#also obv not claiming any of this as objective in any way

[cakebatteronabrickwall]

I’m still at a loss as to what happened to roman, I’d like to hear your interpretation if you could

I’ve been trying to answer this for a bit now and I’m just going to cut to the most important part of my interpretation, so feel free to ask again if you want more. 

Basically, I keep coming back to the No Real Person Involved narrative Succession introduced in season 2. When does the story apply NRPI and who to? The waiter and the cruise ship victims. What do they have in common? Abuse of power. The waiter’s death is swept under the rug, because Logan Roy can make it so; the cruise victims and their sexual abuse becomes meaningless in the face of a media empire. 

But Roman also is told “you are not a real person”. He is told he remembers the dog cage, the defining thing of his childhood, wrong. He tends to make jokes refering to sexual abuse about himself (whereas the violent language of sex other characters use is reserved for business only), but nobody fully reacts to these comments with more than “wtf?”. The narrative essentially places Roman on the same level as the abused women on the ships; the violence from within the Roy family reaching outwards and coming back around.

The SA jokes, especially, are tricky territory, because at some point you have to make a decision whether they should be taken at face value or not. Here is the thing though, to me they all have an eerily similar theme- Telling the therapist about Connor SA-ing him? The comment about the camp counselor fucking him? The hostage situation ending in SA? The whole “if we agree on a wrong thing it’s not actually wrong” (which is seriously not something someone just comes up with, like, that thought has been there for a while)? The cut line of “trust me” “that’s what men say before they rape you”? Taking the leap from “well connected” to pedophilia? It becomes a pattern when you look at it like that.

Now, Roman says he was sent to military school after he “went weird” which might give us pause at this point, because wtf does that even mean. There is an empty space here. Yeah, maybe Logan sent Roman away because he was sent away as well and thought it might make him “stronger”. But maybe he just sent him away, because Logan always sensed something about his son that wasn’t right. And maybe, just maybe, the parallel of the cruise victims being silenced and a child being sent away to be silenced even starts here. Maybe Logan knew to sweep something under the rug before Kendall's accident.

Oh, and military schools- one can only guess what goes on behind closed doors. You essentially have authority (even paternal) figures that can do just about anything. 

What happened to Roman? Probably nothing, right?

[gollumpanties]

I agree with pretty much everything here, to be honest. I also have a harder time typing my thoughts on this than I do speaking them, but I'm going to make an attempt at least.

It's very very true that it's a Bethesda game, for better or worse, at its core and I think it also suffers quite a bit from the Came Out Right After Baldur's Gate 3 Curse because honestly, trying to compete with that game is brutal.

I understand a lot of the criticisms concerning loading screens and fast travel and I agree with them, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. It does hamper my preferred Bethesda playstyle of "start walking towards a quest objective and get distracted for the next 4 hours by things I find along the way", but whatever. I play The Sims 4. I can steel myself to loading screens and adapt. Is it ideal? No. But, like I said, not a deal-breaker for me.

My personal beef with the game so far (and, to be clear, I am continuing to play it despite this) is that to me it feels completely incoherent when it comes to any sort of narrative theme. There's nothing for my English Lit nerd brain to latch onto. Maybe it's because I haven't finished the main plot yet (though I've thoroughly spoiled myself about it), but I just can't articulate what concepts the game is asking me to think about at all.

Fallout in its very premise has the "destructive consequences of unchecked consumption and xenophobia" built in. I know Fallout 4 gets criticized (rightfully so in many ways - though I seem to be one of the few who actually prefers a voiced protagonist for my roleplaying) but it also tosses around one of my very favorite tropes, the concept of how far someone has to get from humanity before they're no longer considered a person, as well as the entire vibe of being one of the only people who remembers an entirely different world. (Nick Valentine romance WHEN, Todd???) Elder Scrolls leans into Fantasy Politics for its themes, which just happens to be another personal fave of mine lol, as well as Fucking Insane Mythology. Starfield has yet to give my brain anything like that to rotate at length.

MAIN PLOT SPOILERS (obvs)

The whole Hunter/Emissary conflict seems like a pretty obvious "grab whatever power you're strong enough to claim" vs "power should be guarded against whoever would use it irresponsibly" but I didn't feel like either of them said much to make their positions seem compelling.

Unity as a concept was very interesting when it was first introduced -- I liked the little sidequest to talk to people from various philosophies and learn little bits of mythology -- but it feels like (at least so far) the entire deeper question of "what is Unity?" has been completely dropped. It's a place, it's a mechanism to hop between realities, it's something all Starborn are drawn to(?). The entire mythology-seeking mission framed it as an intense existential question, and the reality so far feels so. Flat. The entire main plot tbh is set up to be this deep almost philosophical question about reality/realities and existence and yet I'm still struggling to make out what it's trying to say about it.

Considering that all the Starborn seem almost compelled to seek out the artifacts and try and reach Unity, and that the main plot's end is pushing the player to become Starborn themselves, there's just none of that magnetic pull that the Hunter and Emissary assure me they all feel. The game has given me no really compelling reason to find Unity so far other than "to finish the questline" and left the overall thematic meaning of Unity completely hollow.

It's a huge problem for me, roleplay-wise, because it's really hard to come up with reasons my character would be invested in any of this.

Another problem that I'm butting up against is perhaps more a problem for me personally than it might be for others... I just. Am struggling to get invested in the lore. It feels like we have Generic Space Humans, Generic Space Humans 2 (Yeehaw Flavor), and then Various Raiders, without any meaningful disinction between them other than the metaphorical paint color. Maybe when I get deeper into faction quests the differences will become clearer, but it sure would help "muh immersion" if I were treated at all differently from area to area. Even just notable differences between what things count as contraband between UC and Freestar scans would help. (To be fair, you could argue that there's about as much distinction between the Crimson Fleet and random spacers as there is between the Gunners and random raiders in Fallout 4. That's completely fair.)

I respect the decision to not include sapient alien species in this universe, but one of the really big things they do, lore and aesthetic-wise, in games like Mass Effect is that by their very alien-ness they make it less jarring that the humans are functionally a monolith. If they're not going to have alien cultures in a space exploration game then ideally the human cultures should be making up the difference. In the Elder Scrolls universe even amongst the humans they feel different. There feels like there's a clear distinction between Bretons and Nords, for example. Hell, between Bretons and Imperials even.

It's been 180 years since they announced that Earth would soon become uninhabitable and only 131 since the last fleet left the planet, but people treat Earth like no one's cared about it in a thousand years. Like. It wasn't that long ago??? The huge varieties of governments have been boiled down to two and society as a whole has been upended, and yet we've still painstakingly recreated exploitative corporate capitalism for some reason. If there's an actual reason, then that would be fine! It would be cool! Were corporations like Space Amazon the ones who bankrolled and controlled the ships leaving Earth and used their weight to ensure their continued chokehold on the economy? Maybe! But we don't really talk about it at all, in a genre that traditionally is built around Saying Things About Societal Structures.

In fairness to them, because I am also a loud defender of Mass Effect Andromeda on the grounds that we can't judge its depth by comparing it to the entire Trilogy's worth of development... this is the first game in this universe, ever. Maybe the lore will build on itself and become more complex. The Elder Scrolls and Fallout have both had years and years to develop their universes. ... It still leaves me struggling with where Starfield stands right now.

I could rant longer (don't ask me about the First Contact questline I'll explode, and also I believe another video essay already laid out the reasons why I hate that quest) but I think this at least broadly covers my issues with the game.

Also! I am still playing the game! I might not stream it regularly for much longer, but there is enough here to keep me coming back! I want to get a lot deeper into base-building in the future and I want to sink my teeth into all the faction quests and sidequests I can get my hands on. I loved the "explore the ruins of NASA" quest and the storyline and discoveries there had me actually both horrified and enthralled. 😂 I thought the (spoilers) attack on Constellation mission was intense and had me stressed in the best possible way. I made split-second decisions based on character impulses! It was great!

I appreciate the more detailed companion questlines and romances, though I would prefer a greater spread in uhhhhh moralities? But still.

Fighting and clearing out areas is still the ultimate Bethesda-style fun. As always, I play speechcraft/stealth archer all the time, so that means Fuck Yeah Sniper Rifles. Genuinely having a blast modding guns and sniping raiders from a thousand miles away. Also I love scanning things. Love to check shit off a list. Extremely satisfying. Would like to garden more tbh. Todd plz give me an extensive farming system please and thank you.

I do wish the clutter acted more like it does in Fallout 4 and I could recycle it into materials because the sheer disappointment I felt when I saw duct tape, had an ecstatic Pavlovian response and picked it up, and then only later discovered that it was utterly useless. Defnitely something I'm planning to tweak with mods lol.

Also! I'm really excited to see where the modding scene goes! I'm the kind of person who runs Bethesda games with 100+ mods at all times, so my experience might be somewhat hampered by the fact that we're still in early days when it comes to mods. The ultimate strength of these games has always been their insane modding scenes, so I'm real stoked about that.

Anyway, that was a lot. I want to be as fair as I can, so I know a lot of my issues personally come from a storytelling and worldbuilding perspective. I am a [Plumbella voice] whore for lore, so it rustles my jimmies in particular when I encounter frustrating or unsatisfying worldbuilding.

Uhhhhh hope this is even marginally useful lol. I'm def willing to expand on/explain any part of it too. 👍

hey besties on tumblr! what are your thoughts on starfield?

tell me your praises and criticisms of it, whether you’ve just seen gameplay or it or have actually played it yourself!

(this is for a video essay, so your response may be featured in it)

[voxceleste]

i've separately seen (different) people claim that transmasc and transfem people each have it objectively easier on a generalized level to pass (choosing for the moment to not problematize the concept of passing) than the other group does and i'm just like. guys i don't think it works like that

for what it's worth i've seen the former opinion more frequently and usually in an online contempo trans discourse context, whereas the latter opinion i mostly remember seeing in some late 80s/early 90s trans writing, i think by a trans woman author? which is interesting

but yeah i get where the former take comes from re: effects of testosterone on voice and bone structure etc not being easily roll-back-able, but if you are transmasc and under 5'5 (or over! i'm 5'6 lol) and unable/unwilling to grow full facial hair, good fucking luck trying to be not she/her'd in public forever*

*obviously there are exceptions to any rule which is kind of the point of what i mean here

it really bugs me as a rhetorical construction that feels rooted in trying to position transmasculine people as being ~privileged over~ transfem people in some kind of universalized biologically innate way that is so headassed and based in a conception of transmasc experience(tm) that is ime not really representational of People In General. and also feels on the borderline of talking about AFAB Privilege which is where words really cease to have meaning anymore. if people want to actually talk about ways that transmisogyny affects the way that transfem people can access being gendered correctly in public, it's much more fruitful to discuss things like discrimination and double standards in health care coverage wrt things like breast augmentation and hair removal often not being covered at all or to a lesser extent than, frex, masculinizing top surgery, as well as the greater nuances in estrogen-based hormone treatments compared to testosterone-based hrt, which can result in health care providers being less knowledgeable about clients' options compared to t

if there's good empirical evidence to the contrary i am obv open to being corrected! i just know anecdotally that when hanging out with trans women friends irl we universally get "ladies"'d, whereas of all the transmasc people i know irl the amount who are consistently read as male is proportionately very low even among people who have been on t for 3+ years and had top surgery. so whenever i hear people talking about this i'm like where?? where is this statistically dominant contingent of trans guys who pass according to the logic of a sweet polly oliver children's book where you put bandages on your chest and you're good to go?????????

[holewithinahole]

Careless | mobius m. mobius x gn!reader

Summary: You have a surprise for Mobius, you thought it’d be amusing but some feelings are brought up to the surface.

Warnings: angst, comfort/hurt (yes the other way around), overthinking, non-native writer, really annoying introspection, non-bêta'd

I highly recommend you listen to the song while reading (it's obv Careless Whisper by the one and only George Michael) because I’m not going to write down the lyrics (I kinda hate it). You can read this as a one-shot (although there is some backstory to it that I might post one day lmao). I'm not English native so pls forgive me for any mistake. Also I’m a bit obsessed with waltzing with Owen Wilson?

My friends, if you're reading this, don't judge me too hard for writing an imagine sdfghj

You make a grand gesture towards the beautiful, vintage vinyl player.

“And where did you get that?”

You smile mischievously. “The Anachronistic Objects Room.”

The open space is dimly lit and empty. Time doesn’t flow normally in the TVA, no daytime, no nighttime: the perfect work conditions for an omniscient, almighty company. Sadly, even if created by the most powerful beings in the universe - and its parallel worlds, humans remain humans so lights automatically switch off after 'eight o'clock', undirectly sending people off to get some sleep.

Today has been wild, to say the least, with everyone running all over the place to supervise the new Loki variant mission so, even the late-night workers have retired to their quarters. All except Mobius M. Mobius, of course.

Said Mobius sighs and rubs his eyes: “You’re not allowed to go there, I’m sure you know.” Despite his - empty - threat, he makes no move towards you. “How did you even get inside?”

“I asked.” You plug the device in. “You were all too busy with the Loki variant anyway.”

And you clearly didn’t want me to join, you think bitterly, making a face.

“I wouldn’t have taken you anyway, you’re not a field agent.”

You stick your tongue out to hide your embarrassment. Mobius just rolls his eyes. “I’m beat, we can't do that another time?” He says.

“Everyone is also beat so no one will bother us,” you argue. “You don’t want me to get pruned by Renslayer for borrowing a vinyl player, do you?”

“You’re not gonna get pruned for that.” Mobius scoffs. After another silence where he watches you testing out the device, he asks: “You know you need a vinyl for it to work?”

You 'haha' him before grabbing a 7” vinyl and proudly exhibiting it to Mobius. He raises an eyebrow.

“Wham, really?”

“Wham! With the exclamation point, if you may. Also no, it's George Michael only, despite being released in 1984.” You smirk. “It belonged to a fine gentleman. The guy went back in time hoping to make some profit - and he did, but he apparently couldn’t get used to a life without his favourite tunes.”

“He got caught because he wanted to listen to some vinyls? That’s some stupid reason.”

“Hey, respect the man. I, too, would have taken the classics.”

“Which are?”

You raise two fingers. “Two names: George Michael and Queen.”

Mobius laughs.

When the first notes begin, you increase the volume and turn dramatically to Mobius, showing off your best air-saxophone impression. He shakes his head, trying to keep a serious face but you could see the twinkle of amusement in his eyes as you get closer, holding out your hand and raising your eyebrows.

“Come on, old man, you obviously know this tune.”

“You just time stamped Careless Whisper to me, you don’t get to call me old, sunshine.”

Sunshine.

He takes your hand, tugging you closer in a waltzing posture that brings back some memories you quickly choose to ignore.

He leads you in between the desks, the back straight and the head high, you can't help but chuckle at his obviously grotesque mockery of ballroom dancing. For someone who claims to be the perfect corporate man - and he is mind you, working all the time without barely getting any sleep, analysing variants and going on the field to come back to his desk right after, it's very easy to have him back to his quirky self. Deep inside, you wish it's how comfortable he feels around you that makes him able to drop the barriers. You sadly don't see him enough to notice if he’s behaving like this with other people or only with you.

He cracks a joke and, as usual, you have trouble keeping a straight face when Mobius becomes this adorable goofball of a man.

But the more you twirl, the more serious it becomes. Past the iconic - and hilarious for anyone born in the 90s - sax solo, the tune is both soothing and heady. You calm down, settling in a swaying embrace but Mobius starts mumbling the lyrics and a dreadful feeling sits at the bottom of your stomach as you suddenly take notice of the words.

You stole the vinyl as a joke. You clearly didn’t think this through. You were just looking forward to the stupid sax line, the ‘you’re so old’ jokes and the teasing. And now, Mobius is singing softly to the chorus while you’re having a mental breakdown and desperately trying your best not to tense up in his arms, not to show how much the lyrics are conveying everything you have wanted to tell him. You pray for his obliviousness, you pray it's just overthinking.

Twice you’ve been in his arms and this feels like the last time.

“It’s way more serious than I’d remember it being,” Mobius says and your heart jumps as you have a small embarrassed laugh, avoiding eye contact.

“Yeah… ‘guess he was feeling like shit, uh?”

You cringe internally but Mobius only nods: “‘made a pretty damn good song out of it.”

If you were in a movie, it’d be a tragedy.

A feeling of inadequacy sinks down. A wall of questions stands tall in front of you and you look up, picturing every ledge, the ghost feeling of every blister and abrasion on your hands, unable to visualise the top. On the wall are drawn your scarce encounters, you can see the first day you met him, the first day you danced together.

Now, you sway again in each other’s arms and you close your eyes. As he holds you close, you feel that without his love, all of this is an end in itself.

So you focus on the music that suddenly gets louder, focus on it harder so your feet learn to cooperate to erase the guilt of having something that’s not meant for you. You mouth out the lyrics that remind you over and over of all the things you want to say. We could have been so good together? We could have lived this dance forever?

A joke to you and a joke for the TVA.

Mobius squeezes you tighter, you open your eyes in surprise and his gaze is on you. God, your lips are so close. The “please stay” gets stuck in your mouth.

Fuck.

Then it hits you.

He is the one and only reason why your timeline branched, why you have been apprehended by the TVA. Not because you realised that your life was meaningless, not because you decided to turn your back on a life all mapped out but because with one glance, with one dance, you decided that your life was revolving around this man.

You always knew deep down that your timeline had been altered by him, for him.

Was what I did so wrong that you had to leave me alone?

Him leaning towards you is probably wishful thinking. The look on his face is too hard to read when you put distance between the two of you.

“My mistake.” He says.

You nod and leave him behind with only the sound of the vinyl player’s stylus jumping at the end of the record. You rush to your quarters and picture the corridor of your apartment you missed terribly.

A mistake, yes. You should have been pruned, erased from an existence where he’s unreachable. This was the mistake.

But is it his?

[elriell]

Hello morgan! i love your account and it's my comfort place when i have doubts about elriel. I would like to ask you one question if you don't mind. Gwynriels are always using the hewn city scene to prove that azriel didn't care about elain because he wanted to go there and i was wondering if you had any thoughts regarding that theory. thank you!

Hellooo! Thank you so much, that is really appreciated since I feel like I mostly just post anything these days xD I am so proud and happy that this is a comfort place for you just as I have my own within the Elriel fandom, it brings me so much joy to see the support everyone extends each other. Of course, I never mind!

Are we talking in regards to ACOSF? Really? I can't say I have ever heard this argument before but I am not shocked I have seen all manor of odd claims over the months.

I am fairly certain it is pretty canon that none of them really enjoy going to the Hewn City, there is a difference between wanting to go there and having to (for duty etc...). Also I am failing to see how this relates to Elain in any which way? I am going to assume it is meaning because she was brought there and he shouldn't want that, but feel free to correct me if the theory is different, I haven't seen it in it's entirety only this ask.

I don't even have to mention that within this fandom everything is a double edged sword;

He wants to protect her from the darkness of the Trove? TOXIC, OVERPROTECTIVE, YADAYADA...

He allows her to go HC with everyone? Obvs doesn't CARE enough about her.

You cannot reason with people who seek to make issues where there is none, there will always be an inherent bias. With us too of course, it is universal. My thoughts though?

It is another case of grasping at the most peculiar of things, that is to say that every time Rhys allowed Feyre to go HC, or to the weaver cottage, or Nesta going there, or doing the BR that they must not care for them because they allowed (I hate to use this word because they are not fucking children who need permission, but you get the sentiment) them to do things that were potentially dangerous for the greater good.

Elain was in no danger going to the HC with all of the IC around to keep an eye, this is what differs being protective from being controlling. Despite what Anti's like to cry toxic.

Azriel wasn't being controlling when he objected to trying to track the troves, he was displaying concern. Misguided? Perhaps as we all agree Elain is strong enough to face a lot, but emotion often clouds judgement. Especially if Az knows more about the Troves, and this inherent darkness they possess, same way Cassian was protective of Nesta and rightly so.

This is going off topic, I apologise. My point is, Elriel will never win with them, because one way or another they will shift their opinion to find criticism where they can. If he had displayed issue with her going the theory/discussion would just shift to him being *controlling/ possessive* one again etc... In summary, I think this is a reach and could be compared to scenes from most ACOTAR relationships that no one takes issue with because it simply isn't Elriel.

Hope that sort of answered your question haha

EDIT; One second, did you mean ACOWAR? If so I can elaborate on that instead <3

[crippleprophet]

hi, just wondering if you'd be willing to break down that quote you liked from biopolitics of disability? I felt like I understood the first half (ish) but I'm not really sure about the second.

Is the idea that research on disabled bodies is profitable, or that disabled people will become nondisabled and join the workforce, or is it arguing that like this research is done out of genuine care and concern for disabled people? I can't quite grasp it. obvs if you don't feel like answering I won't be a dick, just thought since your tags seemed enthusiastic you might have things you might wanna say about it.

absolutely, thank you for asking! it’s a somewhat dense quote that could easily be confusing if you don’t have familiarity with certain texts & concepts. i’ll just take it in sections, but i totally invite other commentary & insight! any emphasis is my own.

Rather than social pariahs, disabled people increasingly represent “research opportunities” in the sense that medical race sociologist Aihwa Ong means when she argues that “treating” ill and disabled Cambodian refugees in the United States increasingly “became the justification for state and local clinics to obtain much-needed funding from the federal government” (96).

historically, the goal of biomedical interventions in disability has been to eliminate non-normative bodies. the concept that all disabilities require medical intervention (often framed as an approach that is in opposition to creating an accessible society) is referred to as the medical model of disability. it argues that our bodies (i use the term broadly, inclusive of minds) need to be fixed and that eradicating disability is a good thing.

this quote expands on that prior scholarship and argues that biomedical research into disability exists not only to bring disabled bodies into the sphere of normalcy but also as a way for clinics to obtain funding—funding which only exists because of the government’s panic that people, especially immigrants, may become recipients of services like SSI and Medicaid due to disability.

Rather than a former era’s economic “burden,” disabled people have become objects of care in which enormous sectors of postcapitalist service economies are invested. In the terms of recent political economy, disability has been transformed into a target of neoliberal intervention strategies—a “hot” ticket item for potential research and policy funding schemes. Disabled people, once thrown out of the labor system on the basis of their lack of normative productivity in a competitive labor market, now find themselves “at hand for [the] purposes of accumulation at a later point in time.

to rephrase this in a very bitter and sarcastic way, disabled people used to be rejected from society because we aren’t as productive as abled people, but under neoliberal capitalism, we can be good little consumers just like everybody else! even initiatives that aim to increase disabled people’s autonomy and independence focus on us as consumers of disability-related services and our right to make financial decisions in a capitalist marketplace (link to a bit more on that here).

i’m not saying financial autonomy isn’t important—for many people, it’s the difference between life and death, and i’ll include a quote below with more perspective on that than i can provide. but under the current system, it results in corporations vying for disabled people’s money and watered-down activism arguing that businesses for which we are “objects of care” shouldn’t abuse us because then we won’t pay them.

in a broad political sense, it’s a reactionary rather than revolutionary mindset; sort of like how modern gay rights organizations in the US & other countries push for threatening politicians that they’ll lose the “gay vote” if they support a dangerous homophobic policy. it gives us a sort of power, but one that we only need because we’re living under a deeply broken system. but again, that’s not to say that financial independence isn’t vital for disabled people in the here and now, it just shouldn’t be the biggest we can dream. my goal for our people is liberation, not increased consumption.

“It is about time for revolution. We, people with disabilities, have to claim the decision making power and the financial means that are set aside by the taxpayer for disability policies. We have to gain control of our own lives, our own physical rehabilitation, our own personal assistance. We are the experts, we have to build up our own expertise and know-how. We don't need medical doctors, bureaucrats and social workers to decide what our needs are. We know what our needs are and how they can be fulfilled. We ask services that respond to our needs. We don't want to be the object, but the subject of these services.” —Huys Jos, “From Object of Care to Subject of Services,” Rethinking Care—From the Perspective of Disabled People (link to source pdf)

Put in the language of contemporary postmodern political theory, we might say that capitalism necessarily and always creates its own ‘other’” (Harvey, Neoliberalism 141). The historical production of others situates bodies in a position tantamount to un(der)explored geographies: they come to be recognized as formerly neglected sites now available for new opportunities of market extraction that fuels so much of the production end of neoliberal capitalism.

essentially, disabled bodies are Antarctica: left alone by the capitalist marketplace for a long time out of a vague fear and repulsion, but now everyone’s eying us, wondering what profit they can extract, and we aren’t protected nearly as much under global treaties. neoliberal capitalism demands constant expansion, constant profit growth, so instead of being rejected from the (literal and proverbial) marketplace, we’re catered to in a flimsy way that risks hiding the true state of discrimination we experience.

think of the recent erupting discussions around pride month merchandising and advertising; incredibly discriminatory, oppressive companies change their logos rainbow because they’ve realized lgbtq+ people are profitable. similarly, entire sectors of the market start salivating when you mention the US’s aging population because of all the assistive technology people will need. it’s not access as a human right, it’s access for a profit.

Such developments arrive, inevitably, with their own contradictions intact, but they also provide opportunities for rethinking disability as not only alternatively social, but also nonnormatively material, subject.

the social model of disability argues that disability is created by an inaccessible society; what is disabling is not, for example, someone’s paralysis which requires them to use a wheelchair but rather the fact that the apartment buildings in their area don’t have elevators, the streets don’t have curb cuts, and the stores don’t have automatic doors. this excerpt argues that not only is disability constructed through these social means, it also has a nonnormative materiality, in the sense of dialectical materialism; disabled people are uniquely affected by socioeconomic interactions in ways that affect the conditions of our lives.

[bitterlavenderwritings]

lovely little thing

a/n: i haven’t written for hawks for a long time then this scenario settled in my head for some reason. what was supposed to be a drabble turned into a fic of sorts lol.

(take note that the reader acts aloof and doesn’t express herself often than most people, so if you feel like you can’t relate  it’s alright for you to not read this.)

pairing/s: yan!hawks x reader

wc: 1 688

tags: kidnapping, yandere themes (obv), stalking, manipulation, implied drug use.

Any sane person would panic right now.

Waking up in an unfamiliar room should already set off alarms in your head that most people would immediately heed to. How did you get here? Were you taken by force? Where was your phone-

You moved to grasp anything, a headboard or  whatever solid thing that’s closest to you. But there is nothing but silk sheets and pillows scattered around. Your eyes struggle to lift open,for some reason they feel heavier than usual. After a few blinks you open your eyes to see yourself in a huge cage-?

With shaking arms, you get up on your knees to survey your surroundings. It’s then you realize your wrists are bound with individual cuffs with long, thin chains locked in two small hooks at the very back of the cage. You give them light tugs, testing how heavy and durable they are. Despite it’s light weight, it would still be impossible for you to break them without any heavy tools. 

But that wasn’t the most peculiar thing you were seeing right now, what puzzled you is the cage you were currently in.

It was huge, and had a lot of space. It wasn’t a box or any cage that resembled that of a dog’s. it was shaped like a bird’s cage, long gold thin bars encasing you in that stretched to the ceiling. It had intricate designs that made it look elegant and beautiful, something you would’ve appreciated if it weren’t for the fact that it held you captive. 

You spot a small door, locked shut with a padlock that looks brand new. You give it a few shakes, rattling it a bit to test how tight it is. After a minute you give up, opting to observe everything else in hopes of finding a way out.

It’s odd how everything seems to be staged just for you. The room the cage is in is a lavish bedroom, the type you see on television. A four poster bed in the middle, a dainty dresser complete with a wide mirror on the opposite wall, and a walk in closet that seems to be closed as of the moment. 

You look down at yourself, taking notice of the nightgown you’re wearing. It doesn’t seem to be one of yours, an expensive material that’s soft to the touch with pretty lace trimmings.

You feel so out of place, estranged to the unfamiliar room that speaks nothing of someone like you. You’re here for a reason, but you can’t put a finger on it.

Your inquiring thoughts were interrupted by the sound of an opening door. You stiffen in fear as you hear the door close again with the nearing footsteps of an unknown person. They take their time approaching you, light steps that seem to have a bit of a pep in them as they make their way to you.

You feel a gust of wind that billowed on your bare back, causing you to shiver for a moment. You desperately want to see them, your captor, the person responsible for your captivity. But you don’t move, choosing to stare at the blurry window that shines a glowing light to your meek frame that feels oh so small in the cage. 

“Once again you’re not saying anything. Quiet as always, aren’t you baby bird?” That nickname...

Slowly, you turn behind you, eyes meeting a familiar pair of honey gold irises. He smiles, a soft curve that speaks of quiet triumph and glee. His gloved hands are grasping the bars softly, sending a message of possession and dominance.

You know him, hell, everybody does. Being a number two hero was no joke, especially for someone as young as him. His wings, a deep shade of red that spreads out at his back, flutter in light flaps as he takes his time looking at you.

He seems to be pleased, barely containing his excitement as he caresses the bars fondly. There’s a soft look in his eyes, the type a person would give to a dear lover of theirs. 

But you’re not his lover, at least you think so.

There’s no mistaking the dark gleam in his eyes, something too hidden and cryptic for you to decipher. It’s sends an unpleasant feeling in your chest but you keep shut about it. Who knows what he might do if he’s displeased.

You remember how sharp and deadly those feathers can be, despite how soft and pretty they can look at first glance.  

Fear settles in the pit of your stomach, but you ignore it. You had to know, why were you here and why you of all people. You only managed to utter one word.

“Why?” His eyes widens just for a tiny fraction, surprised at your newfound courage. His lips curl into a smirk, seemingly satisfied that you’re not screaming your lungs out or protesting like he’d expect any person would.

But of course you weren’t like most people, which is why he had chosen you in the first place.

“Do I really need a reason?” His smirk widens even wider at your raised eyebrow. To think you can still hold your own at a time like this, how interesting...

He reaches out through the small gaps of the cage, just wide enough for his right arm to fit and enter your rightful place. He preens at the thought, your new home, just where he is.

He holds a strand of hair in his fingers, playing with it as he looks at you endearingly. A spread of warmth fills his chest as he sees your usually blank face fluster at his touch.

“You’re mine, isn’t that easy to understand? Ever since that day I saved you, I’ve already claimed what’s rightfully mine.” Your brows furrow, taking in his words. He doesn’t hear a word of objection, but he knows you disagree despite your silence.

“Don’t you think I’m right, little birdie? I saved you from a painful death after all, that building would have crushed your frail body when that villain struck it’s concrete walls. Rescue wouldn’t have made it in time, so it was all my efforts that kept you alive and breathing ‘til this day.”

It’s then he sees it, a crack in your argument that you hold between your lips. He knows just how he can convince you to stay, and he won’t stop until you believe it completely yourself. 

You’re a stubborn person, something he observed after keeping track of you ever since seeing you that day. You haven’t met him personally at the time, but he saw you first.

You looked blissfully in peace tending to your row of lilies, smiling softly to yourself unaware of the prying golden eyes of a hawk latched onto its prey.

He thought the flowers fit you perfectly, sweet innocence that blossomed beneath the loud, massive noises that dominated the crowd. 

He’s kept watch of you since then, trailing behind you up in the skies where you couldn’t see him. He even went as far as to disguise himself, hiding his identity to speak a few words to you as a stranger. 

He wasn’t even disappointed when you limited your interactions, choosing to utter a few words then cut off the conversation entirely. You disliked talking to people, especially strangers. So you made sure to make it obvious that you weren’t an open person anybody could just approach.

He liked that about you, something that set you apart from the rest. He thought it couldn’t get any better, but you surprised him again once more when he saved you that day.

You were grateful of course, despite your cold nature, you still had feelings and  manners like any other person. But you didn’t gawk at him, or praised him endlessly like a god like his fan girls did. 

You even refused when he offered to fly you home! Not wanting to abuse his generosity as you put it. You were blunt and wanted nothing more from him. He was instantly hooked.

He couldn’t possibly just let you go now, could he?

So when the time finally came, he didn’t hesitate to use your vulnerability to his advantage. You always left your windows wide open at night, preferring to sleep with the moonlight lighting up your dark room softly.

He found that habit of yours adorable, but also too dangerous. What if there was someone else like him who could reach your floor and possibly harm you? He couldn’t have that, no no. All the more reason to keep you safe and sound, he reasoned. But on his own terms.

It wasn’t that hard if he was being honest, you were already tired when you got home to begin with. So when he held the dampened cloth to your nose, your struggles weren’t that strong to budge him the slightest. 

Within a few minutes you grew limp in his arms, making it easy for him to carry you up in the night sky, taking you home right where you belonged to.

Seeing you calm and collected on that cage nearly sent him to a frenzy. You sat  like you belonged there, ignoring the way your eyes darted from you to him apprehensively.

“It’s okay now sweetie, I’ll take real good care of you.” He cooed as he held your face in his hands. Your skin was smooth and delicate to his touch, something he noted while admiring your beauty. 

“You’ll see, sooner or later you won’t have to worry about a single thing.” He’ll make sure of it. He can already see it, you craving him as much as he does with yours. But first he has to be patient, he’s not deluded enough into thinking you won’t go down without your own defenses after all.

He’ll have to take his time breaking down each and every one of the walls you’ve built around yourself to finally lay a hand on how you truly feel. He grinned in anticipation.

You were an interesting, lovely little thing after all, and he’s gonna have so much fun with you. 

[zackmartin]

Gif Sharpening Tutorial

I decided to go ahead and share the action that I use for this, which you can find here! (!! Do Not claim as your own or repost!!) I obviously made it for myself to just quickly do the things I do for every gif, so just be aware that it does set your frame rate to 0.05. It also converts to timeline mode and sharpens the gif using my sharpening settings (obvs). (So, if you sharpen as a last step, just be aware that this action selects all the layers and converts them to a smart object, so you won’t be able to adjust them once it’s used). You can change the sharpening settings by double clicking on the smart sharpen or gaussian blur in the layers menu. Also, if you want to use this action but change the frame rate, you can export the gif and then reopen it in photoshop and change the frame rate (just don’t change it back to timeline mode!). I usually do this anyway because photoshop has a tendency to change the frame rate when I export it.

I said this in my gif coloring tutorial, but I want to make my tutorials easy enough that somebody that is completely new to photoshop and has no clue how to use it can follow, so I apologize if any of this feels tedious or like I’m over-explaining.

Again, I’m using Photoshop CC for this.

Edit: It’s been about a year since I posted this, but my settings are completely different now, so I decided to go ahead and just update with the new settings!

I now usually sharpen as my very first step after opening the gif but I don’t think it matters that much when you do it. (also, for the purpose of this tutorial, I still made it my very last step because I thought the difference of with and without would be easier to see when the gif is brightened/colored etc.)

Step 1: select all your frames down in the timeline. Just click on the little button with three lines in the frame animation bar:

Then click Select All Frames:

(usually after this step, I change the frame rate (the little number below the frames. To change it just click the little upside down triangle next to the number.) I usually do 0.05, but usually between 0.03 - 0.05 is fine, it really just depends on how fast/slow you want your gifs to be)

Step 2: Select your layers. We’re going to do the same thing as above, except this time we’re selecting all of our layers for the frames we just highlighted in the previous step. So, come over to the little layers thing on the right-hand side, and click the top layer, but be sure not to click any of your coloring layers. (I do this just to ensure that I can still make a last minute adjustment to my coloring layers if need be). And then scroll to the bottom, hold down the shift key, and while you’re holding down the shift key, click the very bottom layer, like so:

Step 3: Convert to a video timeline. To do this, go down the little timeline tool and click the button on the far left side that looks like this:

Now, your timeline should look something like this:

Step 4: Convert for Smart Filters. Click up at the top where the File, Edit, Image etc is, and click Filter > Convert for Smart Filters: 

(if a little dialogue like this pops up, just click “OK”)

Now the actual sharpening!

Go up to the top again, click Filter > Sharpen > Smart Sharpen:

These are the settings that I use (but obviously my way isn’t law, it’s all personal preference):

during this step, I also click the little wheel up in the right hand corner:

and I click Use Legacy > More Accurate:

And then click OK. Then I add another smart sharpen layer using these settings (also, I turn off the legacy for this layer but I really don’t think it makes that much of a difference. Honestly, I would try it both ways for yourself and see if it’s really enough to justify that extra step lmao):

Then duplicate your layer (right-click, then click duplicate layer, like so):

Then I add a Gaussian Blur. To do that, do the same thing you did to add the sharpening by going to Filter > Blur > Gaussian Blur (make sure you’re doing this step on the duplicated layer). These are my settings:

Then turn the opacity of your duplicated layer down to 50%:

And finally, I turn down the opacity of the gaussian blur. To do this, double-click on the little line/triangle thing (idk what you would call that, I’m sorry alsdkjf) next to the gaussian blur:

And a little window like this will pop up. Just turn down the opacity on that. I keep it at 70%, but if you want your gif to be a little softer, you can obviously go a bit higher.

And once you click OK on that, you’re done! You have a sharpened gif!

Make sure to tag your future creations with #usernicolette so I can see them! 🥺

And if you have any questions about any of the steps or you want to see any future tutorials, just shoot me an ask or a DM! 

Happy gifmaking! 💕

[talkfantasytome]

Part of my attempt to re-post answers I've given, without the context of specific links to posts based on this feedback and advice.

Anon Ask: Linked me to a few posts about E\ain, her possible story, and the Fourth item of the Dread Trove. My thoughts on that item possibly being "unmade" and E\ain being able to "remade" them. Thought on how Koschei was preparing for Az, and how the item being cloaked in shadow could be a link to Az and the item. And how E\ain relates to the hounds of the Night Court, which were used by the Daglan. How the greeting the Book of Breathings gave Feyre in ACOMAF is actually foreshadowing E\ain and her connection there.

If I may, my first suggestion would be to block certain tags. That might help calm you. <3 I tend to avoid E\ain-Azriel theories, because they anger me at times. Especially ones like these where they try to take what some other character has and give it to E\ain. I'm seeing it all over the place and it's infuriating me. Not because I hate E\ain. No.

Because I actually want E\ain to be a good character.

And, I'm sorry, but giving E\ain other people's stories, powers, etc. that we've already seen is not making her a good character. It's making her a repeat.

So, let me start with this:

Nesta wasn't able to "unmade" Briallyn because she was made by the Cauldron. Nesta didn't create those made weapons because she was made by the Cauldron.

Those came from the power she TORE from the Cauldron, literally. Nesta had this "made" power because she TOOK it. E\ain did not take that power. E\ain was gifted the power to be a Seer because the Cauldron found her so lovely. And the Cauldron still found her lovely after it made her, which means she didn't steal anything from it at all.

So, any theory that has anything to do with E\ain having powers like what Nesta displayed are completely inaccurate and ignore the fact that Nesta's powers did not come from her being made but from what she took from the Cauldron.

Yes, E\ain might have a connection with made objects, she might be able to find them as Nesta did. But she would not be able to create them herself. Or "unmade" someone. (I really don't know if I can use the term unmake here. 😂) She may be able to wield the Dread Trove, but that's also a big MAYBE. And I say that not because I think E\ain isn't powerful or strong enough, but because no one really thought or talked about E\ain being able to wield them as Nesta did. Maybe it's because they just forget about her, or maybe it's because they're not sure she'd be able to considering her power is different.

IDK.

Basically, I don't believe that first concept can be right, because while maybe E\ain can wield the Dread Trove, she wouldn't be able to "made" or "unmade" objects. That, to the best of our knowledge, is a power that Nesta got in her blessed thievery.

And no, that's not a power the Cauldron would have just given E\ain, because that power was part of the essence of the Cauldron. In stealing that power, Nesta broke it a bit. So the Cauldron would have had to break itself to give that power to E\ain...which means Nesta would not have become Fae the way she did.

Also, for the record, Nesta didn't "unmade" Briallyn and then kill her. She killed her by "unmading" her. Because Nesta's power was DEATH. And that sure as hell ain't E\ain's.

That second argument, on the other hand, was just incredibly focused on Azriel incorrectly. I talked about that earlier. Because Koschei wasn't preparing for Az. They were laying the trap for Cassian. Why do you think Briallyn had been so silent for those months between Solstice and then? And even before then. Emerie's cousin was influenced by Briallyn by the second time Nesta met Emerie. They were laying that trap for well over half a year. THAT's what Koschei was talking about.

You can tell he was preparing for Cassian, because Cassian's the one he froze. It's not about Az. It just feels that way if you're so focused on one character you don't take the time to actually read and see what's happening in the book. While I'm all about critical reading, that also means taking the time to see if those questions are actually already answered in the book, and they are. But if you're only thinking about Az, you might miss the answers placed at your feet about Cassian and Nesta - the main characters of the book.

It is absolutely possible that Az has a tie in to the fourth item, some way. I think in one they suggested that maybe it was hidden by a shadowshinger, so a shadowsinger must find it. I could see it potentially happening. It could be how they tie the next book into the larger, Koschei plot, which is going to be an overarching plot in books 4 and 5 before becoming the main plot in book 6. Since we will be seeing more Valkyrie stuff, and likely more Illyrian stuff too. So, like, this could happen, but that would likely bring more Nesta in. She's the one that noticed there might be a fourth Trove item. Why would that plot point then go to E\ain? Other than to give E\ain another character's plot points and journey? And SJM's not going to do that. She's going to give E\ain her own arc, her own powers and plot.

As for using what the Book of Breathings said to Feyre as a foreshadowing of E\ain being able to become a fanged beast, that's almost going way too far with that stuff, considering the fact that I doubt Sarah had planned that far ahead with that much detail these later books when she was writing ACOMAF. I don't mean that in a way to degrade Sarah. It's just that she was focused on the original trilogy, and while she likely had ideas and thoughts about everyone's journeys, she did have to first and foremost focus on the books she was actually contracted for. She didn't have the contract for the next three yet when she was writing ACOMAF (I think?).

Also, and I've said this before, anything in ACOMAF that people claim is foreshadowing for Azriel and E\ain, isn't. When Sarah was writing ACOMAF she was still planning on Mor and Azriel being endgame. She made that change when she was writing ACOWAR. So, literally, nothing in ACOMAF foreshadows E\ain and Azriel, not purposefully. And, if it's not purposeful, it's not actually foreshadowing.

That being said, that's also not how I would interpret that message and, not going to lie, I could interpret it in a way that's likely a better prediction of E\ain and Az, not that I believe it is one because, again, it was done in ACOMAF. But, let me show you anyway:

“Life and death and rebirth. Sun and moon and dark. Rot and bloom and bones. Hello, sweet thing. Hello, lady of night, princess of decay. Hello, fanged beast and trembling fawn. Love me, touch me, sing me.” (ACOMAF - Chapter 57)

So, first of all, this is in Chapter 57. That's well before Nesta and E\ain became Fae. So, the book was only talking to Feyre. HOWEVER, you could argue that this line is actually foreshadowing what will happen to Nesta and E\ain:

Hello, lady of night, princess of decay. Hello, fanged beast and trembling fawn.

Think about it. Feyre is "Lady of night, princess of decay." That's clearly one person, as there's just a comma. In the next line it says "hello, fanged beast and trembling fawn". That could easily mean Nesta and E\ain. Fanged beast = Nesta. Trembling fawn = E\ain. It may not. BUT IT COULD. So this line literally could be foreshadowing that they are about the be made.

Now, IF I didn't know that SJM at that point was planning on Mor an Az to be endgame, I'd be more worried about the next line.

Love me, touch me, sing me.

Mind you, I don't think that the Book's words would be foreshadowing for endgame couples, either. But, if it was - love me = Feyre & Rhys. Touch me = Nesta & Cassian - I mean, think about how important touch is to both of them and in their relationship. Sing me, then, could mean E\ain's love interest, and obvs that would sound like Az.

Now, as I said, we know this isn't the case, cause at that point, Moriel was the plan. Also, more than that, the Book of Breathings is heavily linked to the Cauldron. So, even if it was doing that, it would be foreshadowing mates, not endgame (if there's a difference), because mates are determined by the Cauldron.

So, yeah, it's not doing that. But, like, is that not a fairly decent argument? (This is why my dad wanted me to be a lawyer. I'm pretty good at debating from either side. 😂)

And, even if no one fully believes me about any of that, then tell me this - how is it that multiple lines refer to E\ain, but nothing is referring to Nesta in that? This argument basically says that this greeting from the Book of Breathings is entirely E\ain foreshadowing. Before E\ain was even made Fae.

That doesn't make sense. Why would there be so much focus on E\ain at that point that it's foreshadowing stuff that Sarah may or may not have known yet, but none about Nesta? When both were turned Fae at the same time, and we ended up with Nesta's book first.

For now, I'm going to guess that, IF that quote was foreshadowing anything about the sisters, it was that they were going to be Made into Fae. But, in the end, that quote is focused on Feyre first. So the foreshadowing of them turning Fae makes sense. But that paragraph is not E\ain-centric, it's Feyre-centric.

Don't get me wrong. I do think the fact that E\ain is Made is important. And maybe she will end up being the one to find the fourth Trove item, but I'm not yet convinced. And I don't think the fact that it's in shadow means it has something to do with Az as much as, like Nesta suggested, it's just that it's been glamoured like the others.

One other thing, but I noticed there's also an argument that E\ain is obvious for book five because of her vision about Koschei's box. But, we know that Koschei, being the large, overarching plot, is going to come to a head in book 6. So why would that make E\ain book 5?

These arguments align E\ain so much with Koschei, and then say it means she's got book 5, but Koschei's end is book 6. Book 5, like with ACOSF, is going to have it's own plot, and Koschei is going to be tied into it as the larger, overarching plot. But there's nothing about what the main plot for an Az-E\ain book would be. Because, for E\ain, her plot will be heavily linked with Koschei.

We have to remember that Sarah has said all three books are "standalone" books. What that means is that, while there is an overarching plot (Koschei), each book will also have it's own plot, with a climax surrounding that plot. For Nesta, it was the Dread Trove and Briallyn. And Koschei was tied into it, to show he was pulling strings. That's what's going to happen with book 5. And then book 6, it'll be more of a Koschei centered plot.

If E\ain is book 5, then that's two Koschei centered plots, and book 5 and book 6 are not standalones. They are a duology.

Lastly, to talk about chapter 20 from ACOSF, which was briefly mentioned - the one where E\ain says she'll find the Trove. Some believe that scene was foreshadowing E\ain and Az. It wasn't. It may have been foreshadowing some involvement E\ain will have with the Trove. But that doesn't automatically mean it'll be E\ain and Az. It literally just means she could have involvement with it.

However, considering the timing of that scene, being the literal day after that fight E\ain and Nesta had, where Nesta basically pointed out how E\ain dos nothing, I think that that scene was also a sign of who E\ain truly is.

Because E\ain didn't do shit about the Trove. She offered and then did nothing. My guess: because she didn't actually want to do something. All she wanted to do was prove Nesta wrong. Be like "look, see, I'm doing more, I'm better than you". E\ain started to show some true colors in ACOSF, and they're not all sunshine and flowers and rainbows.

However, in the end, I'm not saying anyone is wrong about E\ain and the fourth Dread Trove object. I hope they are, because I truly hope that E\ain will get her own stuff and her own plot. But E\ain and Nesta are not the same, and that's VERY important to remember. E\ain cannot create Made objects, she can not "Unmade" someone or something. Because that's something that came from Nesta stealing the Cauldron's power. And, on top of that, even if E\ain does get the fourth Dread Trove item, that doesn't automatically mean it's an Az-E\ain book. There's actually no reason to believe that. And, remember, any time you see an argument that there's Az-E\ain foreshadowing in ACOMAF, you'll know they're wrong, because at that point Sarah had a different endgame in mind, and she had that endgame in mind until after she finished writing that book. :)

That being said, I'm still thinking that E\ain is getting Swan Lake/Vasilisa the Beautiful.

I very much hope that calmed you. Sorry it's long. I'm glad to hear you consider me not in the middle of the ship war. I very much try not to be, though I'm sure these posts may not fully be helping. LOL. But I do stay out of other people's posts, and I try to consider everything outside of the relationships as well.

[raygirlramblings]

Excuse me while I rage

tw// animal abuse tw// animal cruelty

Getting pretty damn sick of seeing videos of ‘CUTE’ retriever dogs dragging cats around with their mouths like it’s some kind of adorable trick.  Getting even MORE sick of people turning into oblivious Facebook grandmas and going ‘OOOOH IT’S CUTE, WHAT A SMART DOGGIE’ completely ignoring the cat’s behaviour and body language or having a basic understanding that dragging a cat around BY IT’S FUCKING HEAD is not cute.

Oooh but then you get the ‘oh but the cat doesn’t LOOK upset.  If it didn’t like it the dog would get a face full of claws!’ arguments popping up.

If some giant came into your room, grabbed you by the head (albeit gently) and dragged you out of bed, and regardless of how much you fought back the giant would only let you go when they felt like it, and they did that EVERY DAY without fail, you’d probably eventually stop fighting because you realise there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.

Cats can absolutely stand their ground but if you live with something 4 times your size that can easily overpower you and possibly kill you if it wanted to after a while you stop trying to fight because you know you can’t win, especially when humans 10 times your size won’t step in to help you. 

‘But labs and retrievers have soft mouths!  It’s fine!’

I’m not going to claim to be a dog expert but in my limited experience of dogs I think it’s safe to say that is NOT WHAT SOFT MOUTH IS FOR.  Retriever dogs can carry things very gently without breaking them, but this generally refers to game birds like ducks and pheasants where the hunter doesn’t want the prey to be ripped to shreds by the dog.  It’s one thing for them to carry a duck dangling by it’s neck if your plan is to kill and eat that duck, but dragging a much heavier cat by it’s head putting all that weight on it’s neck is NOT THE SAME THING and can cause serious injury ESPECIALLY if the cat is fighting to get away!

Oh, and don’t forget that soft mouth doesn’t mean a retriever cannot bite down, hard.  It’s still has those sharp teeth which are designed to rip and tear meat and bone.  This isn’t to demonize dogs (cats have sharp teeth too obvs) but anyone who uses the argument that soft mouth means the animal LITERALLY CANNOT do harm doesn’t understand dogs as well as they think they do.

Put it this way.  If a Labrador grabbed a human baby by it’s head and trotted around with it, would you think that was cute?  Oh but retrievers have soft mouth!  It’s fine if they’re dragging that baby over rough carpet and hard floors and down steps and dumping them in places where they didn’t want to be.  It’s fine that the dog’s canines are scraping over the baby’s soft skin, it’s just playing and being a good boi!   It’s FIIIIIIIIIIINE [/s]

‘But cats carry their babies by their necks, its the same thing!’

NO IT IS NOT.

Cats generally carry their BABIES by the SCRUFF of their necks.  It’s carrying the baby by the skin and neck fluff, not biting down on the spine or skull.  Sometimes, yes, they might pick up a baby by it’s head to move them somewhere.  But that’s a tiny kitten and a mother cat, not a FULL SIZED CAT AND A FUCKING DOG.  

Would you pick up a full sized cat by it’s neck/head and dangle it?  NO, YOU COULD SERIOUSLY INJURE IT.  You’re not even supposed to pick up an adult cat by it’s scruff because at that size you can seriously injure a cat unless you know what you’re doing. 

‘We had a dog who used to do this, and the cat didn’t care!’

Look, I’m not about to call you a liar on something like this.  Some cats don’t mind roughhousing with dogs, all cats are different.  But your anecdotal evidence is NOT a valid defence for people who train their dogs to ‘fetch’ cats for the purpose of making a viral video. 

This is like saying ‘well I had a dog who LOVED broccoli!’ in response to someone forcing their healthy dog to become vegan.  Your cute and probably innocent family story doesn’t excuse actual abuse being done to real animals in the world.  

A cat is not a toy; it’s not a pair of slippers that can be brought to you regardless of their feelings.  Saying stuff like this suggests you valued the dog as an intelligent creature and the cat as an object to be toyed with at the whims of others.  Your cat, any cat, has the right to be left alone and not forced to be anywhere it doesn’t want to be (within reason, you gotta take your cat to the vet sometime), especially not being dragged around BY IT’S HEAD by a creature 4 times it’s size.  

Cats are not dogs.  Dogs are not cats.  Cats are not PUPPIES.  They can absolutely co-exist but larger breeds of dog can also be dangerous to smaller cats just because of their size.  A dog does not have human understanding of the world, certainly not a human understanding of cats.  What a dog sees as play and being a ‘good doggie’ can be traumatising and uncomfortable for the cat.  .  

I don’t even want to blame the dogs here.  Dogs are innocent.  They act on instinct.  It is up to humans to shape and guide that behaviour while discouraging antisocial, aggressive or potentially dangerous behaviour.  People have to understand that not every action a dog does is considered adorable by nature of them being a dog, nor are those actions automatically safe for other creatures because ‘dogs are cute and gud bois’.   

It’s the irresponsible owners who film their dogs doing these things, and then ignorant humans sharing those videos and making them go viral who are to blame here.  

PLEASE.  Stop promoting and condoning dogs dragging cats around in their mouths as CUTE.  It’s not cute.  There are millions of perfectly nice cat and dog videos (some with both) featuring animals playing nicely on their own terms.  A dog carrying an adult cat* the way it would carry a dead duck or a favourite toy is NOT CUTE.  

Also plz stop being a hateful prick if you don’t like cats.  If you enjoy seeing cats suffering because ‘dogs are better anyway lol’, the fuck is wrong with you.

*I’m aware there are videos of mother dogs who have taken in kittens and occasionally carry those kittens in their mouths.  Again, this is an example of carrying a baby to gently move them from one place to another, it’s not the same as an adult cat with it’s own agency being dragged around by a full sized dog (and being actively encouraged by the owners to do so).  

[plush-anon]

Happy Halloween Scooby Doo! Review

Muahahhhahahhahahaha! Thanks to the Walmart tradition of stocking movies for sale weeks before the intended release date, I have myself a copy of what claims to be Scooby Doo’s FIRST Halloween adventure!

…in spite of movies like Witch’s Ghost and Goblin King, holiday specials like WNSD’s A Scooby Doo Halloween (which had a haunted Scarecrow too…), BCSD’s EL Bandito (for Dia de los Muertos - obvs not the same, but most companies act like it) and Halloween, The NSDM’s Halloween Hassle at Dracula’s Castle, and the DTV short film Scooby Doo and the Spooky Scarecrow (which, ironically enough, did NOT take the opportunity to feature Dr. Jonathan Crane). 

So let us take a look now at Happy Halloween Scooby Doo! and see whether this film will be a graveyard smash of a treat, or a black licorice bomb of disappointment.

Full review (and SPOILERS TO GO WITH IT) are below the cut in my new review format; if all goes smoothly, I’ll go with this for future Scooby films.

WARNING: This review is very long.

One minor note before we begin: the Special Features actually include BCSD’s Halloween, WNSD’s A Scooby Doo Halloween, and PNSD’s Ghost Who’s Coming to Dinner

...so they were AWARE this was not the first Halloween adventure of the Scooby gang, and yet still use that tag line. Hm. 

Still, kudos for including them - this’ll help boost the reasons to keep this movie, if it turns out to be a real Milk Dud of a movie *ba-dum tish* :D

-----------

The movie starts off rather abruptly, actually - no slow pan over the setting, just WB Animation credit and BOOM, we’ve cut to a Halloween parade and Elvira is talking. 

I’m of a mixed opinion including Elvira on top of having Bill Nye and a Batman Rogue - while she most certainly fits the Scooby aesthetic, it doesn’t feel as grand an impact after her weird little cameo in Return to Zombie Island (ugh) and I’m not sure how well the movie will balance her in wait a minute

wait just a

WAIT A MINUTE

Did - did that parade float skeleton just sing Crystal Cove as the town’s name?

oh no. 

Oh No.

....also their song is terrible and they should feel terrible.

-------

Fred: We got him! Banh Mi Shop, second floor!

me: the heck is a Banh Mi Shop? *mild googling noises*

So I guess Jonathan Crane really had a craving for a Vietnamese sandwich before he enacted his Halloween scheme.

...you think he’s a lemongrass chicken type of guy or a BBQ pork guy? It’s always hard to guess at these things, esp when coffee and pumpkin spice aren’t on the table (as per fanon, of course)

-----

Velma: We have a flawless track record!

So I guess WB is just gonna ignore the past few DTV retcons established in 13 Ghosts and Return to Zombie Island?

I mean that rather defeats the purpose of them existing at all, but fcuk YEAH I can get behind throwing that retcon garbage out of canon!

And STAY OUT!!

------

Shaggy, talking about ghosts being real: I’m like the boy who cried wolf - I keep warning you but like, you won’t believe me until I finally get eaten!

Yet again, Warner Bros makes a wolf reference to Shaggy. Yet again, I am torn asunder between wanting werewolf!Shaggy in a new Scooby property, and fearing for the appearance of werewolf!Shaggy in a new Scooby property. 

-------

Velma: Point is, being afraid is a waste of time!

Scarecrow, LITERALLY EXPLODING THROUGH A BRICK WALL three buildings away:

------

He’s floating through the air and t-posing to assert his dominance 🤣🤣🤣

Gods bless animation 😁

------

Daphne @ Shag and Scoob locking themselves in the van: Are you serial?

Me: wait, SERIAL? *re-reads captions* yup, that says “serial”.  

Is this an editing mistake? I don’t think that works here…unless that’s supposed to be a joke on how they always do this. But then why would that be an irritating surprise, they literally do this EVERY episode 🙄

-------

Oh hey, Red Herring’s Party Screams truck has Red Herring running out of it

Could this be a hint to how the story goes? The villain appearing on a literal Red Herring?

Naaaaaah, WB’s not THAT smart

-------

So if we take @captainbaddecisions​​ crack theory on Jonathan Crane being Shaggy’s uncle seriously, does this mean that Jonathan is using magic to fly, float fear toxin orbs around himself, and making things explode, a la the family trait of Crack Theory A? 

Logically he’s probs using wires or magnets or some shit, but it’s a fun thought to entertain 😁

------

Welp, we finally get the opening credits! … with Jonathan Crane smashing through the Mystery Machine’s windshield, set to a slow poppy song straight from the 60s, and spewing the title of the film out in glittery pink mist.

All the while Scooby and Shaggy throw candy at each other, deliberately obtuse to the cloud of fear toxin enveloping their friends and the townsfolk, the steady destruction of the Mystery Machine they’re laying in as multiple cars crash into it and send it spiraling, and the general mayhem and destruction that Scarecrow is causing

Never change, guys, never change

--------

I just choked on my lemonade

There’s an article plastered to the roof of the Mystery Machine titled “Talking Dog Confounds, Ignites Ethics Debate Over Dog Labor”

ahahahahaha

-------

Annnnnnnnd there goes the Mystery Machine, tumbling in the air and over the roads with Shaggy and Scooby still inside without seat belts. Will they perish in this horrible road accident? Will Death finally come to claim them at last?

Of course not. This is Shaggy and Scooby we’re talking about - I’m almost positive they can survive anything up to and including a nuclear bomb. This is child’s play to them.

-------

So they “capture” Scarecrow… by pinning his cape to a tree with crossbow bolts. 

And they do not try to at least tie up his arms or his hands in ANY capacity. 

JUST the cape. 

...you know, Velma, for a team with a “flawless” track record, you guys are making a hecking TON of mistakes in facing against one of Batman’s ROGUES GALLERY, ESPECIALLY with no Batman in sight, good freakin’ grief. 😩

------

Yaaaaaaaaas, this Scarecrow design is LUSH

He’s got the lank, the height, the BTAS costume colors, the elongated face with beaky nose and pointed chin and angular cheekbones, the eyebags like Gucci, the furrowed brow… honestly the only thing missing is the more reddish color hair, and even that isn’t mandatory. I love 😍

Not to mention the HOT DAYUM voice he has - low and velvet rough and so godsdamned particular in a way that could either tie in to obscuring a southern accent as in fanon or just as a stringent academic, oh my yes. He’s voiced by someone called Dwight Schultz, who’s most well known for playing Captain ‘Howling Mad’ Murdock in the OG A-Team show, and someone called Reginald Barclay in Star Trek TNG and Voyager, if any of y’all know that character in particular. 

And of course, the first line he says is a delightfully wry “Oh, but I AM getting away with it,” with the sort of smirk that absolutely lends credence to why he’s a threat to Batman, and not some simpering wimp that can be defeated with some crossbow bolts in a tree.

I think I’m going to enjoy this movie at least somewhat, so long as we get to see him 🥰🥰🥰

(tho on a side note: Daphne why on EARTH are you trying to film Crane saying the meddling kids line? Do you have a video compilation of past villains who’ve done that, and you hope to add his to it? Was your phone damaged when you went up against the Riddler a few DTVs ago and you want a second shot at recording a Gotham Rogue saying it? Bc I don’t think a Gotham Rogue would be too pleased with seeing himself as a Mystery Meme on the Youtubes, you get what I’m saying?)

-------

Okay, so the floating orb things are explained away as fear toxin bomb drones somehow… despite looking nothing like the other drones and being much smaller with no visible propulsion, while also flying unassisted through and around objects to explode against places once flung…

(tho interesting note, none of them are aimed directly at the crowds, just behind them - odd, that)

But how did he heckin’ FLY at the beginning?

Yeah, they show him wearing wrist-mounted grappling hooks at the end of the intro song sequence, but they are NOWHERE IN SIGHT at the beginning - and I do mean in sight, since he emerges against a backdrop of flames. There was nothing there (see the T-pose above for further evidence), and nothing there when he FLEW THROUGH THE MYSTERY MACHINE’S WINDSHIELD AND FLEW BACK OUT AGAIN. And these things are pale silver, which stands out like crazy against the darker backgrounds, so no hand-wavy ‘they were always being used’ bullcrap we’ve seen in other movies. 

Hmmm *scribbles in notepad* note to self, add notation concerning Crack Theory A on magic!Shaggy to “Uncle Crane” theory files - evidence denotes that Crane is able to fly (or at least hover in mid-air unassisted) for terrorization purposes. May boost strength of CTA by family association, lending credence to magic inheritance along the bloodline...

------

“Avocado Toast Generation”? Crane, I honestly don’t know if you really mean that, or if you understand just how much that phrase gets under any Millennial/Gen Z kid’s skin. Having seen multiple variations of your character, it really could swing either way (tho kudos on the dead switch idea - very nice 👍🏻) 

Although this does lead to an interesting stand-off: Fred, upon seeing the town threatened with 3 days worth of fear toxin, immediately moves to let Crane go, while Velma stops him and refuses to consider compromising if it means Crane escapes.  They both look legitimately frustrated at the other for taking the stance they do. 

Fascinating~

------

Hmmm

Crane honey, I don’t know if your drones are made of flash paper and hope, or if Scooby and Shaggy are using the reeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaally old candy (the stuff made about ~3 years ago most neighborhoods give out to the teenagers that knock around midnight on Halloween) to shoot them down, but either way you may wish to speak with the manufacturer about this

Then again, this IS Shaggy and Scooby - they probably could’ve spat marshmallows at the drones and brought them down with equal success and explosions 

(and good on them for shooting those down! Atta boy 👍🏻)

-------

Aw dang it

1. They still have Crane captured and now in handcuffs (despite having… you know… NOT been bound by anything except cross bolts in his curtain cape thing)

2. Dwight Schultz has decided to pitch his voice higher and more nasally than what he has. Hopefully this is more of an incredulous sort of pitch than something that sticks for the rest of the movie, ugh.

Also, I think they’re framing the movie to be more Velma-centric this time around - she’s the one explaining to Crane how they tracked him down, apparently through a piece of fan mail he sent Elvira (is that the only reason she’s there? Also why was Velma examining random pieces of fan mail for toxins, Elvira probs gets hundreds a week irl) and it looks like they’re framing something up on how fear isn’t something you can pretend isn’t there. neat!

------

whajit

53rd? 

53rd?!?!

ONLY 53rd?!?!?!?!

Boooo, Scarecrow’s WAY more popular than that! I call foul

---

Okay why is Daphne’s schtick so far to spit laaaaaaame slang after every sentence Velma says

I would rather this not be her schtick

Actually could she go back to filming mystery stuff, bc at least I can pretend it’ll build into the OG Zombie Island Daphne

----

Phew, his voice has returned to its low, raspy goodness

also, Crane needs to learn about personal space, good grief

(interesting clue brought up tho - Crane only steals tech that CAN’T leak his toxin, ergo it can’t be tracked until he releases it. Sensible use, given that Batman probs tracks it if it does.)

----

Velma: I’m not afraid of you, Crane. Fear is an illogical reaction to an imagined threat. 

Crane:

-----

Crane: Fearless, then. Intelligent. Proud and stubborn. You remind me very much of the one person in this world I care about. 

uhhhhhh

Yourself? Harley? Edward Nygma? Ichabod the raven? Idk, I’m honestly curious as to where this thread will go 🤔🤔🤔

-----

Fred, leaning against the Mystery Machine: Guys, it’s gonna be okay. She told me!

O_o

Fred? Honey? Are you sure you weren’t supposed to join Crane in the transport vehicle back to Arkham? 

----

OH SWEET JESUS SHAGGY GREW YAOI HANDS

WHAT THE HECK 

THAT’S WAY MORE UNNERVING THEN YOU GUYS NOT BEING AFRAID ANYMORE

(although the fact that they’re both unsettled by NOT constantly shaking or having their heart racing is honestly kind of heartbreaking. Y’all need therapy, good grief)

----

Shaggy and Scooby just chewed up candy (wrapper and all) to make themselves a Halloween costume of… what looks like barfed-up candy (ew)

Before then proceeding to dance so well that everyone around them also starts dancing in a 60s-70s era rainbow light show and giving them candy

I worry for these two sometimes - that kind of power seems to be getting to their head 😬😬😬

---

Oh hey, acid green toxic waste is spilling from an 18-wheeler onto the Fear Toxin drones and emitting a purple pink haze that envelops a pumpkin patch! That won’t do anything suspicious at all I bet!

(wait is Poison Ivy going to come into this at some point)

(also major kudos to the music here - very 80s horror synth, I like)

----

So the Pumpkins have grown faces, limbs, consciousness, the ability to fly and a lust for human flesh

And they appear to be led by the Pumpkin King of the Pumpkin Patch mentioned in the Charlie Brown Halloween special

He’s not as friendly as I pictured him being, sadly 😕

---

Why is this random ass cop coming up to FD&V to say that they’re in over their heads… AFTER the mystery’s been solved?

Like dude, you’re only making yourself suspicious at this point, go home

----

Huh, interesting - the gang are being interviewed for a tv news network while they’re considered the town heroes

Why am I getting bad vibes from this…

Eh, it’s probably nothing

----

Velma: {Shaggy and Scooby} are, um… REALLY into the Halloween spirit. 

Shaggy: THIS ISN’T COSPLAY, VELMA!

I’m dying 😂

------

Holy Shit

Velma just snapped and went off on Shaggy and Scooby for acting scared and doing nothing to help wrap up the mystery

(even though these guys are the ONLY reason that the gang didn’t have to choose between setting Scarecrow free and poisoning the entire town for 3 days straight, but hey, what do I know - I’m just writing an in-depth reaction post to this movie and taking note of details like this, clearly I know nothing *eye roll*)

Last time I saw Velma critique the guys’ usual mystery solving shenanigans, it was much more low-key and without knowing they were nearby

But I’m sure that’s just a coincidence

------

What the

Bills?

Bills?!?!

Fred just mentioned that fixing the Mystery Machine was going to leave a hefty bill and that they may need to get dishwashing jobs to earn money

Which is more of a job you might expect a high schooler to get on the go and yet

They actually have to pay bills 

How old are they here??!

------

wait a tic

THIS is how they introduce Bill Nye?

He just calls up Velma with no explanation other than Velma saying “Oh hey, it’s Bill Nye!”

I just - what?!?!

How do you know him so well that he can just pull up your number and call you, and then geT YOU A NEW FREAKING CAR LIKE

WHAT?!?!?!?

Was there a Scooby episode with him in the past two years where the fcuk did this come from

------

Also the car is dressed like Bill Nye

And he can talk to the gang directly as the car

So that he can solve mysteries with them whenever he wants

This… this was not what I was expecting to come about from the Bill Nye cameo 

(alas, poor predictions of being Crane’s roommate, you will not come to pass this day) 😔

-------

Ooooo, purple haze throbbing on the horizon! That’s always a good sign of things to come! 😀

------

 And now Daphne’s… asking Elvira to mentor her fashion wise. And Elvira’s taking her on as her unpaid intern/personal assistant.

Yooo, movie, can you pick a direction and stick with it for Daphne? You’ve gone from her spewing outdated slang to wanting a costume for trick-or-treating, and now this. 

-------

Welp, now I can say I saw a giant pumpkin dog vore an old woman

I didn’t WANT to see that mind, but I guess I can say it now 😐

------

OH SHIT NO

IT TURNED HER INTO A FLYING PUMPKIN SHAPED LIKE HER FACE

ABSOLUTELY UNSETTLING, 0/10 WOULD NOT RECOMMEND

-------

At least we get a nice scene of Daphne kicking the pumpkins’ collective butt

Something normal

------

Elvira: WOW! You’re a regular Mary Sue!

*falls over cackling*

------

And now there’s a giant purple fissure opening up in the concrete to swallow the town of Crystal Cove whole 

(good, i whisper softly into the darkness of my living room. Let it fall)

--------

Man, I feel so bad for this single father right now

He’s gotten wrapped up in all of this nonsense with his daughter, and he is just Distraught at being chased by Jackal Lanterns, having the town collapsing under his feet, and having to gorge jump in his sedan to get away from the worst of it

It’s okay, Mike Dad - we would feel the same way in your shoes

-------

Hologram Bill Nye is wearing Cat ears and cat whiskers/nose, and is cleaning his hands like a cat cleans its paws

Why was this the movie we found out Bill Nye was a furry

Why Warner Bros 

Why would you inflict this upon us in a Scooby Doo-Scarecrow mystery

-------

Hey, can Jonathan Crane return now? The movie needs its dignity back. 

------

A clue on the whys here - the town was built on top of a MASSIVE lithium deposit, with the talks to mine it being scrapped due to environmental concerns. That’s actually a decent lead in for why some 

-------

Welp

The Jackal Lanterns just went full Mad Max with the Halloween Parade floats and cars

No, I don’t have any idea why either, just roll with it

-------

Nice, they confirmed that Fred’s full name is still Frederick Herman Jones XD

Also a great little action sequence with Daphne - while there’s not much movement, they frame the scene dynamically, with some good quick wordplay. Very nice. 

--------

Velma has a mind palace

Aight

--------

Velma: Shaggy, I could kiss you!

Oh, to hear this as a child, when I still hardcore shipped Shelma *sigh*

------

Oh thank gods we’re going back to Scarecrow again

------

Shaggy ate some Scooby Snacks, leapt out of a moving vehicle, and onto the backs of two flying pumpkins that he promptly reined in to fly to Crane’s prison transport

...yet again, I am amazed at the sentences I am led to type for Scooby Doo DTVs

------

Ah, how very Hannibal Lector of you, Jon 

Man, he actually looks very meek in normal clothes - red long-sleeved shirt and grey slacks

-----

Hmmm

So Crane ISN’T behind the Jackal Lanterns - in fact he’s outright befuddled by them. This means his whole spiel to Velma earlier about both of them being caught in the same trap was… metaphorical? The breakdown doesn’t actually go into WHY he thinks they’re in the same trap - Crane’s whole schtick is tied to accepting fear, not denying it, so why would they be the same?

Either way, someone is using both him and Mystery Inc to do something to Crystal Cove (please be Red Herring, please be Red Herring, please be Red Herring)

Actually, that reference at the beginning really WAS a red herring - they framed it as being Jon the whole time when it wasn’t. Kudos!

Additional kudos to having Jon be seen more out of mask than in - he is a looker, and I aim to look as much as I can ;)

-------

Annnnd Daphne’s now trying to convince Elvira to switch clothes with her

I don’t get it - how on earth did we get from Daphne trying to find a good costume for trick-or-treating to asking Elvira to switch oh there it is nevermind.

-----

There is literally a scene where a giant buzzsaw is slicing towards Crane

and he just

stares at it

going “huh, that’s different”

And I LOVE IT

------

And here we have another fascinating scene: Velma going to free Crane from his cell, as Daphne tells her to just leave him to die by pumpkin

I’m wondering if they meant to draw a parallel between the two here - Velma starts by reciting a nursery rhyme, then overcoming her fears in order to release madness to take control. It’s not done very cleanly - mainly bc we barely have any time with Crane in this movie - but I wonder if they meant to insinuate that Crane was like Velma once, where he refused to acknowledge he was afraid, which caused him to lose focus on his initial goals

Idk, ignore my ramblings

---

Crane, smirking: I’ll need my personal effects - extenuating circumstances.

Me, fanning myself: I’ll need you to remove yours first

(i am not even kidding, Crane is an absolute DILF in this movie and it flusters me. Stupid sexy animation)

---

YAAAAAAAAAAASSSSS

SCARECROW TO THE MOTHERFCUKING RESCUE BABY, SCYTHE AND FCUKING ALL!!!

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

----

FCUK YEAH THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING

HE HAS A DANCE LIKE QUALITY WITH SOME OF HIS FIGHTING MOVES

VIOLENT DANCING BRINGS THE GIANT JACKAL LANTERN DOWN BABY

THEN HE BACKFLIPS AND GYMNASTIC SWINGS INTO THE VAN

ROCK IT SCARECROW FCUKING ROCK IT

(minor note here, but the subtitles show Dr. Crane instead of Scarecrow - unsure if that’s more that the movie calls him Dr Crane or if it indicates he’s acting more heroic than villainous)

---

GODDAMNIT

THE GIANT PUMPKIN SNUCK VINES INTO THE VAN AND STOLE HIM BACK 

WHEN CRANE WAS... wearing a seatbelt before, but isn’t now.

...

BOOOOO

---

Yet again, we find a Scooby movie that attempts character development, but with Velma

Unlike Shaggy’s Showdown however, I’m mixed on how successful it is.

For starters, Velma hasn’t been this cocksure in other DTVs we’ve seen, so it’s a bit odd to see it now. While not 100% out of place - after all, the gang DID capture one of Batman’s Rogues Gallery on their own - it still feels a touch forced. Compare that to Shaggy’s Showdown, where Shaggy has ALWAYS been a coward (one that, in more recent years, writers have had willing to abandon his friends for safety), so the character development there feels more natural. 

The progression of events with Velma actually work somewhat okay - but again, here’s where past DTVs come to bite them in the ass. The past handful have had the gang be wrong, have had them fail, or catch the wrong guy. This makes Velma’s attitude here at odds with the other films, something that sticks more due to a character that’s appeared in the past few films as a minor inconvenience - a Sheriff who keeps telling the gang not to interfere, they’re doing things wrong, etc. If this had been a character who was completely wrong in the past AND SHOWN TO BE WRONG FOR HIS OPINIONS, while the gang never guessed wrong, this would work much better. Unfortunately, it doesn’t, and here we are. 

I think it would have flowed better if Velma’s cockiness came solely from catching Crane on their own. Have a random cop character or reporter or whatever (just not the recurring cop), insinuate that the gang is in too deep with Scarecrow, that he should be handled by the adults or professionals or whatever. Velma could bristle, overcompensate, and THEN fall from her pedestal like we see, reach out to the gang and commiserate over feeling scared, and grow. Again, it’s not too far to reach for, but they handle it poorly; as a result, the outcome feels a little more shoehorned in. 

It’s an honest shame, bc we haven’t had a Velma centered story since Frankencreepy, and we all remember what a hideous fcuking mess THAT was *shudders*. Still, it somewhat gets its point across, I guess.

---

Fred why did you rip your shirt off

Actually better question why do you not have nipples

--- 

Awwwwwww

Velma just apologized to Shag and Scoob for snapping at them earlier, and admits how she doesn’t appreciate how much they make Mystery Inc what it is

Also she eats a Scooby Snack with them and admits they taste pretty good

----

Huh

Velma’s mind palace is the Mystery Machine driving through space

Also Shaggy and Scooby are able to telepathically follow her in and communicate with her

Literally, they actually followed her into her head telepathically, and show her their memories of things she hasn’t gotten to see tonight (while also possibly enhancing her ability to remember things, given how much DETAIL she captures perfectly of things that she would maybe have glimpsed in a millisecond AT MOST)

...another tally for Crack Theory A of magic! Shaggy and Scooby *scribbles*

-------

Fred, be very very thankful that there are no people operating those pumpkins in person cause uhhhh

Those traps would be spraying red instead of orange

------

Another weird music choice - the gang goes up to fight the Jackal Lanterns, but the music is the same 60s bubble we heard earlier 

Not terribly atmospheric, really

(wouldn’t a Smashing Pumpkins cover of Scooby Doo be more appropriate, or did you guys spend all your money on hiring Elvira and Bill Nye?)

------

Dang

Velma just admitted her fears and jumped into the mouth of the Mega Pumpkin, before getting Fred to use the app from earlier to shut it down, revealing it to be a giant drone surrounded by smaller pumpkin drones

This feels… counterintuitive, but I’ll try to explain at the end

---

Okay

I’ll admit it

The Whodunnit is actually pretty decent in concept

There was a sprinkling of tidbits that could be assembled for the final conclusion and still make a decent amount of sense, all to find the sheriff doing it 

Only he isn’t a sheriff

He’s a former Tech CEO who was also busted by the gang years ago in a case the Sheriff kept bringing up throughout the movie - due to his prison sentence, he lost more than half his wealth and the opportunity to expand it further with the Crystal Cove Lithium deposits

He was also someone who sold tech to Crane for his fear toxin distribution, where he got the idea to frame him for it

(tho on a side note, Crane is an absolute dork and a terrible liar - just look at the email he sent XD and that profile pic, my gods)

He deliberately picked at the gang for the past few DTVs (specifically 2: Return to Zombie Island and Curse of the 13th Ghost) to fracture their confidence, undermine them, etc - all so that in one fell swoop, he could retake his fortune, frighten everyone in town away from the mines so they couldn’t interfere, frighten away the gang (while also ruining their reputation as mystery solvers), and take Crane off the docket so he couldn’t identify the CEO when he pretended to be the sheriff

This… is actually a pretty damn good plan, for a Scooby villain. He was patient, manipulative, and clever, learning how best to tie up loose ends and win back what he lost. A clever revenge story that came so close to coming to fruition, and could have honestly been sold convincingly… 

...if it hadn’t been done so much better in Scooby Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed. 

Yeeeaaaah, this movie basically lifts the rough framework up from that one - past mystery villain comes back to attack the gang and ruin their reputation (tho this one decides to also make his fortune back and tie up loose ends with former criminal contacts, a la Crane). Gang is embarrassed in front of the news folk, another villain is framed for it (like Old Man Wickles of the Black Knight fame), and the gang must reconcile to foil the villain for good.

Although it also??? Merges elements of Frankencreepy in it?? The movie is focused on Velma, who is struggling to admit when she’s wrong (which ties into her fear, somehow… I’ll think on that point a little) and things purportedly go haywire when she won’t bend. This… isn’t illustrated as well here, since there’s very little direct cause-and-effect from Velma’s actions that would prove this point - that insisting her way is the right, best, and therefore only way to go ends up making things worse.  

As much as I despised Frankencreepy (and I DESPISED IT), it did do that part well - showing that refusing to budge on something can lead to you hurting your friends (literally, in that one), and that admitting you were wrong and need help isn’t the end of the world. 

(that movie also had former villains returning to gain vengeance upon the gang using psychological warfare, hm - may need to go over that one again, unfortunately).

It’s a shame, too -  the basic elements for this plot are all here, they just need to be polished and reworked a bit to make a really fascinating movie. 

------

Anyways, back to the asshat CEO who just… faked being a sheriff. Because white people can get away with that so long as they have the outfit and the car *throws up hands* (the sad part is this is probably something that actually happens)

As he drives away we see a familiar silhouette looming in the cornfields, watching him approach

Velma had Bill Nye on speaker, so he could record the entire confession for the federal officers nearby (who were taking Scarecrow back to Arkham), and track the phone signal to his exact location

And right as his holographic call cuts out, we see the shadow of a Scarecrow looming over him, causing him to scream.

When the feds arrive at his final location, both his body and the money have vanished. The car still sits, engine running, before the crows leering over him from the field vanish into the sky. 

-------

Now that he’s dead, the gang walks and finds themselves at a Halloween party, with friendly faces and good food. The mystery is solved, though the culprit may never be found again. 

Then Daphne admits to NOT trying to steal Elvira’s costume for Halloween, but instead trying to steal Elvira’s identity and replace her. 

Something that she’s apparently nearly gotten away with on past mysteries working with Phillis Diller

*sighs* movie, why couldn’t you just stick to the costume schtick? This is just… so much worse. 

-----

From there, Elvira walks off to wrap things up, reveal the monster face on the back of her head sans wig (which was also a monkey), and start the credits, where we see the gang working to bring the Mystery Machine back to its former glory a la Frankenstein pastiche. 

This movie… this movie is a hot mess, but at least it’s an OKAY hot mess. 

It really does feel like someone started writing a decent Velma-focused movie concerning the Scarecrow and a past Mystery Inc villain interfering, but was bogged down by notes from higher-ups: Wait! Write in Elvira! Also write in Bill Nye! Hey, let’s have a Mad Max car chase with the Jackal Lanterns! And have Daphne obsessed with literally becoming Elvira! Also make reference to things that we’ll insist be explained this way instead of a way that makes sense! Great!

(seriously tho, we never find out who Crane cares about most that reminds him of Velma, what the heck?)

It’s like two or three different scripts were smooshed together without being cleaned up - stuff is said that doesn’t get resolved, the celebrity guests don’t get to breathe much and feel squished together, and the build-up for the villain feels… less impactful, even knowing that he’s been in the past two films. 

It might have worked if he’d been in… let’s say like 5 or 6 DTVs in a row, speaking roles for dissing the gang growing in each (ex start with “Good job kids! But maybe next time, leave it to the professionals, okay?” and growing more bitter from there), but only 2 feels kind of meh. Still, I do appreciate the clues we got to collect together, and they all work in the final breakdown of the scheme - some DTVs can feel like they pull stuff completely out of nowhere, so kudos there. 

I appreciate what they wanted to do with Velma - give her a character development arc similar to Shaggy’s in Shaggy’s Showdown. Unfortunately, it wasn’t set up quite so neatly: they blended her ‘refusal to admit fear’ with her overconfidence that she was always right, and it led to a weird conclusion. To face her fears, she leapt into the Giant Pumpkin, which… proved that she was right all along about it being fake, and that solves things somehow. It doesn’t address how she can get something wrong sometimes, it doesn’t really address what she’s afraid of (which is honestly quite good: she’s afraid of failing in a way that allows bad guys to escape justice and in a way that hurts her friends), it’s just a bit of a mess. Points for aiming the focus the right way (and in a way that DOESN’T sexualize the underage teenage girl, unlike some DTVs cough cough Frankencreepy cough cough), but it’s very very messy how it goes about it. 

The movie actually balanced pretty well for the whole gang - no excessive focus on one leaving the rest in the dust (too much at least - Fred was a touch underdeveloped, but nowhere near as annoying as past iterations have been. Shaggy and Scooby were kind of meh in some places but great in others, while Daphne was just odd. I think they were trying to recapture the BCSD Daphne characterization, but they failed. Still, she did spend some good time kicking ass with the pumpkins, so that was fun.

Now for the Rogue, Jonathan Crane. If you like Crane, this movie gives you: maniacal Scarecrow, calm and creepy Crane, a brief glimpse at fanboy!Crane (he admits in his own awkward way that he’s a fan of Elvira, and later tells her he loves her work - it’s fun), and (best of all for me) a heroic Crane - one who helps the protagonists and ends up kicking ass pretty damn well, brief as it was. And while DILF Crane is always a treat, he feels underutilized in this. In comparison, Scooby Doo/Batman Brave and the Bold really utilized a lot of different aspects of Riddler, to the point he actually does feel pretty menacing by the third act. It’s a shame we don’t quite get that with Crane, but I do love seeing him 1. More out of mask, and 2. Acting as a good guy (in his own way), so he’s enjoyable on the whole. 

I kind of wish that the whole movie was spent more with Crane, but again, the script is a bit of a mess on this part - the fact that he’s not completely screwed over is a goddamn miracle. 

Elvira was… okay. She didn’t have much of a purpose beyond getting the plot started and giving Daphne some hooks to play off of. Bill Nye (abrupt as his introduction was) did provide some necessary elements to the mystery, as well as the tech; he wasn’t too bad by the end. (still a touch bitter we didn’t get ex roommate Nye, but hey, what can you do)

Humor was… mixed. Some good, some meh, but very few long enough to feel painful. Some bits felt extraneous at times, but they did help to build to the conclusion, so points for effort.

At the end of the day though, I’m probably keeping this more for Jonathan Crane than anyone else. It does have a lot of fanfic potential tho 🤔🤔🤔

That’s all from me tonight, folks! Hope you enjoyed my own little breakdown of the movie. 

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

Tbh I really didn’t like my policeman (the book obvs). Felt like it was very *queer literature for the hetros* in that it uses all the tropes where queer folk can only be sad, only be very tragic, one of them has to be alone forever, and there’s a bitchy wife. It just feels like a story we’ve been told time and time again: man is in love with another man, wife is pissed.

It’s also so stupidly white. Blind casting is a wonderful thing that really should be used more often.

Oh anon - is this how you respond to literature? There is nothing here about how you responded to any of the specifics of the book. Instead it's just a list of features or plot points that you seem to think make a book invalid.

Since you shared this with me I think most of the specific claims you make about My Policeman are unsustainable, and I don't know where your claims about queer literature come from.

I don't think 'bitchy' is an accurate description of Marion. I don't think queer folk in My Policeman are only sad. I don't think there's any reason to think that either Patrick or Tom were alone forever.

I don't know what your definition of 'queer literature for the heteros' is - or what sort of material you're talking about. It may be that there's examples of what . But if you're going to make a claim that it's a story that's been told time and time again some evidence is needed.

I'm also really curious at what you thinks is wrong with stories about married men navigating their queerness? Why would it be a problem if that story was told time and time again? It has been and still is a really common experience. Would you object to an E M Forster biopic?

************

I find your suggestion that colour blind casting would be appropriate for My Policeman completely unserious. Have you watched Red, White and Blue? Steve McQueen's movie about the experience of a black policeman in the Met? To cast colourblind and keep the story the same would only be possible by completely erasing the experience and reality of racism in 1950s Britain. Walking down the street in Britain today is not a colour blind experience - so of course a lot of stories can't be told in a colour blind way.

Which isn't to say all the characters in My Policeman needed to be white. Some of the roles (I would suggest not Tom, most of the other characters), could be played by actors who wouldn't be understood by white now, but who operated in a similar class position in 1950s UK. But that's not colour blind casting - that's acknowledging that pre-Windrush Britain was not as monolithic as commonly imagined.

*************

What this asks amounts to is that some queer stories shouldn't be told. I just straight up disagree. I think you can tell all sorts of stories in a true and interesting way, and there's always space for new stories.

But if you do believe that some forms of stor are invalid - why not stay away from them? Rather than reading them and telling everyone that you think they're invalid. It's not an interesting opinion.

[janiedean]

Now I want to hear the Stannis rant (when you have time)!!

hahahah have fun XD okay so for context, the tags I mentioned the aforementioned rant in:

#one day i’ll rant at lenght about how dnd never got stannis#bc they cannot conceive that a dude with THAT kinda moral compass is a complete disaster when it comes to interpersonal relationships#nor that half of the issues stannis has are bc he’s literally starving for people to see he has worth#while slaving for them anyway and being more competent than anyone else that passes before him#but this is not the day i guess

now: this is... a thing that I honestly struggle with when it comes to this fandom because the side that hates stannis thinks he’s a selfish arrogant asshole without feelings and the side that loves him is like ‘omg such a great battle commander GO RIGHTFUL KING HE’S SO BADASS’ and I feel like neither is an accurate reading because the first sees the character at mere face value (and most likely skipped the davos chapters) and the second only cares about his so-called badassness, but... thing is: stannis is an extremely competent person who’s also a disaster at relationships because he feels like no one cares for him (which isn’t exactly untrue as I’ll rant about later) who in turn everyone judges as uncaring and unfeeling when he actually isn’t and who in turn compulsively pursues what he can pursue because he has to compensate and who on the other side is absolutely starved for recognition except that he doesn’t get it.

and like... at this point I have to lay down the premises in the sense that while I really wish I didn’t, I... kind of really do relate a lot to that aspect - people assuming you’re cold/aloof because you aren’t immediately excited about things or don’t wear feelings on your sleeve - and tbh I really really love that grrm made a character who has the Good At Battles And So On reputation... a complete interpersonal rships disaster, because it actually gives him a whole new layer that I don’t see really discussed often and since that’s what I relate to... it’s sad. for me personally at least.

anyway, thing is:

the fact that stannis was the unloved baratheon brother is the exact first thing you learn from the acok prologue - I mean, ‘Stannis, my lord, my sad sullen boy, son I never had, you must not do this, don't you know how I have cared for you, lived for you, loved you despite all? Yes, loved you, better than Robert even, or Renly, for you were the one unloved, the one who needed me most.’ like, it’s the first thing the narrative throws at you in the face the moment that he does something that already puts him on the reader’s bad side ie dismissing poor cressen, but it’s basically the key to the entire damned point;

because first of all it implies stannis (who’s the middle child out of those three) felt like both his brothers didn’t love him and with their parents dying the way they did that goes too, and if we take into account the proudwing episode - he saves the damned hawk, he’s all happy he got it back to fly, robert mocks him for it and his uncle convinces him to let it die - it’s basically the metaphor for his life because whatever he does, the people who should notice don’t care;

this actually should be discussed along with the whole siege of storm’s end because like... stannis held out by almost starving himself and his men (but renly never mentions it whenever he speaks so I should suppose he doesn’t remember it as an extremely traumatic event when he was in the castle, so stannis made sure he actually had enough food to not starve most likely when no one else did) for robert and if he hadn’t done that when he was barely twenty if not nineteen they’d have lost the rebellion, which you’d think would give him nice things, right? no, because robert gives him dragonstone which stannis sees as a slight, he feels like robert loves ned more than him and he’s p. resentful about it, renly basically bypasses him when it’s time to claim the throne with the amazing explanation that ‘he’s not amusing and people wouldn’t like him’ when that’s not how succession works and he doesn’t seem to get one inch of appreciation by his relatives that he almost died for;

now he has that compulsive thing when it comes to laws and sticking to justice.... considering that he feels like all of his entire family wronged him since he was a teenager (and like, i’m obv. not blaming robert for not having been the best bc he also had trauma bc their parents died I mean we have issues but I get it) and like both his brothers feel like others (ned, loras/the tyrells) are more their family than him and/or that they don’t care for him because he’s sour/not immediately expansive/etc... are we surprised that he has that much of a problem with the concept of compulsively following justice/the rules? considering that when it comes to that it’s written black on white and fairness is objective, obviously he’s a sucker for the rules and he feels that strongly about his birthright - that’s because he feels like he can only trust in objective ruling that everyone should follow rather than people;

this is where I go personal, but... a thing that’s extremely common if you tend to be shy/not immediately an extrovert/if it takes you time to get to know people/if you aren’t a funny person automatically is that people start to assume you don’t have feelings or you don’t care about others, which in turn means that you tend to become even worse because the moment you open up you’re terrified that the other person will hate you, and that’s... peak stannis because the way he’s when the books start is out of all of that plus having married someone out of obligation for robert and getting humiliated on the same wedding night plus having just one daughter everyone sees as defective and that renly openly mocked at some point too but never mind that, and like... another thing with stannis that people don’t really notice is that while he’s crap at expressing his love for his daughter because he’s shit at feelings and relationships, he also loves her really fucking much and as someone else pointed out he didn’t educate her to marry into some other family, he educated her to be his heir and with davos’s male sons and so on, like he didn’t give her just a lady’s education, he gave her a full-on heir education, which outside dorne is unheard of, and in his last adwd chapter as much as dnd didn’t read it... he told people to put her on the throne if he died and to fight for her same as they would have for him. like, it’s obvious that he does love her, he’s just complete crap at showing it... same as he is in general because he doesn’t feel like he can be open about his feelings with people and because he pretty much has no fucking clue of how it works, which is... well... what happens when you grow up with that kind of emotional stuntedness;

that is, unless he’s talking to davos, which is what I’d really fucking like for people to realize. like, never mind the show, but when book!stannis talks to davos he immediately goes from 100% completely closed off to being all soft and as affectionate as it goes and I mean guys... just a couple quotes but:“He seemed ten years older than the man that Davos had left at Storm's End when he set sail for the Blackwater and the battle that would be their undoing. The king's close-cropped beard was spiderwebbed with grey hairs, and he had dropped two stone or more of weight. He had never been a fleshy man, but now the bones moved beneath his skin like spears, fighting to cut free. Even his crown seemed too large for his head. His eyes were blue pits lost in deep hollows, and the shape of a skull could be seen beneath his face. Yet when he saw Davos, a faint smile brushed his lips. "So the sea has returned me my knight of the fish and onions.""It did, Your Grace." Does he know that he had me in his dungeon? Davos went to one knee.”-"I am lowborn," Davos reminded him. "An upjumped smuggler. Your lords will never obey me.""Then we will make new lords.""But . . . I cannot read . . . nor write . . .""Maester Pylos can read for you. As to writing, my last Hand wrote the head off his shoulders. All I ask of you are the things you've always given me. Honesty. Loyalty. Service.""Surely there is someone better . . . some great lord . . ."Stannis snorted. [...] but I trust none of them as I trust you, my lord of Rainwood. You will be my Hand. It is you I want beside me for the battle."that’s TWO, and when davos says that his lords wouldn’t want him for a hand stannis goes like you’re more important than them to me pretty much, and in general the moment they’re alone together he’s way more open and vulnerable and sincere than he is when literally anyone else... that is because davos is the literal one person that not only is his actual friend (bc he doesn’t really have any other friends not even between his relatives), but also someone who:a) actually thinks the world of him;b) hasn’t batted an eyelid at his sense of justice I mean guys let’s be real he cut off davos’s fingertips bc he was a criminal at the same time as giving him a lordship after davos saved his life and everyone else’s and davos has the bones with him always because he thinks they’re his luck I mean k that’s extra but he actually does see stannis’s point when it comes to fairness;c) hasn’t disappointed him once;d) has only ever acted in his best interest;e) is the kind of person who’ll call him out on his bs rather than kiss his ass for honors and to someone who has stannis’s issues knowing that that kinda person exists means a whole damned lot;f) doesn’t think he’s there just to run the show without getting thankfed for it nor takes him for granted nor doesn’t recognize his efforts, which is 99,9% of his remaining issues with everyone else - ie that he does his job and does it well but no one recognizes it and everyone else passes in front of himg) sees his worth, which is a thing stannis is literally starved for but doesn’t get from many others period;which means he has one healthy relationship with someone bar maybe his daughter. one. that’s... not really that great or good whatsoever;

I mean there’s a reason why stannis wants that throne so bad. not that he cares about it, but that’s his right, so anyone else getting it would be the umpteenth time in his eyes that someone cheats him off something that’s rightfully is (storm’s end, his brothers’s love/affection/support etc); 

like, it’s not about how stannis is such a great badass fighter strategist, it’s that he wants the throne that badly because not getting it would be just the last straw in the list of slights he feels that he’s been at the end of for his entire life and one more humiliating than any of those others, because otherwise he wouldn’t give a damn;

and like... what I think dnd missed and a lot of people also do is that the ‘great commander who wins fights’ doesn’t mean he also can’t be a guy with extremely bad issues when it comes to interpersonal rships thanks to trauma and to the almost entirety of people around him writing him off as the not fun boring guy who only cares about laws when the only reason stannis cares that much about what’s fair and what’s not is that he feels like everyone else has been unfair to him.

and like....... recognizing that would require admitting that stannis is the farthest thing in these books from a badass conqueror guy who wins battles and wants to be king and will be an equally badass king - he’s an extremely competent guy who became competent at his job out of sheer stubborness and perfection complex who is everything but an emotionless machine (regardless of what people who should know better ie his brothers might think) and who has been disappointed so much in this sense that he can only have a healthy relationship with one single person who is not so coincidentally someone who saved his life, didn’t see anything wrong in his strike for justice, recognizes his worth and would die for him, which... is really not anyone else’s case in his immediate vicinities (not counting his soldiers and so on but that’s another problem entirely). that requires admitting that westeros crap toxic societal standards have hurt him too and that he has a second side that’s not really so cool (guys being emotionally stunted is not fun, I’ll 100% guarantee it to you, and people assuming you’re cold or emotionless because you can’t immediately open up to them is even worse) and that if you want to project greatness on him you should also embrace the fact that he’s a complete human disaster who is as starved for recognition/appreciation as jon is and there’s probably a reason why they were getting along so well in adwd.

and like, I think the fanbase who hails him as the new coming of jesus doesn’t recognize that because it interferes with the fearless conqueror dude fantasy - which is his superficial reading, not his actual reading, same as people deciding he’s emotionless just out of superficial reading, while dnd obviously didn’t know how to write him since S3 because they couldn’t decide what to do with him... but obviously, because dnd have no idea of how to write a male character who is both a strong military commander and an emotional disaster who wants recognition for his own worth and isn’t a power hungry asshole. nvm that dnd have no idea of how to write emotionally vulnerable male characters (see what they did with jaime tyrion theon and sandor and that’s not even counting jon or robb) but stannis was obv. too complicated for them to even consider actually trying for real.

/two cents

[bombardthehq]

Deleuze and Empiricism Bruce Baugh, written 1993, read 10/06/2020 - ??

a short article which characterizes Deleuze as an empiricist.

1. intro

Deleuze was an empiricist, but wanted to meet Hegels challenge to empiricism - so rather than arguing all knowledge is generalized from experience, he wants to "search for real conditions of actual experience" - he does not provide foundations for knowledge claims [Hume: Empiricism & Subjectivity, and an article on Hume in Histoire de Ia philosphie (Paris: Hachette, 1972-73) - find this!]

Deleuze takes as his starting point that "there is a difference between real difference and conceptual difference”

this difference is in "the being of the sensible" [difference & repetition]

2. non-conceptual difference

the 'naive' statement:

the concept makes 'repeatable experiences' possible, experiences which are identical to each other

the sensible is 'the actuality of any given experience' - something sensible can never be repeated, so there is always difference between actualisations

the sensible 'as a specific actualization' always falls outside the concept

the concept 'determines the equivalency among actualization', so they are all actualisations of the same concept, while the sensible grounds their difference

[this is a somewhat straightforward statement of particular vs abstract entities, and Deleuze seems to say that abstract entities, as generalities (every red thing is the same 'red', etc.) are never instantiated in particulars, at least not fully; ie. a nominalist view -- although perhaps what is considered significant here is the ordering of the world into the 'different' (each particular different from another) and the 'repeatable' (these particulars all instantiate the same thing) in the first place]

but...

if this were all, the sensible would just be a platform for actualizing the concept - our representations are just determined by the concept [as it is in Sellars, 'theory-laden observation', etc.] (so the sensible isn't noumena, its 'sense-perception'?)

in this case the sensible is 'explained by' the concept, ie. 'a priori conditions of experence', and therefore the a priori that constitutes knowledge

so whatever particularities of a representation aren't covered by a representation are just extrinsic & accidental, as are sensations themselves [don't quite understand this - wouldn't we require an a priori concept to grasp them in the first place?]

baugh offers a justification in parentheses: 'since..' other qualitatively similar sensations can be 'synthesized into a representation' that would be equivalent 'from the standpoint of knowledge' [confusing to me - different things are synthesized into the same representation? are representations repeatable?; I might need to read more about 'representations']

brief aside~

Representation, in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy ‘T.C.’, written 1995, read 10/06/2020

I couldn’t find a good explanation online so I took the opportunity to wipe the dust off of a physical book I had upstairs, using it for the first time in ten years. Trying to read it and type on a screen almost made me sick - perhaps I should have looked harder for an online explnation...

everything that represents is a representation, so... words, sentences, thoughts and pictures are all representations

representations can represent something that doesn't exist (lets say the word 'unicorn') - but all representations nonetheless do represent *something* [this problem isnt resolved in entry]

so we might say: a pictoral representation represents something by resembling it - but this encounters problems. Resemblance is reflexive (everything resembles itself) and symmetric (identical twins resemble each other), but a representation is neither.

Resemblance doesn't guarantee representation: this newspaper does not 'represent' all the other similar issues... [Nelson Goodman argues resemblance is not relevant to repr., Malcom Budd claims he can defend some resemblance theory of pictoral representations...]

Words obv dont resemble the things they represent, but we might see words as representing by linking to mental pictures

but pictures do not represent intrinsically... Wittgenstein gives a fun example: a picture of a man walking uphill could equally be a picture of a man sliding downhill. Nothing about the picture of itself tells us its a picture of the former or the latter.

So we have three choices:

the picture represents by virtue of being interpreted, so representations represent by being interpreted (not resembling something)

mental pictures 'self-interpret' - in this view representations are primitive & unexplanable

representations represent everything they resemble, so one representation represents countless different things - this too makes representations unexplainable

the 'mental pictures' theory also encounters problems, eg. what does a 'prime number' look like to my mind? how could 'we'll go to the beach next sunday' be a pictoral representation?

so there are many sorts of representation which each require their own explanation

recently representations have become very significant in philosophy of mind & there is hope that neuroscience & psychology could uncover a naturalistic explanation of them

back to Baugh~

so a representation isnt anything special - just anything that refers. Its most relevant to knowledge in the form of 'mental representations'... Deleuze seems to endorse a representation-centric theory of knowledge, where we only come to know things through our mental representations of them (I think this is quite common)

so if the naive account holds, similar particulars can be synthesized into a single representation, eg. several bluebells into one mental picture of 'the bluebell' (this being different from an abstract entity, eg. 'bluebells' as a class?)

so there are a few relevant steps: noumena, then I have a sensation of noumena, then I make a mental representation of that sensation (and might synthesize similar sensations together), and I finally know this representation

[I'm reminded of Ayer discussing Hume here, where impressions (ie. sensations?) must be 'brought under concepts' for us to recognize them by associating them with one another -- but this is a slightly different theory, ie. we have direct acquaintence with noumena and make concepts... This is perhaps really similar to some rationalist who stressed the a priori w/r/t sensation, who I'm not aware of - perhaps Kant! -- this would be why Baugh is careful to say 'a priori *conditions of experience*'] (reading this summary is probably much harder than reading Difference & Repetition)

so basically, a representation can be different from the concept (universal), and this is considered something accidental or extrinsic to it, ie. that this bluebell is shorter than the other is just accidental & its still a bluebell, I know it because it is a bluebell to me. The same operation plays out between sensation and representation (I don't really understand how) [its possible he actually means to explain the same thing in two ways, rather than describe two operations at differnet levels, ie. in order to create a representation (which 'leans on' the a priori concept) I have to discard the particulars of the actualized sensation and grasp only what is general to it, ie. I cannot know this bluebell, only what is 'the bluebell' in this bluebell

Baugh describes this view as 'the Kantian challenge to empiricism' (nailed it) he says there is 'an even greater Hegelian challenge' lurking behind; for Hegel, the particularities of the sensible are not dicarded as accidental, they are instead 'the self-articulation of the Idea', elaborating itself in particular form

for Hegel the concept already contains its particular empirical manifestation, that the two are together the way 'form' and 'content' are in a painting - the form is a 'synthetic organization' of the content

(so the concept is the 'content' and each particular its 'form' - just a particular way of organizing the concept)

Deleuze objects that even if the concept includes empirical content, it cannot already include this actuality (particular)

so for Kant, the empirical is 'what the concept determines would be in a representation if it occured' (so, the flowers of the bluebell would have to always be blue); for Deleuze, the empirical is this actuality itself (the bluebell before me itself), not 'the possibility of existence indicated by the concept' [Baugh writes: see pg 36 of 'Expressionism in Philosophy'; reading this page I dont really understand how its related... Perhaps "substance is once more reduced to the mere possibility of existence, with attributes being nothing but an indication, a sign, of such possible existence." - he's summarizing Spinoza's criticism of Descarte, but we might assume approvingly. Attributes are maybe the 'empirical', the particular - Spinoza argues against treating Substance as a 'genera' of which the attributes are 'species', [ie. where there are attributes 'of' susbtance(?)]; are we to take it that substance is a 'sum of attributes', ie. just empirical reality itself? if so, as Substance empirical reality is undivided, there is no distinction between things in it... (we're back to our point about the ontological equality of all divisions of noumena, ie. the tennis ball, half a tennis ball, etc.; in this case 'attributes' are proper to me, substance has no attributes because there are no distinct 'things' in it, its *just* substance, things are only distinct to me...) - but this seems to be the opposite point than Deleuze's, because for him everything empirical is different, and we make things the same by seeing the concept in them]

Against Hegel we argue that the difference between two performances of Beethoven's 7th Symphony cannot be included in the Idea, because the content (what is performed) is identical but the actual performances differ [is this a good argument? wouldn't the idea/content be 'a performance of the 7th Symphony', and the form be 'each particular performance'?]

for Deleuze the empirical is the difference between each actual performance; this difference makes the repetition of the same work possible

empirical actuality is therefore not possibility -- it is 'the effect of causes' ... 'which are immanent and wholly manifest in the effect through which they are experienced', as Spinoza's God (substance) 'is immanent in his attributes' [now the connection makes sense]

therefore, (here's the juice) "instead of being explicable through the concept ... empirical actuality, 'difference without concept'... [is] expressed in the power belonging to the existent, a sutbbornness of the existent in intuition" [cites Difference & Repetition pg. 23]

difference is a proprety of empirical reality itself, ie. each particular/actualization is different from the others, & it is the concept that organizes them into things which are the same as each other, ie. repeatable entities. each bluebell is already different from the other bluebells, the concept organizes them and declares that they are all bluebells, ie. have some 'being-bluebell' which repeats in them. [I feel like this doesn't overcome our objection to empiricism, ie. what makes this particular the particular? ie., what makes the tennis ball a particular and not half the tennis ball, the ball + some air, etc.? More generally: does it overcome Sellars, 'theory-laden observation', etc.? ie. do we really get the non-foundationalist empiricism promised?]

actually, is Deleuze talking here about noumena or sensation? earlier Baugh says Deleuze "locates difference in the 'being of the sensible'." this might change how we see it, ie. if noumena is undifferentiable stuff - not different or similar in any way - which sensation picks out as 'different stuff', and which are organized into representations which assume similarities between the 'different stuffs'... this makes sense to me.

I think this is the case: "[difference] is first given in sensory consciousness, a receptivity which grasps what comes to thought from 'outside' (DR 74)"

so 'empirical actuality' does NOT = empirical reality/noumena, empirical actuality = the world as grasped by sensation actualities =/= particular just-so, but where particulars are only existent in sensation

is this a 'third way' between foundationalism and 'theory-ladenness'? that noumena does not yet have particulars, but that my sense-perception organizes it into particulars, but this organization is *not* yet inscribed by the conept (theory, etc) - perhaps instead by my perceptive apparatus, the retina and so on? - the concept inscribes only the representation I make of this sensation. Sensation is a sort of passage between noumena and mental representation, perhaps the organization of the 'hailstones on the window' into associations, and their being 'brought under concepts' is their becoming representations, as Ayer says of Hume?

[calling this empiricism feels a little like splitting hairs by now, esp. if there isnt a foundationalist account of knowledge waiting - I'm not sure that Deleuze did call himself an empiricist, though]

Hegel all of a sudden makes our argument about the tennis ball! or something like it.

Hegel believes that the empirical ['pure actuality'] is 'empty' if it is not organized by the concept; every 'this' is as much a this as any other (ie. tennis ball, half a tennis ball...), so there is only 'indeterminacy'. but he takes this as a criticism of the point, ie. empirical reality cant exist without the concept because it would be empty, a 'negative universal', which cannot have being, is nothing. [This goes for both noumena & sensation; ofc Hegel feels that everything in nature is part of the Idea and so on]

This is where Deleuze disagrees with Hegel. Deleuze "rejects the epistemological model on which Hegel's argument is based", that "whatever does not make a difference to knowledge makes no difference" -- rather "the empirical must be thought even if it cannot be known, at least if knowledge is regarded as knowledge of phenomena" [does this line defeat my earlier conjecture about the empirical not being noumena, ie. the empirical is here not phenomena - but does that mean it is noumena, or simply not yet phenomena?]

for deleuze concepts are possible because of empirical actuality, in two senses:

actualities are "the condition of the application of concepts over different cases & so for universality in general" (different actualties are a platform for universal concepts)

it is the "real condition of experience" (I'm guessing: what we really experience; whatever we can expeirence is empirical actualities)

page 4, btw

NOTE: update 15/06/20 I think the bluebell example I use here may have been uninstructive. For Deleuze the sensible that is difference-in-itself is not objects - it is things like ‘substance’, ‘matter’, ‘energy’ (in their scientific uses); MATTER is difference-in-itself, which we coordinate into repeatable objects via the concept

3. multiplicity and externality

taking a siesta...

[husbandits]

What role do betas play in your abo!verse? I’ve seen people portray them in a few different ways in different pieces I’ve read, so I wanted to ask for clarification on yours specifically💙

thx for the ask!- srry i let this sit in my inbox for a few weeks bfore i got to it, but i ended up going over all four presentations instead, so hopefully that's enough consolation?

so basically omegaverse for me is less about the more tropey hormonally-driven sex drives and animal mentalities (though those can be nice if done right), and more about ppls reactions to them- classic scenarios like dominant/submissive partners and marking operate as widely known stereotypes that affect how people act, and identify themselves. (there's also the aspect that those unhealthy mentalities are ruts that ppl can actually fall into or find comfort in, but that's another matter)

So an alpha will be both held to the standard of traditional 'dominant' and pack leader and be expected to claim their own territory/be a little antisocial, while an omega has to deal with being seen as an assistant and (in more regressive places) an object in just about any field they enter. There's very little that separates the presentations biologically, aside from the nature of their purrs (an alpha's will be deep, rumbly, and come from their chest, while a beta or omega's will be softer and breathier, and come from their throat) and heat/rut cycles. Betas, meanwhile, being somewhere between the two, are usually seen as 'ordinary' or nonthreatening, though obvs there's no hard and fast rule abt how a beta will actually be.

The other group are Gammas, a scent-blind and very rare class of ppl that tend to be left out of dynamics-based matters, or else written off as oblivious and almost childlike, since the only interaction most ppl have with non-scented people is with/as children

[justice4mxy]

lbh hl and lwj? 👀

hmmmm okay i rlly like the concept behind luo binghe as a character like.... big sexy dangerous demon lord who is also a total crybaby softie inside, especially since that softness is because he got a break from his abusive backstory and experienced kindness, is really good. and, he is damn sexy. unfortunately he has severe "entire life revolves around the central relationship" mxtx love interest syndrome, and since that central relationship sucks ass i can't really get into him as a character without being reminded of it. i like sqq a lot and you can make sqq content of him interacting with tons of other characters and never touch any bingqiu but it's way harder to do so for lbh bc he doesn't have a life outside his shizun smh. also i heard he did yanderey things @ sqq but also that it wasn't his fault because he was possessed by a demon sword? who knows not me bc all my knowledge is secondhand. the main takeaway is that bq is bad

hualian!!!! okay i rlly like hualian generally i think their interpersonal chemistry and flirting is super sweet and cute and their grand romantic gestures @ each other (well. mostly hua cheng @ xie lian) are really emotional and romantic when they don't start sounding too unhealthy (ten thousand statues...) but i really wish the interpersonal chemistry came before the grand romantic gestures so that it would actually be stuff like sacrificing yourself for someone you're genuinely in love with rather than sacrificing yourself for your celebrity crush and probably object of menthol illness-induced fixation. also obvs i really wish they met when they were the same age but i don't think it's nearly as bad as bingqiu for various reasons despite what i've seen some people claim. i wish hua cheng had a life outside of his love for xie lian. it's no wangxian but if i shut my brain off and just enjoy their interactions it's suuuuper cute. the dice throwing scene..... heart eyes

lan wangji!!!!! the running theme of this response has been mxtx love interests not having a life outside their crush and i am pleased to announce that lwj is the glorious exception. fucking love that guy. mr gay repression mr. so overwhelmed by this sudden and incomprehensible whirlwind of a love for a whirlwind of a boy who goes against everything he's ever been taught to stand for and yet represents everything he truly does stand for. his fucking, parents' backstory and the neglect and the being taught through that that love isn't something available to him and he's not allowed to ask questions about why someone he loved so much disappeared and, no doubt, the fear of replicating his father's mistakes. he's so good! he's so loving and passionate and righteous and funny under that cold exterior, microexpressions king! his kids love him!!! fuck the phoenix mountain kiss and the extras they go jarringly against everything his character stands for. i write most of my wangxian fics from his pov bc his mind space is so damn interesting to explore. love youuuuu mwah