#and I've seen some interpretations of the book that seem to thing the ending is saying to just escape from the world and don't bother

[chaotic-history]

I will die on this hill

[emberwhite]

So as I have been making my rounds posting about my book across all social media, some people take a look at my cover, get confused, and ask me at point blank, "Wait. Does this book support trans people or not?"

Of course I support trans people (that's the whole point of the book!), but I don't want to use any language that could be interpreted as political by your average Joe that is turned off by any politics. You lose reach that way. I think the book could have a larger impact by using language to make the story more universal to all people. With the right message, it could be seen an an allegory that applies to not only trans people but anyone who feels like they don't fit in with the tribe.

Yes, I did decide to go with the animal metaphor for the book in spite of some hot social issues going on right now. There were previously two books that used that metaphor to make a crude political point. I don't care too much for that, but if you read them, you're ultimately left with the feeling that they discourage children from play and imagination. I used to teach kindergarten and elementary students, so I felt there was something deeply upsetting about that. It was shortly after that I felt I HAD to make this book, no matter what. I saw the stigma around the analogy as a challenge.

The good news is that after talking with other trans people about it the overwhelming majority seem to like the end result. And since the book's launch, I've had so many furries, therians, and autistic people thank me for making the book. There's something about the experience of what it is like to utterly deny things that are inevitably part of the self yet completely oppose the tribe and the regrets we ultimately face because of it. A lot of people can relate to that. It is the heart of the struggle of all humanity and society. That is culture, not politics.

So there you have it. "The Boy Who Wanted to Be a Deer" is now available on Amazon, or you can read the whole thing for free on YouTube.

If you would like to support the book, ratings on Amazon and Goodreads are the best way to do so.

[a-kind-of-merry-war]

will you please give us examples of resources to look at if we want to learn more about the concept of gender and maybe even transness in Medieval Europe? thanks!

whooooo boy right, there's a lot! I wanna start this by saying that I am very much not an expert, and I only have access to stuff I can find for free and the handful of books I can afford to buy second hand. Most of my research has been around gender as it relates to transness and GNC people. I am absolutely missing stuff, or have forgotten stuff, or simply lack the know-how to find stuff.

There's a few bits I've got on a TBR but haven't read yet - some I've included and some I haven't, depending on the source and how established it is.

Also: this is medieval Europe. The way pronouns are used to describe people don't really align with modern views of sex and gender. Also be aware of old-fashioned language use (for example, some texts talk about "hermaphrodites"). Remember that the way we talk about gender and trans identities is far different to how we even spoke about it 20 years ago.

So with that out of the way... I am chucking this under a read more, because it's long:

---

GENDER

Medieval ideas around gender were different to how we now think about it. The Hippocratic view of gender saw gender as a sort of wet/dry, cold/hot spectrum upon which men were at one end and women the other (and in the middle were intersex people). The male body was seen as hot and dry, and the female as cold and wet. The cold, wetness is what made women try to seek out heat from guys. A lot comes down to humors rather than genitals - if you're hot and dry, that innately means you grow a penis, because the heat sorta forces it out. So the marker is that penis = man, but you only have that penis in the first place because of your hot, dry humor.

Some people believed the vagina was an inverted penis - as in, the penis turned outside in. Some schools of thought believed that both men and women produced "seed", and that both were needed for conception. These thoughts and ideas shifted around a lot.

The Hippocratic view shifted towards Aristotelian ideas around the 12th Century, where the male/female divide was a lot stronger. There were also surgeons throughout all these periods who sought to "correct" intersex genitalia with surgery (how little things change).

This podcast (I've linked to a transcript, because I have more time to read than listen to things) with Dr Eleanor Janega is super interesting. In fact, I'd recommend reading her whole blog, which is fascinating. She also has a book out (but I've not read it so I can't give a yay or nay on that one)

The Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Ages by Joan Cadden seems to be a good source on this, but I've not read it so I can't vouch for it 100%.

I've listed below some real people who could fit into our modern interpretation of transness, and the fact that all of these people were only "outed" when arrested or at their death makes me think that there were probably a lot more people at the time who would also fit into this category. It does feel (to me, a layman) that you could rock up in a new town and go "hello I'm Jeff the Man" and people would just accept that.

It's also important to note that the majority of sources I've found are about people we could define as trans men (FTM). I've only found one person who could be described as a trans woman. If anyone out there has more sources for trans women, I'd love to hear them - specifically in medieval Europe/England.

There's also a big discussion to be had around the idea of women dressing as men to achieve a goal. People love getting into arguments about it. My general rule is that if someone lived as X gender, and was forcibly outed against their will or at death, then I feel we can more safely assume that their experience maps more closely onto a trans narrative than it does one of a woman taking on the "disguise" of a man.

---

TRANS & GNC ACADEMIA

Here's some of the sources I've been using that examine medievalism through a trans or trans-adjacent lens.

Trans and Genderqueer Subjects in Medieval Hagiography, Alicia Spencer-Hall & Blake Gutt - a deep dive/collection of essays about medieval religious figures/saints through a trans lens, specifically about cross-dressing figures. Really fascinating, and available on open access.

How to be a Man, Though Female: Changing Sex in Medieval Romance, Angela Jane Weisl - goes into detail about medieval texts in which characters change their sex.

Transgender Genealogy in Tristan de Nanteuil, Blake Gutt - trans theory in the story Tristan de Nanteuil.

Trans Historical: Gender Plurality before the Modern, edited by Greta LaFleur, Masha Raskolnikov & Anna Kłosowska - A great big examination into trans history/gender. I desperately want this book.

Clothes Make the Man, Female Cross Dressing in Medieval Europe, Valerie R. Hotchkiss (book, no online source available) - Another look into women dressing as men and gender inversion.

The Shape of Sex, Leah DeVun (book) - A history of nonbinary sex, 200 - 1400BC. Not read this one yet but it's on my TBR.

In fact, I'd recommend all of Leah DeVun's work, which I'm currently making my way through. I'm currently reading Mapping the Borders of Sex.

The Third Gender and Aelfric's Lives of Saints, Rhonda L. McDaniel - An examination into the idea of a "third gender" in monastic life based around chastity and spiritualism

Erecting Sex: Hermaphrodites and the Medieval Science of Surgery, Leah DeVun - an essay about "corrective" surgery on intersex individuals in the 13th/14th centuries. (I've not fully read this one yet but the topic is relevant)

----

TRANS FIGURES

Joseph/Hildegund (died 1188) - A monk who, upon his death, was discovered to have a vagina/breasts.

Eleanor Rykener (1394) - A (likely) trans sex worker arrested in 1394 (and another source that isn't wiki)

Katherina Hetzeldorfer (killed 1477) - An early record of a "woman" being executed for female sodomy. Katherina dressed and presented as a man, and some scholars read them as a trans man.

Marinos/Marina the Monk (5th Cent) - A monk who was born a woman and lived as a man in a monastery. Marinos was accused of getting a local innkeeper's daughter pregnant. Their "true sex" was discovered upon their death.

-----

ROMANCES* & GENDER

If you're interested in the idea of gender presentation and trans-adjacent stories, I very much recommend taking a look at some contemporary sources. I've tried to take a sort of neutral approach to pronouns for these descriptions, but it's hard to marry the medieval and modern ideas of sex and gender! The titles are all links.

*Romances here means Chivalric Romances: prose/verse narratives about chivalry, often with fantastic elements. Not, like, falling in love Romances.

Le Roman de Silence (13th Cent) - in order to ensure inheritance, a couple raise their daughter as a boy. The baby is called Silence/Silentius/Silentia. The poem features the forces of Nature and Nurture, who argue about Silence's "true" gender - Nature claims they're a girl, and Nurture claims they're a boy. Silence has a variety of adventures, largely referred to in the text as a man with he/him pronouns, and at the end their "true gender" is discovered and, as a woman, they marry the king.

Yde et Olive (15th Cent) - to avoid being married to their own father, Yde, a woman, disguises themselves as a man and becomes a knight. They end up in Rome, where the king marries them to their daughter, Olive. After a couple of weeks, Yde tells Olive about their "true gender", but the conversation is overheard. The King demands Yde bathe with him to prove they are a man. An angel intervenes and transforms Yde's body into that of a man.

Iphis and Ianthe (Greek/Roman myth, but also in Ovid's Metamorphois, which first came to England in the 15th Cent) - Telethusa is due to give birth, but her husband tells her that if the baby is a girl he'll have it killed. When she gives birth to a girl, she disguises the baby as a boy. Eventually, Iphis is engaged to Ianthe. (Incidentally, this is also a really early example of same-sex romance, as Iphis struggles with their love for Ianthe "as a woman"). Before the wedding, Iphis and Telethusa pray at the temple of Isis, who transforms Iphis into a man.

Tristan de Nanteuil (11th/12th Cent) - from the Chanson de geste, after his alleged death, Tristan's wife, Blanchandin/e, disguises themselves as a Knight. Clarinde, a sultan's daughter, falls in love with them. Blanchandin manages to hide their "true sex", but when Clarinde demands they bathe with her to prove they are a man they flee into the woods. There, they meet an angel who asks if they want to be transformed into a man. Blanchandin accepts and he is turned into a man for the rest of the poem. (Incidentally the angel gives him a giant cock. Yes, the text specifies this).

Le Livre de la mutation de fortune (1403) - written in the first person by Christine de Pizan, the poem describes how the narrator is transformed by Fortune into a man after the death of their husband during a storm at sea. They maintain that 13 years after the event, they are still living as a man. (They also mention Tiresias, a Greek mythological figure who was a man transformed into a woman for seven years).

Okay, for now - that's about all I can think of. Happy reading!

[podcastenthusiast]

I find it really compelling that Astarion appears to have had hobbies when he was enslaved by Cazador.

Things Astarion probably did in between the horrors:

Embroidered and patched up things for himself (and, reluctantly, his siblings). We know this. Practical--I don't get the feeling Cazador was buying them clothes any more than strictly necessary--and a good way to stay sane.

Got really good at picking locks. Also canon. I've seen the interpretation this was to escape shackles, which is possible. But I dunno...he says himself he gave up on escape. More likely I think he was just very bored, and also such a skill offers some comfort should he ever be locked up again for another year.

Learning languages, including Orcish. Canon as well and honestly I'm dying to know how/when he managed this. Did he find a Orcish-Common dictionary? Did he know a half-Orc? Either way I can see him relishing the chance to insult Cazador or his siblings without them knowing.

Reading, as he does all the time at camp. If you can't escape physically, a good story can be a decent distraction for a while. Astarion is intelligent and seems to know a fair bit of history and such. I imagine it wasn't an activity Cazador encouraged. But that wouldn't stop him and Dal, and later maybe Leon if he's feeling brave, forming a secret book club, reading anything at all they could get their hands on, from awful erotica to dry religious texts.

There must have been a brief period where he tried to befriend and train some rats to do his bidding. But he was bad at it and also very hungry. Violet claims to have succeeded.

Music. He hears it everywhere--in the dingy taverns he's sent to, at Cazador's damn parties, on the street--it's too intense for a while after that infamous year of silence. But it also reminds him that he isn't there anymore. Astarion has no gift for musical instruments himself, but he grows to appreciate hearing a good song.

Drinking wine and pretending it doesn't all taste terrible to him now. Sometimes, alone or with Aurelia, he would pretend it's fresh blood instead. Sometimes he would pretend to just be anyone else.

Stealing his siblings' makeup and anything else he wants. None of them really "own" anything after all, he'll say, but will get incredibly annoyed if they in turn take something of his.

Between fights and torments, of which there were so many, I bet he played stupid little games with his siblings. Trying to convince them he died a very cool death or something. Or enlisting Violet's expertise to prank Petras.

One time Yousen finds like a choose your own adventure book (since I dunno if a form of D&D exists in BG3 and if it did they don't have the supplies). Anyway he reads it to the other spawn and by the end of the night Astarion and Petras both have new black eyes and bite marks.

Not saying it was a good time by any means. It wasn't. But it was a very long time not to carve out an occasional diversion. You'd just lose it otherwise.

[nofomogirl]

Good Omen's problem with having two canons

They're fundamentally different. That's the problem. That's my point.

For quite a while I focused almost exclusively on the new season of Good Omens, but now I am slowly delving into analysis that takes the entire show into account, and I've encountered a little obstacle. Namely, things from S1 can be really tricky to interpret.

Fair warning: this post is going to zig-zag between various points but I want you to trust me and take this scenic route with me. It will take us somewhere eventually, I promise.

The Arrangement

It's one of the core elements in the Good Omens universe and at the same time a perfect example of the issue I want to discuss. So let's have a closer look together.

In the book, the Arrangement is presented to us in two passages:

the first one, where it is first - very briefly - mentioned:

Aziraphale had tried to explain [free will] to him once. The whole point, he'd said - this was somewhere around 1020, when they'd first reached their little Arrangement - the whole point was that when a human was good or bad it was because they wanted to be.

and the second one, where it is properly introduced and explained:

The Arrangement was very simple, so simple in fact, that it didn't really deserve the capital letter, which it had got for simply being in existence for so long. It was the sort of sensible arrangement that many isolated agents, working in awkward conditions a long way from their superiors, reach with their opposite number when they realize they have more in common with their immediate opponents than their remote allies. It meant a tacit non-interference in certain of each other's activities. It made certain that while neither really won, also neither really lost, and both were able to demonstrate to their masters the great strides they were making against a cunning and well-informed adversary. (...) And then, of course, it had seemed even natural that they should, as it were, hold the fort for one another whenever common sense dictated. Both were of angel stock, after all. If one was going to Hull for a quick temptation, it made sense to nip across the city and carry out a standard brief moment of divine ecstasy. It'd get done anyway, and being sensible about it gave everyone more free time and cut down on expenses.

In the show, the Arrangement is presented to us in two original scenes in the cold opening of S1E3:

(I am quoting most relevant dialogues only)

537 AD, Wessex:

C: So we're both working very hard in damp places and just canceling each other out? A: Well, you could put it like that. It is a bit damp. C: Be easier if we both stayed home. If we just send messages back to our head offices saying we'd done everything they'd asked for, wouldn't it? A: But that would be lying. C: Eh, possibly, but the end result would be the same. Cancel each other out. A: But my dear fellow... well, they'd check. Michael's a bit of a stickler. You don't want to get Gabriel upset with you. C: Oh, our lot have better things to do than verifying compliance reports from Earth. As long as they get paperwork they seem happy enough. As long as you're being seen doing something every now and again. A: No! Absolutely not! I am shocked that you would even imply such a thing. We're not having that conversation, not another word!

1601 AD, The Globe Theatre:

A: I have to be in Edinburgh at the end of the week. A couple of blessings to do. A minor miracle to perform. (...) C: I'm meant to be heading to Edinburgh too this week. Tempting a clan leader to steal some cattle. A: Doesn't sound like hard work. C: That's why I thought we should... Well, bit of a waste of effort, both of us going all the way to Scotland. A: You cannot actually be suggesting what I infer that you are implying. C: Which is? A: That just one of us goes to Edingburgh, does both. The blessing and the tempting. C: We've done it before. Dozens of times now. The Arrangement- A: Don't say that! C: Our respective offices don't actually care how things get done. They just want to know they can cross it off the list.

S2 doesn't actually reference the Arrangement. But it does reuse the dialogue about free will where the 1020 date is dropped. We will get back to it.

The challenge of adapting Good Omens

Good Omens shares a certain characteristic with all of Terry Pratchett's solo books I've read - it couldn't care less about "showing instead of telling". Which I love, just to be clear. A book is a written medium. It's made with words and one of words' major strengths is that you can use them to just tell things point blanc.

Good Omens does it a lot and it's fantastic.

Look at that second passage from the book I quoted earlier.

From just those few sentences we learn a lot about the relationships between:

Heaven and Hell (opponents and competition)

Aziraphale and Crowley (two individuals in the same position and in direct contact with each other)

Aziraphale/Crowley and Heaven/Hell (field agent and a remote HQ that are not in direct contact)

Aziraphale/Crowley and Earth (two individuals and a space they live in)

Heaven/Hell and Earth (a board where the game is played, only winning or losing matters, what actually happens on a board does not)

It's really an extra condensed worldbuilding gem sprinkled with humor, so it's no surprise it's become one of the most iconic passages from the book.

I mean, just browse through some interviews with David and Michael - especially the ones from 2019 - where they explain what Aziraphale and Crowley are about. You'll be hard-pressed to find any where they don't reference that specific paragraph, consciously or otherwise.

But it's only this neat on the pages of the book, where narration like this takes mere seconds to absorb. It's impossible to convey the same information in a visual medium with anywhere near the same efficiency.

The fact that the majority of Good Omens is like this was, in my opinion, a main challenge the adaptation faced. The book is very narration-heavy. It's full of fun facts about characters, side jokes, hilarious comments, etc. Some of that precious material was salvaged by introducing God as a narrator, but there was only so much of it you could squeeze into a TV show. The rest had to either be fit into dialogues or lost in translation from the written medium to the visual one.

Obviously, in the case of the Arrangement, it was the dialogues.

Book canon and show canon

We all know they're not the same. Neil Gaiman also pointed it out several times. But I think our mistake is that we still tend to think about them as complementary.

Look at the Arrangement again. The show canon seems to merely expand on the book canon. Add extra details and fill in the blanks. The Arrangement works the exact same way, except now we also know more about how it started.

If we compile what we know from the book with what we know from the show, we get a more detailed timeline:

Crowley first proposes the Arrangement in 537 (show).

The Arrangement starts in 1020 (book), ie. Aziraphale finally agrees to it (show - deduction); we don't know for sure if it's a "basic version" (not getting in each other's way), or a "full version" (doing each other's jobs) but we can assume it's the former.

In 1601 "full version" of the Arrangement is in place for some time (they've done it dozens of times) but Aziraphale still objects and needs convincing.

But read that description from a book once more.

Does it really fit into the version of events shown in the TV series?

The Arrangement in the book is something that just happened. A natural, and in a way inevitable result of Aziraphale and Crowley's circumstances. We are never told who came up with it first because it doesn't matter. Because it could have been either of them. Because after five millennia on Earth, they were both ready to do it. They were both of the same mind. For all we know it might have been an unspoken agreement all along!

But for the show, the creators had to come up with a good reason for the Arrangement to be discussed out loud. And what could be a more natural situation for someone to describe and explain an idea than trying to sell that idea to someone else?

For that practical reason - among many others, no doubt - the Arrangement is not only explicitly Crowley's idea, but an idea Aziraphale vehemently rejects at first. He needs to be convinced and even when he finally relents he's never entirely comfortable with it. He keeps objecting and it requires Crowley's constant effort for them to keep cooperating in any way.

The fact that Aziraphale is reluctant gives Crowley a perfect reason to keep convincing him ie. talk about the Arrangement. But the fact that he needs to explain and keep convincing Aziraphale means that Aziraphale is no longer a person who understands the same things and feels the same way.

That is a huge change.

Of course, you may say that what I've written about the Arrangement in the book is just my interpretation. It's true that technically there's nothing there that would contradict the events from the show in any way. The thing is, the events in the show aren't very compatible with the overall characterization of the ineffable duo in the book.

Evolution of Aziraphale and Crowley

You might have read that our leading pair was originally conceived as a single character that Neil and Terry eventually decided to split into two separate individuals.

My reaction when I first learned about it was: "Of course they were! That makes so much sense!" Because honestly, as a person who watched the show first and then read the book, I was surprised at how few differences there were between the two in the original text. If you squint your eyes really tight, you can see how book!Aziraphale and book!Crowley are two versions of the same character. They're far more similar than their show versions.

Most importantly, their attitudes toward Heaven and Hell are pretty much identical. Perfectly mirrored in every regard. What Hell is for Crowley, Heaven is for Aziraphale. What Hell is for Aziraphale, Heaven is for Crowley. In. Every. Possible. Way.

Allow me to present some evidence from the book.

Exhibit #1: the end of the scene where Crowley convinces Aziraphale to interfere with Warlock's upbringing

'You're saying the child isn't evil of itself?' he said slowly. 'Potentially evil. Potentially good too, I suppose. Just this huge powerful potentiality, waiting to be shaped,' said Crowley. He shrugged. 'Anyway, why're we talking about this good and evil? They're just names for sides. We know that.' 'I suppose it's got to be worth a try,' said the angel. Crowley nodded encouragingly. 'Agreed?' said the demon, holding out his hand. The angel shook it, cautiously. 'It'll certainly be more interesting than saints,' he said. 'And it'll be for the child's own good, in the long run,' said Crowley. (...)

When Crowley first points out that good and evil are just names for sides, and then insists it's something they both know, Aziraphale doesn't react in any way. That's because these aren't things that book!Aziraphale disagrees with. He does indeed know it and doesn't deny it.

Also, please note just how cynical the angel is here with his comment that influencing the Antichrist would be a more interesting project than influencing saints!

Both would be rather OOC for show!Aziraphale.

Exhibit #2: the scene just after Warlock Dowling's birthday party, when it becomes evident he is not the Antichrist

'You said it was him!' moaned Aziraphale (...) 'It was him,' said Crowley. (...) 'Then someone else must be interfering.' 'There isn't anyone else! There's just us, right? Good and Evil. One side or the other.' He thumped the steering wheel. 'You'll be amazed at the kind of things they can do to you, down there,' he said. 'I imagine they're very similar to the sort of things they can do to you up there,' said Aziraphale. 'Come off it. Your lot get ineffable mercy,' said Crowley sourly. 'Yes? Did you ever visit Gomorrah?' 'Sure' said the demon. 'There was this great little tavern where you could get these terrific fermented date-palm cocktails with nutmeg and crushed lemongrass-' 'I meant afterwards.' 'Oh.'

Can you imagine this kind of exchange in the TV series? Can you imagine show!Aziraphale being this realistic about Heaven, and show!Crowley so naive about it? There's no way.

Show!Aziraphale genuinely believes that Heaven is good at its core.

Book!Aziraphale knows Heaven isn't any different than Hell and would punish him just as ruthlessly and unfairly as Hell would Crowley.

Show!Crowley understands both Heaven and Hell on a very deep level and is highly aware of their true nature.

Book!Crowley buys a piece of celestial propaganda about ineffable mercy and actually expects Heaven to be forgiving.

Let the magnitude of that difference sink.

Exhibit #3: same scene, a bit further

'So all we've got to do is find it,' said Crowley. 'Go through the hospital records.' The Bentley's engine coughed into life and the car leapt forward, forcing Aziraphale back into the seat. 'And then what?' he said. 'And then we find the child.' 'And then what?' The angel shut his eyes as the car crabbed around the corner. 'Don't know.' 'Good grief.' 'I suppose (...) your people wouldn't consider (...) giving me asylum?' 'I was going to ask you the same thing. (...)'

This is just a cherry on top, really.

Yes, in the book, when things go pear-shaped, both Aziraphale and Crowley consider seeking asylum on the opposite side.

Do you need more proof that book canon and show canon really aren't as compatible as they may seem?

Free will

As promised, let's get back to that dialogue because while it may not be obvious at first glance it really illustrates perfectly the problem arising from balancing between two canons.

Here is the full quote from the book:

Aziraphale had tried to explain [free will] to him once. The whole point, he'd said - this was somewhere around 1020, when they'd first reached their little Arrangement - the whole point was that when a human was good or bad it was because they wanted to be. Whereas people like Crowley and, of course, himself, were set in their ways right from the start. People couldn't become truly holy, he said, unless they also had the opportunity to be definitively wicked. Crowley had thought about it for some time and, around about 1023, had said, Hang on, that only works, right, if you start everyone off equal, OK? You can't start someone off in a muddy shack in the middle of a war zone and expect them to do as well as someone born in a castle. Ah, Aziraphale had said, that's the good bit. The lower you start, the more opportunities you have. Crowley had said, That's lunatic. No, said Aziraphale, it's ineffable.

And here, for comparison, is how it was reused in S2E3:

A: There is a stolen body in that barrel! This is wicked! C: Oh, I'm down with wicked! Anyway, is it wicked? She needed the money. A: That is irrelevant. Look, I am good. You, I'm afraid, are evil. But people get a choice. You know, they cannot be truly holy unless they also get the opportunity to be wicked. She is wicked. C: Yeah, that only works if you start everyone off equal. You can't start someone off like that and expect her to do as well as someone born in a castle. A: Ah, but no, no. That's the good bit. The lower you start, the more opportunities you have. So Elspeth here has all the opportunities because she's so poor. C: That's lunacy. A: No, that's ineffable.

I'll be honest with you - I didn't like that scene in the show. It felt jarring and off. Aziraphale was acting like it was his first day on Earth and it was frustrating to watch.

Then, on one of the rewatches, just as I was rolling my eyes at "that's ineffable", a bulb lit in my brain. That line didn't work there because it wasn't created to be there! In the book and in S1 "it's ineffable" was kind of Aziraphale's catchphrase but in S2 it only appears this once. More importantly, in the book and S1, the fact that the angel would say that was all a build-up to the scene when he threw it in Heaven's face at the Tadfield Airbase. Using that word in S2 was like trying to make a running joke that has already reached its destination run again.

And just like that one line the entire dialogue didn't fit because it wasn't meant to be there. It was created for an entirely different context.

What's the difference?

Firstly, book!husbands' conviction was very shallow and it wasn't uncommon for both of them to spout slogans without meaning them. Therefore, book!Aziraphale's words didn't carry that much weight. The very fact that the conversation took place at the same time they formed the Arrangement tells us something about how serious he was. But show!Aziraphale's relationship with his beliefs is different, so when he says things like that it's a much bigger deal.

Secondly, the book explicitly states that Aziraphale and Crowley only developed free will on Earth, due to extended exposure to mankind. The show never really makes a stand on the matter but based on what we've seen so far I think we can safely assume that angels and demons are capable of making their own choices as much as humans do.

In other words, in its original context, the conversation was just Aziraphale talking about a concept he didn't fully grasp, quoting propaganda he didn't fully subscribe to. He was being ignorant and mildly obnoxious in an endearing way.

But using the same dialogue verbatim in the Resurrectionist carried a completely different meaning. Aziraphale who utters it in the show has no reason to be so ignorant about free will. Aziraphale who utters it in the show genuinely tries to defend Heaven. Most importantly, Aziraphale who utters it in the show, doesn't just idly bicker with his friend about general things but is judging an actual human individual that's right in front of them. That, more than anything else, makes it sound heartless and ignorant.

What is the problem with having two canons, exactly?

It's time to wrap things up.

In the opening paragraphs, I've mentioned that I've noticed the issue while interpreting scenes from S1, and yes, that was the case and I do believe that the existence of two canons is especially problematic for S1. That's because pretty much every scene in S1 is potentially like that dialogue about free will in S2, except subtler and harder to spot.

A grand majority of what we see and hear in S1 comes directly from the book. But while words and actions were kept, in some instances things that gave them their original meaning might no longer be valid in the show universe. Sometimes they easily take new meaning, and we don't even notice. But sometimes there's this dissonance that's not as easy to work around.

S1 deviated from the book and created its own canon. But the difference didn't seem to go very deep and it seemed perfectly reasonable to use some trivia from the book to shed some extra light on the content of the show. I used to do it in my head, even though I was aware of the changes that were made.

But S2 expanded the show canon so far beyond what was in the book that I'm really not sure it makes sense to compile them anymore.

There are a lot of things that were only explicitly stated in the book that I keep clinging to. But perhaps it's time to let go...

Thank you for your patience.

I know all of the above isn't exactly a revolutionary discovery, but I needed to get it off my chest before writing anything else.

[caligvlasaqvarivm]

How do you analyze so good I'm really impressed and honestly wonder if I can learn from you

It's a skill, so the good news is, you can practice and get better at it!

Read A Lot/Gain Context

Analysis often means making comparisons or drawing from external context - one of the best things you can do if you want to be better at analysis is to try to cram your head with as much knowledge as possible. The time period, culture of origin, and where the author slots into those are usually major influences on a work (in Homestuck's case, much of it is a direct commentary on the internet culture it emerged from, and missing that part of it can drastically influence how the story reads).

Also important are the works the author themselves are inspired by. You've likely heard some variation of "nothing is original." We're actually really lucky with Homestuck in that regard, as the work is highly referential, and you can glean a lot by looking at what it references (for example, if you watch Serendipity, one of Karkat's favorite movies, which is titledropped during the troll romance explanation, you will understand Karkat so much better). This applies to things like mythological allusions - you'll hardly know why it matters that Karkat is a Christ figure if you don't know what the general outline of the Christ story is, nor will you pick up on the Rapture elements of Gamzee's religion or the fact that Doc Scratch is The Devil, etc. The key to picking up a lot of symbolism is being aware that the symbols exist.

And last, it helps to read a lot of media and media analysis so you can get a better understanding of how media "works" - how tropes are used, what effect language has, what other entries into the genre/works with similar themes/etc. have already done to explore the same things as the piece being analyzed is doing - and what other people have already gleaned and interpreted. I've mentioned before that many people seem to find Homestuck's storytelling bizarre and unique when it's actually quite standard for postmodernism, the genre it belongs to. But you're not going to know that if you've never read anything postmodern, y'know? I also often prepare for long character essays by reading other peoples' character essays - sometimes people pick up on things I miss, and sometimes people have interpretations I vehemently disagree with; both of these help me to refine my take on the matter.

Try to Discard Biases/Meet the Work Where It Is

Many will carry into reading media an expectation of what they want to get out of it. For example, one generally goes into a standard hetero romance book expecting a female lead, a male love interest, romance (of course), and a happy ending for the happy couple. If the book fails to deliver these things, a reader will often walk away thinking it was a bad book, even if the story told instead is objectively good and interesting. We actually see this a lot with Wuthering Heights, which receives very polarizing reviews because people go into it expecting a gothic romance, when it's really more like a gossip Youtube video spilling the tea on some shitty rich people (and it's really good at being that).

There's nothing necessarily wrong with this when reading for pleasure and personal enjoyment, but it presents a problem when attempting to analyze something. There's a concept called the "Procrustean bed," named after a mythological bandit who used to stretch people or cut off their limbs to fit them to a bed, that describes "an arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced." Going into a media reading with expectations and biases often results in a very Procrustean reading - I'm sure we've all seen posts complaining about how fanfic often forces canon characters to fit certain archetypes while discarding their actual character traits, etc.

Therefore, when reading for analysis, it's generally a good idea to try and discard as much bias and expectation as possible (obviously, we are never fully free of bias, but the effort counts) - or, perhaps even better, to compartmentalize those biases for comparison while reading. For example, Hussie talks at length about what they INTENDED Homestuck to be, and, while reading, I like to keep Hussie's words to the side while I try to experience the comic fresh, seeing what choices were made in accordance with Hussie's intentions, or where I think Hussie may have fumbled the messaging. At the same time, I try to let the work stand on its own, set in its proper context.

I'd say this is the number-one problem in fandom analysis. For example, people hear from the fandom that Eridan is an incel or a nice guy, so they interpret everything he says and does to fit that belief, or ignore any contradictory evidence. Or they fall for the character's façade that's meant to be dismantled by the viewer. Some works are fairly shallow and accessible, wearing all their meaning on their sleeve (or are Not That Deep, if you prefer meme-talk), and problems arise when a work is, in fact, That Deep, because someone biased towards the former will discard evidence that a work is the latter. This isn't exclusive to HS - it's happened in basically all of my fandoms - which is a statement to how easy it is to fall into this way of thinking.

Even without knowing that Hussie had coming-of-age themes in mind, for example, characters will talk about being kids and growing up. Knowing that Hussie has explicitly said that that's one of HS's themes serves as extra evidence for that interpretation, but the work itself tells you what it's about - if you're willing to listen to it.

Even If the Curtains are Just Blue, That Still Means Something

This is the next biggest fandom stumbling block - thr insinuation that when things in a work are put into the work without more explicit symbolism, that that means they're a discardable detail. This one is more about making a mindset shift - details aren't discardable, even if they don't appear to have been made with the explicit intention to mean something. Everything kind of means something.

First of all, whether or not the curtains are Just Blue is often highly dependent on the work. For example, in something made in large quantities with little time, staff, and budget - say, for example, one of the entries into the MCU's TV shows - there likely isn't too much meaning behind a choice of blue curtains in a shot (although you'd be surprised how often choices in these constrained environments are still very deliberately made). In a work like Homestuck, however, so terribly dense with symbolism and allegory, chances are, the blue curtains DO hold some special meaning, even if it's not readily apparent.

However, even in cases where a choice is made arbitrarily, it still usually ends up revealing something about the work's creative process. Going back to our MCU example, perhaps the blue curtains were chosen because the shot is cool-toned and they fit the color grading. Perhaps they were chosen because the director really likes blue. Perhaps the shot was filmed at an actual location and the blue curtains were already there. Or, even, perhaps the blue curtains were just what they had on hand, and the show was made too quickly and cheaply to bother sourcing something that would fit the tone or lend extra meaning. These all, to varying degrees, say something about the work - maybe not anything so significant that it would come up in an analysis, but they still contribute to a greater understanding of what the work is, what it's trying to say, and how successful it is at saying it.

And this applies to things with much higher stakes. For example, Hussie being a white US citizen likely had an effect on the B1 kids being mostly US citizens, and there was discourse surrounding how, even though they were ostensibly aracial, references were made to Dave's pale skin. Do I think these were deliberate choices made to push some sort of US superiority; no, obviously not. But they still end up revealing things about the creation of the work - that Hussie had certain biases as a result of being who they were.

Your Brain is Designed to Recognize Patterns, So Put That to Use

So with "establish context" and "discard expectations" out of the way, we can start getting into the nitty-gritty of what should be jumping out at you when attempting to understand a work. One of the most prominent things that you should be looking for is PATTERNS.

Writing is a highly conscious effort, which draws from highly unconscious places. Naturally, whether these patterns are intentional or unintentional is dependent on the author (see again why reading up on a work's context is so important), but you can generally bet that anything that IS a pattern is something that holds significance.

For example, Karkat consistently shows that he's very distraught when any of his friends get hurt, that he misses his friends, even the murderous assholes, that he's willing to sit them down and intervene on their behalf, despite all his grandstanding to the contrary. We are supposed to notice that Karkat actually loves his friends, and that he's lying when he says he doesn't care about them.

Homestuck is very carefully and deliberately crafted; if something comes up more than once, it's a safe bet to assume that you're supposed to notice, or at least feel, it. Don't take my word for it:

Basically, [reusing elements is] about building an extremely dense interior vocabulary to tell a story with, and continue to build and expand that vocabulary by revisiting its components often, combining them, extending them and so on. A vocabulary can be (and usually is) simple, consisting of single words, but in this case it extends to entire sentences and paragraph structures and visual forms and even entire scenes like the one linked above. Sometimes the purpose for reiteration is clear, and sometimes there really is no purpose other than to hit a familiar note, and for me that's all that needs to happen for it to be worthwhile. Triggering recognition is a powerful tool for a storyteller to use. Recognition is a powerful experience for a reader. It promotes alertness, at the very least. And in a lot of cases here, I think it promotes levity (humor! this is mostly a work of comedy, remember.) Controlling a reader's recognition faculty is one way to manipulate the reader's reactions as desired to advance the creative agenda.

But this applies to less deliberately-crafted work, too; for example, if an author consistently writes women as shallow, cruel, and manipulative, then we can glean that the author probably has some sort of issue with women. Villains often being queer-coded suggests that the culture they come from has problems with the gays. Etc. etc.

This is how I reached my conclusion that Pale EriKar is heavily foreshadowed - the two are CONSTANTLY kind to each other, sharing secrets, providing emotional support, etc. etc. It's why that part of my Eridan essay is structured the way that it is - by showing you first how consistently the two interact in suspiciously pale-coded ways, the fact that a crab is shown in both Eridan's first appearance AND his appearance on the moirallegiance "hatched for each other" page becomes the cincher of a PATTERN of the two being set up to shoosh-pap each other.

A work will tell you about itself if you listen. If it tells you something over and over, then it's basically begging you to pay attention.

Contrast is Important, Too

Patterns are also significant when they're broken. For example, say a villain is constantly beating up the protagonist. Here's our pattern: the hero is physically weaker than the villain. In a straight fight, the hero will always lose.

And then, at the mid-season two-parter, the hero WINS. Since we've set up this long pattern of the hero always losing to this villain, the fact that this pattern was disrupted means that this moment is extremely important for the work. Let's say the hero wins using guile - in this case, we walk away with the message that the work is saying that insurmountable obstacles may have workarounds, and adaptability and flexibility are good, heroic traits. Now let's say the hero won using physical strength, after a whole season of training and practicing - in this case, we say that the work says hard work and effort are heroic, and will pay off in the end.

In Homestuck, as an example, we set up a long pattern of Vriska being an awful, manipulative bitch, and a fairly remorseless killer. And then, after killing Tavros, she talks to John and admits that she's freaking out because she feels really bad about it. This vulnerability is hinted at by some of her earlier actions/dialogue, which is itself a pattern to notice, but it's not really explicit until it's set up to be in direct contrast to the ultimate spider8itch move of killing Tavros. This contrast is intended to draw our attention, to point out something significant - hey, Vriska feels bad! She's a product of her terrible society and awful lusus! While it's shitty that she killed Tavros, she's also meant to be tragic and sympathetic herself!

Hussie even talks about how patterns and surprises are used in tandem:

Prior to Eridan's entrance into the room, and even during, the deaths were completely unguessable. After Feferi's death, Kanaya's becomes considerably more so, but still quite uncertain. After her death, all bets are off. Not only do all deaths thereafter become guessable, but in some cases, "predictable". That's because it was the line between a series of shocking events, and the establishment of an actual story pattern. The new pattern serves a purpose, as a sort of announcement that the story is shifting gears, that we're drifting into these mock-survival horror, mock-crime drama segments, driven by suspense more than usual. The suspense has more authority because of all the collateral of unpredictability built up over time, as well as all the typical stuff that helps like long term characterization. But now that the pattern is out in the open, following through with more deaths no longer qualifies as unpredictability. Just the opposite, it would now be playing into expectations, which as I said, can be important too. This gear we've switched to is the new normal, and any unpredictability to arise thereafter will necessarily be a departure from whatever current patterns would indicate.

Patterns are important because they tell you what baselines the work is setting - what's normal, what's standard, what this or that generally "means." Contrast is important because it means something has changed, or some significant point is being made. They work in tandem to provide the reader with points of focus in the story, things to keep in mind as they read, consciously or unconsciously.

Theme

I'm talking about this stuff in pretty broad and open terms because stories are so malleable, and so myriad, and can say so many things. There are stories where horrible cruelties are painted as good things - propoganda is the big one, but consider all the discourse around romance books that paint abusive/toxic relationships as ideal. There are stories where the protagonist is actually the villain, and their actions are not aspirational, and works where everyone sucks and nobody is aspirational, and works where everybody is essentially a good person, if sometimes misguided.

This is, again, why outside context is so important, and biases need to be left at the door. For example, generally speaking, one can assume that the protagonist of a children's cartoon is going to be an aspirational hero, or at least a conflicted character who must learn to do the right thing. However, there are even exceptions to this! Invader Zim, for example, features an outright villain protagonist - a proud servant of a fascist empire - and for a lower-stakes example, the Eds of Ed, Edd, n' Eddy are the neighborhood scammers, constantly causing problems for the other characters with their schemes.

Thus, how do we determine what any particular narrative's stance on a given topic is? It's a difficult question to answer because every narrative is different. If I say something like, "the things that bring the protagonists success in their goals are what the narrative says are good," then we run into the issue of villain/gray morality protagonists. To use moral terms like "hero" and "villain" instead runs into the problem of defining morality within a narrative in the first place. But you have to draw the line somewhere.

So that brings us to themes.

Now, as with a lot of artistic terms, "theme" isn't necessarily well-defined (this isn't helped by the way the word is used colloquially to mean things like aesthetic, moral of the story, or symbolism). Wikipedia says: "In contemporary literary studies, a theme is a central topic, subject, or message within a narrative," but this is still very broad and hard to work with, so I'll give it a shot.

A theme is what a work says, beyond the literal series of events. Sometimes a theme is obvious - the theme of Boy Who Cried Wolf is that if you become famous for lying, you won't be believed when you tell the truth. Sometimes a theme is one of many - for example, Disney's Cinderalla says that kindness and virtue will eventually be recognized and rewarded, and that cruelty is interlinked with ugliness. Sometimes a theme is unintentional - for example, how Disney's body of work tends to villainize queer-coded characters. Sometimes context and the passage of time changes the theme - for example, Snow White originally held a message of hope for wartime families that domestic normalcy would one day return, but is now seen as anti-feminist as it appears to insinuate that a woman's place is in the kitchen, and her happiness is in marriage to a man. And sometimes a theme is not something you agree with.

In any case, a theme is a meaning to be gleaned from the text, more broad and universally applicable than the text itself. After all, we humans have traditionally always used story to impart meaning; our oldest epic, The Epic of Gilgamesh, contains within it several themes, most famously that of accepting one's mortality. It's startling, really, how applicable the story is to this day, even if specific details have become obtuse or unsavory to a modern reader.

This is, again, why it's so important to engage with a text on its own terms, in its own context, with as little bias as possible. A story's themes are not necessarily apparent, and commonly implied rather than stated outright, and approaching the story with expectations can easily lead to a Procrustean twisting of the facts to fit those expectations. A theme should emerge to the analyzer out of the reading, not the other way around.

Identifying theme gets easier with practice, and largely comes down to identifying patterns within the narrative (alongside looking at context and symbolism, of course). What does the narrative consistently touch base on? Are there any references; is there any symbolism? What does the story deem "normal," "good," or "bad"? How are ideas developed, and why? Why did these events happen, and are those motivations echoed anywhere else?

Homestuck is very complex and tackles many topics at once, and explaining why it's a coming-of-age would basically require a whole second essay, so I'll use a simpler and more popular example (like I've been trying to do) - let's say, Shrek.

The most obvious theme of Shrek is that beauty does not equate goodness, that one mustn't judge a book by its cover. The opening sequence is LITERALLY Shrek ripping out pages of a fairy tale book to use as toilet paper, and the movie ends with Fiona finding that her happiest, truest self IS as an ugly ogre. Shrek's main character conflict is that people immediately judge him as cruel and evil because he's ugly, and the characters' lowest points occur because Fiona is similarly insecure about her ogre half, considering it unlovable.

But there's other stuff in there, too. For example, if you know that Dreamworks and Shrek were founded after a falling out with Disney, then the beautiful, sanitized city of Dulac, with its switchback queue and singing animatronics add to this theme of a direct refutation of traditional Disney fairytale values, mocking them as manufactured, inhuman, and even cruel in the way that they marginalize those who don't fit an ideal of beauty. Again we see the opening sequence - defacing a fairytale - as support for this, but also the way that Dulac is displacing fairytale creatures. There's a moment where Gepetto literally sells Pinocchio, which can easily be read as a commentary on the crass commercialization and exploitation of fairy tales Disney likes to do.

And then, of course, there are lesser, supplementary themes. Love being a powerful positive force is one - Donkey is able to rally Shrek after he truly reciprocates Dragon's love for him (which echoes the theme of not equating goodness with beauty, as Dragon is still big and scary), and it's true love's kiss that grants Fiona her happy ending.

And then there's stuff that's unintentional. There's all this work done about how beauty =/= goodness, but then they made the villain incredibly short, which is a traditionally unattractive physical feature. So, does that mean that ugly things can be beautiful unless that ugliness is specifically height?

Sometimes, authorial intent does not match up with result - but in those instances, I think the most is revealed about the author. Modern Disney products tend to be very cowardly about going anti-corporation and pro-weirdness, despite their usual feel-good tones and uplifting themes - and that says a lot about Disney, doesn't it. That's why I think it's still important to keep authorial intent in mind, if possible, even if they fumble what they say they've set out to do.

Obviously, Lord Fuckwad being short doesn't REALLY detract from the overall message - but it's still a weird hitch in the themes, which I think is interesting to talk about, so you can see where personal judgement and biases DO have to be applied. There are two options here, more or less - either one believes that Shrek is making an exception for short people, who are of the Devil, or one believes that the filmmakers did a bit of an oopsie. Barring an outright statement from the filmmakers, there's no way to know for sure.

We can say a work has very complex themes when it intentionally explores multiple ideas very deeply. We can say a work has shallow themes when it doesn't have much intentional meaning, and/or that meaning is explored very lightly. The labyrinthine storytelling of Homestuck, with its forays into mortality, morality, and growing up, chock full of symbolism and pastiche and allusions, is a work with complex themes - especially as compared to the average newspaper comic strip, although they ostensibly share a genre.

We can say a work has very unified themes when these themes serve to compliment each other - the refutation of Disney-esque values, and love as a positive driving force, compliment the main theme in Shrek of not judging books by their covers, of beauty not equating to goodness. Ugly things are worthy of love, and those who push standards of beauty are evil and suck.

Similarly, we can say a work has unfocused or messy themes when the themes it includes - intentionally or not - contradict, distract, and/or detract from each other. Beauty has no correlation to goodness... unless you're short, in which case, you are closer to Hell and therefore of evil blood. To get a little controversial, this is actually why I didn't like Last Wish very much - there are approximately three separate storylines, with three separate thematic arcs, going on in the same movie, none of which particularly compliment each other - so the experience was very messy to me, story-wise, even though it was pretty and the wolf was hot. This is why we feel weird about Disney pushing anti-corporate messages, when they're a big corporate machine, or why it's easy to assume Homestuck was written poorly if you don't like Hussie - we want themes to be coherent, we want context to be unified with output.

Tone

Tone is somehow even harder to define than theme. It's like, the "vibe" of a work. For example, you generally don't expect something lighthearted to deal with the realistic, brutal tragedies of war. Maybe it'll touch on them in light, optimistic ways, but it isn't about to go All Quiet on the Western Front on the reader. By the same token, you don't expect fully happy endings out of the melodrama of opera, or frivolous slice of life from something grimdark.

Tone, too, is something people often wind up Procrusteanizing, which makes discussion difficult if two people disagree. If I read Homestuck as unwaveringly optimistic, with its downer ending the result of an author fumble, I'm pretty much going to irreconcileably disagree with somebody who reads Homestuck as though it's always been a kind of tragedy where things don't work out for the characters. Since it's even more difficult to define than theme, I'm not even really going to bother; I just felt like I had to bring it up because, despite its nebulosity, it's vital to how one reads and interprets a text. Sometimes I don't have a better answer for why I dislike a certain interpretation other than that it doesn't suit the work's tone. I generally try to avoid saying that, though, because it winds up smacking of subjective preference.

In summary... analysis is about keeping everything in mind all the time! But i swear, it gets easier the more you do it. Happy reading!

[aromanticannibal]

mha characters that are aro for CANON reasons (read: in which I reach increasingly further for canon evidence):

(Disclaimer: some of these can be evidence of characters being something else than aro (or ace) but this is my post and I can do whatever I want + /hj to /j to everything on there, when I say I start reaching I start REACHING. These are headcanons!)

Aizawa Shouta doesn't ever show romantic (or sexual) interest in anyone and is actively put off by Ms Joke hitting on him and the idea of getting married to her

All Might has NO experience with women according to Horikoshi (could also mean he has experience with men but y'know)

Ashido Mina really wants to be in a relationship but never fell in love (cupioromantic moment)

Both Bakugou Katsuki and Todoroki Shouto hide from girls crushing on them near the end, don't ever show romantic interest in anyone or get anxious or flustered near girls, Katsuki especially apparently never cared about girls (and vice versa) before and and Shouto specifically doesn't notice when he's hit on.

Iida Tenya is never interested in girls or men and is significantly more focused on both his studies and his friendships

My favorite headcanon: Uraraka Ochako's love for Izuku seems founded more on her admiration and people telling her she must like him (because boy and girl etc) than in actual romantic love, and she connects a lot with Toga (who also loves people in a non-conventional way)

Midnight doesn't have a romantic partner or anyone she regularly flirts with despite being a very beautiful and desired woman, and doesn't seem to have had any kind of romantic relationship with the three boys more or less her age she hung out with a lot (the rooftop trio) (she can also be seen as a cliché of aroallo person who only cares about sex so I'm claiming her).

Pixie Bob's obsession with finding a partner is giving "I've been told all my life that I HAVE to get married and I don't want to so I keep looking for the perfect match and not finding it because the man I'm looking for doesn't exist because I won't ever fall in love". Because by god you can't tell me the cute blonde catgirl isn't finding a boyfriend.

All For One only cares about his brother, I'd even argue he's aromantic asexual aplatonic etc. a-everything except familial and idk. quirkic. attracted to quirks.

Mount Lady is aro for the same reason as Midnight but because I think it's implied or canon that she's dating Kamui Woods, she's lower.

Midoriya Izuku is green so he's obviously aromantic and most of his flustered reactions to girls seem based more on shyness (and an obvious reaction to getting boobs shoved in his face) and sexual or aesthetic attraction than romantic attraction (he also has a very romcom view of what being boyfriend girlfriend is, ie. his reaction to Toga's confession)

Aoyama Yuuga's definition of love (according to his comment on Ochako being in love with Izuku because she was thinking "what would Deku-kun do?") is very weird and seems based more in things he was told or saw in fiction than feelings he would have felt himself.

Yoarashi Inasa is just so fucking weird with friendships and social cues he looks like he's trying to navigate the world while making absolutely sure NO ONE misinterprets him, which makes him both very aro and very autistic in my book

Kurogiri is literally a bunch of mist with little free will whose purpose in life is protecting this one boy, he's all the As.

Endeavor married for insane reasons and never even cheated on Rei after he sent her to the hospital (which a lot of men his caliber would do)

Ms Joke makes the idea of dating Shouta a joke and I think that's great. She's also green.

Miruko's chill and doesn't give a fuck, she's a fighting person, very Katsuki-coded in that regard I fear. She also works alone without an agency, which is giving aromantic for no reason other than I Said So.

Toga Himiko is a queer allegory that is generally interpreted as bisexual and biromantic but I think she can be interpreted as aroallo as well (way to love that’s seen as impure and unholy etc etc, notions of consent – taking people’s blood and hurting them without their consent which is for her a way to show her love, most of her attraction seeming physical or aesthetic rather than romantic, her parents telling her to repress repress repress instead of satisfying her desires in a safe way, the scene where she’s biting her wrist in her sleep???? etc etc) 

Twice never had a lot of friends and never had a lot of female friends and when he feels gratefulness and care for Toga it outwardly seems romantic because he doesn’t know what’s romantic and what’s not and hasn’t had a lot of female friends 

Dabi is giving aromantic aplatonic who only really loves his family but due to circumstances can’t love them healthily and ends up just hating them (the most intense feelings of love he shows are always towards Enji or Natsuo, and his apology to Shouto makes me think Shouto is also included in this – no evidence for Fuyumi and Rei but I can do what I want. He clearly cares for Twice and Toga too but it presents very differently, even after he’s revealed himself and doesn’t need to be as secretive). 

Shigaraki Tomura probably just doesn’t give a shit I’d say. He’s pretty apathetic when he isn’t fighting or angry or like doing his hatred thing, but he clearly cares about his teammates. 

Fatgum is foodpilled and studentpilled. He really loves food and he really loves his students he doesn't need no romantic relationship.

Jirou Kyoka takes a bit to warm up to Denki so I think she's demiromantic actually

Bruce (the third user of One For All). He just has such third wheel vibes.

Intelli Saiko because why would she bother with romance, it's so unpractical and illogical

Despite asking for boys' numbers all the time and being very aware of romance, Utsushimi Camie looks like she could NOT CARE LESS. aro

The fact that Hawks plays up the flirting with his fans is giving aromantic to me – obviously heartbreaker aroallo stereotype but I think he could also be ace, the aroallo part isn’t that important, it’s just that he’s always pretending. It’s giving still in the closet. Also I know he’s young and busy and Horikoshi doesn’t really put that much casual romance in MHA but it’s so funny that there isn’t even a sliver of a girlfriend implied in his timeskip. Hawks is Married To His Job. 

Star and Stripe is also absolutely married to her job. Also, lots of guys around her, lots of important and admired male figures in her life, and yet not a single crush from her. Points. Aromantic lesbian 

Nezu is a fuckass mouse I highly doubt he's attracted to humans in any way

Gran Torino is a single old man which is enough for me (though because I hate that fucker I think it'd be funny if women just hated him)

Where Is Shimura Nana’s Husband. 

Muscular only likes to kill, he doesn’t need romance nor sex, his only desire is Killing People and fighting. Same thing for Moonfish, he only wants to eat people (mood my guy) 

Geten is very hyper focused on making his quirk stronger, he doesn’t seem to really have any relationships.

Overhaul just fucking hates people

Again, Kendo Rappa only cares about fighting.

So so sad because I like his girlfriend but Natsuo is giving marrying to get away from his father

Koda Koji just had the vibes. He's so aroace to me. (aro Koda brain vs kodajirou brain fight)

Monoma Neito is such a fucking hater he just has to be aromantic

Wash is a washing machine

Honorable mentions:

List of characters whose only argument is they never show romantic attraction and don't talk much about romance or get flustered: Shouji Mezo, Sato Rikido, Tokoyami Fumikage, Shinsou Hitoshi, Yaoyorozu Momo, Sero Hanta, Hado Nejire, Togata Mirio, Shirakumo Oboro, Present Mic, Seiji Shishikura, Ryukyu, Gang Orca, Shishido, Centipeder, Ectoplasm, Hound Dog, Thirteen, Vlad King, Mandalay, Tiger, Lady Nagant, Mr. Compress, Tsukauchi Naomasa, Todoroki Rei and Fuyumi, Melissa Shield.

List of characters whose only argument is "they're green so they're obviously aromantic": Asui Tsuyu, Ibara Shiozaki, Tokage Setsuna, Kamakiri Togaru, Midoriya Inko, Ragdoll, Burnin, the Sludge Villain (I’m taking all I can get), Mustard, Ordinary Woman.

Bonus: characters that I can't make aromantic no matter how hard I try under the cut:

Gentle and La Brava, for obvious reasons. I feel like making them not love each other is like illegal.

Kudo and Yoichi. By god my brain will not accept it they're in love.

Amajiki Tamaki. I'm sure he could be aromantic but I can't let go of the Mirio and Nejire crushes (which are so real and true to me)

Yuyu (Nejire's friend), she also looks way too much like she has a giant crush on Nejire. Lesbian moment.

Best Jeanist and Edgeshot, they're giving high school sweethearts.

I put them in honorable mentions but I just have to mention Gang Orca and Shishido somewhere because the one baseball OVA made me think they're like the pseudo-enemies/rivals who argue all the time but somehow fight extremely synchronized when needed and ONLY fight each other because they're the only ones Worth It etc which is. Y'know. eye emoji etc etc

Sir Nighteye is literally in love with All Might

David Shield is literally in love with All Might

No really did you see David's wife? This man went and found a blonde blue eyed wife when he couldn't marry his blonde blue eyed best friend. His daughter looks like an All Might secret love child. I know whenever Dave hears Melissa call All Might uncle he dies a little inside because he wishes she could call him Dad too and he could call Toshinori his darling husband and

Rock Lock is happily married and I could never take that away from him

Spinner is green so I can kind of see him as aro but he’s giving madly in love with Shigaraki so much

Magne has a crush on Dabi in one of the Smash strips which is too funny to ignore I think she’s madly in love with him. And she’s right

I like kirimina so fucking much I genuinely struggle to come up with aro Kirishima headcanons. I think he could be quoiromantic but I also think he’s madly in love with Mina so I don’t know. 

Stain is literally in love with All Might

Ending (guy who attacked Natsuo) is literally in love with Endeavor

Garaki Kyudai is literally in love with All For One (“I miss your eyes” guy is so fucking devoted. The true doomed yaoi of MHA)

I know Rody is in love with Izuku he just has to be. 

To me Shindo Yo also has a crush on Izuku but also he's canonically dating Nakagame Tatami which is also cute.

[bloodofsancho]

Theories & Speculations about Canto 7: Lightning Round

So, I've had a much longer, more essay formatted post sitting in my drafts on here for a while, and even longer on my main blog where I imported it from. But seeing as Canto 7 is just on the horizon and my real life obligations haven't gotten any lighter, I've decided that instead of writing a Big Long Theory Post about Canto 7, I would instead summarize my main thoughts/beliefs/speculations into bullet points on a single post. This still ended up being really long though. Anyway, without further ado:

Project Moon's interpretation of Don Quixote seems inspired in part by the musical Man of La Mancha. While I've seen many consider it an adaptation of Don Quixote, it's...not really. It's loosely based off of it. In the musical, it follows Miguel de Cervantes and his unnamed servant who have been imprisoned by the Spanish Inquisition and put on a play for the prisoners where Cervantes plays Don Quixote and his servant plays Sancho Panza. A female prisoner/prostitute named is chosen to play Dulcinea. She is a principal character in the play.

In the book, Dulcinea is little more than a figment of Quixote's imagination. Aldonza is only mentioned in one sentence at the end of the first chapter. She's also a slaughterhouse worker and not a prostitute.

I have absolutely no idea which interpretation Project Moon will go with. But I find it interesting that Don Quixote hasn't mentioned Dulcinea at all, while in the book she probably comes up every other sentence.

Dulcinea = Carmen?

I think the likely villain candidatesfor this Canto are either Sanson Carrasco or "Avellaneda".

Sanson Carrasco, also known as the "Knight of Mirrors" or "Knight of the White Moon" is a guy from Don Quixote's town who along with the barber and priest (make note of that btw) takes it upon himself to cure Don Quixote of his presumed madness. He's kind of a smartass. He decides the best way to cure Don Quixote of his mental illness is to defeat him as the Knight of Mirrors but ends up getting beaten by Don Quixote, and he's not happy about this and swears revenge. Later he appears as the Knight of the White Moon, and defeats Don Quixote in a duel.

In Man of La Mancha, a prisoner known as "the Duke" is chosen to play Sanson Carrasco in the play, who pretty much does the same thing as he does in the book except he's much more cynical in the play.

The other candidate, Avellaneda, would be a very interesting and very Project Moon choice for an antagonist. Alonso Fernandez de Avellaneda was the pseudonym used by an author who wrote a fake sequel to the first part of Don Quixote, which Miguel de Cervantes didn't intend on writing an official sequel to until he saw Avellaneda's work and he hated it so much it spurred him into writing an actual sequel. The existence of the fake sequel is mocked and referenced in the second part of Don Quixote, and considering the events of Canto 6 I think that's worth keeping in mind.

Now onto actual speculation and called shots for Canto 7 since I've laid this groundwork:

I think that the plot of Canto 7, at least initially, may draw heavy inspiration from Man of La Mancha. I think the Bloodfiends from La Mancha Land are possibly taking humans captive through some kind of method (attracting them to the fair maybe?) and torturing them as entertainment. Through some kind of means, the Bloodfiends have also gotten a Golden Bough, but I'm unsure how or why they would use it. Maybe someone can provide some ideas.

Humans going missing and ending up at some kind of vampire torture fair is exactly the kind of case Moses would take on. It remains to be seen if she will be there in person, or if she'll communicate with Dante through a walkie talkie or radio. At the end of the teaser, she sounded like she was talking through a radio (assuming that was in fact Moses).

Sancho is either a Fixer who Don Quixote became friends with in between establishing her human form and joining Limbus Company, or he (assuming that the blue text from the teaser is Sancho) is a Bloodfiend. Maybe both? His text from the teaser seems to be encouraging Don Quixote's delusions.

I initially thought that the Bloodfiend from the teaser could be Dulcinea (or Marcela or Dorotea)* but a user pointed out to me that she's holding large scissors so she's probably the Barber. However, this morning I looked back at the MOTWE story cutscenes with Cassetti and he refers to the Barber with he/him pronouns. I don't know if this means anything, or if it's an oversight or retcon from Project Moon.

I think there's a strong possibility that, following the Man of La Mancha line of thought, Don Quixote's true Bloodfiend identity is Miguel de Cervantes. A lot of people seem to agree with this. However, I haven't seen anyone really make any shots as to why she would seal herself away, and I think I have a plausible answer:

Being a member of the elder generation of Bloodfiends from before the White Nights and Dark Days, Cervantes is primarily nonviolent and doesn't want much to do with humans. After the White Nights and Dark Days spawned a new generation of Bloodfiends who were significantly more prone to violence, violent attacks on humans increased and this alerted even more people to the existence of Bloodfiends---especially people who would like to hunt and kill them. This put the lives of Cervantes' Kindred at grave risk, and not wanting to fight or kill humans, she sealed herself away and invented a human persona---and possibly her Kindred as well, hence how Sancho could also both be a Fixer and a Bloodfiend.

She might have invented Don Quixote with the express purpose of creating a human self who had a strong sense of justice and right the wrongs of the City. Maybe she became a Bloodfiend to start with in order to escape the injustice of the City.

This would line up extremely well thematically with both the novel and Man of La Mancha. Sancho supporting Don Quixote's dreams (or her human persona in general) could support this idea if we assume he is a Bloodfiend.

Meanwhile, the Bloodfiends are more concerned with getting their Second Kindred back once they realize who she is. This would align well with the Barber and Sanson, assuming that Sanson is a Bloodfiend and not a Bloodfiend hunter.

I realize that this is kind of a slapdash post, but I was really running out of time and on top of being both sick today and having two papers due on Sunday, I needed to get this out before Canto 7. I realize that this doesn't touch on many aspects, like the associations with Carmilla, other characters like Dorotea, Marcela, Cardenio, the priest, etc but I decided for the sake of time that I would talk about them if/when they appear in Canto 7. Regardless, I would like to hear everyone's thoughts if they have any!

[thefirstknife]

Speaking of weird things in the season already, I'm back with the obsession with names of things in the seasonal activity.

So in Riven's Lair, you get randomly assigned "missions" that change with each run. I believe there's five of them as I've played a lot of Riven's Lair so far and only got these five to rotate. Maybe there will be more in weeks to come!

Anyway, if you look in the top left corner when you start the activity, it will tell you the name of the mission you're on. The names that I've seen so far are:

Polysemy

Apophasis

Synchysis

Enthymeme

Tautology

Long post under:

These aren't random words! They're all related to language and rhetoric, which makes sense with the Ahamkara theme as Ahamkara are very dependent on the way language is used around them.

Polysemy is when words or symbols are capable of having multiple meanings. Apophasis is when you speak about something by denying it or mentioning it by saying it's not required to be mentioned (def check examples on wikipedia if this is confusing). Synchysis is also a way of speaking in a way that deliberately messes up the order of words to confuse or surprise the person you're speaking to. Enthymeme is a type of an argument where you construct a sentence which tells some sort of a fact by omitting the way you came to that conclusion because the fact should be obvious on its own (again, check wiki for examples, it will be easier to understand). And tautology has a meaning in both language and logic; in language, a tautology is a statement that repeats something, adding redundant information and in logic, a tautology is a logical formula in which a sentence is constructed in a way that every interpretation of the sentence is true.

I doubt these words were chosen randomly and there might be more or perhaps more will cycle in during weeks to come. But even with just this, there's a pattern. I'm not sure which meaning of tautology is being used here; possibly the language one because it fits the rest, but the logic interpretation could also be possible.

The first week's mission was also specifically Polysemy:

I assume next weeks we'll probably do other specific ones in some order, which would also mean there should be at least 2 more. I'm wondering if there's some sort of a reason why these specific words were chosen. Obviously they all relate to forms of speaking and language which is the primary way that Ahamkara use to affect reality; speaking in specific terminology and using particular phrases and language forms is important to them and when speaking to them.

But given the involvement of the Vex, it also reminded me of the lore book Aspect in which every chapter is named after grammatical, linguistic and logic terms. Aspect is also specifically related to the Black Garden and Sol Divisive. Not only that, but Aspect deals with, among other things, the fate of the Ishtar scientists and their copies in the Vex Network, and primarily uses Chioma as their main viewpoint, and the whole situation with Neomuna and Veil Logs has returned my interest in this lore book.

I feel like it isn't a coincidence that we've spent essentially the entire year reacquainting ourselves with Chioma and Maya and Ishtar as a whole only to bring back Sol Divisive and the Black Garden back in the final season in this way. As the Veil Logs told us, one of Maya's copies interfered with one of the logs, sending signals, and Chioma, at the end of her life, contacted the Vex presumably to be consumed by the network so she could possibly reunite with one of the copies of Maya in there.

This brought me also to the mysterious signal from Scatter Signal lore tab in which Osiris tracks down some sort of a signal that seems to be talking about the Vex, but spoken in a strange way. So I began thinking that this signal might be coming from Chioma, consumed by the Vex, from the Vex Network, reaching out to the man who's been studying her, living in Neomuna and researching the Veil for months. Specifically, the final Veil Log mentioned a few similar words and phrases being repeated. Specifically, when Osiris mentions that Chioma was researching "the entaglement of Light and Dark" and when Nimbus and Osiris discuss "parallel connections and parallel energy fields;" then in the Scatter Signal message there's mention of how, presumably, the Vex are trying to "move from parallel to entanglement." The Veil Log also talks about how the Witness can communicate through our Ghosts and how that connection might be going both ways; Scatter Signal also mentions "bridging communion with a Voice."

Copies of Chioma and the other scientists (with the help of Praedyth) once tried to use the Black Garden to send a message out of the Vex Network, detailed in Aspect. We don't know if they succeeded (at least in our current timeline). The Black Garden has been a big focus in Lightfall almost out of nowhere in such an immensely world-changing way (with the explanation of the Black Heart), and it will still be important this season with the exotic mission. It's a very pleasing loop of the story; everything started with the Black Garden in D1 and everything just before TFS might end with it. I'm also incredibly intrigued by the fact that the returning weapons from Undying (a season about the Sol Divisive and the Black Garden) have returned with a new perk called nano-munitions: very Neomuna-sounding name. Perhaps certain Ishtar scientists are influencing the Vex or extending a helping hand to us.

The questions that remain: how does this tie back to the Ahamkara? Why are the Vex interested in the Ahamkara? What do the Ahamkara have to do with the Black Garden? What's with all the strange language terminology that deals with double meanings and ways to confuse? Is it just regular Ahamkara shenanigans to trick us? To trick the Vex? Maybe both?

The point is, I don't think this is as simple as Riven just being sad that all the Ahamkara are dead and wanting to secure her clutch. Nothing is ever simple with the Ahamkara and nothing is ever simple with the Vex; and now we're dealing with both. And somewhere in all of this, there is also a concerning involvement of the Black Garden that connects to both of these elements. At the end of it all, there's us, who rely on this specific combination of elements to get through the portal, pursue the Witness and save the universe.

Spreading the brain worms to the rest of y'all to think about. If you spot any other mission names, feel free to share, though I think that if they happen, they might happen in the coming weeks. Also as I mentioned before, I know there's been leaks and lore tabs unlocking early on Ishtar: I've not seen any leaks or cutscenes and have not read any lore tabs that aren't explicitly visible in-game so if there's a really simple answer in that leaked material, I don't know about it and don't want to know about it so please don't spoil to me or to others!

[dross-the-fish]

What do you think Erik's past was with women, when it comes to dating and women. I'd like to know what your take is.

"dating" is probably not the word I'd use. Delving into the text of the book there are two parts that stick out to me as indicating that Erik may have a history with women other than Christine this segment here from the scene at Apollo's Lyre where Christine is recounting events to Raoul "You wanted to know what I looked like! Oh, you women are so inquisitive! Well, are you satisfied? I'm a very good-looking fellow, eh? … When a woman has seen me, as you have, she belongs to me. She loves me for ever. I am a kind of Don Juan, you know!' And, drawing himself up to his full height, with his hand on his hip, wagging the hideous thing that was his head on his shoulders, he roared, 'Look at me! I AM DON JUAN TRIUMPHANT!' And, when I turned away my head and begged for mercy, he drew it to him, brutally, twisting his dead fingers into my hair." Seems to indicate that this kind of thing has happened before. It is possible Erik is speaking generally and it's not definitive proof but it is interesting, the verbiage he uses.

And this scene towards the end of the book when he has Raoul and the Persian in his torture chamber

"What are you running away for?" asked the furious voice, which had followed her. "Give me back my bag, will you? Don't you know that it is the bag of life and death?"

"Listen to me, Erik," sighed the girl. "As it is settled that we are to live together ... what difference can it make to you?"

"You know there are only two keys in it," said the monster. "What do you want to do?"

"I want to look at this room which I have never seen and which you have always kept from me ... It's woman's curiosity!" she said, in a tone which she tried to render playful.

But the trick was too childish for Erik to be taken in by it.

"I don't like curious women," he retorted, "and you had better remember the story of BLUE-BEARD and be careful ... Come, give me back my bag! ... Give me back my bag! ... Leave the key alone, will you, you inquisitive little thing?"

And he chuckled, while Christine gave a cry of pain. Erik had evidently recovered the bag from her." He says he doesn't like "curious women" and makes a reference to Blue Beard, which is a fairytale about a serial killer who murders his wives. There's a scene in Blue Beard where the most recent wife discovers a room with the bodies of his previous wives. The first quote could be dismissed but this is the second time Erik has indicated a dislike for curious women. Erik's lair is canonically full of traps and features a very cruel torture chamber. By evoking the image of Blue Beard in particular the narrative seems to be further implying that Erik does have some history of women and not a pleasant one. It's possible that Erik is just trying to scare Christine out of looking in the room but it's equally likely that it's not an idle threat. He's shown that he's not above putting hands on Christine and treating her roughly despite his claims to love her. I have a personal theory that Christine is not the first but Erik knows she is going to be the last. I've always kind of run on the idea that throughout the book Erik is aware his health is failing and the clock is winding down for him and that's why Christine is different, because she's his last chance and in the end she does give him, not a living bride, but something much more needed: redemption and forgiveness from someone he's harmed. Proof that he's not unworthy of human compassion. A lot of people in the Phandom don't seem to recognize how dark of a character Erik is. I find him legitimately scary as much as I also find him sympathetic and I think he is fascinating in part because there is something genuinely terrifying about him that tickles my love for horror stories. I feel like it's vague enough that you can leave it up to interpretation, so if you don't really like the idea that he's had women in his past that he ended up killing you can chalk it up to Erik just trying to frighten Christine into compliance but I think it's interesting to look at the darker takes and speculate about the skeletons in his closet.

[bibbibib]

Well, that's kind of dark

So one of the things I've noticed about Peeta that I haven't seen talked about a lot is there's a kind of almost morbid resourcefulness about him. Like, we talk about him finding beauty in adversity and having an artistic outlook and while that's true, there are so many moments that kind of made me pause when I first read the books that reveal a different side to him. He doesn't just strategize (the interviews, D11) , or even just improvise on the spot (the bread, the Peacekeepers at Katniss' house CF scene), but he adds a whole lot of compartmentalizing onto it.

Examples?

How about Peeta in the first arena, freshly bit by a mutt and currently bleeding to death, carrying everything that's happened over the past couple of weeks, having to fight Cato on the Cornucopia? When Cato (who's also much bigger than him) gets him in a chokehold, not only does Peeta manage to find a way out of a seemingly impossible situation without proper oxygenation (well, no small feat) but he also uses his own blood to mark an X on Cato's hand so Katniss can shoot at it. It's brilliant and desperate, and it ends up working, but damn if that's not disturbing as well.

And he does something similar again: using the force field to cook tree rat after having basically died from it just hours ago. He basically went, "well, if it worked on me, it'll work for the rat" .

After getting out of the Games, you'd expect him to want nothing to do with everything that happened in there, much like Katniss did, try to leave it all behind and get over the pain, but no! Peeta spends nights and nights painting it all out in vivid detail, not just the better or neutral moments but the tough, gory stuff too. I'm not sure how to interpret this response he has, other that it shows him as someone who doesn't like to shy away from the truth even if it hurts (real or not real?) and uses what's there for the best, or at least passably functional outcome, which is genuinely really useful. I feel like there is more to it.

[The sewer chace in MJ could maybe also be a similar example? After the Mitchell disaster, Peeta seems to be keeping it together better than even some of the other, un-hijacked members of the squad. It seems like he's getting better the worse things get. A trauma response? Good for him? Bad? Maybe a mix? I'd love to hear your two cents!]

[yourhighness6]

Zutara's Song is Definetely The Great War by Taylor Swift

I've seen a lot of Zutara songs and playlists out there and I wanted to share my opinion on my personal favorite

I want to start out by saying that this analysis is going to completely ignore Taylor Swift's intentions when she wrote the song and any analysis of the song in concurrence with her life. I'm also going off my personal feelings that the first verse and chorus are Zuko talking to Katara, the second verse, chorus, and bridge are Katara talking to Zuko, and the remaining parts of the song are them reflecting after the war.

My knuckles were bruised like violets,

Sucker punching walls, cursed you as I sleep talked,

For me, this was pretty typical season 1 Zuko. Angry at the world, fighting everything in sight, ect, ect. It's only after the first two lines that the song gets a little bit more specific.

Spineless in my tomb of silence,

Tore your banners down, took the battle underground,

That third line is really reminiscent of Ba Sing Se. He took himself out of the story, until, of course, he had to make a choice in "Crossroads of Destiny"

And we know what he chooses

It's almost phrased in the form of an apology, which connects it even further to their story. "Tore your banners down" could also mean the fall of Ba Sing Se in general. Aang is Katara's banner, the avatar who she put so much hope in, but the Earth Kingdom banner is also who she was fighting behind. Azula killed Aang, so I would personally say it's the latter, but I saw two meanings behind it so it's totally up for interpretation.

And maybe it was egos swinging,

The "egos swinging" bit resonated with me a lot, because at this point in the story Zuko isn't done with his character arc. He still seeks his father's validation over his own moral code, and although it seems to me like he's gotten over a lot of his entitlement, I think he still feels entitled to his throne. That's one of my favorite things about his arc, actually, that he comes from a place of privilege but eventually, unlike Azula, realizes that the right to rule isn't given by birth but by true care for the people you represent. (some politicians should take notes)

Maybe it was her,

To me, the "her" in this case is Azula, convincing Zuko their father will be proud of him if he returns to the Fire Nation, although it could also mean Mai. Again, open for interpretation.

Flashes of the battle come back to me in a blur,

This could mean a lot for different people. I've seen a theory about Zuko possibly disassociating (not unlike similar theories about Darth Vader), which I think is interesting. It could also maybe represent the guilt he still feels, which is my personal opinion.

Moving on, the chorus is fairly generic once again,

All that bloodshed, crimson clover,

Uh-uh, sweet dream was over,

My hand was the one you reached for,

All throughout the great war,

The hand part stuck out to me because of the part in the final agni Kai when they reach for each other:

(screencaps are bad quality but ya'll get the idea)

Then it goes back to the any enemies-to-lovers generic dynamic again...

Always remember, uh-uh,

Tears on the letter,

I vowed not to cry anymore,

If we survived the Great War.

And then we switch to Katara's POV:

You drew up some good faith treaties,

I drew curtains closed, drank my poison all alone,

You could argue that this is several moments throughout the series, maybe at the end of the war when she gets together with Aang, but I connected it most with her time spent on the ship after book 2. While Zuko was trying to fix his relationship with the Fire Nation and return to his family, Katara was isolating herself, worried about the war, about the avatar, avoiding her father and Sokka out of shame and feelings of abandonment. It was an extremely dark time for her, and although Zuko was trying to feel hopeful about his return, he doesn't even smile when he reunites with Mai. He knows he made the wrong decision.

You said I have to trust more freely,

This is after Zuko's redemption arc, during "The Southern Raiders" (which is probably my favorite ATLA episode, btw). Zuko encourages Katara to trust him, feeling that he is changed and is now deserving of it.

But she refuses to forgive or trust him

I would argue this is for good reason. She is clearly angry at more than just him, the entire Fire Nation, in fact, for murdering her mother and starting the war, but it is also very personal. When he betrayed her in Ba Sing Se after she revealed such a devastating detail of her life and they shared a connection, her abandonment issues probably came into play. It's similar to the trauma she had with her father after he left to join the war. She is scared that the people she cares about will leave her, just like her parents did, whether they had a choice or not, and just like Aang did when Azula shot him with lightning, again, without meaning to. Zuko left her intentionally to join the Fire Nation, even after she offered to heal his scar, a very important moment in their arcs. She is forgiving, optimistic, helpful, and kind to someone who hunted her and her friends for nearly a year, and he throws the offer of her most valuable asset back in her face and is instrumental in Aang's near death experience.

But diesel is desire, you were playing with fire,

He helps her. He uncovers her trauma, aids her in working through it, is supportive even when it was probably more than he bargained for.

And maybe it's the past that's talking,

Screaming from the crypt,

Telling me to punish you for things you never did,

Her mother did die at the hands of the Fire Nation, under Zuko's family's orders, whether they came directly from Ozai or not. But he wasn't the one who killed her or ordered her death, and he IS the one who is trying to defeat his father and end the war in favor of balance and peace. She realizes that...

So I just defied it,

...And finds it in her heart to forgive him.

After that, we start on the chorus again.

All that bloodshed, crimson clover,

Uh-uh, the bombs were closer,

I think that last line also refers to a different scene, much earlier in "the Southern Raiders", when Azula attacks the temple...

My hand was the one you reached for,

All throughout the Great War

...And Zuko saves Katara.

(I might do a separate post analyzing just this moment because holy crap there is A LOT there)

Always remember, uh-uh,

The burning embers,

I vowed not to fight anymore,

If we survived the Great War,

I think this refers to the agni Kai specifically, as does most of the bridge. The fire everywhere, the fear, the fact that it's the last battle of the war. It just fits.

It turned into something bigger,

Somewhere in the haze got the sense I'd been betrayed,

Your finger on my hairpin trigger,

Everything is depending on this battle. If they can't defeat Azula, what will happen to the Fire Nation? Will the people now just be under a new, arguably stronger and more powerful tyrant?

Soldier down, on that icy ground,

Looked up at me with honor and truth,

Broken and blue, so I called off the troops,

But they never learn what would have happened, because their combined efforts defeat Azula.

That was the night I nearly lost you,

I really thought I'd lost you

But not before Zuko (or rather, Azula) gives Katara the fright of her life.

(the love and concern on her face is so heartbreakingly beautiful it makes me want to sob)

And now everything is fine! The bridge is over and the next verse is full of hope.

We can plant a memory garden,

Say a solemn prayer, place a poppy in my hair,

For the poppy part, I'd like to address a particular fan theory. In the final scene, Katara has a pink flower in her hair.

(I left the usernames on, but please lmk if anyone wants a different type of credit. screenshot taken from this post: x)

According to another source I found, this flower is a pink peony, which symbolizes prosperity and a happy marriage.

(flower analysis originally from this post: x)

I know that this is a peony, not a poppy, but close enough? Also, if it were a poppy, it would symbolize compassion and platonic love.

Either way, I think of this as a kind of goodbye from Zuko to Katara. No matter what the situation was at the end of the series, whether Zuko was in love with Katara, Katara was in love with Zuko, or they were in love with each other, "platonic love" and "happy marriage" were a goodbye. It's either wishing her the best with Aang, or saying they can only be friends because of Aang or because of duty, but that he loves her anyway. (oh look, I made myself cry) At least, I think that in canon context. But within the song, it's a peony and they're now engaged lol

Anyway, the verse continues.

There's no morning glory, it was war, it wasn't fair,

And we will never go back to that,

And then the chorus starts again, but it's tone is far more hopeful than before. The worst is behind them. The war is over.

Bloodshed, crimson clover,

Uh-uh, the worst was over,

My hand was the one you reached for,

All throughout the Great War,

Always remember, uh-uh,

We're burned for better,

I vowed I would always be yours,

'Cause we survived the Great War.

It's just so perfect! I love it! (psst, if anyone wants me to also analyze another "Zutara song" feel free to ask)

[a-forbidden-detective]

The second part of Youhei Azakami and Junya Enoki interview is here. Part one is here, if you are interested!

Apologies for the rough translation, like always. (Still bedridden, but yes, there are times of lucidity.)

Some things:

* Enojun at first referred to Winter as they/them. Azakami then referred to Winter as a girl. He even mentioned Alice Moriarty. It seems the two actors, especially Azakami-kun, are reading the manga.

* Azakami is looking forward to Psychology Lab murder arc

* Enojun is particularly waiting for the Plateau Auberge arc. I am darn curious how will the two interpret the manga!

* The two are having fun messing around with Taku Yashiro and his character Spitz.

-- The "Shibuya Apocalypse Serial Murder Case," depicted over three episodes, was more serious compared to previous cases.

Junya Enoki, who plays Totomaru Isshiki (hereafter referred to as Enoki): The way of killing was gruesome.

Yohei Azakami, who plays Ron Kamonohashi (hereafter referred to as Azakami): From the very beginning, a person was impaled on a unicorn's horn. It's quite rare to start with such a shocking scene. The "Hand Collector Murder Case" was brutal too, but this one was even more shocking. Additionally, the presence of the Book of Revelation hinted at a different kind of development than before.

Enoki: The card tricks and how Ron seemed to struggle with the deduction. Moreover, the enemy was more vicious, and there was an overall sense of tension.

Azakami: I was surprised at how often Ron was shaken.

Enoki: He was being toyed with.

Azakami: Yes, exactly. But he managed to corner them properly.

Enoki: In the end, he saw through the disguise. Though I wonder if it was necessary to pour black syrup on it (laughs).

Azakami: That was part of the direction too (laughs).

Enoki: It's like making someone taste humiliation once (laughs). But in the end, we couldn't catch them, so it feels like we were outsmarted.

—Winter Moriarty, despite being an enemy, had a cool side that probably left a strong impression on the viewers.

Enoki: That's right. I liked them because they were cute.

Azakami: It turned out that she was actually a girl. When I think about it, I wonder if she was trying hard and pushing herself. It makes me think she's kind of cute (laughs).

But with her sister Alice having passed away, it seemed like a character you couldn't empathize with, yet could. I realized that she's a character loved by the creator, and while I'm not sure if she'll appear again, her future actions are something to watch out for.

—What did you think of Yumiri Hanamori's (Winter Moriarty) performance?

Azakami: I was surprised because Hanamori-chan had a strong impression of playing cute characters.

Enoki: I've seen her play quite a few cool characters, so I was familiar with it. Hanamori-san doesn't make the flavor too strong; she adds a bit of spice to a simple dish.

Azakami: It's a performance that doesn't feel like an anime character, right?

Enoki: Yeah, that's true.

Azakami: I think they trust in the power of the visuals. Also, from watching on the side, I noticed there were many directions to avoid adding too much inflection. It seemed like they were balancing the overall performance by holding back in parts that were too agitated and expressing emotions in parts where they wanted agitation.

-- In "Shibuya Revelation Serial Murder Case," Ron's cornered situation was depicted. Did you consciously consider the lack of composure while acting?

Azakami: Yes, that's right. The scale of the incident is large, and Ron is being cornered, so I felt I needed to match expressions like a sweaty, anxious look.

ーーThroughout the entire 2nd Season, there are more instances of Ron being flustered, aren't there?

Azakami: It increases towards the end, doesn't it? There will be situations where he is cornered, like in the "Shibuya Apocalypse Serial Murder Case," so I tried to keep the acting consistent during those times.

ーーWhat did you think of Toto's performance?

Azakami: It was rare for Toto to go in for a punch, wasn't it?

Enoki: Indeed. He got taken down quickly though (laughs). Personally, I was touched by the interactions between Toto and Amamiya. Amamiya couldn't just leave a serial killer on the loose, so she staked out at the hotel. I felt a sense of humanity there.

ーーPerhaps Toto has influenced it in some way.

Enoki: I wonder. At the very least, I think she has always had a kind side.

Azakami: Since he has solved various cases and is recognized by people at the Metropolitan Police Department, he might be having some influence.

Enoki: That's true, that might be the case.

—Do you have a favorite character in the 2nd Season?

Azakami: For me, it's Mofu-sensei. In the 1st Season, Mofu-sensei appeared mostly in serious scenes, but in the 2nd Season, there's an episode where Mofu-sensei is fully involved in a comedic storyline. It's structured differently from before, and I personally really like that episode.

—Mofu is quite involved in the story, isn't she?

Azakami: Yes, because she's helping to uncover the "something" implanted in Ron.

Enoki: For me, it's Amamiya. In the 2nd Season, there are quite a few moments where I find myself thinking, "Wow, this person is so compassionate."

Azakami: She’s been leaving more to Toto, hasn’t she?

Enoki: Yes, yes. I think she's a character that people will like even more than in the 1st Season because you can feel the justice of the police through her.

-- How about Spitz, who was frequently mentioned last time?

Azakami: He was active, but...

Enoki: He doesn't talk, right?

Azakami: Exactly! He suddenly appears and takes the spotlight.

Enoki: Everyone loves Spitz, right?

Azakami: He's like a beloved character. Because (Taku) Yashiro plays him, it feels even more so. Moreover, Spitz is cunning and comes to help at the right moments.

Enoki: He steals the good scenes.

Azakami: You start to wonder if he's the protagonist.

-- (Laughs). Did you have opportunities to record with Hikasa-san and Yashiro-san in the 2nd Season?

Azakami: Occasionally.

Enoki: Basically, everyone leaves quickly.

Azakami: Compared to the 1st Season, their appearances have decreased a bit. But they left a strong impression in the few scenes they had, so I remember well the times we worked together.

—I think one of the highlights of the 2nd season is the impressive lineup of guest voice actors. What do you think about that?

Azakami: This time, we have quite a luxurious lineup of voice actors appearing. I can't go into details as it would be a spoiler, but people from various generations have helped to enhance the climax.

Enoki: But since characters keep dying, the people who come for the recording sessions change every week (laughs).

Azakami: Exactly (laughs). I can't say who will be appearing, but personally, I really like the "Psychology Lab Murder Case," so I hope you'll look forward to it.

ーーFinally, could you tell us about the key points to watch out for in the future?

Azakami: With multiple people having been killed in this incident, I think Ron's anger towards the M family has intensified. Personally, I hope that's the case. Moving forward, Ron is likely to confront the M family with the determination to prevent any more victims, so I hope you'll watch his efforts closely.

Enoki: Ron's past will be thoroughly depicted in the future. Along with that, people related to Ron will appear, and I hope you'll look forward to finding out who their voice actors are. There will be moments of crisis, but Ron and Toto will help each other as partners, and there will be scenes towards the end that clearly show the depth of the bond between them, so I hope you'll look forward to that as well.

[olderthannetfic]

"Friendships are a lot more like romance than people admit" anon here. So I gave zero detail whatsoever, and it's been kind of interesting to see what people came up with in response. That said, I actually meant it a lot more in terms of specifics and mechanics?

Friendships have an "infatuation" phase where getting to know the person and spending time with them is effortless and fun and you feel like you'll never get bored of each other. Friendships often involve an expectation of emotional connection and telling each other things, making the other a part of your life to some extent. It's possible to have feelings of jealousy for a friend, especially if you suddenly become a lot less important to them in favor of a new person in their life (which in an exclusive romantic relationship might be considered a kind of "emotional cheating"). It's possible for a friendship to fail or peter out for the exact same reasons where, if it were a romantic couple getting couples therapy, their therapist would tell them "You need to reconnect by doing things together again, you need to make an effort and work at restoring your connection". Which sometimes romantic couples do, and then they stay together, but in friendships it seems to be kinda seen as normal and not imbued with the same sense of almost-tragedy? Even though it's a very comparable time and energy commitment essentially going down the drain. Finally, it's quite possible to be heartbroken that a friendship ended, and a toxic friendship can be every bit as damaging as a toxic romance. To put it in a phrase, you could take any number of posts asking for relationship advice where, if you removed monikers like "friend" or "SO/gf/bf", it would be very difficult to tell if the relationship is romantic or not.

"Romantic relationships are like friendships" is equally controversial in the sense that a lot of people don't really seem to know what to do when the infatuation wears off, partly because media and culture seem deeply uninterested in exploring this stage of romantic relationships? Or they interpret the inevitable fade of hormone-fueled excitement as falling out of love, break off the relationship, and rinse and repeat this a few times before they wisen up and learn to form long-lasting friendships with the people they fall in love with.

To wit, close friendships and romance both involve love and attachment and (some amount of) commitment. And yet we barely ever seem to talk about friendships using the language of love, even though love is unquestionably what's going on there. (Again, I'm talking about close, long-lasting friendships.)

..Or maybe my experiences are not universal and I'm just a weirdo who gets overly attached. Idk.

--

I refer to "friend breakups" and "friend dumping" all the time.

I think if you put it in those terms, most people agree: they've had some devastating end to a friendship that hurt them more than half their romantic breakups. It's just not how movies tend to describe it... at least not in words. Buddy movies are all about the idea that a friend breakup is the literal worst thing in the universe though.

I guess I roll my eyes a tad because I've witnessed decades of finger-wagging books about how we don't care enough about friendships and those are what really predict adult mental health in the long term, blah blah blah. Things like friend crushes (that honeymoon period) and devastating friend breakups are well known to psychologists and self help book writers.

Anyway, you aren't weird, and people who want to keep their long-term friends need to make time for some friend dates if they want to keep the magic going.

[alessandriana]

I'm curious about the scar removal actually

So that one was prompted by an exchange I had on twitter. Tl,dr, the EXR translation made it sound like it was Jiang Cheng who was desperate to get rid of the scars: Although Wei WuXian had never been hit by a discipline whip before, Jiang Cheng had been. Even after desperately trying, he couldn’t make the disgracing imprint fade one bit. This was why Wei WuXian would never misremember scars like this. (CH 11)

But the "he" in that sentence is quite ambiguous! Is it referring to Jiang Cheng... or to Wei Wuxian?

When the official translation came out, it seemed to support the latter interpretation:

While Wei Wuxian had never experienced this particular lashing himself, Jiang Cheng had. Wei Wuxian had wracked his brain to help him lighten that humiliating mark, but all efforts had been fruitless. Wei Wuxian would never mistake the sight of such a scar.

Later in the book, we get the flashback to Jiang Cheng waking up in the Wen supervisory office:

Finally, Jiang Cheng propped himself up on his elbows. He looked down at the wound from the discipline whip on his chest and let out a bitter laugh.

When the discipline whip struck, there was no removing the mark of shame. Against his own conscience, Wei Wuxian said, "Don't look. We'll find a way to get rid of it." (CH 60, official trans- EXR doesn't differ significantly)

From these, it honestly seems like Wei Wuxian is much more invested in getting rid of those scars than Jiang Cheng!

-

...All this to say, I found myself really wanting the story where WWX insists on helping JC get rid of those scars (whether JC wants help or not) and there's lots of chest touching and WWX has to sit on top of JC for some reason, and it's very sexy and they end up banging about it: The End.

And now a snippet, for those of you who've made it this far (NSFW under the cut):

ETA: I've posted the previous scene here.

The weeks passed, and battles were fought, and some were won and some were lost-- and some were a mix of the two.

It was after one of these latter that Jiang Cheng found Wei Wuxian setting his brushes and talismans up in his bedroom again.

They'd been loaned the use of a manor house by a sympathizer. It had been partially razed by the Wen, but there were still several buildings in good condition. Jiang Cheng had taken one of the rooms to the west-- it didn't have a bed anymore, but he'd set up his camp bed and it had been more than acceptable. It did have a low table, and that was where Wei Wuxian had lined up his things.

Jiang Cheng blinked at Wei Wuxian, startled. He'd almost forgotten about the last time-- consigned it to his list of embarrassing moments involving Wei Wuxian, of which there were many, and moved on. He'd assumed Wei Wuxian had done the same, and had given up this idea of his of getting rid of Jiang Cheng's scars.

"Jiang Cheng!" Wei Wuxian called, as Jiang Cheng entered. "Good, you're back-- what took you so long? The battle's been over for hours."

"It's been over for hours for you, maybe," Jiang Cheng said. Wei Wuxian was the reason the fight today had been a mixed win instead of a pure loss. He'd come through in the end with a mountain of corpses he'd dug up from a nearby graveyard, and with their help the Sunshot campaign had been able to beat back the Wen attack, giving them some breathing room while they recuperated. "Some of us had to help with the cleanup."

Wei Wuxian lounged on the floor as Jiang Cheng crossed over to the screen in the corner and began to disrobe. His outer garments were covered in blood and grime-- thankfully none of it his or his disciples'. "You weren't injured out there, right?"

Jiang Cheng could hear Wei Wuxian flopping around. "What, me? Hah! Those Wen couldn't get within fifty feet of me."

"Good," Jiang Cheng said, too tired to address the boasting. He'd personally seen a Wen soldier nearly take Wei Wuxian's head off just two days ago.

Jiang Cheng stripped down to his pants. There was a washbasin here, too, which had been filled fresh with water; maybe one of his disciples. He rinsed off with the cloth laid next to it. With each swipe of the cloth, some of his exhaustion disappeared, too.

When he came out he was in a better frame of mind to deal with the line of talismans, ink, and other supplies on the table. He said with heavy skepticism, "You really want to try this again?"

For a moment Jiang Cheng thought he saw a strange look in Wei Wuxian's eyes, a mix of trepidation and excitement; a strange energy. The look vanished so quickly Jiang Cheng wasn't even sure he'd seen it, replaced by something more mischievous. He grinned up at Jiang Cheng and said, "Yeah! I'm pretty sure I've got the right idea this time."

Jiang Cheng sighed. "If you say so," he grumbled, heading towards the bed and flopping down on his back. "But if you're just doing this to fuck with me--"

Wei Wuxian cackled, gathering up his supplies. "Nope! Not fucking with you," he said, dragging the table over to Jiang Cheng's side so it would be in easy reach. Jiang Cheng expected he would try leaning over this time, to avoid the previous problem.

Wei Wuxian finished setting up his stuff, and then-- swung his legs over Jiang Cheng's waist again.

"What the fuck are you doing?" Jiang Cheng squawked, bucking upwards. But Wei Wuxian had come prepared for this gambit, and he hooked his ankles under the edge of the bed and hung on as Jiang Cheng tried to escape. Finally Jiang Cheng had to admit defeat. He lay back on the bed with Wei Wuxian above him, heart pounding more than it really should have been.

Wei Wuxian said innocently, "I told you, didn't I? This is a much better position for writing the spells out."

"Surely there's some better way you can come up with--"

Wei Wuxian shrugged. "Simple's always best." Grinning a little to himself, he leaned forward and began to write.

The brush tickled cool across his skin. Wei Wuxian braced himself with a hand on Jiang Cheng's pec to keep himself steady. He kept shifting and squirming on top of Jiang Cheng as he wrote, tiny little motions that echoed throughout Jiang Cheng's entire body. The result was entirely predictable. Jiang Cheng felt his cock begin to thicken and swell.

Finally he said, strangled, "Enough."

Wei Wuxian's eyes were fixed on Jiang Cheng's stomach as he wrote. "But I'm not done yet." Then he pulled back his brush to examine his work, hummed, and said, "Okay, I need more room."

Then he shifted backwards until he was sitting directly on top of Jiang Cheng's dick.

Jiang Cheng's hands flew up to Wei Wuxian's hips. "What the fuck!" His heart was hammering in his chest. He was going to throw up. He was so turned on he could hardly breathe.

Wei Wuxian didn't look up. "There," he said, and put the finishing touch on the spell, and then suddenly there was power flowing through the spellwork and also somehow it was coming from Jiang Cheng's dick, or at least that's what it felt like, and then--

--then the ink burst into flames.

This killed both the pending discussion and Jiang Cheng's boner as they endeavored to put it out.

Afterwards, they didn't talk about it.

ETA2: Chapter 3 here!

[goodbye-aliens]

The Untold Origin's Angel Play analysis and why Natsume is Fyodor's Judas (or something like that)

I don't know how much sense this will make, but the play always made me curious and I've been wondering if it might have a connection to future and past events, so here are some ideas. Also, please ignore my wonderful screenshots's quality.

Credit to my friend @keygalley because it was from her that I got the theory that Natsume is "that man".

The play opens with twelve fallen angels (one of them already dead) speculating that they are about to be killed by true angels from heaven. They also speculate that the killer might not be an angel, but one of them.

The middle chair is covered in blood. You could say that a murder has already occurred and it's the one that started this whole discussion of the angels from heaven coming after them in the first place.

The fallen angel who is their leader believes that the punishment is because they fell for adoring humanity, and so they must be purged.

The leader refers to the angels from heven as "gifted," another way of referring to ability users. Fukuzawa himself later calls Rampo this way.

The fallen angels are now mere humans. They dream, they love, they seek fulfillment because their existence is limited. Here I feel this could relate to Fyodor, not because he shares these characteristics, but because he lacks them because here he would represent an angel. For him nothing exists but his mission, that is why he is capable of the greatest atrocities.

Also, in this speech it is said "And we do not regret that decision. To choose one's own way of being is the truest form of the soul". Several theories have already been seen about characters being nothing more than that: characters in a work of fiction struggling against a predetermined destiny. Later it will be seen that there is a similar view on this subject.

Rampo saying "Why doesn't anyone get upset at being forced to sit through a show with such an obvious ending" could have double meaning as the author questioning why we, his audience, are watching BSD in the first place. Basically metafiction, something that is a constant in this play.

If Ranpo points to a random fallen angel as the murderer it is because it is true; that man was the one who committed the first murder that triggers the whole conversation. It is later revealed that the murders were committed among the fallen angels themselves.

“Angels cannot have the fulfillment which is the realm of humanity, and humans are incapable of the supremacy of angels. Those who control humans from the outside and those who enjoy fulfillment on the inside are like an author and their character: never shall they intertwine”. Funny thing to say, because angels and humans do end up intertwining. There are humans who possess angels' powers, in other words, the abilities as we will see later with the phrase: "There are those who, despite being human, have some fragment of angels’ forbidden supremacy". So, if such a comparison is given later in the next paragraph… don't the author and the characters end up intertwining as well? Metafiction, again.

Remember that scene where Nikolai gives his speech about freedom and there is someone writing down his words (maybe in The Book)?

To go against the destiny written by the author, who is your God, is not to be conscious of it and therefore to have these two separate realities intermingle? Is it not, in its very essence, a rebellion against God like that of the fallen angels? Which reminds me of Fyodor's quote about Nikolai:

That the angels then say "And yet... And yet?" seems like a joke.

“Why is everyone watching this play without complaining?” again, metafiction (I'm tired of saying this).

Now, the Leader asks a specific angel to appear before the humans. The Leader knows what this angel wants, so it seems that the angel might have something specific against him.

It could be interpreted that of the 12 initial angels, only one remains: the leader, who was condemned to see how his friends eliminate each other thanks to their new quality of being human.

What does the leader wish to expose about the angel? What sins did this angel commit? Before he could say more, the leader dies.

After all this interpretation, what do Natsume and Fyodor have to do with all this? Their roles in BSD could be represented in the play:

The angel is Fyodor. The murders that occur are between the same fallen angels who betray each other (hello? arc of cannibalism?). This could be one of Fyodor's many strategies to accomplish his goal: to purge the fallen angels who betrayed God. But he tortures the leader in a special way and forces him to watch his friends kill each other, as if he has some special resentment towards the leader, that is, towards Natsume.

The leader is Natsume, for whom this whole work was written. And he might know Fyodor's secrets that could be considered his sins.

Fyodor has talked about only "that man" being able to hurt him, besides now Dazai, and Natsume is referred to as "that man" to my knowledge for two times: in this image and multiple times by Oda in Dark Era.

Rampo says that angels do exist. That angels exist and it is the audience could again be metafiction. In anime it is metafiction, but it could go further as the audience is on a higher plane to the characters, but below God, the author.

This is a reversal story is something that confuses me because it could apply to both the play and the murder. In the murder the roles are reversed because Murakami is not the victim, he is the murderer, and Natsume is not the murderer, he is the victim. Is it just because of this that it is a reversal play or is there more to it? My possible theories about other inversions that the play could represent:

In the past Fyodor lost to Natsume. In the play the angel, Fyodor, kills the only fallen angel left to punish, Natsume.

At the end of the play, the roles are reversed: the angel ceases to be Fyodor to be Natsume and the leader ceases to be Natsume to be Fyodor. In the play, the leader dies, but fakes his own death as Fyodor might do in the future (copium). Also at the end, the leader is referred to as a fallen one, could Fyodor be nothing more than a fallen angel trying to redeem himself by hunting down other traitors to punish them? Something like "crime and punishment are two sides of the same coin".

Now, what Murakami says at the end, could it be Fyodor's realization about his mistakes in a future? As if all his killing really wasn't justified, wasn't for ridding the world of sin, but for selfish motives. And if in the end he looks at everything he has done and looks at the audience, at us, he will discover that in the story his role was not one of a savior, but one of a villain.

And my most bizarre opinion: the characters are an angel who is mentioned and twelve fallen angels. The angel seems to have something against one of the angels in specific: the leader. The angel is Fyodor and the leader is Natsume. Fyodor has been compared to Jesus, the twelve fallen angels are his apostles and the last fallen angel is the man with whom he has a special grudge: Natsume, his Judas.

Now there's only one thing left… what's up with the crucified man at the beginning? Something to note is that while everyone is speculating about the murders, the leader who represents Natsume is observing the crucified man which doesn't necessarily mean that Fyodor was once crucified... but could mean that Natsume is the one to blame for Fyodor's "crucifixion" and that's why Fyodor is resentful with Natsume. Could this be related to exposing the alleged sins of the angel?

Natsume betraying Fyodor in some way could explain why he doesn't trust anyone.

Cat and mouse

I could imagine this whole play as a message from Fyodor to Natsume.

Edit because I added more things to think about:

We don't know why "V" wanted to kidnap Natsume, but we do know they used this play to do so. If we assume that Fyodor belongs to this organization (or used them), then it could mean that he wanted to kidnap Natsume. Also, Murakami said: "The gentleman in the suit rarely appears in public. Apparently, capturing him was one of the objectives." Why did Natsume risk himself to watch this play? Was there something in the plot that caught his attention? Perhaps the plot in this play was known to both Fyodor and him because it was their story.

I never mentioned the play's title because I don't know what to say about it. The name is "The Day is a Dream, the Night is Real". It's the play's name therefore it has to be important but... why? Yes, like in the play, a crime that was only fiction became a reality, but... that's all?