantatem, he explicitly refers to victims of Voldemort's wand rather than of Voldemort. So Bertha coming out of Voldemort's wand doesn't necessarily mean Voldemort personally killed her. In fact I think it's very likely WORMTAIL killed her.

And if Wormtail killed her on Voldemort's orders...after she was so interested in reconnecting! The angst! The drama! The guilt! HE"S THE LAST LIVING THING SHE SEES! Is that not achingly romantic! She was so eager to see him alive again too! And she'd worked in Crouch's office: she probably knew the potential implications of that re: Sirius.

Imagine an alternate universe where Peter decided 'screw Voldemort! I want Bertha!' Romantic outlaws on the run! They kill Crouch for what he did! And then run into the sunset!

We have ourselves a ship! Petertha nation rise...

[loveless-arobee]

Writing Loveless Characters

(Pt: Writing loveless characters)

Because I want to see more of them but non-loveless people often don’t have any idea where to start, or how to write them respectfully.

Loveless / heartless people are welcome to add their opinions! This is by no means a complete post, I'm just trying to give a starting point.

I’ll also discuss the decentering of love in stories a bit, even if there’s no explicitly loveless characters present. So if you’re interested in that, read on!

Definition

(Pt: Definition)

Let’s start with the simplest bit. What does it mean to be loveless (or heartless)?

Being loveless means not experiencing anything that could be described as love, feeling a disconnection from the entire concept of love, and/or it refers to the rejection of the idea that people need to experience love.

A lot of people who use the loveless/heartless labels are also neurodivergent and may feel a connection to this label because of that, but not all.

Being loveless can mean multiple things for one person, too. If you want to read more about the meaning of being loveless from a loveless person (me) you can read this post (link), or scroll a bit through the loveless aro and heartless aro tags.

What is love?

(Pt: What is love?)

Because we can’t go on without clearing up what this word actually means.

Love is just a label for an emotion. Nothing more. Love is not an action, actions are actions. Love is not a choice to care for some one, that is simply the choice to care for someone. This choice can be made completely without love, for example out of compassion, or because of a feeling of responsibility.

So, in short, "love" is just a label that a lot of people have decided to use for a specific emotion, and that label might not fit everyone.

Building a character

(Pt: Building a character)

For this, I can’t give a 100% conclusive answer, obviously, because all loveless people are different. Here’s just some things to keep in mind:

To respectfully write a loveless character, you should just throw out the idea that feeling love is necessary to be a good human, to care for other people or animals, or that not feeling love makes one immediately an asshole who doesn’t care for other people’s feelings.

Being loveless, in and off itself, says nothing about how a person acts. It only means that they don’t experience love (or any other part of the definitions above).

Things to avoid:

I can only think of two things you should definitely avoid doing, and that is connection lovelessness to being evil in any way, shape, or form. Also, avoid making your loveless character non-human if the rest of you cast is human (if all your characters are fantasy-races, that’s fine, probably just have a character, even just a minor one, of that same race who isn’t loveless, just to show that this isn’t a trait of this species that differentiates them from others, or make that very clear in the narrative.)

Yes, your loveless character can be evil, or morally complex, but you shouldn’t explain their villainy with them being loveless.

Yes, your loveless character can be emotionally distant, cold, or un-empathetic. Those words mostly describe me in some way. But again, you should decouple all of those things from being evil. Empathy doesn’t make a good human, and not experiencing empathy doesn’t make a bad person. Same with having shallow emotions.

But with all of this, you should still think about why you want to write them in this way. For example, do you want to write a loveless character with low empathy because you want to represent people like me, who are neurodivergent and don’t experience much empathy, and are also loveless? Or do you want to write them because those are things that make them more unlikable, or show their villainy?

Do you want them to experience shallow emotions to represent people who feel that way, or to explain away their lovelessness with "no normal person would feel this way"?

Do you want to write a loveless villain because it makes them more complex, and allows you to explore their emotions to a deeper level, or because you equate not feeling love with being evil and being evil with not feeling love?

Because there’s a very big difference, and your intentions matter a lot here, because the way you think about your character influences the way you write them.

Things I’d like to see / ideas to include

Besides "really, any loveless person who isn’t demonised" ofc.

- characters being open about not experiencing love, and not being judged or "fixed" for it.

- The narrative not treating lovelessness as a bad thing, and other characters just simply respecting their boundaries.

- A character with boundaries around the word love in general, doesn’t have to be loveless, and them being respected. Some people just don’t like hearing "I love you"s all the time.

- Just generally decentering love from the narrative (see more below)

- ND loveless people who fit the "bad stereotypes", turning them on their head (like me, hi.)

- not repeating respectability politics ("I might not feel love but I still care for people, I’m just like you!") This is not to say that loveless people don’t care for other people, just that it shouldn’t be shoe-horned in as a way of "showing that they’re still a good human being, despite not feeling love". They can just care for other people normally, without making it seem like something special or strange because they don’t feel love.

Questions to ask

To get a better understanding of your character:

- Why does this character identify as loveless, or could be identified as loveless? What does it mean to them, personally?

- How does being loveless affect their relationships?

- How does being loveless affect their view of the world, and other people?

- How important is their lovelessness to them? Is it something they’re proud of and show openly, or just something that’s a part of them that comes up when it gets important, but is otherwise just "background noise" for them?

- How do they feel about being the "target" of different kinds of love? Does love in general make them uncomfortable, just specific kinds, or do they not mind other people’s feelings towards them?

- Adding to the point above: Do the other characters respect their boundaries? If not, why? Does it add something important to the story?

That’s the most important points I can think of rn.

Decentering love

(Pt: decentering love)

Even if you don’t have a specific loveless character, this can still be done and often times make for some more interesting stories and characters that mostly haven’t been told before.

What do I mean by that?

Well, first off all, almost everything in most modern books is about love, contains love, or centers love in some way. There’s barely any new books coming out that don’t put the main characters in romantic relationships, even if they’re not in the romance genre, and if they don’t, these books are usually about the importance of platonic (or familial) love instead.

Im not saying these books shouldn’t exist. What I mean is that not everything has to center around love when there’s so many more emotions and experiences that could be written about, but instead we have millions of books that basically have the moral "You’re only worthy of humanity in the context of you relationships to other people, your only importance comes from finding people who love you / who you love, or character finds happiness through love (either their ~one true romantic love~ or platonic love)", because they obviously couldn’t learn to be happy with themselves, or that they didn’t need to center other people in their life constantly, or that they can be a complete and happy human on their own, too.

People can exist without basing their whole self worth on other people’s emotions towards them, and their emotions to other people.

To decenter love, you need to take the concepts, and ask "Why?" Why does this character need to be taught to accept themselves by falling in love? Why does this character need love to be happy, why can’t they just be happy as they are? Why should not loving make their life miserable, and why is the only way to fix it to find love, possibly even change themselves to finally be accepted by other people, instead of accepting themselves as they are, and finding community, if that’s important to them, as that?

You can even write about human connection without centering love, or about love without centering it, and portraying love as this universal, perfect good thing that makes us human and that everyone experiences. That is completely possible!

It can be just simply making sure that the narrative makes clear that this is these characters experience, and not a universal one. That there’s people who don’t feel this way. People who don’t love, don’t need love, and feel happy as they are, without relying on other people to make them happy.

Decentering love can also be about finding other ways to explore human connection. Relationship that are deep and emotional, but the characters don’t use the word love do define it; characters who are looking for community, for support, and giving community and support to others even if they don’t love them, maybe just because it’s the right thing to do, or because it’s the way they’d want to be treated, or because they have a deep seated care for humanity as a whole that they don’t describe as love.

There’s so many more emotions, so many more types of relationships, that deserve to be explored. Don’t limit yourself to just love and romance, or just (queer)platonic relationships as an aspec writer. You can write about sexual relationships, or about completely non-typical relationships that don’t really have a good term to describe them.

Write about relationships based on compassion, on sexual attraction, on mutual interest in the same topic, on what ever other emotion you can think off. I’ve once read a fantasy book where two off the main characters were different species, and mostly interested in each other to find out more about these species, and that was interesting; wonderfully written and it’d be awesome to have something that focussed on such an absolutely non-normative bond.

Don’t limit yourself to just "love", to just what society has put on a pedestal as the best and solely most important thing that connects everything and everyone. Think of all the other things that exist. Be creative.

Have fun creating!

(pt: Have fun creating!)

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

Thank you for reading this. Have a good day, and happy writing!

[theorist-fox]

Do you have any tips for writing Simon's accent? I love your writing btw

MMMM this is an interesting ask!

In my guide (which is not professional at all, but eh, it's something) I linked a few resources I use for English/British English (step 8, specifically).

When it comes to British idioms, I definitely ask for help—for example, "How would you say X in British English?" or "How do you think Simon would say it—Manchester accent/dialect and all that?"

I read a lot of fan fiction when I have time, and I've found certain authors who write Simon's accent in a way that makes me hear his voice in my head.

For example, @/shotmrmiller truncates Simon’s dialogue in a way that just hits right, or @/xoxunhinged (who’s British!) delivers his lines in a way I love. @/void-my-warranty taught me to chop off as much of his dialogue as possible—which fits his character perfectly since he’s blunt and not very chatty (unless he’s happy).  They also made a guide on writing Simon’s character that’s super helpful! @/mayyourbaconburn has one of the most in-character Ghosts I’ve ever read, and their dialogue is spot-on every time. Highly recommend their stories! @/bitterrfruit writes a harsher Simon, way more blunt and spiteful—dialogues always tickle me just right in her stories too!

If while reading you can hear Simon's VA saying those things, then you hit jackpot.

When I don’t want to bother people with my questions, I listen to British dialogues (movies, YouTube videos, podcasts) or rewatch the game's cutscenes (which are easy to find on YouTube). Then, I focus on how certain words are pronounced.

I tend to drop:

"H"s at the beginning of words (e.g., "Come 'ere" or, if murmured, "C'mere" since the aspiration on the h is barely audible).

"T"s in the middle of words (e.g., "Swee'heart"—once again, I can't hear the T being pronounced).

"T"s at the end of words (e.g., "Alrigh'?" or "Tha'"—see above ^).

I truncate words such as:

"For" -> "F'" ("For me?" -> "F'me?"),

"It's" -> "'s" ("It's alright" -> "S'alrigh'"),

"To" -> "T'" ("Don't have to do it" -> "Don't have t'do it")

"You" -> "Ya", or "Y'", occasionally "Ye" ("Did you hear me?" -> "Did ya hear me?", or, "Y'hear?")

Basically, I learn from other writers and listen to British people talking—bonus points if they're from Northern England (Manchester area; sort of north-....west?).

That said, even though Simon is canonically from Manchester, multiple sources have told me his accent doesn’t really match the area… so yeah, do with that what you will 😆

I would also like to add that you can write an accent or a dialect without dropping letters or modifying the word—most of the time it's how the line is delivered that makes the dialogue believable!

So, my advice would be... read fan fiction, read books (@/legityoots recently recommended a romcom with a love interest from Manchester, called When Grumpy Met Sunshine), talk to native speakers if you can, and consume media in your free time!

And remember, Ghost literally has about five voice lines across three games, so you can write him however you like. Canon personality is as flat as the coffee table in your living room.

Good luck, and have fun writing! 🧡

[cripplecharacters]

Hello! I have an ask regarding everyday commodities (i think that's the word?) for a character with photophobia caused by albinism.

Her name is Lis, and she is one of the main characters in an urban fantasy setting. She has an older sister who doesn't have albinism, and I'm still considering if I'm gonna give her (Lis) nystagmus and/or dyslexia as well (nystagmus because apparently it's common between people with albinism, so I thought it'd make sense, and dyslexia because it's an idea I've been cooking in my head since her early concepts). She also learns magic on the course of the story, if that's relevant.

She's a very bubbly teen with a chaotic personality, and I decided to give her a very colorful design to represent that, and I also thought tinted glasses would both help her photophobia and fit in with her overall design, so I'm doing more research on them as well. I'm still figuring out how her vision is because I'm not familiar with the concepts yet, but I think she has low vision moreso 20/60.

I was wondering which other aids she could use on her day-to-day vibe. Any tips?

And thank you for running this blog!

oh, i forgot to give another information in my former ask (about Lis, the girl with albinism), that my character lives in North East Brazil, that is, in a very warm and tropical country, so maybe the accomodations she needs might change because of that.

Hello!

We do not currently have active mods with albinism, so I will respond as someone with photophobia, just keep this in mind.

Glasses are definitely good. They do need to be darkened, but if you want to play with colors you can either give Lis colorful frames or use a dark shade of a color rather than just black/gray for the shades. You can also make it so she has multiple pairs that she switches around to go with her outfits if she's into fashion - she'd be probably wearing sunglasses every day, it'd make sense for her to have more than one.

Another aid that's really helpful (and not really seen as an aid) is a big hat, or at least big enough to protect someone from the sun above. Glasses are good, but they only cover the front (unless she's wearing sport ones that go closer to the skin) and the light from above can still be painful. Bucket hats, sun hats, baseball caps, anything helps.

This is the part you take with a grain of salt because I don't have albinism;

Giving her nystagmus and/or strabismus is good since it's really common. Dyslexia doesn't have anything to do with albinism, but there's nothing unusual about a person having two unrelated conditions.

Assuming she has oculocutaneous albinism (there are multiple types of albinism, and not all of them involve the melanin of the skin), she will need to protect her skin too to not be constantly sunburnt. Since she lives in a hot and sunny place, flowy, but long clothes would be the best. Think maxi skirts or breathable shirts with longer sleeves. If she has ocular albinism, I don't think this matters since her skin shouldn't be affected. For the rarer types, you'd have to check her specific one.

The rest would be focusing on her as a low vision character, and a character who has photophobia on top of that - you can be able to navigate well at home where it's relatively dark, and not see shit when outside because it's too bright. So she might, for example, have to use a white cane sometimes, but not at other times. Or if her sunglasses are unusable for whatever reason (those break just as all other aids do), she'd need some other way to navigate. What does she do then? Is she so used to relying on her remaining vision that she'd need a sighted guide (I definitely was there because of my photophobia being really bad), or does she have enough O&M training to be able to use a white cane? What would her resources allow? Etc.

I'm also assuming that she's not the only magical character, but I'd advise you to read up on the "mystical albino" trope, since it's really prevalent with characters with albinism (oculocutaneous mainly).

Hope this helps,

mod Sasza

[hollowed-theory-hall]

Regarding the Canonicity of the Harry Potter Games

Like, I love Hogwarts Legacy. I played it through to completion 4 times (I played a few sections more than that). But even though I really liked the game, and many of its characters, and I enjoyed playing it, I can't help but not consider it truly canon in the same universe of the books. I consider it, like, an alternate timeline than the books; where some of the worldbuilding elements and characters are canon to the books, but otherwise the story and many aspects of it (such as some of the worldbuilding and characters in the game) are not canon for me since they outright contradict the books.

(I would love to talk about Hogwarts Mystery and why I don't take its story and various game elements as canon either, unfortunately, I got too frustrated with the energy mechanic and didn't even finish 3rd year in the game so I don't feel like I know it enough to make a comprehensive post).

The main reason is that there are things that outright contradict what's written in the books. Such as the placement of certain locations in the castle (the castle in HL is gorgeous though):

1. The potions classroom isn't located in the dungeons near the Slytherin common room.

2. The greenhouses are referenced as being outside the school and not connected to the castle the way they are in the game:

Harry, Ron, and Hermione left the castle together, crossed the vegetable patch, and made for the greenhouses, where the magical plants were kept.

(CoS, Ch6)

4. The Owlery is inside the school, in the West Tower, specifically, and not a walk-off from the school (that's also a movies issue):

Harry He then climbed out of the portrait hole, up through the silent castle (held up only briefly by Peeves, who tried to overturn a large vase on him halfway along the fourth-floor corridor), finally arriving at the Owlery, which was situated at the top of West Tower.

(GoF, Ch15)

5. Many classrooms and offices aren't located correctly. For example, the DADA and the Transfiguration office windows should face the Quidditch Pitch:

dreadful though his final detention with Umbridge was sure to be, he had a distant view of the Quidditch pitch from her window and might, with luck, be able to see something of Ron’s tryout

(OotP, Ch13)

“Hmm ...” Professor McGonagall stood up and stared out of the window at the Quidditch field, just visible through the rain. 

(PoA, Ch9)

6. The above is also a problem with the location of the Quidditch pitch which should be near the lake:

Harry walked slowly along the deserted corridor, peering out of windows as he went. He could see people messing around in the air over the Quidditch pitch and a couple of students swimming in the lake, accompanied by the giant squid.

(OotP, Ch38)

7. The library in the game is on the ground floor (or below, since there are staircases going down to the library) and the restricted section is even lower in a basement level below the library. In the books, the library is on the 3rd and 4th floors, and the restricted section, specifically, is located on the 4th floor.

8. Again, this issue is also in the movies, but the doors to the Great Hall should be located to the right of the Entrance Hall. The Entrance Hall is described in quite detail in the books actually:

The entrance hall was so big you could have fit the whole of the Dursleys’ house in it. The stone walls were lit with flaming torches like the ones at Gringotts, the ceiling was too high to make out, and a magnificent marble staircase facing them led to the upper floors. They followed Professor McGonagall across the flagged stone floor. Harry could hear the drone of hundreds of voices from a doorway to the right — the rest of the school must already be here — but Professor McGonagall showed the first years into a small, empty chamber off the hall. They crowded in, standing rather closer together than they would usually have done, peering about nervously. [...] Feeling oddly as though his legs had turned to lead, Harry got into line behind a boy with sandy hair, with Ron behind him, and they walked out of the chamber, back across the hall [Enterence Hall], and through a pair of double doors into the Great Hall.

(PS, Ch7)

9. In general what's on each floor is incorrect. The one-eyed witch statue isn't on the third floor. The astronomy tower isn't the tallest tower (the headmaster's tower is taller). Myrtel's toilet should be near the DADA office on the second floor, not in the dungeons, etc.

10. You'd also notice in the game all the castle's windows are painted glass and you can't see outside through any of them. They are gorgeous, and it's definitely helpful for the sake of game performance, so I get why they did that, but in the books, it isn't so. Harry mentions looking out windows and seeing the grounds a lot.

(I would like to share the closest to canon map of Hogwarts I could make (which I made). It's an amalgamation of design elements from the movies, Hogwarts Legacy, and every quote I could find in the books regarding placements of various locations. Tumblr is just really bad with large high-resolution images 😭)

Then there are inaccurate world-building elements. (I'm not gonna count Basic-Cast and Levioso which are not real spells since they are clearly gameplay mechanics and aren't trying to be world-building accurate):

1. Horklumps are used in the Wiggenweld Potion in-game, even though Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them clearly states that Horklumps are useless as potion ingredients:

The Horklump is a favourite delicacy of gnomes but otherwise has no discernible use.

(Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them)

2. Matilda Weasley's existence makes no sense. By her red hair, Gareth Weasley's dialogue, and in-game letters, Matilda is stated to have been born a Weasley and didn't marry into the family. Hogwarts Legacy's art book confirms this. The reason this doesn't make sense is that Ginny Weasley is referred to as the first female born weasley in several generations.

Matilda is a professor who doesn't look very old in 1890, so she would've been born around 1,850s, let's say. Gareth is her brother's son, born in 1975-ish. In the game, a letter states Gareth has a sister, so that's zero generations with no female Weasleys. Septimus Weasley was born in the 1910s (his wife, Cederella, was born between 1915-1919). This makes him and his 6 older brothers, the next generation after Gareth, and the first generation no female Weasleys. Septimus is Arthur's father, making Arthur, his brothers, and his cousins the second generation without female Weasleys. And Arthur is Ginny's father. Two generations without female Weasleys wouldn't make Ginny the first female-born Weasley in several generations.

So, in the books' canon, Matilda and Gareth's younger sister, can't exist.

3. The entire Goblin Rebellion. Such a big, historical event would be remembered and referenced in the books the way other goblin rebellions and Grindelwald's war are mentioned. Not only that, but the ministry during the game has no reason to hide a goblin rebellion. It's a plot element in-game that makes no sense. It's not at all the same situation politically as in Harry's fifth year and the Ministry has no reason to cover it up (unless Rookwood is bribing someone, maybe?), so I don't get it at all.

Also, remember, Dumbledore starts Hogwarts in 1891, a year after the game. If this rebellion happened and the MC existed, Dumbledore would've likely known about it. A story like the MC's isn't just forgotten about over the course of less than the average wizard's lifetime. Not to mention the MC not being anywhere in canon or being referenced at all.

(what I'm saying is that the game should've chosen to take place further in the past and it would've solved a lot of continuity issues).

4. Ancient Magic. I know this is a game mechanic, but it's also a big part of the game's story — and it makes no sense with how we see magic in the HP books. When characters in the books refer to Ancient Magic, the kind of magic we see in the game is not what they are referring to. At all.

“ ‘Dragons are extremely difficult to slay, owing to the ancient magic that imbues their thick hides, which none but the most powerful spells can penetrate ...’ But Sirius said a simple one would do it. ...”

(GoF, Ch20)

Ancient Magic can refer to the natural magic of magical beings. The kind of magic that exists as part of nature and isn't wieldable. It's "ancient" since it's old and part of the natural world.

“But how to get at Harry Potter? For he has been better protected than I think even he knows, protected in ways devised by Dumbledore long ago, when it fell to him to arrange the boy’s future. Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy’s protection as long as he is in his relations’ care. Not even I can touch him there. ... Then, of course, there was the Quidditch World Cup. ...

(GoF, Ch33)

“But I knew too where Voldemort was weak. And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he despises, and which he has always, therefore, underestimated — to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you. She gave you a lingering protection he never expected, a protection that flows in your veins to this day. I put my trust, therefore, in your mother’s blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative.”

(OotP, Ch37)

It can also refer to magic any powerful enough witch or wizard could do that was mostly forgotten. Both Voldemort and Dumbledore refer to the blood wards Dumbledore set up after Lily's sacrifice as "Ancient Magic" and I'm certain Dumbledore doesn't have the same abilities the MC in HL has — because no one does. These abilities don't exist in the books.

The ward is referred to as ancient magic becouse that's what it is — a mostly forgotten spell from very long ago — not a different kind of magic. Just old.

“Secondly, the castle is a stronghold of ancient magic. Undoubtedly Voldemort had penetrated many more of its secrets than most of the students who pass through the place, but he may have felt that there were still mysteries to unravel, stores of magic to tap.

(HBP, Ch20)

This again, uses the term "ancient magic" to refer to old forgotten magic (such as the Room of Requirement or the moving stairs at Hogwarts). Hogwarts is referred to as a stronghold of ancient magic not because the founders were like the MC in HL, but because they were very powerful wizards using magic that has been mostly forgotten since then. Any magic using runes (like a pensive) would be considered "ancient magic" in the book's universe because it's old. That's literally all ancient magic in the books means. Either "old and mysterious magic" or "natural magic of the world". It is not something a select few wizards can see and wield or a different type of magic.

5. The little hamlets around Hogwarts. I get why they are there (so the game could promote itself as an open-world) but they don't make sense. In canon, we are repeatedly told there aren't many wizard-only settlements and Hogsmead is one of the only ones. These little wizard hamlets make zero sense. Like, the very small ones which are basically two farms are fine, I can see wizard family farms like these existing. What I can't see is a larger hamlet, like Upper Hogsfeild existing so close to Hogsmead. It would not exist.

Before the Statute of Secrecy, most wizards lived in muggle towns, and after it, they still mostly stayed in muggle towns and the few wizard-only ones. The amount of wizard-only hamlets around Hogwarts in the game is honestly ridiculous for the books' world-building.

Again, I love the game, I'm writing this because I decided to boot HL up again to run around Hogwarts, but the game is not really canon. So, for the sake of analysis, I often discount the various games for this reason. They contradict book canon, and book canon comes first. Anyone can obviously do whatever they want, I'm just explaining why I occasionally discard game evidence, which is when it contradicts the books.

(There are world-building elements in the HL I do like, though. Such as the Hufflepuff Dark wizard who married a disowned Black daughter, I consider them canon since they're fun and don't contradict canon either, so they're fine).

[witchesoz]

The Wicked Witches of the West (2)

Of course, when talking about the most famous Wicked Witch of Oz, we HAVE to go by the 1939 "The Wizard of Oz" movie, the MGM production that ended up making Oz a worldwide phenomenon and shaped pop culture's view of the Land of Oz to this day, overshadowing the original Baum novels for many, many decades, up until... Well up until today.

The 1939 movie is also a crucial part of the development of the Wicked Witch of the West's design, as the MGM's Witch played by Margaret Hamilton became THE most famous face of the character, and a defining visual for basically most witches in pop culture. The black dress with the pointy hat, the long chin with the hooked nose, the sharp fingernails, the broomstick, the wicked cackle and above all the green skin - all of this became utterly iconic, despite none of these elements being present in Baum's novel.

Of course a huge part of the success of this specific incarnation of the Witch was Margaret Hamilton's performance. She famously played the Wicked sorceress a few more times - never actually putting back the exact same makeup or outfit, but still carrying on the spirit of the character throughout various media.

The most famous example is the Sesame Street episode considered "lost" for a very long time and that the Internet has been so obsessed about. There Hamilton plays back the Wicked Witch, though in a more disheveled version and with as an added touch a green lining on the cape:

Hamilton would also play back the Wicked Witch of the West on the "Paul Lynde Halloween Special":

Several other media were created as a direct follow-up or continuation of the 1939 MGM movie, and as such reuse the "MGM design" of the Wicked Witch, with various modifications. For example I am thinking of the 1990 cartoon series "The Wizard of Oz", an animated direct-sequel to the MGM movie, where the Witch reappears with some design change (the facial features are more bulbous, the pointy nails are painted red, the outfit is purple instead of black)

A more recent example would be the children cartoon "Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz", another serial-sequel to the MGM movie and where the witch makes recurring appearances. Though the design was made to fit more Hamilton's makeup and outfit, the purple touch remains, to help with the natural difficulty of animating an all-black outfit.

And, of course, you also have the infamous "Tom and Jerry and the Wizard of Oz"

A much more well-received and famous revival of Hamilton's character was the 2011 musical "The Wizard of Oz", a stage transposition of the MGM movie by Andrew Lloyd Webber. The witch in this production, while taking back all the MGM-specific traits (the green skin, the black outfit, the broomstick) also has personal features that make her stand out. Notably the heavy use of feathers in her outfit and the evolution of her hair, which goes from a spiral hairdo evoking both a witch's hat and a tornado, to an "exploded" form more reminiscent of a storm cloud. This results in a more "aerial" witch with a strong sky-motif to her.