#and analysis is always useful

[starcurtain]

Hey! I apologize if this question has been asked before since it seems like a pretty obvious one, but where do you think the idea of Aventurine being a sex slave came from? Other than the obvious factor of it being something fun for the fandom to mess around with, I mean.

It's something I kind of took for granted as being true before playing his quest, but after finishing it I realized there wasn't really any indication. The only thing I can really think of is his master's comments about him having a good body. Is there anything in his behavior you can think of that would lead to this conclusion if it wasn't a popular fan interpretation already/kind of just an easy conclusion to reach with a slave character?

(also kind of related but what do you think of the idea that he sleeps around/with his clients to make deals? he's obviously willing to sexualize himself with the boob window, but that doesn't necessarily mean he goes further.)

As far as I can tell, the idea that Aventurine was involved in sexual slavery comes from three (maybe four) places:

First, the comment from the master about Aventurine's appearance. People were holding this comment up as refutable proof that Aventurine was used in sexual slavery on top of being tossed into the Hunger Games; however, the response from other players on this interpretation, especially the Chinese side of the fandom, was very mixed, with a lot of people pointing out that the context in the game probably meant the slave master was talking about Aventurine's ability to attract attention from fans watching the literal Sigonian Hunger Games, rather than having a direct sexual-slavery connotation.

Second, the comment from Sparkle about stripping naked and getting on his knees for Sunday. This one has way more implication in English than I think it might for an Eastern audience, actually. In English, this pretty much sounds like Sparkle saying Aventurine trades sexual favors for success in his gambles. However, I suspect the original intention in Chinese was more about humiliation. Western audiences don't have as much history with honor-based prostration, i.e. accepting corporal humiliation as a form of reconciliation that Eastern audiences might be more familiar with. And in any case, Sparkle is Sparkle. She probably just went for the lowest blow she could think of here.

Third, the general assumption that if Sigonian slaves were being chained, branded, beaten, sent to death matches, etc., it seems logical that they would also be taken advantage of in other ways. I honestly think this is probably the fairest take--many, many real slaves around the world faced (and still face!) sexual abuse, so if slaves from Sigonia were treated so poorly you could make them fight to the death for entertainment, it stands to reason they were probably also not safe from other forms of assault. We also have no idea what happened to Kakavasha in any of the years between his being a tiny child fleeing the massacre and then being purchased as a slave as a late-teens-early-twenties person. That's a very long time for a child to have to survive on their own on an extremely hostile planet and not face risks of all kinds or end up needing to do unspeakable things to survive. So I think this is at least not that far-fetched, although it's important to say there's nothing in the game that directly confirms this.

And fourth: I read a tweet semi-recently that stated that one of the Chinese (or maybe it was Japanese) names for a quest Aventurine was involved in was actually a reference to a book about a teenage sexual assault survivor. However, when I tried to verify this myself, I couldn't find any quest Aventurine was in that was based on a book about sexual assault in either English, Chinese, or Japanese. It's possible I just missed something, but I'm taking this one with a bit of a grain of salt currently, since I can't confirm it personally.

Regarding your other question, about whether I think Aventurine sleeps around to make deals...

I definitely think he does not, for one major reason.

First, I will admit that Aventurine is definitely willing to use his appearance to his advantage. This is pretty obvious. He wears incredibly flashy clothes, baths himself in cologne, overloads on glittering golden jewels, and absolutely calls attention to his appearance when working with clients.

We see him actively doing this in his Moment Among the Stars video, where he is clearly using his looks as an equal tool (to his wealth), to daze his target.

It's not an accident that he says things like "Use me as you wish," with all the explicit connotations preserved. The implication is there. However, unless he was absolutely backed into a corner, I think that implication is all it will ever be.

The reason I think this is that the devs go out of their way to give Aventurine three fairly noticeable physical behaviors in his in-game scenes:

For one, he has some of the most closed off body language of any character in the game.

Aventurine's default conversation pose is arms crossed directly and tightly in front of himself. This is like "Defensive Body Language 101." By crossing your arms, you put a symbolic barrier between yourself and the person you're speaking to, and also ensure that your hands are up and available in case you actually need to physically defend yourself.

Virtually all of Aventurine's conversations take place from this stance, no matter who he is speaking to (from the Trailblazer all the way to Topaz). He deliberately closes his pose off and tightens up his silhouette, which just sends a glaring "Don't touch me" message.

This closing off is also blatantly apparent when you compare it to the deliberately open poses he strikes while trying to make himself seem accessible to others (like tempting clients) or seem powerful (to intimidate):

Complementing this habit of closing himself off is a second noticeable aspect of his body language: He frequently avoids eye contact to the point that he even holds conversations while entirely facing away from the person he's speaking to.

I might be a bit lenient and say maybe he's doing this to on purpose to be mysterious, whoo~~ But... in all honestly, he just does this with everyone, even with Ratio while trying to talk about an actual important issue (wanting to look into Acheron's real identity). Hell, even the fake Aventurine does it to himself!

We can even say that wearing the rose-tinted glasses in the first place is another intentional barrier, one Aventurine deliberately removes in specific moments to give people the (false) impression that he's "letting them in" to his circle:

Now, this might be a bit more complicated in Aventurine's case, because eye contact has a whole extra meaning when eyes are the defining trait of your species and come with particularly challenging racial stereotypes. So it may be that Aventurine is simply used to conducting conversation while looking away to minimize racial prejudice against his eyes' unique appearance.

However, I'd also argue that the devs deliberately turned his entire model away in cutscene after cutscene to create a clear sense of being inaccessible, unapproachable, and unwilling to engage in the physical intimacy of standing closely, directly facing, and staring at his conversation partners.

While he faces away, he controls both the figurative and the literal direction of conversation, forcing people to keep their eyes on him while he is free to move as he pleases. Over and over again, it just says "I want to be the one in control. I'm not afraid to show my back to you, but you are not welcome to come near me."

And, in fact, that's a third aspect of his character's body language that I am sure the devs did not include accidentally: More so than other characters, many of Aventurine's conversations are conducted from weirdly far distances. Like, half the time he's talking, he's standing all the way on the opposite side of the room!

This habit of speaking from a-larger-than-normal distance is apparent in the first scene with Himeko...

And then in just about every other conversation too:

The bubble is twenty feet in every direction.

Like yes, he does approach and have conversations like a normal person... sometimes... But it is significantly more noticeable with Aventurine than with other characters that he often conducts whole conversations--even with his allies--from a distance. Just genuinely weirdly far apart.

Leaving space for Gaiathra, I guess.

And it's because these significant decisions were made with Aventurine's in-game body language that, when he deliberately alters his own behavior, it is instantaneously noticeable.

In 2.0, he closes the distance, the glasses come off, and he gets directly up in the Trailblazer's face.

It's uncomfortable not just because the player is suddenly being loomed over, but because this behavior has already been subconsciously established for the player as out of character for Aventurine.

The barriers the character himself was putting up are deliberately stripped away so that he can use physicality and demanding eye contact to intimidate his target. He has to reverse his own normal body language in order to come across as domineering (and, I guess if you're into that, appealing in a domineering manner).

And ummmm, just a tiny aside here because I can't resist:

This does mean that when the game goes out of its way to demonstrate Aventurine altering his own normal habit of distant and defensive body language, it is absolutely intentional.

Yes, this is a Ratiorine post in disguise. There literally isn't any other character in the game that Aventurine is shown being comfortable standing so close to and interacting with in this manner. This doesn't occur in every one of their scenes, but Ratio is the only character that this happens with repeatedly. It's not an accident that the devs literally added "They were walking side-by-side" as flavor text.

But look, I'll be fair: There's a great example of this in Aventurine's scene with Acheron too, where he closes the distance and attempts to make eye contact with her--seeking her guidance and closeness--and she is actually the one stepping away, speaking with her back turned, demonstrating her power and control (and issues with connection!) in that scene.

Anyway, this was a whole longggg tangent into analyzing Aventurine's body language, but my point is that, overall, the devs deliberately adjusted his model's actions in-game to give the impression of a person who clearly wants to be in control of every interaction he has with other people, who insists on distance over intimacy, and whose stances and habits suggest that he is significantly less accessible and open than his "Use me as you wish" motto might suggest.

Long story longer, I think that there is almost zero chance Aventurine is willingly ceding control over himself or the actions expected of him to anyone he isn't 100% comfortable with, and I think that using physical intimacy of any kind would be an absolute last resort for him. Frankly, he comes across as more likely to shoot himself in the foot than let someone he doesn't trust lay hands on him.

To me, he reads very much as "You may look, but you may not touch."

[rainbow-sunshine-unicorn]

Deeply obsessed with how Anthony Bridgerton will do anything and everything for the vibes, the ambience and to set the mood for his wife

Why did he lift Kate up halfway to the ceiling just to simply set her down on the desk? THE MOOD, THE AMBIENCE, THE VIBES

Why did he scatter the papers after setting her down as opposed to clearing the desk beforehand? THE MOOD, THE AMBIENCE, THE VIBES

Because of course scattered papers are an essential aspect to heir-making on a desk!!!

[afflatusssss]

It was the weight of guilt that sent Icarus crashing down a second time; he wondered if he was always destined to be punished for loving something brighter than himself, even in death.

[raayllum]

I get that in general a lot of kids shows do utilize the protagonists ('good guys') in ways where they're supposed to be role models, particularly because some do have a "lesson of the week" where the character does bad things, then clearly learns and explains what they should've done instead by the end of the episode.

That has just... never been how TDP has operated, and I don't get how and why people think we're supposed to take what anyone does in the show as being unilaterally good or evil. Particularly in arc 2; any moral simplicity that was hanging on by a thread in arc 1 has been taken out back and shot numerous times by now.

TDP very rarely calls anything Evil or Good, and when it does, it's always filtered through the characters' biases, and rarely does more then 2-3 characters ever have the same opinion on something for the same reasons. Soren and Rayla, who have inverted character arcs, are some of the only characters to ever use the term villain / good guys or bad guys, and are two of the most staunchly black-and-white thinking characters, heavily to their detriment, I might add, in terms of coping with the increasing complexity of their lives. They have cognitive biases. They're not always right, and are frequently wrong. This is true for everyone in the show.

The show refuses to condemn murder, indirectly and directly condemns the expulsion of humans from Xadia routinely (Evrkynd being a city for everyone, Ezran arguing with Karim, who is the most wrong about the most things), and shows a variety of viewpoints on all things.

The show understands that the choices people make—whether the same character trait is a flaw or a strength—as well as 'moral' choices are all circumstantial.

Are you wrong to burn people alive? Mostly yes (2x07, 6x08) but also no (3x09). Are you wrong to kill people? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes whether it's 'wrong' or 'right' doesn't even factor in. Are you wrong to use dark magic, or use the dangerous Staff of Ziard, or coin someone and condemn them to a 'fate worse than death'? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Is lying or hiding the truth to protect someone wrong? Sometimes yes (1x06, 2x03, 3x03, 5x01, 7x04, 7x06) sometimes no (1x02, 2x03, 6x06, 5x08, 7x08).

Are you doing the right thing?

Do you have no choice? Is that true, or is that just what you think, or how you rationalize it yourself?

When is it right or cowardly to leave (Viren, Lissa, Rayla, Callum, Ezran, the Cosmic Council, the offer made to Karim's troops)? When should you stay? When do you decide to share resources (2x05) to your potential detriment or withhold them in the name of protecting yourself and your own people (Xadia and magic)? At what point(s) do you prioritize your own pain and grief, or someone else's (i.e. the Keeper vs Callum vs Ezran)? At what point is someone too dangerous or 'too far gone' to keep alive (Runaan about Harrow, Ezran about Aaravos)? At what point do you decide someone cannot change? When do you refuse to change (Karim, Terry) who you are no matter what happens, and when do you decide that you must (Ezran, Soren)? When is it wrong to use illusions to trick someone (3x09 and 7x06) and when is it more reasonable (2x03)? When should you be willing to sacrifice others (Rayla with her family, Runaan and Rayla with Callum, Soren with Viren) and when should you refuse? When should you sacrifice yourself, and when it is wrong to? Did you betray them, or did they betray you, or both (usually both)? When should you betray or stay loyal to your family? What is the right thing to do?

The show, tbh, doesn't know, at least 90% of the time. It's not interested in knowing. It's interested in exploring. That's the whole point. At most, it says you should work towards harm reduction, but what constitutes harm, and what peace looks like, is also something that greatly differs for all the characters.

Rayla is willing to sacrifice the love of her life, Ezran is willing to create weapons of mass destruction and wield one, and Callum used a torture spell on someone when he absolutely did not have to. The idea that any of the protagonists are meant to be paragons of unblemished virtue who are always 100% right, or that any of the antagonists do not canonically have a good point of contention with anything that's happened and are always 100% wrong, is reductive to everything the show is and explores, because it is Quite Literally not what the show does, ever tbh.

They literally spelled it out this past season as a core theme; I don't think they needed to have a character directly point it out every time a main character did something that was Kinda Fucked Up or Complicated But Understandable to know that the show knows it was Canonically Fucked Up or Complicated But Understandable.

There is not a single character or action in TDP that is always right, and there is not a singular character or action in TDP that is always wrong. Hell, even narrowing it down to "this is 'right' or 'wrong'" feels counterintuitive because it's so subjective within the narrative.

Every choice the characters make is often well reasoned, aligns with their values and world views, and fits into how they work through problems. Every choice has benefits and consequences, for them or for others. That doesn't mean it's Right for everyone involved. That doesn't mean it's Wrong for everyone involved. That's what makes the show interesting. Everything has nuance. Everything has Complexity. I'm not interested in a simplified version of TDP. I'm interested in the show as is.

I hope you are, too.

[justactgaussian]

This is how I was taught epsilon-delta proofs

[blanceyblance]

Lance is such an interesting character to me in part because of how the narrative wants to portray him to the point it becomes contradictory.

His "arc" is supposed to be "cocky and immature teenager grows from his need for glory into a reliable team member"

And he does! He becomes Keith's right hand man, taking charge in battle, covering the team's backs and becoming an emotional support for other members when the time was needed.

But he is also a Comedic Relief™

Other characters have comedic relief moments too, like Hunk's love for food, Pidge's excitement about tech, Keith being socially awkward, etc.

And as aggravating as Hunk's fat jokes can be they don't contradict the fact that he is a brilliant engineer and became a brave paladin. Keith's social awkwardness doesn't contradict the fact that he became a capable leader.

But then you have Pidge and Hunk, making fun of Lance being "naturally dumb", and then a space deity calling him "the dumb one"one moment then following Lance's orders in battle and having him give emotional speeches to others the other.

The writers want us to take him seriously and see he is growing only to make fun of him when its needed for a laugh.

I feel the episode The Grudge is a good example of this:

Lance finds a way to find where they left their Lions.

Hunk and Allura seem impressed but Pidge dismisses it.

That would be the end of it until later when Veronica is talking with "Keith" (actually a hacker pretending to be him) and the says "Lance has it figured out", Veronica then in a sarcastic way says "Lance, the navigation genius".

Keith agrees and that's what clues them about something being wrong.

Is it a joke about Keith being openly nice to Lance? A joke about Lance's navigation skills?

Either way, the joke is at his expense, even when early in the episode we see him actually suggesting a way to correctly navigate.

In the end what I'm trying to say is, that the writers want to have their cake and eat it too. Showing Lance growing and being capable but also making fun of him and not really having that much respect for his character.

[mikuyuuss]

Mitsuri's weirdness is slept on me thinks. It's true that Mitsuri sorta represents normalcy in kny's bleak setting, despite being seen as unusual over something she can't control, but still, she's a weirdo <3 (affectionate) Maybe people forget that Mitsuri is weird because she doesn't have deceased parents (therefore isn't as unhinged as the other characters) and is girly(?) so surely, she must like normal girly things like makeup and shopping. I mean true! I'm sure she enjoys those, but I don’t think those are the only things she would like. (besides food ofc) Mitsuri is depicted as so stereotypically girly that it is unconventional in itself. She made the boys wear LEOTARDS in the hashira training arc. She's weird in a childish whimsey sort of way.

Mitsuri is a fangirl. She gushes over her colleagues at the most inappropriate times, but she compliments the things that are unconventional, like Sanemi's scars, Giyuu being quiet, or Obanai being snakey. (whatever that means)

Ya girl is also so obsessed with cats that her breathing style techniques are named after cats?? Complete with meowing sound effects too. Cat Love shower hello?!??.

Also I feel that aside from normal girly things, Mitsuri would LOVE magical girl things like sailor moon. There's so much magical girl motifs to her. She is like obsessed with cute things that her breathing in itself is super colorful and shiny, with bubbles and glitters. She also does a lot of unnecessary backflips, because she's just that. Extra.

She even has little hearts on her tsuka! Everyone else is regular looking or plain. I think she's the only one with that kind of design on her katana.

And I don't think these are a coincidence. Even in extra materials she literally has a ridiculous yet adorable OC named Big Hand Cat.

Look at her dragon even! Its so silly and whimsy I love it. It's like her cat oc in dragon form, complete with the big anime eyes. Again, Mitsuri would soooo love anime.

She even made a manga where the characters are based on FOOD

In short, Mitsuri is equivalent to THAT weird art kid. She's a weirdo let her be weird. 🩷

[mythalism]

hmmm. thinking about how veilguard seems to subscribe more to the more traditional "video game as personal power fulfillment fantasy of heroism" than any other dragon age game, except perhaps origins, though origins does it more artfully.

[bennetsbonnet]

It's surprising and, perhaps, a little depressing for a book so ostensibly beloved and held up as one of the finest in English literature, that Pride and Prejudice is so widely misquoted and misunderstood. It seems to be primarily viewed as a romance in the public's imagination, rather than the comedy of manners it truly is.

A large part of these misconceptions are admittedly, due to its various adaptations. I think a lot of people are surprised when they read the novel for the first time and discover that Mr Collins does not possess an affinity for boiled potatoes; that the proposal scene does not take place in the rain; that the second proposal is not made by Mr Darcy stumbling over his words at dawn and, ultimately, that he does not emerge from a lake in a wet white shirt. Nor is he really a brooding romantic hero.

The adaptations have had such a huge impact on the popular perception of Pride and Prejudice, that all of these products can be found on only the first two pages of an Etsy search of the title. All very nice products, I am sure. However, none of them contain quotes found in the original novel:

(quite why you'd want to be seen in a 'barely tolerable' hoodie I don't know but... each to their own... )

I question how widely-liked the actual novel is, if those who are keen to walk around in merch or decorate their homes inspired by Pride and Prejudice, are doing so with references that are nowhere to be found in the book's pages. Adaptations are part of many of our paths to falling in love with the novel; they were part of mine. But there are so many hilarious quotes contained within the first few chapters alone, you soon realise that nothing can live up to Austen's quick, witty dialogue or her observational comedy.

Yet, even when the novel is correctly quoted, it is not always done in an apt manner. Jane Austen was deemed important enough by the Bank of England to warrant her own banknote. Released in 2017, it looks like this:

I remember the controversy about the portrait, and how little it actually looks like the only (incomplete) drawing we have of Jane (which was said by those who knew her to not even resemble her all that well), but that's another matter. I'm most interested in the quote from Pride and Prejudice beneath it:

Let's put the quote in context. It is taken from chapter 11, and spoken by Caroline Bingley who is trying, unsuccessfully, to capture the attention of Mr Darcy.

Why did she pick up a book? Because Mr Darcy did:

'Darcy took up a book; Miss Bingley did the same'

How much enjoyment did she derive from the book? Not a great deal, apparently:

'Miss Bingley’s attention was quite as much engaged in watching Mr. Darcy’s progress through his book, as in reading her own; and she was perpetually either making some inquiry, or looking at his page. She could not win him, however, to any conversation; he merely answered her question, and read on.'

And now comes the actual passage from which the quote is taken, which tells us why Caroline chose that particular book:

'At length, quite exhausted by the attempt to be amused with her own book, which she had only chosen because it was the second volume of his, she gave a great yawn and said, “How pleasant it is to spend an evening in this way! I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading! How much sooner one tires of anything than of a book! When I have a house of my own, I shall be miserable if I have not an excellent library."'

On the surface, such a quote—especially taken in isolation—would invariably lead you to believe that said character was an avid reader. However, the context demonstrates that Miss Bingley is far from a bookworm.

If you were left in any doubt, however, her next action surely confirms it:

'No one made any reply. She then yawned again, threw aside her book, and cast her eyes round the room in quest for some amusement'

As soon as Caroline realises that her quest to capture Mr Darcy's affection is futile, she throws her book away entirely; perhaps there are more enjoyable pursuits than reading, after all.

So, a quote deemed to have such importance as to be immortalised forever alongside Jane Austen on the currency of an entire nation (the design of which will likely be used for several decades) is so important in the context of the novel that it is... uh... *checks notes* ignored entirely. Right.

I mean, I don't necessarily understand why the quote had to be about reading but if it was, I could argue that a quote from Mr Darcy in chapter eight, about how extensive reading improves the mind could be far more sincere. Or why not one of the numerous lovely quotes from the novel? Obviously, an agenda was set and a quote needed to be found to match it.

Still, it is quite ironic indeed that reading actually opens your eyes to how ridiculous a choice of quote was made.

Anyway, what is my overarching point? Well, I think, largely due to its various adaptations, a majority of people believe they know the story of Pride and Prejudice. But shockingly few, despite it being consistently ranked as one of the most popular books, actually understand it on the level which it deserves to be.

This post was not intended to bash adaptations, it is absolutely fine to like them! But they are, by their very nature, going to differ from the book. That is inevitable. Yet, I think it's quite sad when people watch a film or series and believe they can possibly understand the story on the same level. Spoiler alert: you cannot. I know books are a luxury and reading is time-consuming, but Pride and Prejudice is out of copyright now. PDFs are abundant, as are audiobooks if you cannot sit and read!

Put some time and effort into understanding the novel. I promise not a single second of it will be wasted; you will gain a deeper admiration for Jane Austen's talent as an author, and you will fall in love anew with the many wonderful characters she so beautifully brought to life.

[tiredandoptimistic]

What I enjoy so much about Angel's curse as a plot device is how it works to expose who he is as a person and call up questions about what it means to be good or evil.

The intent of the curse was nothing but punishment. Angel would be forced to feel the guilt of everything he'd done, and if he ever let go of the guilt enough to experience pure joy, it would all be stripped away from him. It wasn't about giving him a soul so that he could be a better person, it was all just to maximize his suffering. And well, it does a pretty damn good job. For almost a hundred years, Angel spent his time wallowing in guilt and misery. He wasn't contributing anything to the world, but he wasn't taking anything away from it either (unless you count the rats he was eating). Until Whistler comes along and shows him a glimpse of Buffy Summers, and suddenly his life has a purpose again.

In the first season and a half of Buffy, Angel tries to actually do some good for the first time in his life. He makes the choice to use his abilities to help people, and it changes everything. He lets himself fall in love with Buffy, and as a side effect he concentrates more on the positive potential of his future than the shadows in his past. Turning evil is his punishment for allowing himself to be happy, and it exposes the hypocrisy of the original curse. Guilt and punishment was effective in keeping Angelus out of the world, but it's also what brought him back. Angel lost his shot at joy, and so did Buffy and Giles and Jenny and all the others. It's such a good representation about how punitive justice cannot lead to positive change. Arguing that his past crimes make him unworthy of any hope just leads to him going back to his wicked ways. If he'd been allowed to be happy, the Scoobies wouldn't have lost one of their most powerful allies and the world wouldn't have been nearly swallowed by Acathla.

Having a soul was never meant to be a reward. It wasn't supposed to be a shot at redemption, but he found his way to Buffy and was redeemed anyways. The hundred years of sitting around being sad did a lot to shape who Angel is, but it didn't motivate him to try and be better. It was Buffy that made him genuinely strive for a brighter future and save hundreds of lives along the way. It wasn't guilt that made him a good man, it was hope.

[iwritenarrativesandstuff]

This entire scene emotionally destroyed me but there's one part in particular that was like taking a knife to an already open wound.

So, Gon shuts down after the reveal that Kite was dead all along and his stunned and racing mind is disjointed and contradictory. Most of his statements fit into roughly three categories of desperate thoughts:

Vehement inability to process that Kite is dead. From the statement being repeated multiple times to the amount of "no"s everywhere on these pages.

Taking the blame for Kite's death, in a frankly horrifying show of self-hatred (especially given the context of what comes next).

Blaming Pitou and proclaiming that he "didn't do it" in an attempt to absolve the weight of his guilt.

Heartbreaking. But there's one thought here that's a bit different.

Throughout all of this, Gon has been adamant that Kite, and by extension the situation, can be "fixed" - after all, most every issue that's come up before on his adventures could be resolved nicely. But now, suddenly, it can't. Gon can't stand feeling powerless or helpless, and now he finds himself more helpless than he's ever been. And we get this.

"Somebody help me."

Gon is independent. Gon has a burning need to prove his worth through his own strength. Gon has a bad habit of equating "taking responsibility" with fixing things all by himself and rejecting help from others.

Gon has never pleaded for someone to save him before.

And it's just. Holy shit. Holy shit - he's a kid. He's just a kid. And in just a few pages, he's going to make a despair-fueled decision to throw away his life just to regain any semblance of power over a situation that was doomed to be unfixable from the start. He says, "Let it end. I don't care what happens to me now.", because this is the only way he can think of to make his pain and his guilt and Pitou all just stop, by losing himself to all of his power instead of his grief.

[shikai-the-storyteller]

I've been thinking a lot about Leonarda's not-death ever since it happened back in April.

("What death?" you might ask, to which I say: "EXACTLY!")

Back in mid-April, Vegetta and Leonarda were mining together in a one-block wide tunnel. A mob (a Petriman) got between the two of them, and Vegetta told Leonarda to step back while he took care of it. At this point, they'd spent enough time together that he trusted Leo to listen to him.

Instead, she was killed by the same sweeping edge bug that killed her siblings.

-

Vegetta's reaction here is what's really interesting to me. Unlike most other parents on the Island, there are no shouts or tears – only a very brief "Hmm" and then silence. He very quietly takes stock of the situation, saying "Vegetta, no" and wondering aloud why Leo didn't defend herself. In chat, Foolish says "It was a bug, right? LAG" to which Vegetta slowly responds "Yes, lag. Bug." (Despite this, Foolish still asks "WHAT HAPPENED" in chat, though Vegetta doesn't reply).

Instead, he creates a slightly wider space in the tunnel where Leo's body is. He continues quietly taking stock of the situation, wondering why Leo didn't defend herself (which is what necessitated his intervention). She'd been lagging a lot that day, and he figures that must be the cause, and eventually when Leo re-appears out of thin air in the middle of the cave and collects her stuff, she confirms that the lag got to her and that's why she didn't fight the mob.

Now here's where things get interesting:

Vegetta checks the tab list. Online, it's just him, Leonarda, Roier, and Foolish. He quietly tells Leonarda "The body has already disappeared, and without a body, there is no crime. Nothing is happening. Did you die?" Leo shakes her head, and Vegetta shakes his head too, and in the kind voice he uses sometimes with Leo, he says: "I believe you have not died. Where is the body? It isn't anywhere, no mija. If it was a mistake, it was a mistake."

Leo says: "I saw Diosito (God) pa, and I was scared. God, what am I doing here?" and Vegetta laughs, telling her it's alright. Leo says "No pasa nada (don't worry / nothing happened)" and Vegetta says: "And the people who are watching us have not seen it either." To Foolish and Roier, he messages: "Secreto."

And the funniest thing about this is it worked.

Not a single person spoke about it. I saw this entire event go down live and I didn't see a WHISPER of what transpired among fans. I can't even remember if the QSMP official accounts talked about it (they sure didn't mention it in Vegetta's recap of the day). We could discuss this in meta terms of course– Leo was having known lag issues that day, Vegetta's beloved by the admins so of course they're willing to turn a blind eye rather than slap a "?" over Leonarda's life on the Eggstatistics, but meta talk isn't what I'm interested in here.

I'm interested in q!Vegetta, the weird "god-adjacent" aura he's got, and the way the universe bends to his will.

Before he took a break from the server, Rubius seemed to be a caretaker for the Eggs who died (for example, he was present when Maxo, Quackity, and Mariana & Slime said their final goodbyes to Trumpet, Tilin, and JuanaFlippa). Because of his role as an "angel" and some of his dialogue during the early days of the server, it's not a stretch to say he probably came to collect any Egg who lost a life. I can imagine he did the same when he saw Leonarda die – that is, until Vegetta said "And the people who are watching us have not seen it either." Realistically, we know Vegetta was saying this to Chat (and possibly the admins as well), but again, we're looking at this from an "in-universe" perspective.

I wonder if Vegetta was aware of Rubius' role, and this was his way of telling Rubius "No. I won't allow that to happen." We know Rubius has a soft-spot for Vegetta (and we also know that Rubius was cast out of heaven several months later) so it makes me wonder if these two instances are connected.

Either way, this isn't the first time the laws of the QSMP universe have bent for Vegetta, and I certainly don't think it'll be the last.

Rubius or no, Leo didn't die that day.

Vegetta made sure of it.

[toadletthethird]

About Skeptic's hypocrisy or how rationality leads to bias

The most rational decision is the most reasonable one. Reasons are powered by arguments. Arguments are personal. Inevitably, in ambiguity of the world the most rational decision is only the most argumented decision visible to a person. With enough skill any decision can be argumented. Naturally, different people will find different points to be more relevant. And one's own conclusions will always look more rational, because they're able to see the arguments behind them, while it's hard to see the reasoning behind others. So "acting rationally" often turns out to be acting not in the most logical way, but in the most personally argumented way.

That's the card trick: logical -> rational -> reasonable -> argumented -> personal. And to think that logical appeared from avoiding personal. Wow. What a trap.

So when Smitten kills the player, it's a condemnatory act, since there's no reasoning (visible to Skeptic) to do so. But when he does that in Prisoner, it's a fully rational act, because there are reasons to do so, and everyone must understand it sooner or later.

And ehh. apart from this intellectual talk. it's also about losing agency. Skeptic appears when in the first chapter the player feels that they are being controlled by the narrator and is ready to die to do what they reasonably decided to do. In HEA TLQ is deprived of agency similarly because of Smitten. It should have hit a nerve, right? I'd argue that to value personal freedom is a core belief for Skeptic. Of course he's judgmental. BUT. In Prisoner's chapter killing the player IS affirmation of personal freedom. So he unconsciously becomes what he hates, in a way. His character is so circular, really.............hi cage....................

[kismet-cat]

you ever think about how sissel spends three chapters of the game back to back trying to save two deeply depressed guys with zero self-esteem? how he sees right through jowd's insincere self-pitying apologies; and how he's so promptly over the justice minister's disguised negative self-talk, eventually trying to set him on a better path by telling him to not go so hard on himself?

with hindsight, i'm surprised sissel never comments on it all feeling... familiar.

[royalarchivist]

[A sad violin song plays over an image of a sad hamster]

Pac: This doesn't have anything to do with me – I wear a blue sweatshirt, you're crazy, this mouse doesn't even have a sweatshirt, this hamster! [Reading chat] Am I a depressed hamster?

[ Transcript continued ↓ ]*

–

Pac: Actually– that's fine! I embrace that idea – of course I'm going to be depressed, are you crazy? [He hits his desk, then starts counting off people on his fingers] Fit is gone, Richarlyson is gone, Ramon is gone, Bagi and Empanada who were always there when we were there are also gone, I haven't seen them! It's just me and Tubbo, and sometimes Philza shows up.

Pac: I lost Chume Labs, I lost the Favela, I lost Murder Mystery, I lost Ilha Chume Labs, it's crazy! Look at how much I've lost, and I've gained nothing! Of course I'm going to be depressed, are you crazy?! How am I supposed to be happy?!

Pac: [Reading chat] "You have us Pac," that's true, thank you. No, that's true, sorry.

* NOTE: Please note that this is an incomplete transcript, as I was primarily relying on Aypierre's translation mod at the time and if I am not confident of the translation, I do not include it. As always, please feel free to add on translations or message me corrections.

[m4rs-ex3]

"cause i know you, rayla" i am short-circuiting. yk i assumed if he ever brought the whole issue up, it would be because he was brought to his limit watching her hurt herself, that he would be filled with anguish. and yet here we are: it's just something that he knows, and he's always known it, and KNOWS. HER GODDAMMIT. he knows that this is just how she is, and that it's a part of her, and he loves every part of her, so he's content to simply give her everything she won't give herself, whenever possible. he doesn't bother with telling her to "just do better" when he could just show her what that looks like, and let her be better for herself, and make sure she knows that he will always be there to take her by the hand--literally (placing her hand on the corona, and all). the development from arc 1 is insane--"then you don't know me at all" -> now this--and it makes me so happy to see that he's not just "forgiving" rayla for "what she's done," but actively correcting the mistakes that he made back then, too. all the while encouraging her to do the same with nothing but love and consideration. i'm ok i swear