#and so much of my life both external and internal has kinda just been on pause

[mossbabie]

🪸

[fuckyeahisawthat]

Re-skimmed through a bunch of Dune Messiah last night because why not and now I am having thoughts:

The thing that sticks with me most is the tone. It's melancholy, it's eerie, it's unsettled and weird. Cannot think of a more pitch-perfect director for it than Denis Villeneuve. He's gonna nail it.

There is...not that much...actual story? Denis has referred to it in interviews as "a small book" and I'm like my guy it is 350 pages. But there are actually not that many plot beats. It's just that every. single. scene. is WILDLY overwritten. The real challenge of adapting Dune is not the giant worms or the dense complicated worldbuilding or the fact that actors have to say the name "Duncan Idaho" repeatedly with a straight face. It's that there are pages and pages and PAGES of internal monologue that have to be externalized somehow for film.

After a re-skim my gut instinct for "how much story goes in a feature film" is that if you just wrote out the dialogue and action that happens in every scene in the book in screenplay format you'd end up with...maybe about an hour of material? Which is great, actually, because it means there is room to add stuff. Like a whole new independent plotline for Chani if they decide to do that.

It may seem insane to add things to an adaptation of what's notoriously one of the wordiest series in classic sci-fi but it's worth remembering that they added quite a bit to Dune Part Two. Most of the first hour of the movie--almost everything before the worm ride except for Jessica drinking the Water of Life--is stuff that isn't in the book. And it's the best part of the movie essential to making the movie work as well as it does. Yes, they also cut elements from both parts (the dinner scene, the whole plotline where Gurney thinks Jessica is a Harkonnen spy, Thufir Hawat's fate, Leto II the Elder, murder toddler Alia) but I understand why each of those elements was cut or changed in the service of cinematic storytelling.

There's an interview (can't remember which one) with Jon Spaihts, the other co-writer of the scripts along with Denis, where he talks about how Dune is like a stage play, with so many of what would be the big action set pieces happening off-page. I kept thinking about that comparison while reviewing Dune Messiah because in addition to the scenes that do exist being wordy and internal as fuck, an absolutely insane list of major events/reveals/emotionally significant moments happen off-page. The list of things that we don't actually see in the main action of the story, that we're only told about after they happen, includes:

Chani finding out Irulan has been secretly dosing her with birth control for YEARS

People trying to capture a sandworm and take it off planet

Chani and Paul finding out Chani is pregnant after 12 years of trying to conceive

Paul flying an ornithopter carrying his extremely-about-to-go-into-labor partner while blind

CHANI DYING (first time reading I did NOT know this was coming and damn near threw my Kindle across the room at the way the information was delivered)

Alia executing a bunch of people including a Bene Gesserit Reverend Mother

Paul walking into the desert at the end

You could add all these moments into a scene-for-scene film adaptation of the book and probably still have room to add more material.

The other thing that jumps out is that Paul doesn't really...govern...much. Like there's this whole subgenre of post-Dune/Dune Messiah-era fic that's just some combination of Paul, Chani, Irulan and sometimes Feyd traipsing around the palace having feelings while vague politics happens in the background, but I forgot that Dune Messiah is actually kinda like that??

There is a whole thread of Paul feeling kind of abstractly bad about being Space Hitler but he does not, in fact, actually do anything about it. And like yes both bureaucracies and religious movements can grow to have a life of their own that seems beyond the control of any one person. But also my dude you are the Emperor of the Known Universe. Someone is signing those space checks for the Endless War budget. You are not powerless here.

The one thing that really, clearly drives Paul to actively do things in the plot is not feeling guilty about having unleashed catastrophic religious war on the universe. It is protecting his family. Chani, Alia, his unborn children, and you could probably throw in Duncan by the end. That is what motivates him to act at key moments, and to want to hold on to power. And hey, y'know, if I'd experienced almost everyone I'd ever known getting murdered in a single night, I would probably get a bit intense about that too! It makes sense from a character point of view!

I'm very curious to see how these threads interweave with each other in the film, because the Villeneuve films put a lot of emphasis on Paul's agency and the fact that he may be constrained by shitty circumstances thousands of years in the making, but he still makes choices within that context. I can't see the narrative allowing film!Paul to get away with the same Poor Little Dictator routine as in the book. There are a few ways they could play this but I think the most interesting one is kinda the way they started going at the end of Part Two. Which is that as soon as you start reaching for that kind of power, then power becomes its own end and you will end up doing increasingly horrific things to maintain it. I think it would be quite interesting if the film shows us Paul not just being like "woe is me" but actively choosing to make the world worse because his trauma-driven fear of losing the people he loves makes him cling ever more desperately to power for its own sake.

If they went this route I think it would make Paul's decision at the end hit even harder. FWIW I actually really like Paul walking off into the desert at the end of the book. I think it brings things full circle with his relationship to the Fremen and creates this beautiful arc going back to the duel with Jamis. He first won a place among the Fremen through respecting their customs even though he really did not want to fight and kill someone he had no beef with. And by respecting the Fremen custom of the blind walking off into the desert, he proves himself to be fully Fremen and protects his children not by making them heirs to the throne but by making them Fremen.

And yeah, to a modern audience here on Earth it can look like "Paul conveniently fucks off and doesn't have to raise his newly-motherless children." And we can have a whole discussion about the unexamined ableism of the idea of someone who's gone blind voluntarily choosing death so as to "not be a burden" on their community. But neither of those readings is really the point here. Within the logic of Fremen cultural values, where the survival of the group as a whole is more important than the life of any one individual ("your water belongs to the tribe" etc.) Paul's choice is a willing and intentional self-sacrifice (see also: fedaykin) that wins him huge respect. There's a line in the book about Paul that's like "He would be one of them forever now" and damn if that didn't give me shivers. Like!! The political-symbolic implications!!! Which maybe I'm particularly attuned to because I just wrote a whole fic about what does it mean for an outsider to become Fremen but hmm something something Paul's final* act not being an exercise of Imperial power but an expression of kinship with an oppressed group and that being the thing that's needed to keep his family safe even if he is not physically present with them...IT IS RICH SYMBOLIC TERRITORY.

(*Yes yes I know about events in the next book. Shush.)

This kind of stuff is why I tend to think Chani may start out in a very different place in the story but the end will still be pretty close to what's in the book. It's too thematically powerful and tragic to go any other way.

But also...if they change things around enough that she is still alive at the end of the movie...I won't be sad about it.

[starry-907]

Animation vs Life SMP

alright so i said in the tumblr community if we got new life series and influencer arc ep 3 on the same day i'd post my (currently very minimal and disorganized) thoughts for animation vs life series! and uh. we did indeed get new life series today soooooo yeah.

thoughts below the cut cuz it will likely be a bit long shgsldjf

Explanation of life smp

so! for those of you that don't know what life series/life smp is, it's basically hardcore but you have (usually) 3 lives instead of just one (there's been 2 seasons that don't follow that exact idea). when you hit your last life (referred to as your "red life") you get to be hostile and kill others outside of specific circumstances. last person alive wins! there's been 5 seasons so far (and a vaugely canon april fools ep), with the 6th season starting today, leading to me writing this here.

a lot of folks also add in some additional lore with these beings called the watchers, with the lore being that they're the ones organizing the games and kinda keeping the players locked in this loop of death games. i think one of the content creators has his own lore involving the watchers, martyn inthelittlewood.

if you want an explanation of ava/avm i can't type that here or we'd be here all day so instead i'll just link this post i made a while back that should help explain some stuff

The foundation

essentially this au starts with the idea of what if instead of mcyt-ers, the watchers decided to nab some silly sticks for their death game instead? the current lineup that they grabbed is:

Vic, Chosen, Dark, Second, Green, Blue, Yellow, Red, Purple, and Mango. i might add the mercs if i want more people for more complexity, but i'm still in the baby stages of ideation here.

thing is though, the watchers want to have a pawn member actually in the games, so they can manipulate events the way they want to, whenever they need to. so.....

(yeah that's right i made drawings to go along with this explanation)

ok so it isn't just because they're also purple, it's because they seemed the best candidate in terms of skill and such. cunning and resourceful, but still desperate for approval in a way, so just breadcrumb some praise and you should be able to get them to do what you need them to do right?

i mean purple does eventually realize something's up and doesn't listen to the watchers as much (when they can get away with it).

purple's changes

of course, being made a watcher does come with some changes, external and internal.

external, they get these floating eyes around their head, and the watcher symbol on their back. both of them are usually not visible, only really showing up in low light (light level 3 or less) or when under extreme stress. somehow no one's really questioned it? i mean if you're stuck in a death game (that you don't know is a loop of death games), your friend suddenly getting a bunch of eyes isn't a major concern.

what does garner attention (esp cuz these can't be hidden), is the fact that purple's elytra have turned into full on feathered wings (also with the watcher symbol). they don't allow for flight in the games (unfair advantage), but they do serve as a more... permanent reminder of where purple's ultimate loyalties should lie.

(in case you can't tell, i'm working with majority morally dark watchers here. there are some that don't like the idea, but most of them are more than down for it).

ok jumping ahead a bit we're talking curses!

what's a life series without some curses and patterns, eh? i do not have many right now, but i do know what the biggest one is, i'll do that last.

mango gets a curse to always fail to protect a close ally from death at least once

vic is cursed to always have one death that was preventable

blue has sort of a reverse of mangos, she will have at least one death protecting an ally.

ok starry but what about the canary curse?

i'm glad you asked. who's the one that always runs into battle first in ava, and is therefore the one to always die first?

THAT'S RIGHT. HECK YOU *CANARIES YOUR RED*.

i realize there's other characters that could've fit but at the same time canary red just hits so much more to me. granted the watchers didn't know for sure who their canary would be during the first game, but once red died they just collectively went 👀 and hit him with the curse.

after the first game, the ends of red's bandana become stylized to look like wings, and anyone who knows how to look can see faint images of canary wings on his shoulders. only purple knows the exact reason why.

hey so are they just stuck forever or what

uhhh haven't fully thought this part through. HOWEVER! i do know the main focus characters of this au! purple is clearly one of them, since they have a connection to the watchers (kinda against their will). the other primary focus character... well a lot of folks headcanon that the winners get to remember the past game(s) as a reward for their victory, and the first winner is someone who's more than used to dealing with having an urge in the back of their mind to kill.

basically woe, platonic bugduo upon ye. dark wins the first game, learns about the watchers and stuff, and decides to work with purple on trying to break the cycle. also! for those of you who know how third life ended take that but instead it's chosen and dark. tragic siblings.

(i guess dark did wind up fulfilling their code to destroy the chosen on- *gets exploded*)

other misc things/the scenarios imagined

they would go through all the current games, i don't have many ideas for limited life though (i've only watched all of third and secret life, i need to catch up on the others)

i realized that the boogey curse session from secret life could be very interesting to deal with (blue would be the one to start with the boogey curse), i might write that one if i ever write things for this

purple realizing at the start of limited life that everyone had their memories of third life erased (except dark, they realize dark knows but maybe by that point the alliances are already made)

purple gets to go feral at least once as a treat. is it the boogey curse? red life urges? the watchers? who knows but they get to go feral

as i said, dark is able to resist the red life urges a bit better due to experience with the mission code (which is somewhat suppressed by the watchers, they don't want to let their game be ruined by something like that). also remember how scott didn't kill anyone while affected by the boogey curse in limited life yeah dark does that and it's actually the worst

red notices the wings, he knows about canaries but he doesn't know the full significance of them.

idk what associations the winners would get (i'm still thinking about the different winners at this point anyways). I think yellow would win one, maybe also chosen or second...?

unlikely alliances, unlikely alliances as far as the eye can see. double life especially

PLEASE if you have any ideas or questions come yell at me in my ask box, i would like to talk more about this and i'm curious what thoughts y'all might have

[fabaceous]

exactly one (1) person asked for my thoughts on jackie’s pov of jackieshauna so me being me i obviously wrote an even longer essay than my shauna essay. so. here you go anon, SORRY or you’re welcome.

we can all agree that if you boil jackie down (um... sorry, too on the nose?) to her bare essentials, what you’re left with is basically a huge pit of insecurity. shauna is incapable of facing other people, but jackie is incapable of facing herself. jackie is incredibly inwardly/emotionally unstable but she doesn’t actually realize it because she does such a good job of distracting herself by curating her environment, her image, the people she’s surrounded by, their image, her hobbies, and on and on and on. she (without fully understanding that this is what she’s doing) tries to impose order on her outer world in the hopes that that will, by extension, bring order to her inner world.

so, here is my thesis statement: i propose that shauna is both jackie’s biggest source of stability AND her biggest source of instability.

shauna is the only one who’s always been there for her. it’s so telling that out of all the things jackie could’ve complimented shauna on in that scene (her intellect? her depth as a person? her looks?) she chose this. it shows us what jackie’s priorities are and why she values shauna: shauna is her rock, her best friend and trusty sidekick, she’s steady and loyal.

thing is, shauna isn’t. while shauna saintifies jackie after death and turns her into an  idea/symbol, jackie kinda does the same to shauna in life. she needs shauna to be her rock, and she needs it SO badly, like survival-level badly, that she just can’t leave space for shauna to be anything else. this sucks for shauna, because she doesn’t feel like jackie truly sees her in all her complexity. but it also sucks for jackie, because she just doesn’t realize when things are going downhill - and she doesn’t realize that her search for stability in shauna has been doomed to fail from the get-go, because shauna has a mind of her own.  

and this is when shauna becomes jackie’s biggest source of INstability: when she goes rogue. or, maybe more accurately, when she does what jackie interprets as “going rogue” - aka going against jackie’s carefully laid-out plans, whether or not she truly meant it as a snub. exhibit a: voting to go to the lake instead of stay at the crash site. for a healthy, secure person/relationship this would’ve been a simple difference of opinion. but for jackieshauna it drove a wedge between them for an entire day or possibly more, because by defying jackie, shauna destabilizes jackie’s very, VERY tenuous grip on the TINY amount of control she feels like she has over her world.

this control is EVERYTHING to jackie because it’s the only thing that can alleviate her internal turbulence. and she is DESPERATE for her fix, so she reaches, grasps, searches for the stability that she needs, that she only knows how to find in shauna, and it always seems to be just out of her reach, and of course we know it’s impossible to find internal stability through external things, but jackie thinks if she just stretches a little further and holds on a little tighter, she’ll get what she needs, so she clings onto shauna more and more desperately, not realizing that squeezing so tight could have unwanted side effects.

and just like with shauna - there IS genuine love here! but as much as shauna has warped ideas about what love looks like (and boy does she!), jackie has some messed up ideas about love too! jackie adores shauna, but part of that adoration is tied to how jackie builds shauna up in her own head, and when shauna fails to live up to the role that jackie needs her to play, it sends jackie into a tailspin and she lashes out. and i think jackie thinks that because she loves shauna, she can’t possibly be hurting her. it’s not a cage if i make it cozy, right? if i put some blankets down and keep her nice and safe? she’s not trapped, i’m taking good care of her, she’s choosing to stay, and if she wanted differently, she’d say so. (but shauna can’t/won’t say so, as we know.)

so. to sum it up. on a good day, shauna keeps jackie afloat, but on a bad day, shauna sends jackie spiraling. jackie needs her so desperately and the tragedy is that she loves shauna so much and she’s so terrified of losing her that she does everything she can to prevent it, but her desperation blinds her to the fact that, by holding onto shauna so tightly, she’s contributing to the very situation she hoped to avoid: shauna leaving her.

[prognosticator5]

Dankanrunpa homestuck bro we got the rogues ans then some... Questionable hoes

Explanations and sheeeeit

Rogues (steal their aspect for others, they also get stolen from BY their aspect and tend to invite theivery of their own grip on their aspect from others)

Kaede - Rogue of Time (she be fucking with the timeline for everyone elses sake and kinda just. Politely ignoring that she's fucking her own timeline. She's trying to live her best life but she just sniffs out the inconsistencies of shit around her and she just GOTTA do something about that she's not the thinker but she's smart in her own way)

Gonta - Rogue of Mind (thinks they don't have enough intellect, and thinks they wouldn't know how to best use their brain, so they heavily invite other people to use their mind for them,,, Yeah I aint gotta elaborate)

(ouch)

Peko AND Mukuro - Rogue of Heart (I hate to see doubles but dawg. What does Peko do for Fuyuhiko and what does Mukuro want to be for Junko. For varying reasons they both desire to give their heart to someone so hard and just "act out that persons will" but like no 1. They do NOT succeed because 2. They actually have no grip on their own will OR that persons real desires/"will")

Bards (they do not directly harm their aspect. They, by ignorance and lackadaisicalness towards their aspect, create an environment that encourages other people / other things in general to massively destroy their aspect. Bards tend to have/need a major epiphany that FUCKS them or changes them for the better)

Leon - Bard of Hope (he has so much faith that he'll become something he has. No. Way. Of becoming. And decides to hate and ignore the thing he is good at or things that would ACTUALLY give him the fate he wants and just follow his dick and be lazy and just hope for good things until he is TOTALLY fucked 5ever)

Soda - Bard of Mind (kinda interesting one here because a Bard of mind is a very internal bard. This is a person who won't make any HUGE external blowups (more likely many minor ones), this is someone who will just become a complex downward spiral of infinite confusion of who they are and wether they can trust anyone and what they stand for. A bard of mind is basically just a black hole of insecurity until they have some HUGE personality altering epiphany that makes them get the fuck over it all)

(these next two aren't drawn above)

Mikan - Bard of Life (passive asf for a Bard, this is somebody that somehow embodies Life and growth as a concept but also just completely fucking obliterates their ability to meet their own potential or grow as a person by doing shit that invites absolute humiliation and abuse. They invite Doom into their life by how they handle the aspect of Life. Epiphanies really vary here not gonna lie)

Ryoka - Bard of Light (saddest Bard. A Bard of Light is someone extremely wise, smart, knows where fate and luck could actually go, but they choose to ignore ALL of that for some bullshit because they very firmly believe they are just fucked. A bard of light will ignore their own wisdom and others wisdom for shockingly laid back, passive, sad reasons. Their epiphany is suddenly realizing "holy fuck my life wasn't totally fucked I could have done a million things to change it oh my god" no matter what a Bard of Light is a jaded sage, either a heavily repressed depressed one or the wise frog from mario rpg)

Hajim is an Heir of Doom and Nagito is a Mage of Light and it's just. Chefs kiss. Hajime gets his ass slurped by the institution that is Hopes peak and Nagito BEEN getting his ass wooped by what? Luck? Knowledge? Yeah Light BWOI

[whileiamdying]

Bon Iver Is Searching for the Truth

The artist Justin Vernon discusses his new EP, “SABLE,” the dream of a happy adulthood, and his worry that he’s purposely repeating a “cycle of sorrow.”

By Amanda Petrusich October 16, 2024

Bon Iver is the alias of Justin Vernon, a singer, songwriter, and producer from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Since 2007, when Vernon released “For Emma, Forever Ago,” his début LP as Bon Iver, he has been making formally experimental but gorgeously tender music that seems to take equal inspiration from Bruce Hornsby and the Indigo Girls, Arthur Russell and Aphex Twin. (The project name—a version of the French phrase “Bon hiver,” or “Good winter”—was borrowed from an episode of the television series “Northern Exposure,” a deep and formative work in Vernon’s life.) This week, Bon Iver will release “SABLE,” a three-song EP and the band’s first new music since 2019’s “i,i.” “SABLE,” is only a little more than twelve minutes long, but it feels revelatory, expansive, and raw. Vernon has a couple of different voices—a spectral falsetto; a deeper, throatier bellow—but it’s hard for me to think of another contemporary singer whose vocals carry quite as much pure, unmediated feeling.

Outside of Bon Iver, Vernon remains a wildly in-demand collaborator. He has a track on the newly remixed version of Charli XCX’s “brat” (he described the decision to participate as “a no-brainer,” saying “the art and the music, its aggression, its power, its pop-ness—it’s just amazing”), and he worked with Kanye West on “My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy” (2010) and “Yeezus” (2013), two of the most acclaimed rap albums of the past few decades. He also appeared on Taylor Swift’s “folklore” and “evermore,” both from 2020; because of the pandemic, Vernon and Swift didn’t meet in person until long after “folklore” was released. “I wasn’t starstruck,” Vernon told me. “I was, like, ‘Wow, you’re somebody that I would have been very close friends with in high school. You’re real and you’re here.’ To see what she’s been up to, the propulsion, the expansion . . . I don’t know, it’s just unlike anything anyone’s ever seen. And yet there she was, this person who made a lot of sense to me.”

I previously spoke with Vernon at The New Yorker Festival in 2019. Earlier this month, we sat down again to record an episode of The New Yorker Radio Hour, and continued our conversation after we left the studio. This interview, a composite of both encounters, has been condensed and edited.

Justin, it’s so good to see you.

It’s great to see you, too, Amanda. I was pacing around my room today, like, “I’m anxious! Shit.” I haven’t talked to anyone about music in any official capacity since our last conversation, probably. It’s been five years. I was, like, “Oh, that’s why.” Your nervous system’s kinda keyed up, and you have to have a CBD gummy, take a breath. Walk around the block, do some push-ups.

Five years is a very civilized pace, I think, and you’ve hardly been silent during that time. But do you feel any internal or external pressure to produce work on a certain schedule?

Nope, not at all. This one really came from personal necessity. It was just time. Some of these songs have been bubbling for five years.

“SABLE,” is just twelve minutes of music, but, for me, it feels a lot bigger than that. I wanted to ask you about the grouping of these three songs, in particular. You mentioned that they were written at different times, but I hear a very legible arc—a closed circle, almost. I hear the story—and this is quite relatable, to be honest—of a person trying, and then a person failing, and then a person finding some peace with their limitations.

Are you me? [Laughs.] That feels right. They feel like an equidistant triangle, a triptych. It’s three, and it couldn’t be longer. It runs the gamut from accepting anxiety to accepting guilt to accepting hope. Those three things in a row. There’s no room for a prologue or an epilogue at that point. Because that’s it—that’s what everything is.

From a place of guilt and anxiety, how vast is the distance to hope?

My friend Erinn Springer, who made the videos for “SABLE,” was telling me that with [the track] “AWARDS SEASON,” the word for her was “almost.” Time and time again, I’ve been sitting at that feeling of almost: we’re almost there, or we’re just about to get there, I can feel or dream of a place that’s coming soon. And I guess that’s what the song is talking about—change, and how we’re always partaking in it.

This is maybe an incredibly personal question, but—

[Laughs.] That’s good.

When you get to the place of almost—the thing is in reach, you can see it, you can feel it, it’s really close—is that when you panic? Because that’s when I panic.

I think that’s when I have to push further. These songs, they’re personal, of course, but the need to share them is also very personal. These are songs with truth that I’ve located, or been a vehicle for. But they’re true. And I was, like, These have to be shared.

The public piece is complicated. It also seems possible that your relationship to fame might change; maybe you want it one year and the next year you don’t.

I remember there was this moment during the pandemic where I was, like, I could stop doing all of this. I was driving my little A.T.V. around. I needed that—knowing I could stop. But getting back on the road there’s all this excitement, and then, so quickly, the anguish and weariness and impossibility of it set back in.

Do you think you’ll pull back from touring?

I’ll share a pretty vulnerable moment. I knew that we were gonna be taking some time off. It was the beginning of our last run. I was in Duluth. My family was there. I was so happy to be with everyone, but I was really suffering under the weight of everything. I was playing “[715] CRΣΣKS”—there’s no accompaniment. It’s really a crusher to do. It burns a lot of gas. I was scanning the crowd. I was just having a tough month. I was getting ready to start saying goodbye to the last sixteen years, in a way. There were six or seven thousand people out there, and I became overwhelmed with anxiety and sadness. I got choked up and started to weep. My bandmates were all up on the stage, leaning down, because it’s too short of a song for them to leave and come back. I lock eyes with Waz [Jenn Wasner], I can see Michael Lewis looking at me. And I’m crying—like, hard. Shoulders-heaving crying. And I feel unsafe, like this is not an O.K. place for someone to be. And the crowd is going wild, you know? I’m not mad at them. I would also be cheering for encouragement. But I was thinking, They wantthis. Or this is making sense to them. It wasn’t all negative—

But it felt like there was blood in the water?

The rest of the show, I could barely function. If I could do that same touring setup and have somebody else sing the songs, that would be a little easier. But that whole night in, night out, let’s excavate Justin—I’m not built for it. When I say it like that, I think, How is anybody? But, that’s just me, I can’t.

Well, there’s so little distance in your work. I don’t know, maybe Bon Iver doesn’t need to be a road show.

When I used to go to shows, for me, they were excavations. They were explosions, they were unique. They were a band playing four new songs they made up last weekend, at an all-ages venue in Eau Claire. Or seeing Melt-Banana open for Mr. Bungle in, like, ’95—I’m watching something rip me open. And of course they were all also touring and doing the thing and everything, but just . . . I did it a lot, and I’m extremely proud of that achievement. I’m extremely proud of the team. When we were at Barclays, Yo La fuckin’ Tengo opened the show, and we played “Sh’Diah,” and Sean Carey’s doing free-jazz freakouts on drums, and Michael Lewis, my favorite living musician and improviser and soloist, he’s playing, and we are throttling free jazz to an arena that is absolutely understanding what we’re doing. And, like, check mark. Check mark! Thank God. But I can’t go to that well over and over again. It has to be something sacred—it has to renew. I come back to the name of the band. It’s a good band name, a good project name, because it’s like—good death, good winter. Things need rest. A life needs to rest at some point.

It’s funny, I used to be a cynic about things like weddings—why does it have to be a big, performative, public thing? But you realize that is sort of the profundity of it.

I put these songs out because I know there’s truth in them, and I want to share that with everybody. I think where it gets slippery is when it’s, like, “O.K., but we need to see the person who sings the song.” Lately, the song has seemed to be not enough. That’s the part that gets me a little sensitive. But that’s what art is, and that’s why I believe in art and expression so much. It does seem to be the thing that carries cultures forward, past their old haunts and problems.

I mean, I think art can be instructive as well as lifesaving. I’m certainly not the first person to suggest that. Historically, you’ve been pretty mindful. Even using the name Bon Iver puts a little air, a little space, between you and the world. But you’re in these videos. It was so lovely to see your face.

Thank you. It felt like there was a certain amount of acceptance in that. My great friend Eric Timothy Carlson, who does some of my art work, was, like, “Man, just when are you going to do your ‘Man in Black’ thing?” And I was, like, “Challenge accepted. Let’s go.” Hiding has been a valuable thing, and a way for me to express that I don’t think it’s all that important who I am—that the songs are most important.

For listeners who have been with you since “For Emma, Forever Ago,” I suspect the single, “SPEYSIDE,” might feel like a kind of return, insofar as it’s a little more stripped-down, a little less layered, than what you were doing on “22, a Million” or “i,i.” Do you think of the two poles of Bon Iver—music that’s minimally produced, versus music that’s maybe more maximally produced—as in opposition?

From “For Emma” until “i,i,” it felt like it was an arc, or an expansion—from One to All. “I,i” was very much me trying to talk about the We—the Us, outside of I. And when I got to these songs, the obvious thing was, well, people might think this is a return to something. But it really feels like a kind of raw second skin. I think about time in cylindrical, forward-moving circles. This feels like a new person, new skin. A new everything, more than a return. But I did feel like it was important to strip it down to just the bare essentials and get out of the way, to not hide with swaths of choirs. Just get it as close to the human ear as possible.

Can you talk a little about where and when you wrote “SPEYSIDE”?

The “SPEYSIDE” story is that I was in Key West. I had been living alone in the woods by myself, in Wisconsin, and it was getting dangerous. My parents had always gone down there, and I was, like, “You know what? I could just escape.” I went for three or four weeks. My brother and sister-in-law also came, and then we were, like, “Oh, this is so fun, we’ll stay another month.” It didn’t matter. They were just working from home. This was January, February of 2021, and I was reflecting a lot. The song came out mostly in its entirety. I was thinking about guilt and people in my life where I was just, like, “Oh, my God, I really did not do that right. I did not act the right way.” It just came rolling out, with help from rum. I would go out to the pier, and I would look back at Key West, and I’d see it as this island. I didn’t want to name the song “Key West,” although it would have been appropriate. Speyside is a region in Scotland, and it’s a whiskey. That’s the story with the song title. It was my little nod to southern Florida.

So, I have this running text thread with a close friend of mine where we text each other the loneliest things we can think of. We’ve been doing this for years. And so, every six months or so, I’ll get a text from him that will just say, —“Rental car shuttle, pre-dawn . . .”—

[Groans.]

Or “Horse, stuck in the mud.” A recurring character on our text thread is the pedal steel guitar.

Oh, man.

So the text will just be, “Pedal steel solo, Buck Owens, ‘Together Again.’ Apocalyptic!”

[Laughing.] That’s apocalyptic-sad right there!

There’s pedal steel on two of these three new songs. I’m curious about your relationship to the instrument.

Well, it’s a very good question, because it’s the most beautiful musical instrument that humans have constructed, for sure. It really is. It’s an impossibility, and truly an American invention. It mimics the voice, but there’s nothing else that slides between chords like that. They’ve been trying to make keyboards in this century that mimic that, and there’s just nothing like it. Greg Leisz is one of my favorite musicians to ever live, and I was very, very lucky to get to record him again. A very formative record for me was Bill Frisell’s “Good Dog, Happy Man.” That was the first time I ever heard Greg play. There’s a song on there called “That Was Then”—my high-school friends and I—we’re very, very, very close—we all have it as a tattoo. The moment in which we felt the most alive and together was this little seven-, eight-second passage where Greg played this pedal steel line. It’s the pinnacle of music to me. And so to get him on “SABLE,” is just amazing. He’s a master, right? And he’s so funny, and we get along so well, but even he’ll sit there and be, like, “Oh, shit, how does this go?” It’s just so many strings and pedals. But he’s always searching.

I don’t want to ask you too much about the lyrics, because there’s often an opacity and an obliqueness to your writing that I find incredibly beautiful; in a way, I’m not that interested in the literal meaning. So, feel free to fib your way through this part. But I did want to ask about the title. “Sable” is a synonym for “black.” It’s a piece of clothing that widows sometimes wear. It’s a river in Michigan that my fly-fishing friends tell me is holy water for trout. It’s also a weasel, though that maybe feels less relevant.

Yeah, that cutie!

You use it as a noun in “AWARDS SEASON”: “But I’m a sable / and honey, us the fable.” Can you talk a little bit about what the word means to you?

It’s such a good question. For years and years, it’s just been there. There’s an outtake from the second record, I think, where I used it in a lyric. I don’t know what it is, but it’s true. I wrote it and I knew it was true, and I still didn’t know what it meant. I was, like, “Be O.K. with that.” But then I looked it up. Sable. Mourning. Deepest black. Also, place name. But what isit? For me, I think when I’m speaking that line, what it refers to is being the darkness. There have been times in my career where it has felt like I’m repeating a cycle of heartache. I was getting a lot of positive feedback for being heartbroken. And I wondered, maybe I’m pressing the bruise. Maybe I’m unknowingly steering this ship into the rocks over and over again, because . . . you know, I’m not, like, famous-on-the-street, People-magazine famous. But there have been a lot of accolades for me and my heartache. So it’s me asking the question: I’m a sable, I’ve been a sable. Am I repeating this cycle of sorrow? Or is this just how sorrow goes, and this is how everyone feels? That’s kind of what it means to me.

I hear joy and wonder in the work, too. But you’re right, that heartache is a part of the story of the Bon Iver. I think it’s easy to be dismissive and say, “Well, that’s a toxic notion, that artists need to suffer to make work.” But pain is generative, in a way.

That’s a really good way to say it.

When we’re grieving, when we’re hurting—I mean, grief is also an expression of love. I hate to say all of this, it seems like a terrible idea to perpetuate, but—

I think it’s either the most surface or the deepest thing. And, like we said before, grief can only come from the highest joys, the greatest things in life, you know? There were some things that I really needed to find out about myself in these songs. And so, in that regard, it’s been worth it, because I needed these songs to find out how I felt, and to really, actually say how I’ve been feeling.

I think of you as a person who considers language kind of pliable. And not just language but punctuation, too. You’ve made up some words. My favorite Bon Iver neologism is “fuckified.” It’s almost Shakespearean! Where does that playfulness come from?

When you said punctuation, my first thought was, I just did it wrong. But, no, it’s just expression. One of my best friends growing up—we’re still really close—we get into semantic arguments sometimes. He’ll say, “Justin, you can’t say something is super unique, or really unique. It’s either unique or it’s not.”

Your friend should get a job at The New Yorker.

Shout out to Keil! It’s the “SABLE,” thing. I didn’t really know what it was. And the “fuckified” in “10 d E A T h b R E a s T ⚄ ⚄”—you just have to kind of let it out as an expression. You brought up the opacity of my lyrics. It really feels like I’ve sort of found this new narrative structure in these songs, where it’s a little more clear what’s been going on, and I’m kind of just saying it, versus dancing around it.

The stories feel really close. Your voice feels really close. It’s a little like having you in the room.

I wanted it to be like that. To be right in your ear, you know?

“AWARDS SEASON” opens with the line “I can handle much more than I can handle”—that line flays me every time I hear it. I think it’s possible to perhaps understand those words as a person admitting to being overwhelmed. But, to me, it mostly sounds like someone discovering that they’re stronger than they thought they were. We’re lucky to learn that about ourselves in really tough moments, that we are actually pretty—

Resilient. And then there’s the spot where you know you gotta turn around and go back, because the mechanism isn’t working anymore. The metaphor I’ve always used is that it’s like running an engine with no oil. You are doing long-term damage. It takes a long time to re-oil, to reset the machine. My dad and I watched the Buster Douglas–Mike Tyson fight when I was growing up. Douglas’s mom had just passed but he still beat Tyson in Tokyo. Douglas would say you just have to “Suck it up.” My dad always says that. When I’m feeling like I’m not gonna make it, I remember my dad saying that to me. I don’t know—there’s times to suck it up and move on and get through it, and then there’s times where you gotta take a knee, and say, “You know what? I’m not strong enough for this, and I can’t do this alone.”

As you were saying that—“suck it up”—I was thinking, is that good advice? I think sometimes it is, right? And then, often, it is not, and it’s more complicated, and you need to ask for help and take care of yourself. But there are moments where we have to test ourselves a little bit, see what we can bear, what we can handle.

Yeah, right?

That Midwestern stoicism runs deep in the Vernon men.

Yeah, it does.

Speaking of healing: you’ve discussed the utility of psychedelic drugs in your life, in terms of managing anxiety or enabling creativity. I suffered abig loss two years ago, and there were times when the immensity of my grief felt truly insurmountable, to the extent that I wanted to manually reset my brain, to restore my capacity for happiness or lightness. There’s evidence suggesting that psychedelic therapies can be quite useful for grief. I’m still sort of figuring out if it makes sense for me. But I’m curious how that stuff fits into your life these days.

Well, these days, not much. It’s not in my life anymore, really. I once thought about pot, it’s sort of like going to the bowling alley and putting those bumpers up. It’s, like, “This rules. Every ball, I hit pins. Every idea I have has got legs.” After a number of years, that feeling gets really addictive. Mushrooms, LSD—there were times where it was very, very therapeutic. I think I look at it like opening a door. It has certainly stirred deeper pits of empathy and understanding and oneness with human beings and the world. Those were ideas I already had, but now solidified—that we are each other, and hurting one another is not going to get us anywhere but down. But the metaphor about it opening a door . . . you have to close a door. If you leave that door open too long, the snow’s gonna come in and you’re gonna get fried. I don’t look back with many regrets, although I do look back with accountability and a sense of reckoning.

Looking at your discography, I presume a kind of hunger in you for collaboration. You once said, “Power has come to me, but it’s not fun to wield by yourself, and it’s not as useful if it’s just your vision.” What appeals to you about resisting the auteur path?

I love this question. I believe in the power of the individual—don’t get me wrong—but I’ve always just found that it distracts from the point. Why do we like a song? Is it because of who’s singing it to us? Or is it the song? And I just think it’s the song. For me, it is. For me, it’s about the song and what the music does. It can be very distracting when it becomes, “Oh, I love Bon Iver so much. I want more Bon Iver. I want to see Bon Iver. I want to get his autograph.” I’m sensitive to it, and the attention can be overwhelming. I’m also uncomfortable with it because it distracts from the point that music delivered me to myself.

But I can also say when I first heard “Hello in There,” by John Prine, I was twelve years old, and I saw a universe of human joy and pain and love and life and death, all in three minutes. And of course I’m gonna be, like, “What was that?” And it’s useful, right, to have a name or whatever. But I’ve also found that in moments where I’ve thought, Oh, maybe I am really good at this, or really special, or I’ve got some sort of gift—really I’ve just rigged up a huge antenna to catch things. I have gotten better at crafting songs. But I just don’t need to dwell on it, and it’s not going to make the songs any more true or less true.

I wonder if what you’re talking about, the emphasis that we place on performers and performance, I wonder if it’s because—this is a very funny thing for me to say as a music critic—no one understands songwriting? Even songwriters! A lot of people speak of the process as almost this sort of divine channelling, wherein a sound or an idea or a melody comes to them, and they’re just receiving and recording it. It’s easier to be, like, there’s a guy up there and he’s singing and he has a voice and I also have a voice, that makes sense. But this other thing, where does the signal come from?

I mean, that’s the big question, right? Why are we worried about what happens when we die? What are we trying to find out? What is this mystery that we all seem to agree is there?

And music, in particular—neurologists are always studying it, trying to understand why it works on us—there’s no clear evolutionary advantage or reason for people to be absolutely devastated or buoyed by music. But we are, and we always have been. Maybe there’s a little bit of God in it.

Having been atheist and an agnostic at different times in my life, growing up Lutheran and then studying world religion in college, I was cynical, almost angry that when we use the word “God,” we’re so often misusing it. But I’ve been saying the word again lately, because I’m sick and tired of saying “synchronicity and coincidence.” And I just don’t know what else to call it. I’ve had friends who are deeply, deeply religious, and they talk about what God means to them. I’ve been a little more open to it. I’m certainly not a theist. But I like the word “God” and I’m back to using it.

The performance piece of it and the writing-recording piece of it—I’m not a musician, but they almost feel diametrically opposed to me. It’s weird that anyone can do both.

Nobody ever says that, but I agree. I’ve always looked at ’em like they’re the masculine and the feminine. They are a yin and yang. Masculine is live.

It’s power.

Yeah, it’s out. The record is so timeless and concave, or whatever the metaphors are. I actually mixed the EP. These are my performances. These are the moments that I wanted to create. I’m not going to think about how to instantly re-create them [onstage]. I’ve been working on this song for five years. I’m not gonna do that to myself. I’m not gonna do that to these songs. I really worked hard on getting the guitar to sound like it’s in your head on “SPEYSIDE.” I’m gonna let that breathe for a second, before I get out there and go “Woooooo!”

To return to collaboration: it forces you to be incredibly honest and vulnerable. Things that are hard for me—things that are hard for a lot of people. You have to have a line of communication open that allows you to be really frank about what’s working. How has that been for you? Have there been moments where your vision has not aligned with someone else’s? Have you ever had to scream, “Get out of my studio!”?

Twice. You know who you are. . . . [Laughs.] I think there are just times when you have to communicate. You mentioned Midwestern stoicism. I just learned that saying how you feel is really important. I’m, like, forty-three years old. [Laughs.]

Can you teach me?

Oh, God, it’s really hard. You just have to do it. It sucks. But saying, “Oh, just try it again,” is a way of saying, “That wasn’t it.” And then sometimes you’re, like, “Well, it’s never going to be it,” and then you don’t really have to say anything. So I never had to practice being super honest. I would just be, like, “Well, I’m not going to use that,” or “I’m going to redo that later,” or “I’ll edit it.” “I’ll chop it up later,” is what they say. But, yeah, of course, some of my longtime collaborators, like Rob Moose, we just have a language that we’ve built over the years. It’s pretty easy for us to find what each other wants. And we’re both very good at giving space to the other. Like, “O.K., I’m not sure what you mean, but let’s explore that.” Rob’s one of my favorite collaborators, if not my favorite. Musically, what I’ve gotten to achieve with him is just kind of wild.

You and I are around the same age—twenty-nine.

[Laughs.] Yep . . .

And I wonder what this era of life—some people, not me, but some people might call it middle age—has felt like for you.

Kind of like graduating from a master’s program or something. Feeling a little old, a little aged out, a little like Chris Farley at the bottom of the hill in “Black Sheep” saying, “What in the hell was that all about?” Like I said, I think I’ve been reckoning a lot with times I haven’t been so great, or times I haven’t been able to be a good brother or family member. While I feel a little weary, I feel very young in another way, in the sense that I get a chance now not only to look back but to look forward. Kind of a refresh. Not a restart—these are forty-three-year-old bones. But I’m taking care of my body more. I’m taking care of my mental health more. And if I look back and see a lot of suffering in my past it’s because I wasn’t treating myself correctly. Certainly, I’ve had everything I’ve needed to be flourishing, to be a kind and loving person. But when I look back, I see a lot of confusion, anxiety, and despair. So I’ve gotten to this point now—and these songs have really helped me open that door, or whatever the metaphor is—to start a new journey and to be alive and present and grateful from now on, as much as I can be.

In one’s early forties, there’s often that feeling of, Oh, this isn’t quite what I thought was going to happen.

“Nothing’s really happened like I thought it would.” My best friend Trevor always refers to it as “the memory of the future.” When we were young, if our childhood was good, we project ourselves into a happy adulthood. You start to put pieces together, you start moving the furniture around. And then when you actually get there you realize you’ve been trying to steer toward that so hard that you kind of missed some shit, and it’s never gonna be like how it was. . . .

Sometimes we end up chasing these ideas from our childhoods, and they guide us for the rest of our lives, for better or worse.

I feel like we are barely driving. I look at it like you’re yanking on the wheel. You’re down below, by the gas and brakes. But that’s all we’ve got.

I can’t tell if that makes me feel helpless, or if it makes me feel empowered. Helpless in the sense of, “I’m not in control of this.” But it’s also freeing in the sense of, “I’m not in control of this.” Right?

Exactly. That is a freedom.

_The idea that life just follows some twisted path, like a river—

That’s been one of my favorite metaphors for life. The Daoist concept of the way of the water. Life is like a river, and if you don’t stay in the flow you’re gonna get stuck. You might get pulled under, you might be on shore or in a bend for too long. Or you can go down the river and drown, or flourish, or get to the Holy Land, or whatever. . . .

Who knows!

It’s multiple choice. Actually, it’s not multiple choice at all. Actually, not choice at all. Multiple possibilities.

“SABLE,” starts in a place of contrition, which is part of the process of becoming hopeful. But it ends in a moment of radical possibility.

Mm-hmm. It does. It’s that “almost” word again. It’s, like, we’re right almost there. Almost.

Maybe now the Almost feels less scary.

We’ve been through some things.

You made most of “i,i” at Sonic Ranch, in Texas, but “SABLE,” was recorded at April Base, your studio in Eau Claire. Do you work differently there than in other places?

Yeah. It’s been a big reflection point. It just so happened that April Base went under an intense renovation process right at the beginning of 2019, and that’s when we moved most of the stuff to Texas and set up there for almost a couple months. But then, when the record was done and we went on that tour, by that time, it was 2020. And then the pandemic happened and the studio was empty, so I had to move into this small house on the property and live there by myself. I kind of set up a makeshift studio. It was really a good experience, because I hadn’t set up my own gear in a long time.

The ritual of untangling the cables, plugging things in . . .

Oh, man, there was a point where I was, like, “I need to switch the screen so it’s over there.” It took me three days to untangle the cables. And I was, like, “This is good for me! This is really good for me.” But to answer your question about being out there: I think, for years—during the psychedelic mind-opening years, especially—everything was expanding quickly. Then, at a certain point, it started to feel a little stagnant. My social life, my creative and collaborative life . . . there was a circle and everything was inside of it. I hadn’t met a lot of new friends. I hadn’t really been in other studios. And so I think there’s been a little bit of action in the last couple years of, like, let me get out of here a little more.

And now you’re spending time in California. How does that feel?

Necessary.

All that sunshine.

I mean, holy hell. I am Wisconsin, through and through. But if I’m just there then what is April Base for? And what’s my love of Wisconsin for if I don’t have to come back to it? Also, it’s a little lonely out there. A lot of my family and my oldest friends have all moved away. And so I also haven’t had a lot of opportunity to meet new friends that weren’t somehow connected to the past—

Or to your work.

Or to my work. In L.A., it was just, “Hi, my name is Justin.” “Hi, my name is So-and-So.” “Do you want to be friends?” “This is great.” And I almost started crying when I realized—this is my first new friend, based on normal circumstances, in sixteen or seventeen years. That’s been a very positive thing. There’s a little anonymity for me, walking around. A lot of anonymity in Los Angeles, in particular. So it’s been very positive and challenging, in the best ways.

What you’re saying about making new friends in midlife—I get it, there’s a giddiness to it. It’s nice to meet new people now because we’re always changing, and here’s this newest, freshest iteration of you, and you get to present that to someone, instead of them inheriting a bunch of ideas.

You don’t have to open your book and be, “Who am I again? This is how I am? These are the things I believe in? Let me just make sure I get all that. . . .” You can just be. ♦

[runthepockets]

I kinda love what a weird horny sad freak MJK is on most A Perfect Circle shit. I know TOOL gets meme'd on a lot, but I do think the guy is really smart and occupies a really good space in Metal and Hard Rock.

The guy gives so much dignity to fucking everything he writes. You can tell he believes and feels everything he's saying. Unlike most guys in heavy music he doesn't really go for overdramatic metaphors or edgy lyricism for the sake of edge, he's genuinely just....a very sad and confused dude.

Take my favorite tracks on Mer De Noms, for example; Magdelena, which is simply a self indulgent anthem about a man who has a thing for a stripper, coupled with savory and grinding Nu / Industrial Metal guitars. Orestes, which is about being faced with the options of either pulling the plug on your mother, who's been in a coma since you were in 4th grade, and dealing with both the internal and external scrutiny of doing such a thing, or proceeding to let her suffer for the illusion of being the good son and pleasing the people in your life, which is probably the worst nightmare any child could undergo in the face of a sick parent. 3 Libras, which relays a passionate love that a man has for a woman through obvious and meaningful actions, only to have that love dashed or written off as a general altercation. Sleeping Beauty, which follows a man coming to the bitter realization that he can't "fix" someone who doesn't want to be helped. Thomas, which derives its name from a chapter in John 20:24-31; that is, Thomas questioning Jesus' return until he can put his fingers in Christ's wounds, the instrumental and lyrical delivery of which feels like a "wholesome", upstanding Christian man following all the rules for the majority of his life and still getting fucked over toward the end, losing everything and everyone important to him and holding his head in his hands in front of the church podium with nothing to say except "show me the way to forgive you, show me the way to let go", and Thinking of You, which grants so much dignity and earnestness to the concept of simply jerking off to your crush that I didn't even realize it was about masturbating, at first. This doesn't even delve into the facts that the majority of the tracks are named after either biblical characters or people in Keenan's real life, putting his interpersonal relationships and his relationship with god at the forefront of the album.

I also really love the Thirteenth Step; it's raw, it's striking, it's the perfect mix of angst and aggression. Every song is perfect, and though it generally follows the premise of a more experienced AA member falling for a newer one, the themes of all the songs are pretty relatable, at least for me. It's all as sombre and haunting and atmospheric as it is real, and as much as I love Metal, that's not really something I'm used to getting out of it. Pretty much the only thing stopping me from labeling APC one of my favorite bands is that they only have two good albums, lol, but damn if they're aren't good fucking albums.

[kyoeth]

lately i've been so addicted to chatgpt.

it started with mere face reading of my face, and of kylian and his colleagues, and of luigi.

and then as such a psychology porn that luigi was, i tested his digital footprint and his handwritten notes, and i then uploaded mine too.

i was having a lot of thoughts in my head like usual, i started to wonder the gap between my exterior and interior, and whether our linguistic choices and patterns indicate our interior at all. somehow i uploaded my lecturer's emails for psycholinguistic analysis. obviously chatgpt didn't give me any valuable insights. but it was very addictive and i didn't have anyone else to talk to.

during this time, i came back to some old questions: why did i have a lot of neurotic friends? and why do people always assume that i am cold and distant? i knew people with high neuroticism were a lot more needy than our normal peers, and it was convenient for a friendship as i didn't have to do the talking, but i didn't set boundaries until suddenly their vicious emotional turmoil was suffocating. i also know i am always reserved except when i pursue sources/materials for stories or i have to get things done, but i am pretty much romantic and idealistic so people calling me cold still sounds kinda funny. then, last night until this morning, i had a long discussion with chatgpt, uploading pictures of my handwritten journals (the pages talking about the relatable concepts on how to make sense of life's impermanence and random incidents). that's when it started to identify my pattern:

external emotional volatility

internal emotional waves

my fascination with the beach that conveniently holds two different worlds (land and the sea)

i believe almost everyone can relate to this theory (as you can tell chatgpt is super generic). anyway it's still kinda cool:

so when we listen to other people story, we are standing at the shore, looking at their emotional waves. there is some distance that allow us to easily see the dots and connect them to spot patterns and understand the bigger picture.

but when we look inward, the scene is different: we are surfing the emotional waves from our lived experience — the rising, the peak, and the downfall. sometimes, to me, the short period of a happy ending is absurd. it's harder to develop a strong analysis when you're in the middle of it.

the sky above is kinda cool too. at the beach, within a few steps, you have the option to go to a completely different world and get a different life, but when you look up, it's basically the same sky.

***

anyway that's the craziest update about chatgpt who at this point has known and understood me better than anybody else. it's just this close of surpassing my own self-awareness.

not sure what i feel about that. it's been years since i realized i am not that special. so fuck it? let chatgpt get my data.

also apple tv's sunny is kinda optimistic when stating that robots are created not to become more humans but to help us to find our humanity. yeah, that's a pretty solid excuse to waste my precious resting hours on this useless chatgpt brainstorm habit.

***

i am so crazy about collecting random, unrelated things and then trying to find/make up a red thread out of them. here are some memorable things from ISEA events in the past three years:

June 2022 “You only get what you measure. And monitoring matters.” - Ellery K.

June 2023 "When people ask, “What can you bring to the table?” Remember: first is social impacts, and second, money is the means to it, not the end of it. Both elements are essential in achieving systemic change." - Christina N. S.

Jan 2024 Look inward to move forward. - my own version to summarize this

Jan 2025 xxx

[anxiously-going]

1. Tbh, keeping the sinister stuff away from each other is a lot easier than anything else, it's really the point of the disorder. I know only the vaguest facts about our main trauma. There are parts who know the details of that same trauma. I'm not allowed to know those details right now and may never be. That is part of the nature of the disorder. I don't really have much experience in me (Pidge) trying to keep information from others. But I know they keep information from me with great amounts of success.

2. This one it depends. Sometimes we can talk freely, sometimes it takes concentration to discern what's being said. Think of it as similar to the way folks talk about auditory processing issues.

3. Honestly it's hard to tell exactly, but yes, I believe so. Sometimes we communicate via words, other times it is through feelings or concepts or even images. Communication can be very similar to the way telepathy is presented in fiction.

4. If they're co con yes, in they're not, not in the moment, but they would have access to that information when they come up to the front.

5. Both. Sometimes when I'm alone I'll talk out loud or mouth the words and it would appear like a one sided conversation.

6. It seems so. When I'm fronting I'm not very aware of what's going on in the back. Sometimes I catch ideas of what's going on, but if I'm fronting. I'm in charge of appearing normal and running everyday life and existence, so it's better for me to not have to be aware wholly of what's going on in the back and also trying to focus on the external world.

7. Yes and no? I need help with this one usually. Sometimes I get spikes of anxiety from things happening inside and I'll ask one of our caretakers to check in on things for me and step in. But it can be hard for me to block it out because I'm very close to one of out trauma holders and I don't want to block things out when he's the one dealing with something because I want to be the one to help. This is generally considered a bad idea by said caretakers though.

8. Yes. Tbh, I don't know how exactly or how to explain it, it kinda just happens. And it depends on what it is. We went to the eye doctor today and if like C came to the front they would have the knowledge that that happened today almost immediately upon fronting. They could access that memory file, as it were. Memory sharing has also taken the form of "air dropping" images. For example I was trying to remember a song I'd heard years ago and R was able to show me the memory he had of the radio screen. It was kinda telepathic(?) but it was like being shown a picture.

9. I cannot visit another system's inner world because inner worlds are part of our brains and telepathy between people is not a thing. However, there are different sections of our own inner world that can have restricted access. For example the trauma holder mentioned above has a his own part of our collective inner world. I can only access it with him and with his permission. There are other parts that I know exist, but I have no access to.

10. This one varies. Our alters have spent basically our whole life masking as an afab person and our presentation is very covert. So externally other than maybe a temperament difference, you wouldn't be able to tell. Internally is very different. We have several parts that internally present as amab and internally that's just how they are. We do have a child part, but I don't really have access to her or her space, but the vague memories I have of her (monitored) time in the front was playing games on the phone.

Of course this is just my experience and other systems will have different experiences. Questions are welcome, though we do retain the right to decline to answer, and can be helpful even to us. We're early in our diagnosis and treatment, but this has always been our life. We just have a little more awareness of things now.

DID Systems, I have more questions:

Is it possible to keep secrets from your alters (Nothing shady or sinister, just maybe like a birthday or Christmas present/surprise)?

When you hear your alters talking in your head, is it random or do you need to concentrate to hear them?

Can alters hear each other's thoughts (like if you think about something, would they hear it)

If you kiss or hug someone, would your alters be able to tell?

When you talk to your alters, do you talk out loud, or do you think it?

Can you block off the person who's fronting from hearing you in your head?

Can the person who's fronting block the rest of the system out?

Is it possible to share each other's memories? How?

Can you visit each other's inner worlds?

How do child, animal, and opposite gender alters work? Do they dress/talk like a child/opposite gender and act like the animal?

Thanks a bunch!

[saintobio]

wrote this in my notes app last month🫶🏼

hiii, thank you so much for another chapter. your asks are turned off rn so i’m writing this in my notes so i can submit it when they’re turned back on.

this is just my personal take on what’s going on right now, although it’s evident y/n has moved on from satoru, i feel like another reason why she wanted satoru to move on was bc she was afraid she’d fall for him again.

she knows she’ll be tied to satoru for the rest of her life with sachiro, so there’s still a slim chance of her falling for satoru. she wants him to move on while she can say she’s still moved on from him.

it’s still satoru x y/n so that’s why i’m not fully convinced she won’t be moved on from him entirely.

though y/n is open and honest to herself about her feelings, she still doesn’t speak up about EVERYTHING that may bother her. but bc of the traumatic experience her and satoru had, she doesn’t want to admit to herself that there is that possibility of still holding feelings for him.

like love never really dies if you get me.

also she spent 3 years away from him just so she could get back on her feet as well as move on from him, if she ends up going back to him she’ll feel weak like she did before in the relationship.

even tho she owns and embraces(?) her flaws, including acknowledging the good and bad in her relationship with satoru. i feel like going through such a traumatic experience like their relationship, she’ll refuse and hold back on her feelings for satoru.

both of them have grown so much, shes acknowledged how satoru changed but still lives with the fear of being treated how the old satoru treated her.

also her relationship with toji is something that she needs rather than wants, im not ynji (?) anti but imo they don’t have the same chemistry as they used to in SN (maybe it’s just bc i’m a gemini venus idk).

i feel like she’s trying to convince herself that tojis the better option bc logically he is, but for love you’ve to separate head from heart. toji was like a safety net for y/n, she has that stability that she didn’t have with satoru.

and with how highly y/n thinks of toji, she fears she’ll hurt him since she’s been hurt before, as well as his wife’s death. she wants to be there for toji just as much as he’s there for her.

i’m trying not to mean this in a ‘negative’ way but sometimes it feels like y/n is with toji sort of like a repayment for everything he’s done for her.

this is just my own interpretation, im excited to see what you’ll do w the rest of the story ^_^

that makes a lot of sense !! and your thoughts are very well put together <3 considering yn’s nature, these are very realistic and human of her, plus there’s so much conflict between her internal and external feelings which is why she’s having a hard time coming to terms with what she really wants vs what she needs. in that same sense, it makes her kinda predictable but also unpredictable, iykwim?

[rinn-e]

AMAZING Tag, love it ~ thanks @wuffgang-ameowdeus-moozart

Trope rating game

rules: How much do these tropes affect your decision to click on a fic? -10 -> very dissuaded 

0 - don’t care either way 

+10 -> very enticed 

nope -> if it’s a hard no and you’d never click on a fic with that tag or or you even have the tag blocked or you’d insta click out of the fic if it wasn’t tagged.  Bonus points for explaining the rating and whether it’s conditional.

Age gap: +8

LOVE IT, especially when it's subverted and the younger one is pursuing the older one (but it's fun either way). There's so much potential for conflict/angst and character development. Difficult to do right in tv shows/book series etc. (problems can be romanticized), but in fanfictions it's my jam. There's just something about an older character guiding the younger one, being a source of comfort and security (or the other way around for a fun subversion!), and the clash of different life stages (possibly).

Codependency: +10

Yes, yes, yes. When they can't live without each other? Would do anything for each other? Two against the world? Such deep emotions, love that shit.

Obsession/Possessiveness, jealousy: +8

Love it (deep emotions, angst etc.), but - especially in fanfictions - some characters get OOC due to an inflation of this trope in fandoms - when characters act possessive/jealous who in canon are the sweetest, most relaxed beans, that's annoying. One-sided obsessions are THE SHIT btw.

Opposites (grumpy/sunshine etc): +4

Used to be whatever in regards to this trope, but I realized I love the clash of optimist vs. pessimist, forcing them both to consider the other's perspective. Fun dynamic and banter usually. Opposites in general can be unrealistic, though - two people need to have some things in common to be friends/lovers [the best lovers are also best friends].

Enemies to lovers, Enemies with benefits: +8

I've always been a fan of this (two of my first ships were Delena and Klaroline from TVD). Please make them real enemies, though, makes for a better conflict and please let them be actually affected by their feelings, let them struggle and overthink and question themselves and the other, until the other one's redeemed themselves in their eyes. I want real character growth/development (corruption arcs are great too!). Enemies just having (hate) sex is kinda boring to me.

Friends with benefits: -2

Usually boring to me. I live for the conflict and unresolved sexual tension. Friends or enemies with benefits just feel like they're with each other for superficial reasons (= their looks), and it takes all the interesting will they/won't they out of the relationship imo. Also it feels like the feelings involved aren't as deep because if you already have sex, why don't go all the way?

Sex to feelings: -6

See above. Worse because there are no feelings whatsoever involved in the beginning, and I'm the kind of person that needs to feel some kind of connection before I am attracted to someone else, so this probably wouldn't happen to me, I don't care for it.

Fake dating/relationship: +2

Used to really like it, but is done bad very often. Too little creativity, often unrealistic, and I hate when they already love each other from page one and just wouldn't admit it. I want to see some kind of internal development, not just external reasons preventing their getting together/miscommunication.

Friends to lovers: +5

Like it. When it's done well (by which I mean a good amount of angst/conflict is involved), it's amazing. When it's not, it's boring.

Found Family: +10

Can't get enough of it. Usually has fun dynamics and brings out the best of each character. Bonus points for original, creative characters and redeemed enemies lol.

Hurt/Comfort: +10

What can I see, I'm an angst queen. All the fics/books I've written/read have some kind of hurt/comfort involved (sometimes only the hurt part, yeah I'm cruel :P).

Love Triangle: -3

Can be fun, but it's usually unrealistic and the YA genre is oversaturated with it (usually having a bland female protagonist two other people (hot men with no personality whatsoever) swoon over, and you wonder why the hell they would even like her). Subvert the trope in a fun way or get away from me. In fanfics it's usually better done.

Poly, open relationships: +2

The better love triangle, but I wouldn't exactly seek them out (as they are usually fluff pieces with established relationships and that's kinda boring to me).

Mistaken/hidden identity: +8

Love it! Creates a lot of conflict for both sides involved and usually makes for some neat plot twists. Bonus points for great foreshadowing.

Monsterfucking: +3

My vampire phase was fun, but I feel like there's so much of it nowadays that it feels all the same. The details/dynamics of the characters involved are important, not whether one of them's a monster or not. Be brave with the trope, go the horror route, and we're talking ;)

Pregnancy: -10

Hate it. Usually makes the characters OOC, feels like it's always the same, and it squicks me out honestly. Especially bad if the pregnant character gets reduced to 'being a mother(/father if it's mpreg brr)'. In the rare case I tolerate it it can be done to highlight a character's journey, but even then I prefer to have other conflicts in the focus.

Second Chance: 0

Great if the character did something to deserve it. Horrible when it feels undeserved.

Slowburn: +7

Honestly, I usually lose interest when the fluffy established relationship stuff starts and slowburns usually get the most conflict/angst out of a relationship, but they can also be annoying when the plot drags and you know the author's just coming up with more ridiculous reasons to keep them away from each other/create conflict.

Soulmates: +8

A fun way to get two characters to interact/finally talk it out/confront each other. Love when it's angsty (f.ex. one already knows the other one's their soulmate but they are afraid how they will react, or it's some enemies to lovers story where they are like wtf how can it be him/her?? and after they spend time together, they realize they are not so differnet after all). Doesn't really work for longfics/longer books imo, but really fun for OSs (I've written a lot of them).

Tagging (no pressure of course <3): @lithugraph, @mandalora, @quartzguts, @askefinns, @hachetre, @seidraikiri @yaoitrap-askefinn-brainrot, @askebjoners, @jovialkidbonktrash Have a good day y'all!

Trope rating game

I'm so late but I love these! tagged by @zerokrox-blog ❤️❤️❤️

rules: How much do these tropes affect your decision to click on a fic? -10 -> very dissuaded 

0 - don’t care either way 

+10 -> very enticed 

nope -> if it’s a hard no and you’d never click on a fic with that tag or or you even have the tag blocked or you’d insta click out of the fic if it wasn’t tagged.  Bonus points for explaining the rating and whether it’s conditional.

Age gap: 0

Definity depends. I don't seek it out but anything like 10 years or less doesn't freak me out too bad.

Codependency: 10

I love it so much it's ~embarrassing~ But I think thats the funny thing with what I write and what I like in fic in general, it's almost all stuff I'd hate in real life?? What does that say about me?

Obsession/Possessiveness, jealousy: 10

See above!

Opposites (grumpy/sunshine etc): 2

I don't seek it out persay but its almost always cute as hell.

Enemies to lovers, Enemies with benefits: -2

I'm such a true love/fluff addict, I usually dont got the patience. But I have seen sooo many good fics with that trope though, I respect the writers.

Friends with benefits: -2

Just say you love each other already jesus christ 😭😭 (Did I mention I have no patience??)

Sex to feelings: -1

See above

Fake dating/relationship: -1

Same ish with friends and benefits! I'm such a baby gee wiz.

Friends to lovers: +2

It's cute!

Found Family: 10

Love it soooo much. Adore, adore, adore, adore!

Hurt/Comfort: +5

The guarantee of comfort, always gets me going.

Love Triangle: -10

Make em all fuck or get out of my face honestly.

Poly, open relationships: 0

Eh, I like reading the occasional like closed poly relationships or threeway but open ones just dont get me. Maybe because of bad experiences?

Mistaken/hidden identity: 3

I like them....the stupidier it is the better and no i do not know why!

Monsterfucking: +10

Yeahhhhhhhhh, I'm a fan. Definite fan. Mega fan.

Pregnancy: 5

Omegaverse or not, I like it. Which again. actual pregnancy is one of my top 5 fears. Whats up with that?

Second Chance: 0

Eh, don't look for it don't mind it. Im such a little bitch with angst it's not even funny.

Slowburn: 0

Can take or leave.

Soulmates: +5

It's cute!

Tagging with no pressure! @spectrum-spectre @letscrank @devondespresso @jjoesjonas @pearynice @heavenlycrashes @henderdads @hammity-hammer @homosexual-having-tea

[whentherewerebicycles]

michelle and my dad both independently said that the “frantic desire to jump in and fix stuff and save people from failing” sounds like my mom (it definitely is) and then after I hung up with my dad I was thinking more about where that instinct comes from and it made me kinda sad. my mom grew up in an environment where failure was not tolerated, and where making mistakes or messing up even in small ways meant that you were irredeemably bad and stupid, or even (depending on the nature of the mistake) a wicked and evil person. to mess up meant that you were worthless and everyone around you would look at you and know that. and her father was always so much more interested in pointing out other people’s mistakes (perhaps especially his own family’s) and heaping scorn upon them instead of helping them learn or giving them support in trying again.

I feel like sometimes when I reflect on my childhood I think, oh I wish my mom hadn’t spent so much of her life jumping in to try to rescue me from logical consequences, I wish she had let me fail more often, I think I would have been less terrified of failure and less inclined to hinge my sense of self-worth on external achievement & validation. and I do wish that was true because I think that’s probably just a better way to raise happy, healthy, well-adjusted kids who can handle setbacks without shattering. but I can see it too as an act of love, even if not the ‘best’ way to express it. if you have internalized so, so deeply the idea that messing up or failing at something meant having to feel small and utterly worthless, then it’s an act of love to try desperately and instinctively to shield your children from ever experiencing that—to say, on some level: no, I won’t let you feel the way I felt, that’s not the childhood I want for you, I want you to be good and valued and loved. but of course, of course, you can’t live like that, you can’t live a life without failure, and children absorb your terror of making mistakes without understanding the dense tangle of feelings and experiences out of which it grew, and that unconscious absorption spawns its own murky subterranean forms of shame, related to yours yet distinct from it, a dense tangle of feelings they will have to spend their own lives untangling.

a few days ago my mom texted me a book about parenting that she’d heard about on npr, and she said “you’ll see every mistake we made, but we were doing the best we could with what we knew then. I wish I could have shown you kids that it was okay to fail, instead of thinking that making mistakes would destroy your lives.” and one of the things I said to her was that one of the great gifts she’s given me as a parent is that she’s let me see how much she’s changed and grown over the last ten years in particular. she’s shown me it’s okay to work hard to let go of the painful parts of the past and to become someone different, happier, more compassionate than the person you were. and (though I didn’t say this part to her) I know she doesn’t always see that as an act of love or good parenting; I think she sees it sometimes as another variety of failure, or as a way of trying to make up—too little, too late—for all the things she feels she did “wrong” in raising us. but it really is a gift, as a child, to see your parent slowly work to move beyond an upbringing steeped in shame and into a different kind of self. I’m glad to get to witness that, in the tiny little glimpses she lets me see, and I find it deeply hopeful to see. you can always change. it’s never too late; you’re never too old. and if you can change, that has to mean that your mistakes and failures aren’t forever. it has to mean that the moments where you get it wrong don’t tell a secret truth about who you are and always have been and are condemned to be forever. it means that no matter what you’ve done, no matter how you feel you’ve failed, you get to move on. try again. be loved, even.

[nothorses]

hi i have a question if you dont mind! i have a lot of bottom dysphoria, but i just really can't tell if i have suppressed social dysphoria for the most part, or if i am a trans guy. i definitely know i want a "male" body, but i also know dysphoria isn't supposed to = trans, and there isnt supposed to be such a thing as male or female bodies. so how do i know if i am nonbinary vs a man? or both lol? i dont have many men in my life and i kinda trained myself to not like them, so i cant tell if im just suppressing a desire to be a man. i guess my question is does wanting a penis almost always make you want to be a man, or male-aligned?? thank you im so sorry if this doesnt make sense .. also thank you so much for your posts - they have really helped me realize i had a radfem circle without knowing it and it was keeping me ignoring my gender stuff <3

(sorry again for the super late response!!)

This is definitely a complicated question, and it's got a complicated answer.

So, first: you are totally correct that dysphoria =/= trans, and body =/= gender. You don't need dysphoria to be trans in the first place, and whatever dysphoria you do have does not necessarily dictate the gender you are. Penis =/= man, therefore wanting a penis does not necessarily make you a man, and not wanting a penis does not necessarily mean you do not want to be a man.

Now, the reason we say this is because we're arguing against the cissexist idea that gender originates solely from anatomy:

Anatomical gender model: Gender is determined by the body parts you have (penis = man, vagina = woman).

Which has been extended by transmedicalists to include the body parts you want to have- necessitating that you want those body parts (and subsequently experience dysphoria when you do not have them) in order to be considered that gender. Which leads us to a model that dictates gender as originating in the brain, while sex originates in anatomy, and the idea that these things can be mismatched.

"Brain" gender model: Gender originates in your brain, sometimes separate from your anatomical gender. A "mismatch" between the two is where dysphoria comes from.

This also has some flaws; it doesn't leave room for trans people without dysphoria, it still equates anatomy to gender (penis = man, vagina = woman), and it doesn't leave room for nonbinary people either.

So now we have a few other models for understanding gender:

Social gender model: Gender is determined (or at least heavily influenced) by one's relationship with social gender roles and cultural values around gender.

Internal gender model: Gender is intrinsic, internal, and individual. There is no external influence or determining factor; it's entirely within you.

"Gender is a social construct" model: Gender does not exist, it's just a lie made up by the patriarchy. Nobody experiences gender; they just experience gender roles. (This is sometimes coupled with the anatomical gender model, esp. with TERFs).

I'm very much of the opinion that none of these models can really stand alone; gender can be influenced by one's relationship to social/cultural values, it can be entirely internal, and for some people, gender can be completely irrelevant; maybe only their anatomy matters to them, or maybe they just have no concept of gender at all.

What's important here is that all of these experiences are individual and personal, and everyone is going to have a different concept of gender, what it means, and where it comes from for them personally. All of those experiences are legitimate, and deserve respect and space in the conversation.

Which means that, yes, sometimes gender is attached to anatomy for some people. Dysphoria is still a real experience that people have, and it can absolutely be attached to gender.

I was dysphoric about my breasts because I am a man. I understand that men can have breasts, and I see other men with breasts as men. But I, personally, needed to have them removed in order to be at peace with my body, because I am a man, and because I could not see my own body as a man's body until I did not have breasts anymore.

At the same time, much as I would like to have a penis, I can see my body as that of a man's without one. That's just how gender works for me- it doesn't need to mean anything about anyone else.

So yes, wanting a penis does not necessarily make you a man; but that doesn't mean that wanting a penis necessarily means nothing at all, either.

The question I would be asking is not just "what is my gender", but rather, "what does gender mean to me, personally? How do I need to see myself in order to be happy, and what do I need in order to get there?"

[ghostdrinkssoup]

hi! i’m kinda new to hannibal despite it being on my watchlist for six years sdfjsjhd. i still have three eps left till the end of the series and even though i already know what happens, i wanted to ask you - what did you feel when you watched the finale for the first time? were you surprised??

ps. i think your blog is really neat :)

hello and thank you !! dw I’m still pretty new to hannibal too, I first watched it in january I believe? but I’d been meaning to for AGES I’m such a fan of gothic horror + my film lecturer at uni liked a short I made in class (had to film a stalking scene using horror elements) and he was like “you should watch more horror stuff, it might help” and boom, here I am :D

anyway to answer your question: I really love twotl and how s3 was written in general !! the build up felt super solid and natural to me because will and hannibal’s arcs were super consistent throughout, especially will’s tbh. I talked to a friend of mine irl about it and she wasn’t a fan of his corruption, but personally I was so glad they went there with his character. his morality was the focal point of the whole show, and has been since the beginning, and as much as the external plot goal of catching the minnesota shrike, and then eventually the copycat killer/the chesapeake ripper, is what drives the story, the internal plot question (and interwoven character arc) is really an exploration of the nature of will’s empathy and ability to connect with psychopaths, and how that affects his identity and sense of self. so even though he eventually catches hannibal, s3b works because the question the story raised in s1 still hasn’t been answered. at first I was worried imprisoning hannibal was going to be a bad move story-wise because it resolves the plot goal before wrapping up the character arc, but was pleasantly surprised with how well it all worked. I think it has to do with the choice to have hannibal turn himself in rather than have will capture him directly, because that way they’re still in some sort of power struggle (“hannibal has agency in the world” and all that)

I think it’s why twotl hits so hard, because after all this time, and after all the ways these two have tried to hurt each other and free themselves of the other’s influence, whether it be because of hatred, or worse, because of love, they’re unable to end the conflict. and the audience knows that because we see them try over and over, and it just doesn’t work. in the end, a mutual surrendering to whatever they’re becoming seems to be the only solution. and it’s not even advantageous for either of them, like will tells bedelia that breaking hannibal out of prison isn’t some attempt to manipulate the situation to his advantage, it’s just “degrees of disadvantage” which makes sense because if he sets hannibal free he loses his family, his life, any shred of morality he has left, etc (“he who holds the devil, hold him well. he will not be caught a second time” / “I don’t intend for hannibal to be caught a second time”). and it’s great because it’s not a win for hannibal, either. “my compassion for you is inconvenient” evidences this well enough. it would be easier for him to kill will, and he could do it if he wanted to, but he just can’t. and it’s all just so satisfying because it makes sense. neither of these characters were set-up for moral redemption, so it feels right for their story to be tragic, and yet everything about it is so twisted and complicated and human, you know? they’re both so different by the end, and finally equal within their power play

and I was very fond of the ambiguity of the ending !! you could interpret the fall as purely metaphorical (fall from grace and into corruption) or it could be literal, or both. if you think they died at the end and bedelia cut off her own leg, only for them not to show up, that’s a valid (and wonderfully ironic) interpretation. if you think they survived and are now hunting together (with bedelia being their first victim) then that’s also equally valid. I think for a show that had to end due to cancellation, the creators made the right choice to leave the finale up to the audience to decide. it’s why I’m still unsure if I want a s4 because the story feels so complete? but I’m definitely not against it either if it ever gets picked up again :)

omg I ranted and wrote a whole essay response for you NDBSJHD this was fun though !! and I hope you enjoy watching the final episodes yourself :DD feel free to share your thoughts after if you want, I’m always interested to hear different interpretations !!

[hamliet]

@cowboyunderscore

To start with, I assumed this was something obscure/a private take sent to a person on discord (since I've gotten that before, that genuinely argue that Razukhin/Raskolnikov is the true love story or something and demonize Sonya, which is genuinely what I presumed was the context of this... and clearly was not). I realize that the person who sent this to me may not have had bad intentions either, but this doesn't leave anyone feeling great!. In the future, link me to a public article if it exists so that I can actually contact the person and see it in the full context, because again, to quote the man of the hour --

Don't let us forget that the causes of human actions are usually immeasurably more complex and varied than our subsequent explanations of them. -The Idiot

And to you, writer, I'm very sorry. Truly. Now I realize this may seem like splitting hairs, but I actually do have a record of making this distinction in my past critiques--I truly, truly did not actually intend to insult you as a human being, but rather critique the take itself, and when you see a take without a name it's easy to make harsher statements. If you look at what I said, I kept it to the "take" not to an individual, and that was deliberate (you also did call anyone who sees it as romantic as "crazy," which I'm assuming you didn't mean hyper literally but again, when you don't know anyone or context and see that then, well). However, especially since we don't know each other, that's not necessarily gonna come across well when I use harsh language like that, and I do realize that, so again, I'm really sorry. I don't think you're any of those things.

Since you said you wanted to discuss the idea, though, I'm more than happy to! I love talking Dostoyevsky. (Frankly, most literary criticism is just critics vagueing each other, but it's always better to have a direct discussion.)

Clearly, I don't personally believe the idea that Raskolnikov doesn't see Sonya as a person is textually supported! In fact, I'd argue the text supports the opposite idea. When Sonya is accused of stealing, Raskolnikov is the one who observes the situation and figures it out without needing or wanting anything from Sonya. Katarina loves Sonya, so she defends her, but she also needs Sonya. Sonya is her salvation. For Luzhin, it's the opposite: Sonya is a tool for him to use because his own pride was wounded.

For Raskolnikov, it's different. He's neither. He sees Sonya as a person and realizes that she's got nothing to do with this situation; she's not a thief/villain, she's not a savior, she's not a pawn. She's a person who has been hurt by people insisting she sacrifice herself to save them, by people who see her as a societal villain/fallen woman, by people who see her as a tool to use. Hence he is the one not who proves her innocence, but the one who explains the situation accurately--the textual implication being that he can see clearly in this.

We constantly see Sonya put in these two extremes: selfless savior or fallen tool to be used. This mimics Raskolnikov's own "schism" (as his name references) between being both an extremely selfless man (giving away his last kopek and risking his life to save orphans from a burning building) and a murderer with a Napoleon/God complex. The difference is that Raskolnikov's schism is internal, but Sonya's is external in terms of how others perceive her--hence, why they are able to bring out the best in each other. It's also kinda the nature of empathy, imo.

Their relationship doesn't benefit Raskolnikov more than Sonya; they both very much benefit from it. He empathizes with her as someone forced into a terrible situation. Yes, he does project in some instances--his "you have sacrificed yourself for nothing" speech applies to both of them, but it's not as if he's falsely projecting (it's true, and is used to relate to her later on rather than to condemn her as someone beneath him).

Raskolnikov ad Sonya's relationship, to me, is founded on a mutual respect and acknowledgement of the other one's humanity. This begins from the very first time they meet, long before Raskolnikov starts confessing to Sonya. He has her sit on the couch next to his mother and sister, which is something so incredibly taboo in society that day that Luzhin's rage over this isn't all that weird (culturally speaking). He defends her worth as a human being but also acknowledges to Sonya that she's not helping things as much as she'd like to believe.

I don't see any evidence textually that Raskolnikov sees Sonya as existing for his redemption. Rather, I see him as inspired by her. He goes to the station on his own, but it's her presence that encourages him to go through with confessing, because human beings cannot exist alone. That's a major theme in all of Dostoyevsky's works.

I also think that the symbolic ideas are a bit complicated; while I see what you're saying, I do think Raskolnikov empathizing with Sonya helps him empathize with himself, and deconstructs his idea of Alyona as a louse. See, Raskolnikov seeing Alyona as a predatory louse isn't just his own delusions: she is preying on the vulnerable and leeching her own security off of the desperate. However, the reality is that she is a human being, even if a mean one. As Sonya herself says, a human being can't be a louse!

But I'd also argue that how Raskolnikov sees Alyona is how he sees himself. Again, the schism idea: Raskolnikov is contradictory. He sees himself as Napoleon, as a superhuman with license to do as he pleases. Why does he see himself that way? Because he's a starving student too sickly (mentally and physically) to get his degree and despite this his family keeps sending him money. He sees himself as leeching off Dunya and his mother. He sees no hope for himself in the world, so he wants to believe in the delusion. He uses the Napoleon philosophy to create meaning in a life that seems otherwise hopeless.

So I guess what I'd say is that the tl;dr of this is that I don't think Raskolnikov moves from seeing Sonya as an symbol to a person; rather, he sees her as a person to begin with. There are symbolic ideals mingled up with a person, but that's the case for every single character and person in general.

I would also say that the text does pretty clearly state that they are in love at the end of the story; whether or not you buy it is up to you, but I don't see room for it being debatable that there's a romantic aspect to it? The emphasis on "seven years" clearly means that they are aiming to be together after he's released.

They wanted to speak, but could not; tears stood in their eyes. They were both pale and thin; but those sick pale faces were bright with the dawn of a new future, of a full resurrection into a new life. They were renewed by love; the heart of each held infinite sources of life for the heart of the other... But she was so happy—and so unexpectedly happy—that she was almost frightened of her happiness. Seven years, only seven years! At the beginning of their happiness at some moments they were both ready to look on those seven years as though they were seven days.

Wanted to ask what you think about this reading

( >︹<)

No but actually. It's anti intellectual, cynical, bad faith, not authorially intended, and not textually supported take. The sheer degree of misreading makes this almost laughable.

Like if you don't think that romantic love--which is not incongruent with spiritual love--is the entire POINT of the ending, of what offers Raskolnikov and Sonia practical futures, then they didn't read the book. They read their own presumptions into the text.

I'll quote from @linkspooky here. Link's talking about No Longer Human, which is in many ways a response to C&P, as well as how NLH's main character is perhaps more similar to the unnamed narrator of Dostoyevsky's Notes from Underground. The point I think Link expresses really well is this:

For Yozo, each woman he meets is his Sonya, they are meant to redeem him and bring him peace, and when they don’t he leaves. Yozo someone missing the point that, Raskolnikov loved Sonya because he sympathized with her circumstances and suffering while Yozo really only ever cares about his own suffering...

The protagonist encounters a young prostitute name Liza, he tries to save her at first, but then turns around and starts to treat her terribly and has a mental breakdown in front of her that ends in this line. She finds him pitiable, and comforts him in that moment. 

However, after this moment of comfort he then he goes back to treating her terribly once more. He yells at her, and she grows tired of him. He pays her and she leaves and that’s the end of that relationship. 

See it’s a moment that’s simultaneously, a moment of human connection, but also it shows how the protagonist regards other people and why he can’t connect to them. If you only use other people to comfort your loneliness, you’re going to end up alone either way. The same way the Narrator uses Liza, Yozo chronically uses women. 

The person whose take you linked (no idea who they are) is basically doing the same thing as Yozo and as the unnamed Narrator--they're viewing Sonya as existing for Raskolnikov, but they don't cite any actual evidence for this, nor can they without removing context. Now, you can criticize Dostoyevsky's execution of the idea, but there is a vast, vast, vast difference between how Dostoyevsky portrays the Narrator and Liza and how he portrays Raskolnikov and Sonya. This difference shows that Dostoyevsky is not unaware of the idea of seeing a woman as an idea or an idol rather than as a human being.

Sonya is absolutely a person, and that's why she's able to impact Raskolnikov so much, and why he's able to empathize with her. It's her humanity. Someone who is denied humanity by so many and even by his own self meets someone whom others deny humanity to and can only affirm her humanity because of what he's heard from those who love her--long before Sonya and Raskolnikov ever have any sort of interaction. He affirms her humanity before he even meets her, and that's the point.

Yes, within the story she's a symbol for the suffering of humanity and for the suffering of poor women just as Raskolnikov is a symbol for the suffering of the impoverished students desperately seeking some kind of meaning in a life that looks hopeless. But to reduce the characters to their symbols and to argue that the text supports this is directly against the themes, because Raskolnikov seeing people as just symbols is exactly what fueled his toxic philosophy. It's coming to love someone as a human being that sets him free from that.

[system-of-a-feather]

Honestly, I have a really tight and complicated relationship for how easy it is to glorify, put us on a pedestal and idolize us, cause its been a chronic issue my entire life in mental health and non mental health spaces, and I am by no means going to deny our compulsive part in this.

Over the time I've had a lot of moments of really leaning into it, other times pulling from it, and honestly the middle ground I found over time is that as much as it can be isolating, invalidating, insulting and uncomfortable to be put in that place for reasons I cant bother to explain, it is factually a strong strength of mine that does do a lot of good for others which many have told me. Its helped a lot of people who matter to me, both internally and externally, and I feel it would be a waste to turn from it just because it has a history of being a mechanism for abuse.

And so I've kinda emotionally come to terms that I don't mind it, I don't seek it out beyond my natural behavior and way of presenting myself, and I only do it to the point I choose to, I actively want to and consent to, and offer out to others.

I'm done being an open faucet of inspiration porn for others, but I absolutely do not want to trash being able to be a bow tied inspiration for others. I don't really seek it out, because honestly, its hurt me more than its helped to "be an inspiration", but I also have found peace and happiness in seeing people from a distance take that energy I exude to help get them through a hard period.

If I'm not great at turning it off, the next best thing is to moderate it and let it exist to its most beneficial and least detrimental level.

Cause honestly, me specifically as a part, I am so deeply wired and caked to be inspirational and a light of hope and success, and even almost at a decade of being host, I can't really stop naturally sugar coating the reality of what had to be done to get whete I am. But I also don't think I'd go back and time and play my existence any other way, because as much as it perpetuated neglect and extreme isolation and ostracization, I also know it has really helped and saved a lot of people who I value so immensely.

I'm not saying "I am glad I could save them and I would suffer for them" cause no, I dont think I should suffer for them, but more so that I've come to terms with the role it has played in my life and while there are some major negatives, I am very very happy with whete I am in the present.

I don't really know what COULD have been, but I do know what I do have and I don't think I'd trade it for a "could be".