#and an adaptation that understands its source material

[thunderboltfire]

I have a lot of complicated feelings when it comes to what Neflix has done with the Witcher, but my probably least favourite is the line of argumentation that originated during shitstorms related to the first and second season that I was unlucky to witness.

It boils down to "Netflix's reinterpretation and vision is valid, because the Witcher books are not written to be slavic. The overwhelming Slavic aestetic is CDPR's interpretation, and the setting in the original books is universally European, as there are references to Arthurian mythos and celtic languages" And I'm not sure where this argument originated and whether it's parroting Sapkowski's own words or a common stance of people who haven't considered the underlying themes of the books series. Because while it's true that there are a lot of western european influences in the Witcher, it's still Central/Eastern European to the bone, and at its core, the lack of understanding of this topic is what makes the Netflix series inauthentic in my eyes.

The slavicness of the Witcher goes deeper than the aestetics, mannerisms, vodka and sour cucumbers. Deeper than Zoltan wrapping his sword with leopard pelt, like he was a hussar. Deeper than the Redanian queen Hedvig and her white eagle on the red field.

What Witcher is actually about? It's a story about destiny, sure. It's a sword-and-sorcery style, antiheroic deconstruction of a fairy tale, too, and it's a weird mix of many culture's influences.

But it's also a story about mundane evil and mundane good. If You think about most dark, gritty problems the world of Witcher faces, it's xenophobia and discrimination, insularism and superstition. Deep-seated fear of the unknown, the powerlessness of common people in the face of danger, war, poverty and hunger. It's what makes people spit over their left shoulder when they see a witcher, it's what makes them distrust their neighbor, clinging to anything they deem safe and known. It's their misfortune and pent-up anger that make them seek scapegoats and be mindlessly, mundanely cruel to the ones weaker than themselves.

There are of course evil wizards, complicated conspiracies and crowned heads, yes. But much of the destruction and depravity is rooted in everyday mundane cycle of violence and misery. The worst monsters in the series are not those killed with a silver sword, but with steel. it's hard to explain but it's the same sort of motiveless, mundane evil that still persist in our poorer regions, born out of generations-long poverty and misery. The behaviour of peasants in Witcher, and the distrust towards authority including kings and monarchs didn't come from nowhere.

On the other hand, among those same, desperately poor people, there is always someone who will share their meal with a traveller, who will risk their safety pulling a wounded stranger off the road into safety. Inconditional kindness among inconditional hate. Most of Geralt's friends try to be decent people in the horrible world. This sort of contrasting mentalities in the recently war-ridden world is intimately familiar to Eastern and Cetral Europe.

But it doesn't end here. Nilfgaard is also a uniquely Central/Eastern European threat. It's a combination of the Third Reich in its aestetics and its sense of superiority and the Stalinist USSR with its personality cult, vast territory and huge army, and as such it's instantly recognisable by anybody whose country was unlucky enough to be caught in-between those two forces. Nilfgaard implements total war and looks upon the northerners with contempt, conscripts the conquered people forcibly, denying them the right of their own identity. It may seem familiar and relevant to many opressed people, but it's in its essence the processing of the trauma of the WW2 and subsequent occupation.

My favourite case are the nonhumans, because their treatment is in a sense a reminder of our worst traits and the worst sins in our history - the regional antisemitism and/or xenophobia, violence, local pogroms. But at the very same time, the dilemma of Scoia'Tael, their impossible choice between maintaining their identity, a small semblance of freedom and their survival, them hiding in the forests, even the fact that they are generally deemed bandits, it all touches the very traumatic parts of specifically Polish history, such as January Uprising, Warsaw Uprising, Ghetto Uprising, the underground resistance in WW2 and the subsequent complicated problem of the Cursed Soldiers all at once. They are the 'other' to the general population, but their underlying struggle is also intimately known to us.

The slavic monsters are an aestetic choice, yes, but I think they are also a reflection of our local, private sins. These are our own, insular boogeymen, fears made flesh. They reproduce due to horrors of the war or they are an unprovoked misfortune that descends from nowhere and whose appearance amplifies the local injustices.

I'm not talking about many, many tiny references that exist in the books, these are just the most blatant examples that come to mind. Anyway, the thing is, whether Sapkowski has intended it or not, Witcher is slavic and it's Polish because it contains social commentary. Many aspects of its worldbuilding reflect our traumas and our national sins. It's not exclusively Polish in its influences and philosophical motifs of course, but it's obvious it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

And it seems to me that the inherently Eastern European aspects of Witcher are what was immediately rewritten in the series. It seems to me that the subtler underlying conflicts were reshaped to be centered around servitude, class and gender disparity, and Nilfgaard is more of a fanatic terrorist state than an imposing, totalitarian empire. A lot of complexity seems to be abandoned in lieu of usual high-fantasy wordbuilding. It's especially weird to me because it was completely unnecessary. The Witcher books didn't need to be adjusted to speak about relevant problems - they already did it! The problem of acceptance and discrimination is a very prevalent theme throughout the story! They are many strong female characters too, and they are well written. Honestly I don't know if I should find it insulting towards their viewers that they thought it won't be understood as it was and has to be somehow reshaped to fit the american perpective, because the current problems are very much discussed in there and Sapkowski is not subtle in showing that genocide and discrimination is evil. Heck, anyone who has read the ending knows how tragic it makes the whole story.

It also seems quite disrespectful, because they've basically taken a well-established piece of our domestic literature and popular culture and decided that the social commentary in it is not relevant. It is as if all it referenced was just not important enough and they decided to use it as an opportunity to talk about the problems they consider important. And don't get me wrong, I'm not forcing anyone to write about Central European problems and traumas, I'm just confused that they've taken the piece of art already containing such a perspective on the popular and relevant problem and they just... disregarded it, because it wasn't their exact perspective on said problem.

And I think this homogenisation, maybe even from a certain point of view you could say it's worldview sanitisation is a problem, because it's really ironic, isn't it? To talk about inclusivity in a story which among other problems is about being different, and in the same time to get rid of motifs, themes and references because they are foreign? Because if something presents a different perspective it suddenly is less desirable?

There was a lot of talking about the showrunners travelling to Poland to understand the Witcher's slavic spirit and how to convey it. I don't think they really meant it beyond the most superficial, paper-thin facade.

[mxtxfanatic]

I cannot stress this enough, but using The Untamed/CQL to “contextualize” the novel mdzs is like using the movie Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief (2010) to understand the Percy Jackson and the Olympians book series. American readers know…

[likehandlingroses]

AMC’s IWTV…could be TV show adaptation of all time but also!!

[hopefulstarfire]

I'm serious when I say; you can tell with comics, whether it be the book or any sort of adaptation (though ESPECIALLY with film and TV adaptations), you know whose a fan and who is doing this to check off a box for the next thing or because they think everything needs to be edgy.

And the work severely suffers when it's the latter and it's draining at this point.

[luckycheesefoodie321]

Luffy being THE MOST excited when Sanji said he would join up XD

It was so damn charming. And y’all were right. Sanji really has been looking at Luffy with love in his eyes.

Also Luffy being the most devastated with Zoro injured. Y’all ZoLu stands being fed muchly.

Baratie arc definitely had the most changes done to it so far. They shed a lot of Sanji’s introduction in favour of getting Nami’s arc going. Which makes sense because we all know Sanji has his Moment much later in Whole Cake, but I loved Baratie so much bc it was about two people who faced a trauma together and built themselves from the ground up and it was only ever with love that Zeff was so hard on Sanji. And Baratie became a home for similar pirates who all had love for Sanji bc they could all see his potential and his future and knew his talent was being wasted. So they treat him like he’s a beginner chef that has no place at Baratie to push him out the door but in the end Sanji hears how much they love his cooking and feels so validated by it. Rather than it being about Sanji being super fancy with his meals and being stifled by that.

And not to say that the Baratie LA version doesn’t hold a lot of that core message, but you could never have Whole Cake without Baratie yknow? Know who Sanji became before you know how he got there.

And they still the big tearful farewell with Zeff and it makes sense for the LA and I did enjoy it but I would’ve loved him to do the dogeza thank you. One of my favourite Sanji moments. Because he reciprocates that gratitude and love back in the most respectful sense (especially after all he does is cuss out Zeff and the other cooks).

All that said, I still enjoyed the LA Baratie arc. It still kept a lot of the core themes from the source material while still holding its own within the story that surrounded it. I like that they’ve pulled back Sanji to really what he was in the beginning. Yes he’s a lady-dazed fool but he was very grounded and charming and cool in the beginning. It was only later that he started to lose his mind over women.

The only thing I have is that Mihawk was like “oh Luffy is interesting and I wanna see what he can do” which didn’t feel earned yet. His major interaction was with Zoro and he had a maybe 1 minute conversation with Luffy. And suddenly he’s like “oh this kid might get the one piece so it’s worth it to antagonise the marines who sent me after him”.

That part felt a little fast and loose. In the source material, Luffy had defeated Don Krieg and he had held back anyone from interfering with Zoro’s fight and he had allowed Gin to leave with Don Krieg. Mihawk took all that in mind and then left Zoro and Luffy alone. Here, Luffy was sidelined a lot. If Mihawk had been present for Luffy’s fight with Arlong, then I could probably understand his line of thinking.

So yeah.

[velociraptorsaurusrex]

sometimes I still think about the good old days before the go*d ome*s tv show came out

[neanderthyall]

Im watching shadow and bone for the first time and while the writing for kaz isnt quite the same as it is in the books, freddy does such a good job with kazs character. In ep 2 pekka threatens to smash his skull with his cane and throw him in the harbour and kaz just gets this .... look. Anyway its great and I'm having a good time

[blackbirds-on-the-marsh]

I wish I had the confidence of people who think they can make sweeping statements about eighty plus years of genre history because they’ve seen one film franchise.

[volfoss]

sorry i literally cannot talk about my fave comics guys with non comics people bc the takes are always so scary

[goat-boy-sounds]

casting bill skarsgard as "hot nosferatu" is ??????? because dracula's whole thing is that he's supposed to be a sexy older man. bill is too little. but if they're just trying to copy nosferatu and not dracula as a whole, how are they gonna make him not an antisemitic caricature. mr eggers I have questions and concerns

[cozybearz]

i fully intend to watch fma 03 at some point but from my understanding it is like. different enough from the manga/fmab for my brain to register it as a New Separate Show and unfortunately i am very bad at getting myself to sit down and watch New Separate Shows so it might be a while

[swampjawn]

Dungeon Meshi Episode 7 was super interesting from an adaptation standpoint - this'll be a little different from what I usually write about (though I do still talk about the animation in the full video).

Studio Trigger have never done a straight-up manga adaptation before - and led by Yoshihiro Miyajima, a big fan of the manga who pushed hard for the adaptation to get made, and who has never directed a full series before, it was unclear if they'd be able to find the right balance between a simple panel-for-panel recreation and making something that's completely different.

And in the first few episodes, you could really feel the tension between the influence of a cautious young creative with great respect for the source material, and a studio with a unique established visual style. It kinda seemed like they were ping-ponging willy-nillily between the two sides of that spectrum.

But this episode showed that Miyajima (and series writer Kimiko Ueno) can take 3 chapters, slice them up and rearrange them into a cohesive-feeling episode while taking into account the differences between screen and page, and using them to their advantage.

Starting with the way the water looks. This line from the manga describes a faint magical glow to the water in this lake and you can see that the cavern fades into darkness above, but Kui's illustration style doesn't really define lighting and shadows very much compared to the cel-drawing style of animation. So the animators took the opportunity to use the water as the light source, and make a whole episode that's lit almost entirely from below. It really gives an otherworldly feeling to this area.

Particularly when the Kelpie shows up, that under-lighting works wonders to define its anatomy within the relatively simple line art.

What do you do when you can't show the immense fuck-off scale of a monster with a beautiful full-page spread like this?

Well you use what you do have: the ability to move the camera instead. This is such a great way to communicate the scale of this thing, AND such a great way to show some of Senshi's anime-original butt-cheeks!

This is one of my favorite shots from this episode - this whole sequence is super hectic, cutting quickly from character to character, but they use tricks like this to keep you from getting confused. This is framed much like it is in the manga, but with the moving image, they're able to use the trajectory of the fish head in the background to lead your eye directly from Chilchuck, right to the point where Senshi pops up in the foreground and transition seamlessly from one character to another!

Now, it's not all good - I am a bit disappointed that they removed Marcille's own Senshi-style soap-making montage, which was the perfect visual representation of the culmination of the character development and understanding built between Senshi and Marcille.

It's a shame to see it go.

I get more into that, what else was cut, and much more in this video where I broke down the entire episode!

Check it out if you feel like it. If you don't, jump in a ditch, cover yourself in leaves and jump out at people as they walk by.

Thanks for reading!

[prokopetz]

Serialised Sherlock Holmes adaptation which meticulously reproduces all of Arthur Conan Doyle's continuity fuckups, at first seemingly out of excessive concern for fidelity to the source material. Eventually, it's revealed that we're actually looking at a pair of extremely similar parallel universes, each with its own almost-but-not-quite-identical Holmes and Watson duo, played by the same actors.

In the back half of the series, a plot by Time-Travelling Omni-Moriarty threatens both universes, obliging the Holmeses and Watsons of each universe to team up with their counterparts to stop him; the particulars of this portion of the story are such that understanding what the hell is going on critically hinges on the audience's ability to keep track of which nearly-identical Holmes or Watson is which.

The ultimate resolution involves outsmarting Moriarty by having the Watson with the war wound in his leg and the Watson with the war wound in his shoulder secretly switch places, deliberately framed in such a way that, as far as the audience can tell, there was no conceivable opportunity for them to have done so.

[romor]

I'm starting to think people don't understand that adaptations have to be different. Did netflix have the same amount of time as Book 1 to work with? Technically yes, but 20 episodes is for sure more than 8 so they didn't.

If you are constantly comparing it to the original and upset about the changes. Then for sure the netflix adaptation is not for you.

I've seen some bad adaptations over the years, for example my favorite book is Inkheart. Even the 2010 Avatar movie is a better adaptation than Inkheart's.

Conclusion it's a pretty good series, if you like the original, if you can watch it without constantly comparing it to the original you will enjoy it more.

Editing to add to this since so many have said something.

Inkheart is not a horrible movie, but it is a bad adaptation. Fantastic cast, with no loyalty to the source material.

There is a difference between adapting a story, and remaking it. This is literally being referred to as the netflix adaptation, so clearly it's not a remake. Because it is an adaptation, changes are expected. It would be stupid to expect a copy and paste story.

The changes make sense, because if you want book 2, and only have 8 episodes to work, you have to make a lot happen. The original show has clear start and end points for the events that occur (aka you know that start of the episode and the end). That's fine, when you have 20 episodes to work with, each 20 minutes. That doesn't work with 8 episodes each 1 hour (or about an hour). It doesn't translate to smooth storytelling. A lot of important things occur in book 1, but let's not forget that book 1 is also more episodic vs the rest of the series. In fact don't we often say "it gets better," about the book 1? What I am saying, a lot has to happen in the first season to set up not just season 2, but season 3. They did really good making sure those events happened.

I don't mind the mixing of plot because they didn't have much of a choice if they wanted a cohesive plot. I would also like to add I'm so glad the removed the northern air temple episode's setting. Never felt right with me.

I'm not saying don't compare them because it's impossible not to. I'm saying that if you are constantly going to be thinking of everything they changed, if you think the original series is so perfect. So unflawed, that how dare they even try. If you are going to be watching it already offended that they decided to even touch it. This adaptation is not for you.

If you were like me and wished that fire did in fact burn everytime it touched someone. If you are like me and thought the original series was too light-hearted for its plot. Then you will enjoy it. It's a fun adaptation, that keeps as loyal to its source material as it can be.

Yes I have my issues with it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a fun watch.

[synchodai]

Let's talk adaptation theory, because I've been seeing a lot of accusations that criticism of HotD is just "wanting it to be exactly like the books" and "book purists" not knowing what an adaptation is. So okay, let's talk about what an adaptation is, then.

I'll mostly be quoting from Linda Hutcheon's A Theory of Adaptation, because this is the first book most everyone reads when going into adaptation studies. Let's look at several ways we can approach and critique adaptation.

ADAPTATION AS INTERPRETATION

The adapted text, therefore, is not something to be reproduced, but something to be interpreted and recreated [...]

No one expects HotD to be a 1:1 reproduction of F&B. Hutcheon often compares adaptation to the process of linguistic translation, in that there will always be an inevitable loss of fidelity when translating from one language to another. However, the translator is still expected to provide an accurate representation of the source text — hence, adaptation as interpretation and recreation. Some may call this approach "fidelity criticism," an evaluation of quality based on how much the adaptation aligns with the source text.

("Fidelity criticism" is not what GRRM did. He didn't criticize the show simply because it differed from the books, and often even praises changes from the source material if it "strengthens" the impact of the work. His priority was never fidelity.)

This approach has its detractors, but there is merit to pointing out that HotD and its audience will have a difficult time interpreting and conveying F&B's message (story) if the showrunners actively take out key words (characters) and terminology (plot events). If we view adaptation as translation (from one medium to another), then the role of the adapter is to convey the intention and meaning of the source text as accurately as possible. And people do have a right to criticize "accuracy" of meaning if we see adaptation as a process of translation and remediation — which you are free not to, but some people DO come from this angle and are often dismissed as "book purists."

If you see adaptation as interpretation, are you a book purist? Perhaps, depending on what the definition of "book purist" is, but to make it clear, the people who are coming from this viewpoint clearly do not expect a blow-by-blow reproduction, and to argue that they do is dismissing a whole school of thought when it comes to adaptation.

ADAPTATION AS SUBSTITUTION

Another way to look at adaptation is through a "process of substitution." Pretty simple to understand, right? Prose that says "red dress" is substituted for an image of a white gown but with ruby embellishments, two characters are merged into one for the show, and Aemond and Aegon working together in Rook's Rest is substituted for the former betraying the latter. Your mileage may vary on whether you find these acceptable substitutions.

I believe this is the camp GRRM falls into. He brings up fidelity only insofar that he's concerned a lack of it will lead to poor and unacceptable substitutions.

How does one know if a substitution is "acceptable?" Well, I'd like to use the analogy Hutcheon brings up about surgery:

Usually adaptations, especially from long novels, mean that the adapter's job is one of subtraction or contraction; this is called "surgical art."

Good adaptations are like good surgeries: the body remains holistically intact and ideally functions better with the replacements and removals. Bad adaptations are like bad surgeries — hence the oft lobbied critique of an adaptation "butchering" the source material. The body of the adapted text cannot function on its own, being maimed or crippled by the adaptation process.

For example, the adaptational change of making Rhaenyra and Alicent the "heart" of the story has been discussed a lot by fans and critics. It was praised in the first season because it gave the story an intimate and personal "face." But it was lambasted in the second season because it actively deterred the plot progression, "crippling" the pace and stakes of the show.

In GRRM's case, his argument was that while Maelor was an unimportant part by himself, his presence was necessary for the continued function of other more vital organs. He goes on to suggest possible replacements and reprecussions upon the text as a whole. While he expresses disapproval that Maelor was removed in the first place and mentions other potentially "toxic" changes, there's also the (albeit wary) admission that Condal and his team could very still find acceptable substitutes that may stave off the damage he foresees being done to the body.

Again, this is valid criticism and a legitimate approach to HotD as an adaptation.

ADAPTATION AS AUTONOMOUS

Perhaps one way to think about unsuccessful adaptations is not in terms of infidelity to a prior text, but in terms of lack of creativity and skill to make the text one's own and autonomous.

Basically, this approach to adaptation asks, "Is the show still good by itself? Or does it fall apart without its source text and paratext (interviews, podcasts, press releases, etc.)?" This mode argues that adaptations cannot be simply sequels, prequels, or any sort of expansion of the source text. They must be separate retellings that actively evolve and mutate into a species that can survive on its own — mainly, that it adapts to a new context and audience so to speak.

A critique lobbied at the season two HotD finale was that its impact relied solely on the legacy of the prior show and the A Song of Ice and Fire mystery of who truly is The Prince That Was Promised. If the audience had no connection to Daenerys, no investment in the question of who truly was TPTWP, and never watched Game of Thrones, would Daemon's decision to finally devote himself to Rhaenyra make sense? Or does its emotional resonance rely solely on the audience's investment to another story that is not this one? Is it an adaptation of F&B or a prequel to GoT?

There's nothing wrong with it being a prequel, but if it was billed as an adaptation, then the audience has the right to feel misled because both conventional wisdom and esoteric theory agree that prequels are not adaptations. I think this is the school of thought most people subscribe to when they say HotD feels like "fanfiction" — because while fanfics CAN be written as adaptation (like modern AUs, video game novelizations, etc.), a vast majority of them are not. Most fanfics are grafted on expansions reliant on the source text for context.

This is all to say that a lot of criticism levied against the show, including GRRM's, can't be chalked up to "people not knowing what an adaptation is." There are several different ways to approach adaptation — the question is does HotD succeed in any of them?

[kleopatra45]

Neptune in the Houses

Neptune in astrology symbolizes intuition, dreams, and spirituality. It governs imagination, illusion, and the subconscious. Often associated with compassion and empathy, it can also bring confusion and deception. Its influence encourages transcendence and connection to the divine, making it a planet of mysticism and idealism.

Neptune in the 1st House

When Neptune is in the 1st house, it can create an aura of mystery and illusion around you. People may find you enchanting or elusive, and you might have a chameleon-like quality, adapting your personality to your surroundings. This placement can also indicate a strong intuition and a deep connection to the spiritual realm. However, it’s essential to be mindful of escapist tendencies and the potential for self-deception.

Neptune in the 2nd House

Neptune in the 2nd house can bring confusion or idealism around personal finances and values. You might have a dreamy or unrealistic approach to money, sometimes struggling to manage it practically. There could be a tendency to find self-worth through intangible or spiritual means rather than material possessions. Artistic or charitable endeavors could be a source of income, reflecting Neptune’s influence on creativity and compassion.

Neptune in the 3rd House

With Neptune in the 3rd house, your communication style is likely to be imaginative and poetic. You might have a talent for writing, music, or other forms of artistic expression. This placement can also indicate a heightened intuition, making you sensitive to subtle energies and undercurrents in conversations. However, be cautious of misunderstandings or a tendency to daydream, which could affect your clarity in communication.

Neptune in the 4th House

'Neptune in the 4th house suggests a deeply emotional and intuitive connection to your home and family life. Your home environment might be a sanctuary of peace and creativity, or there could be a sense of confusion and lack of boundaries within the family. This placement often indicates a strong yearning for an ideal home or a spiritual connection to your roots. Be mindful of escapist tendencies that might arise from unresolved family issues.

Neptune in the 5th House

When Neptune is in the 5th house, it brings a sense of romance and fantasy to your creative expression and love life. You might have a penchant for artistic pursuits and a love for the dramatic or mystical. This placement can also indicate an idealistic or escapist approach to romance, where you seek a perfect love or lose yourself in romantic fantasies. Balancing creativity with reality is crucial to avoid disappointment.

Neptune in the 6th House

Neptune in the 6th house can make daily routines and work life feel dreamy or chaotic. You might have a compassionate and selfless approach to work, possibly drawn to healing professions or roles that involve helping others. However, there could be a tendency to overwork or become overwhelmed by the demands of daily life. Maintaining clear boundaries and practical routines can help manage Neptune’s ethereal influence.

Neptune in the 7th House

With Neptune in the 7th house, relationships are often marked by a search for an ideal partner or a deep spiritual connection. You might experience a sense of soulmate attraction, but it’s essential to be aware of unrealistic expectations or tendencies to idealize your partners. This placement can also indicate compassionate and selfless relationships, where you seek to merge deeply with your significant other.

Neptune in the 8th House

Neptune in the 8th house brings a mystical and transformative energy to matters of intimacy, shared resources, and the occult. You might have profound spiritual experiences through deep connections with others, and there could be an intuitive understanding of life’s mysteries. This placement can also indicate a need to navigate issues of trust and boundaries, as the lines between self and others can become blurred.

Neptune in the 9th House

When Neptune is in the 9th house, your approach to higher learning, travel, and philosophy is likely to be imaginative and spiritual. You might be drawn to mystical or esoteric studies and have a deep yearning for transcendent experiences. This placement can also indicate a quest for higher truth and a compassionate worldview. However, it’s important to balance idealism with practical wisdom in your pursuit of knowledge.

Neptune in the 10th House

Neptune in the 10th house can bring a sense of idealism or confusion to your career and public image. You might be drawn to professions involving creativity, spirituality, or helping others. There could be a desire to achieve a dreamlike or visionary status in your career, but it’s essential to stay grounded and avoid illusions about your professional path. Maintaining clear goals and boundaries can help navigate Neptune’s influence.

Neptune in the 11th House

With Neptune in the 11th house, your friendships and social networks might have a dreamy or idealistic quality. You might seek deep, soulful connections with like-minded individuals and be drawn to causes that involve compassion and humanitarian ideals. This placement can also indicate a strong intuition about social trends and a visionary approach to group activities. Be mindful of potential disillusionment if reality doesn’t match your ideals.

Neptune in the 12th House

Neptune feels at home in the 12th house, bringing a profound connection to the unconscious and the spiritual realm. You might have a rich inner life and a deep empathy for the suffering of others. This placement often indicates psychic or intuitive abilities and a natural affinity for mystical or artistic pursuits. However, it’s crucial to manage tendencies towards escapism or self-sacrifice, ensuring you maintain a healthy balance between the material and spiritual worlds.

©️kleopatra45