#and they're both about fairly personal things

[cripplecharacters]

I have two disabled characters who are in a relationship. One uses a wheelchair and has double LLA (one above one below knee), whike the other is generally mobile and doesnt use any aids. Theyve been in a relationship for years, but mostly online rather than in person (the story takes place in person). Should I have them have a consent and boundaries (e.g. you can lift me but only if I ask or if i'm already using you to pull myself up, you may offer to help me move over difficult terrain but what path we take is my decision, im okay with you touching my nubs if you tell me youre gonna do it and wait for confirmation beforehand) talk 'on screen' or should it have happened earlier in/at the beginning of the relationship and be referenced to?

Sorry if this is confusing. I am disabled, so I have had to have these talks before, but I dont use a wheelchair and ive never been in a largely online relationship where physical stuff isnt relevant.

Hello!

This is a similar situation/dynamic to my boyfriend and I. Though we're not in an online relationship, we are long distance and most of our day-to-day interactions take place through texting or social media. Both of us are disabled but at different "levels" (So to speak).

While we have several disabilities in common (Autism, Tourette's, ADHD, etc.), the main difference is our levels in physical disability. He is paralyzed and uses a wheelchair full time. I have an undiagnosed disability that causes me chronic pain/limited mobility and use a cane and other mobility aids.

Above all else, though, we're both two separate people. We have different histories, opinions, and experiences. Most of our discussions about boundaries have actually been about language. While I reclaim the term "cripple" for myself to a degree, he doesn't. On the other hand, he prefers to be called "somebody with autism" while I prefer the term "autistic person".

These seem like small things to worry about but they're fairly important, both to our identity and our relationship. We have a sort of compromise in our relationship. I haven't changed my language entirely and neither has he, but we've both adjusted it. He uses the language he's comfortable with for himself, I use the language I'm comfortable with for myself. We generally stick to neutral language when speaking generally.

I mentioned that this is the only real discussion we've had about boundaries. The rest of it has happened more over time, usually in the form of correcting one another or elaborating on our needs and preferences.

Like with consent, it shouldn't just be one conversation. It's constantly evolving.

In your story, it may be best to show that. If you leave it as something that happens offscreen, it may be looked over. If you have a big conversation happen onscreen, it could undercut the seriousness of their relationship or come across as clunky.

Having this discussion be an ever-evolving series of small conversations instead can make it seem more natural and also help show how somebody's needs and preferences can change over time.

If you do want a conversation/discussion to happen that's specifically relevant to their online relationship, it could involve their boundaries and preferences around things such as language (What terms to use, which ones to avoid, etc.), photos/videos (Whether they can be shared, whether they can be requested, what parts of themself will be in them, etc.), talking about them to others (How much information they can give others about their partner's disability, etc.), etc.

The big thing with boundaries is that it's not a "one size fits all" thing. Somebody's boundaries will constantly be changing and shifting depending on the situation, the day, or even just their current mood.

At least for my boyfriend and I, the biggest thing is communication. There will be times where I notice he's struggling and will ask if he wants me to push him for a bit. Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. But even if he's okay being pushed by me, I would never just randomly start pushing him without his consent.

With your characters, this could look something like one character asking the other if they need help doing something (Ex: "Do you want me to grab that for you?"). It could also look like one character correcting the other on language for themself (Ex: One character says, "This is my girlfriend, she's autistic." The other says, "Actually, I prefer being called a person with autism."). The character could explain why that is (Ex: "I was called autistic a lot as an insult and don't want to use that language for myself now.") or they can just leave it as is and let their preference be known.

As with any relationship, navigating consent can be a bit awkward at the beginning -- especially if this is your characters first time meeting in person. It's normal for them to stumble a bit and for there to be misunderstandings. For example, maybe one character accepts the other's offer of help but they have two different definitions of what "help" means in that context.

Of course, the nature of the conversation will differ depending on when they're having it. If it's happening during the online part of their relationship, it likely won't focus as much on physical things (When to help them, for example) and will instead focus on some of the other points such as language and discussing their disability with other people.

The last thing to keep in mind is that the process of discussing consent and boundaries looks different for everyone. The information I'm sharing is just my perspective on the matter. You'll have a different one, as will your disabled readers.

Cheers,

~ Mod Icarus

[canmom]

Hello me from November. I don't entirely disagree with the ideas I expressed back then, but I do think I was neglecting the socially inflected process of consumption of art, where the viewer brings interpretations that may not be intended or considered by its creator, as a fairly integral part of the process. I still think art is basically about communication, but the noisiness of the channel in combination with a lot of feedback cycles is a feature, not a bug.

I would say that the significance of Impressionism to humans can't really be separated from its history - the context in which these works were made, what they were responding to, how audiences interacted with them. The context in which we make expressions is continuously evolving. A 'simple' utterance can have a lot of significance in context. For audiences in the 19th century, familiar with the conventions of academic painting, impressionism entered as a challenge to that paradigm, proving by example that another form of expression was possible in this medium. We can think of it like an utterance in a conversation - one whose participants come and go, listen in for a bit, and speak up when they're ready.

So, with the example of the calligrapher adjusting the line weight of characters - it may not require much sophisticated technique to adjust the line weight of characters. But the master in question apparently discovered that a certain technical move (fiddling the line weight) evoked a certain emotional effect. That is part of a feedback process - both the artist interacting with their medium and themselves, and then interacting with their audience.

If aliens came along and trained a neural network on human artworks, and then sent us the results of this process, assuming they paid attention to how we responded and didn't just spam up our networks, our response would also create a feedback loop. We might get bored of one type of the aliens' output and favour another, form personal relations to what it creates, etc. etc.. If the aliens have their own art, and we could perceive them, it could go both ways. It is similar to the process of two people from different cultures meeting each other and figuring out how to communicate. At first you start with just 'point at thing' and figure out basic vocabulary. You copy sounds made in the target language, gradually filling out their context so that they start to acqurie meaning.

The aliens may not really understand what emotional responses they are invoking, but in a way that's true of all art - as an artist I can't know exactly what people will think and feel when they encounter my creation, just try to infer it based on how they communicate back to me and extrapolation from my own experience. Perhaps as they got to know us better, the aliens would form a more sophisticated model of different things that humans respond to...

So I don't think it's ultimately corrosive for some categories of artwork to reproducible by surprisingly simple means. Any more than it is corrosive for it to be possible to photograph a painting really. Every form of meaning is contextual. And indeed, a lot of "expertise" in art is actually in finding effective ways to simplify and distil - the expression might seem simple but knowing which simple expression is appropriate to the situation and executing it cleanly is a trick.

As far as creating impressionism algorithmically - while diffusion models have been one way to generate novel 'this looks impressionist to me' art on the computer, there is a parallel strand that has been seeking to replicate 'painterly' visual styles through the more traditional type of computer art - that is, figuring out ways to generate that 'coarser brush work' and render it controllable by artists. The main purpose of this is to apply 'painterly' looks to computer animation and games, so computational efficiency is a major concern. Numerous techniques have evolved in this field, with slightly different nuances, slightly different characters of glitch, etc. etc. - in part because the problem is not perfectly posed, and we discover nuances as we try different approaches. Here's one that I find quite good:

Typically approaches start with a traditional rasterisation render, and then apply the painting as a post-processing effect, e.g. by layering up textured Bézier-curve arcs based on the contents pixel buffer. But if you do this, you need to figure out how to best handle the noise introduced by a moving camera and objects, to maintain some notion of 'coherence' frame to frame.

Another approach is to treat the brush strokes as 3D data in the scene, which artists can modify; this is the basis of a new tool recently added to Blender, developed through 'Project Gold':

Here there is a strong emphasis on artistic control; the strokes are generated algorithmically but the tools give humans an intuitive way to direct the strokes and adjust their properties. It is all about that feedback loop between the artist and their tools.

Another approach still involves painting onto an object-space normal map so objects catch light in a brushstroke-like way, and feeding that into a toon ramp.

All of these approaches have slightly different effects, dimensions that humans immersed in this field can become familiar with; then they can be chosen and applied in games and films etc., suiting whatever is being conveyed in that piece (from at least Ōkami onwards). Far from reducing painting to simplistic application of algorithm, we've opened up new avenues of expression, inspired by previous human expression, and our close study of the paintings that inspired these efforts in computer graphics leads us to appreciate the paintings' nuances in new ways. I think humans tend to inject complexity into everything we do; every effort to simplify tends to result in new complexity springing up, because we are terminally, delightfully restless creatures.

And also we still paint, because it's fun, because making paintings lets you relate to light and colour and shape differently - even if we don't attach so much prestige to creating new Impressionist-inspired paintings as we did when Impressionism first arrived on the scene. But fuck prestige tbh. Art is a game and a conversation.

Reasoning such, I am ultimately not too worried by AI fundamentally disrupting humans' respect for our own creations by revealing it to be a sham at heart - though of course its economic effects on the context in which artworks are made and distributed is another story.

Thinking about that that "slop accelerationism" post, and also Scott's AI art Turing test.

I also hope AI text- and image-generation will help shake us loose from cheap bad art. For example, the fact that you can now generate perfectly rendered anime girls at the click of button kindof suggests that there was never much content in those drawings. Though maybe we didn't really need AI for that insight? It feels very similar to that shift in fashion that rejected Bouguereau-style laboriously-rendered pretty girls in favor of more sketchy brush work.

But will we really be so lucky that only things that we already suspected was slop will prove valueless?

As usual with AI, Douglas Hofstadter already thought about this a long time ago, in an essay from 2001. Back in 1979 he had written

Will a computer program ever write beautiful music? Speculation: Yes, but not soon. Music is a language of emotions, and until programs have emotions as complex as ours, there is no way a program will write anything beautiful. There can be "forgeries"—shallow imitations of the syntax of earlier music—but despite what one might think at first, there is much more to musical expression than can be captured in syntactical rules. There will be no new kinds of beauty turned up for a long time by computer music-composing programs. Let me carry this thought a little further. To think—and I have heard this suggested—that we might soon be able to command a preprogrammed mass-produced mail-order twenty-dollar desk-model "music box" to bring forth from its sterile [sic!] circuitry pieces which Chopin or Bach might have written had they lived longer is a grotesque and shameful misestimation of the depth of the human spirit. A "program" which could produce music as they did would have to wander around the world on its own, fighting its way through the maze of life and feeling every moment of it. It would have to understand the joy and loneliness of a chilly night wind, the longing for a cherished hand, the inaccessibility of a distant town, the heartbreak and regeneration after a human death. It would have to have known resignation and world-weariness, grief and despair, determination and victory, piety and awe. In it would have had to commingle such opposites as hope and fear, anguish and jubilation, serenity and suspense. Part and parcel of it would have to be a sense of grace, humor, rhythm, a sense of the unexpected and of course an exquisite awareness of the magic of fresh creation. Therein, and therein only, lie the sources of meaning in music.

I think this is helpful in pinning down what we would have liked to be true. Because in 1995, somebody wrote a program that generates music by applying simple syntactic rules to combine patterns from existing pieces, and it sounded really good! (In fact, it passed a kind of AI turing test.) Oops!

The worry, then, is that we just found out that the computer has as complex emotions as us, and they aren't complex at all. It would be like adversarial examples for humans: the noise-like pattern added to the panda doesn't "represent" a gibbon, it's an artifact of the particular weights and topology of the image recognizer, and the resulting classification doesn't "mean" anything. Similarly, Arnulf Rainer wrote that when he reworked Wine-Crucifix, "the quality and truth of the picture only grew as it became darker and darker"—doesn't this sound a bit like gradient descent? Did he stumble on a pattern that triggers our "truth" detector, even though the pattern is merely a shallow stimulus made of copies of religious iconography that we imprinted on as kids?

One attempt to recover is to say Chopin really did write music based on the experience of fighting through the maze of life, and it's just that philistine consumers can't tell the difference between the real and the counterfeit. But this is not very helpful, it means that we were fooling ourselves, and the meaning that we imagined never existed.

More promising, maybe the program is a "plagiarism machine", which just copies the hard-won grief, despair, world-weariness &c that Chopin recorded? On it's own it's not impressive that a program can output an image indistinguishable from Gauguin's, I can write such a program in a single line:

print("https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gauguin,Paul-Still_Life_with_Profile_of_Laval-_Google_Art_Project.jpg")

I think this is the conclusion that Hofstadter leans towards: the value of Chopin and the other composers was to discover the "template" that can then be instantiated to make many beautiful music pieces. Kind of ironically, this seems to push us back to some very turn-of-the-20th-century notion of avant-garde art. Each particular painting that (say) Monet executed is of low value, and the actual valuable thing is the novel art style...

That view isn't falsified yet, but it feels precarious. You could have said that AlphaGo was merely a plagiarism machine that selected good moves from historical human games, except then AlphaGo Zero proved that the humans were superfluous after all. Surely a couple of years from now somebody might train an image model on a set of photographs and movies excluding paintings, and it might reinvent impressionism from first principles, and then where will we be? Better start prepare a fallback-philosophy now.

[bambiraptorx]

I've seen the "Splinter doesn't care about the turtles because he just calls them colors" type of headcanons and I raise you: the color nicknames are actually highly suited both to their family dynamic and their living situation.

a) Splinter has four kids, with three to five syllable names. Those names are fun and cute and match and all that jazz but they take too dang long to say when you are yelling at them to stop biting each other, and also are too long for them to be able to say. Nicknames of some sort were inevitable.

Example: I and one of my siblings got three syllable names, and ended up with two syllable nicknames from other siblings because they couldn't pronounce the longer version correctly.

b) Splinter lives (in the show at least) in a large cistern-ish structure, in the sewers. Sound is probably going to travel in there weirdly, so if you're calling a specific kid by their full name, they're probably going to pick up on vowels and rhythms because that tends to be what travels across distances. You don't hear 'Leonardo' or 'Donatello' so much as you hear "ee-o-ar-o" and "o-ah-eh-o". Also, names with similar rhythms and/or similar vowel sounds tend to get mixed up, and the last syllable of names tends to fade off and not get heard.

Example: one of my siblings and I have names that start with the same vowel sound. Despite having names with different lengths, the same starting syllable was enough to get us to regularly come even when the other person's name was called, because when you get a bit of distance between you and the person calling for you, the vowel sounds are really the only thing you can hear.

c) All the color nicknames Splinter gives the boys are both short, and have different main vowels. We have Orange, Blue, Purple, and Red: oh/ah (depending on pronunciation), oo, uhr, and eh. These nicknames are fairly distinct in sound, and fast to say. This actually makes them very practical, because you have less incidents where you call one kid and a different one comes, and it's faster to get your kids' attention.

The names aren't necessarily a sign of a lack of attention or care. Quite the opposite in fact.

[leahkentwriter]

Hannibal but make it sapphic

Someone recommended a novella called Bloom by Delilah S. Dawson as it was apparently inspired by the tv show Hannibal. That got my attention. As did the cover art. (I kind of want to fuck the cover art, and I'm asexual.)

I feel like this is a twisted romantic horror story between a budding bisexual and a homoromantic asexual. Which I loved. More of that, please. Lesbians are great, but I like it when those of us who are a bit underrepresented are front and center.

What I will say here is that if you're a fan of the show but really wanted more of that sapphic element - this novella is worth a read. The rest of what I have to say I'll hide in case you want to pick this book up without my thoughts in your head.

This is a story about Ro, a newly appointed assistant professor of literature, and Ash, a free-spirited artisan. The story is sapphic and feminine, even when the horror is on full display - and it is on full display. There are very clear parallels into Hannibal which fans will pick up on, so those craving a sapphic version of the Will-Hannibal relationship may be interested in this story.

That said, the Hannibal references got a bit heavy-handed in my opinion. I think that in honoring every part of him, the narrative leaned in a bit too heavily. I enjoyed the elements that were unique to this particular story more than I did the tie-ins to Hannibal. Something more domestic, something that turns a certain kind of polished pastel Instagram aesthetic into horror. A protagonist that resonated with the awkward feelings and tendency to overthink that many of us experience. How well Dawson represents what obsessive feelings look and feel like.

Because this is a novella and it had to move quickly, there were things that had to be told rather than shown. That's fine - but at times, in this story, it felt clunky. There are moments where the narrator is clueless, yet it's so obvious what's going on. The literary references are sometimes great but sometimes don't pull their weight, and I wish they'd been used a bit more intentionally. The foreshadowing is at times less shadowy and more like a big blinking neon sign. Even without knowing anything about Hannibal, readers will know fairly quickly where things are going. This novella is about appreciating the journey, and what that journey looks like between queer women.

Ro is actually annoying, and I love that about her, because anyone who has ever been obsessively fixated on another person knows how your critical thinking skills suddenly shut down. She's distracted, she's fumbles, she does the wrong things for the right reasons and doesn't really listen and often knows she's not really listening, and her internal justifications are weak at best, so she's definitely not a martyr in this story. She both ignores red flags, and is a red flag herself. Both of these women have needs they're trying to sate, and have elements of toxic behavior.

Ro's awkwardness and mistakes and messy emotions and overthinking are usually relatable. She's pretty quickly out of her element and gets pushed more and more out of her comfort zone, which she at times overthinks, but at times just gives into. I did enjoy that about her.

Ash read to me as distinctly asexual. That's never overtly stated, but that was the vibe I got, which I enjoyed. And yes, there's sex in this story, because asexuals do fuck, and do even enjoy fucking (it's me. hi.) but Ash? She's a homoromantic ace. She's not getting off on the sex - there's something else driving her desire. (I'm a panromantic ace with kinks. I will die on this hill.)

Ash is an interesting predator, and any story where you've got women hunting women is going to get my attention. I've had enough of men hunting women. Women hunting men does satisfy a certain urge but I have to be in the mood.

Women hunting women is a whole different beast. And there's something Ash says toward the end of the story that felt very uniquely like something a predatory queer woman would say. We only ever see her via Ro, but it's easy to fill in the gaps that Ro doesn't (want to) see. If you're a Hannibal fan, you'll understand Ash pretty quickly. Even if you're not, her motives become clear. I think the thing I liked the best was that her desire isn't singular - by the end you realize that there were several ways this could have gone, and Ro was always the one who was going to determine that. (Of course, how much agency Ro actually has is debatable.)

I'm not sure how more hardcore Hannibal fans will like the ultimate ending - they will definitely understand where it comes from. I have mixed feelings about it simply because it does borrow from the show in a very direct way that I didn't like. I wish it had been done a bit differently. But I'm not disappointed at what it reveals about Ash.

My biggest critique is that I feel like this should have been a novel, because the things I felt were a bit clunky and heavy handed and rushed could have been easily smoothed out in a longer narrative. I also wanted to stay in this story longer. Despite my critiques, I did like it, and I feel like there's a lot more here that could have been explored. Dawson wove in lots of interesting threads.

I love stories that center women and women's spaces and feminine aesthetics, without making them seem silly or diminishing them. Stories that, like Dawson's, see the beauty and the horror without trivializing. You never get the impression that she's parodying or making fun. You see the idyllic nature of the life behind the aesthetic, as well as the gruesome realities. These are all things that are very familiar and very understandable. And that's what makes it chilling.

[the--highlanders]

how do you think jamie views each of the other companions he's travelled with?

(obviously, if staying with the doctor wasn't an option) do you think jamie would've left with any of them instead?

ooooh interesting!!

I do love that ben and polly canonically think of jamie as their younger sibling, and I think he probably thinks of them in similar terms. polly fusses over him a lot (and maybe sometimes oversteps and gets a bit condescending), and he worries about her and wants to keep her out of danger, but they also have a pretty happy joking friendship. jamie and ben are fairly similar - they see each other on a bit more of a level playing field once they're settled into their friendship, but also spend a lot of time ribbing each other. it's a pretty warm, light-hearted tardis team, and that helps jamie settle in. but on the other hand ben and polly are very much a unit, having their own situationship/relationship, and also with the familiarity that comes from being from the same time and place in amongst everything else going on. so I think jamie feels isolated from them at times, and this in part fuels his closeness with the doctor in s4 - they naturally gravitate to each other when they're feeling a bit alienated by or sick of ben and polly just Getting each other and leaving them in the dust.

victoria is....... incredibly important and also incredibly painful for jamie. I think he sees a lot of himself in her (their time periods aren't a million miles apart, she's just been through a deeply traumatic experience and is seeking refuge on board the tardis, has buckets of buried loneliness, is brave when she needs to be but would really rather just slow down and be kind). in many ways she's his mini me (the way they wear the same outfit!!!) and they genuinely get on like a house on fire. it's less jokey than with ben and polly, a bit more tender, with a LOT of care on both sides. for her part victoria latches onto jamie as well, because he's similarly familiar, and finds a lot of safety in him. but there's a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of their relationship, because jamie especially thinks they're more similar than they are, and expects victoria to measure up to that even when it's killing her. she tries, too, but it's far too overwhelming. he genuinely thinks that she'll want to travel together forever because he wants that, and when she grows up enough to put her foot down and say no, I'm my own person, I have to do what's best for me, it takes him aback entirely. not in the sense that he doesn't want her to do what's best for her, but because he was so blinded by all their similarities that he couldn't wrap his head around this one major difference. & that irreconcilable issue hurts them both a lot towards the end. but also it's a relationship they'll both treasure forever because they really /were/ so similar, and did just click. I think both of them spend the rest of their lives turning around to tell each other something, and it sort of hurts forever but also they'd never want to stop.

all that hurt with victoria feeds into jamie's initial slight disapproval of zoe (as well as the fact that he feels like she's looking down on him) - in a lot of ways zoe is the doctor's mini me, and jamie definitely feels like he's replacing victoria far too quickly, whereas jamie himself probably isn't ready to open up to someone else like that yet. I think they do have a pretty rocky start beyond what they see on-screen, where neither of them understand each other's issues and baggage and they're both unknowingly hurting each other far more than they would ever want to. but eventually they find some sort of shared experience or something that makes things fall into place, and he ends up helping her a lot as she sort of tries to re-learn how to be a person. their dynamic is a bit more joking/teasing like with ben and polly, and that's also good for him after how serious his dynamic with victoria could get.

if he were to stay with anyone though, I do think it would be victoria. he'd be happy to keep in touch with ben and polly forever (and if he wound up in 60s england with victoria, he'd definitely be looking them up!), but I think he's conscious that they want to live their own lives. leaving with them would ultimately be leaving to be on his own, at least to some degree. he would clearly have been happy to travel with zoe forever, but if she'd left in the same way victoria did, I don't think he would have followed. obviously he doesn't actually go with victoria either, but I think the loss of her is one of his biggest /what if-s/, in that he'll always regret that she didn't want to stay with them like zoe did. adding that to how protective he is of her - if he was cut loose from the doctor and had to pick someone to go with, I think he'd go straight for victoria. which would potentially be challenging for /her/, because then she'd have to live her life with her very mother hen bestie rip

[synergysilhouette]

9 hot takes/unpopular opinions with DC and Marvel Comics

Originally this was a Marvel-exclusive post with just 5 hot takes (because I was NOT ready to defend myself against people who disagreed with 10), but some of my hot takes were things I shared with DC, so I thought I'd just do a 10-point hot take post on both (only to realize I miscounted this after posting, so it's just 9). And these opinions are slightly generalized, with very few focusing on individual characters. This is largely still an X-men post, but has some other things.

Different codenames--It's fairly common in comics books for a character to take a codename that someone else already had, either for story purposes (ie to honor the character) or for marketing reasons (certain names carry a lot of weight and would make people more interested in an unrelated character). That said, it's very unimaginative and boring to me. Unless you're purposefully trying to steal someone's identity or deceive someone, get your own codename.

2. No magical mutants--(Dislaimer: BIG X-Men fan). Okay, everyone's gonna kill me for this, especially since this has been a staple since I got into comics, but I'm not the biggest fan of it. At the very least, stop doing it going forward. I'm not against mutants having fantasy adventures and villains (ESPECIALLY as a fantasy fan), but being mutants is supposed to be what unites them, having powers derived from human evolution and the consequences that come with it. Not saying every story has to be about racism and how they overcome it, but I do think characters with powers independent of their mutant status kind of cheapen the experience. It's almost like "why be a mutant at all?" And for some characters, it's not entirely clear what powers are mutant, and what are magical. While having magic powers would get some prejudice, magic is treated a bit differently in the Marvel universe, from what I've seen. It's almost like "What are you fighting for?" It kinda reminds me of how Chris Claremont had Scott marry Madelaine, start a family, and wanted to retire him from the superhero business--but you don't retire from being the victim of racism. I think this is why Krakoa was so fascinating to me since it's founding was based on helping mutants escape the prejudice of regular humans.

3. Families/marriage--It's often said that couples in comic books don't last because writers don't know how to keep them together and interesting, along with the misguided belief that adding kids to the equation automatically makes you boring and retired, even though this isn't necessarily true. Plus there's also the publisher's preference to "shake things up" in order to keep people engaged, even if we were happy with what we had, meaning messy breakups, death, etc. It's all about how you write it, and relationships in comics shouldn't be treated like they're that flexible. We love consistency.

4. Stoic Batman needs to stop being the default--Most modern depictions LOVE to depict Batman (and Bruce Wayne) as emotionally distant, cold to those he cares about, and prefer to do things on his own because he believes he's the only one capable of doing so. The reasoning is often just because it's cool to be edgy (another issue I have with comics), and sometimes chalking it up to trauma, but in the world of comic books, I feel like you don't have to depict him as consistently a jerk about it. Batman's most emotional and compassionate moments are some of his best. Not saying he needs to have a bleeding heart, but having an emotional core isn't a crime.

5. No uniforms--This is just a matter of preference, but I don't like uniforms. I count uniforms of one of three things: having the same/similar colors but different styles (ie W.I.T.C.H.), having different colors but the same/similar style, or both the colors and style being the same or at least similar. I was never a fan of it, preferring individuality in appearances and personal style.

6. No major sexuality changes if you've been depicted as a certain sexuality for 15+ years--As a gay guy, this frustrates the heck out of me. Aside from drawing attention away from LGBT+ characters who debuted as such or were addressed as such early on, major characters getting sexuality retcons feels like a betrayal of character consistency (again: WE LOVE CONSISTENCY). I like to use Iceman as an example, because a lot of people say he was gay-coded when people argued against him coming out as gay. Yeah...in my opinion, he wasn't gay-coded, he just had a backstory that could be READ as gay-coded, matching his new sexuality; there's a difference between being coded and it just conveniently serving the current, unrelated narrative. And Bobby's sexuality has almost become a persoanlity trait for him like that's all he's got going. I have a similar issue with Tim Drake, who's depicted as bi now, with bisexual-debuting character Ghostmaker (a member of the Batfamily who was shown as bi shortly before Tim was), gets less attention. And given DC's mistreatment and mismanagement of Tim, them making him bi feels like they were desperately trying to find a way to market him in a way different from the other Robins when everything else was failing. Even ignoring my regular feelings about sexuality retconning (though I should note that an artist for Tim in the 2000s did try to hint at him being into guys), DC's had major issues with characterizing Tim as indecisive when they have to walk back on decisions they make because fans don't like it, ie Tim's "Drake" codename and costume. Because of that, him being bi feels like DC subtley trying to double down on him being indecisive/of two minds, which is insulting.

Sorry for the rant! But that brings me to my next point.

7. Tim Drake is continually being set up to fail--ARGUE WITH THE WALL. This topic is a bit more heated for me than others, but it's true. Tim joined Batman because he saw how he changed emotionally when Robin (Jason Todd) died, as well as having a family, a social life, and was the smartest Robin at the time, as well as becoming Robin voluntarily. However, with time, this was changed; the other Robins became more tech-savvy and Tim became and orphan and was adopted by Bruce Wayne, removing Tim's sense of identity to a significant degree. On top of this, any teams he led or friend she had were sadly underrated himself, preventing him from using any A-list connections outside his family to elevate his own position. Plus Tim has usually always been happy as Robin, but several situations have arisen where him advocating Robin as Batman's partner instead of sidekick have been undermined by others trying to tell Tim to do something else that was "his own." However, when he tries this, DC does it in a way that is uninteresting or annoying to the fans, like the aforementioned "Drake" debacle (brown as a costume choice isn't very eye-catching, and using part of your name as a codename in the modern era should be outlawed). And even when he got a comic of his own after he came out as bi, DC had the art done by Riley Rossmo, whose art style was...not great, only getting a different artist towards the end, but it was very clear that they were kinda just giving him a solo just to say they did; he didn't have an artist to actually do him right, nor a story that felt empowering to his character or unique.

8. Skintones should be more consistent--It's a personal opinion of mine (especially for POC) that a (human) character's debut skintone should be their canon skintone, no matter how light or dark it is, with little room for variation. A lot of characters end up looking WILDLY different, sometimes with even different facial features and eye colors. I feel like there should be a comic bible for this.

9. Krakoa should've lasted longer--Is this a hot take? Inn any case, it was really fun seeing some villains turn over a new leaf, familiar characters go down a new path, and new characters/underrated mutants getting attention. Definitely feel like this should've been at least 10 years long.

[deathsbecome]

"I know what a flare gun is." There's a...somewhat impressive amount of restraint involved in not finishing the sentence with an insult. "My point is when people tamper with things that explode, there tends to be a risk of it exploding the wrong way." Her words are slow, as if talking to a child. "If I lose any fingers, you're paying me extra." Okay, that part's...mostly a joke.

"I'm not concerned with their well-being, I'm concerned with mine. Plenty of people I work with get into things without understanding the risks and get mad at me when that sort of thing happens." There's a small consideration of anything else she might need from Junior. "No, but I'm going to run through the plan while we're up here." It's not like they can talk on the way down, and she's going to assume anything said while in the shrine could be overheard.

She doesn't actually wait for Junior to respond, instead just getting the crew's attention herself to explain what they're going to do. It's a fairly simple plan, actually—it's safe to assume that the sirens will know they're down there, so most of the crew is going to proceed through the shrine normally as both a distraction and a lookout. Meanwhile, her and Miguel will grapple up to the top of the shrine where Lesedi's likely to be held. Miguel will keep an eye out while Addy gets Lesedi out, and then they can exit through a nearby Siren Window. If there isn't an immediate reaction by the sirens the others can leave when they finish the shrine, or (more likely) if there is a reaction, then they should hold that off for as long as they can manage before leaving. There's a reason she said the person who used the grapple gun was more likely to get out of this, after all.

It's only after making the plan clear that they go under. When she's in there, she confirms her suspicion that there isn't anywhere in the lower part of the shrine Lesedi could be in, and then continues with her plan. It takes a little bit of time to find her, but the harder part is interrupting the conversion to get her out. There isn't that much information on the process, leaving Addy to have to guess. She decides it's self explanatory enough, and just removes the Siren Gem that was attaching itself to Lesedi.

That's about when it seemed the sirens caught on to what they were doing, considering the ocean crawlers that were just about done with their conversion start to...well, waking up seems like the best term for it, she figures. For good measure, she throws the gem out of the alcove they're in and into the water. The further away it is, the better, she figures. Then she throws two knives at the creature closest to her and Lesedi, and another knife to activate the Siren Window. She passes Lesedi off to Miguel, and they begin the swim up, Addy waiting until she sees what's following them to fire the flare, hoping it will stun them a little.

Addy surfaces first, and wastes no time, "Rope. Now."

"What? No. It'll launch the flare in the direction you point it. Think of it as a portable, one-use cannon. Twist the handle and it'll shoot." The light should be visible even from the surface, and with some luck, blind whatever sea dwellers that might be on Addy's heels. Had they had their design of a reaper shark ready, they'd just be able to know when the extraction's needed. But alas.

"I'm aware, and so are they." It's always a risk when dealing with the Siren Queen, but there's no reward without risk. "You don't need to concern yourself with their wellbeing."

They have been quite picky choosing the team- it's a small pool between the higher ranking Reapers that have previous experience with Siren Shrines and haven't taken their pledge to Flameheart yet.

"Is there something else you need before going down there?"

[v-t-holmes-arts]

something something fear of being left behind something something

[esleep]

i actually do kinda like delivering groceries on the side because it gives me such a unique cross-section of the community. i never know whose groceries im shopping for until i finish the delivery and see them/their home and it's like it adds more detail to the picture of who they are. the baby supplies going to the apartment that i know for a fact is one bedroom (they'll be moving soon - i bet they're apartment hunting, i hope they find a place). the new cat litter box, bowl, and kitten food going to the house covered in "i <3 my dog" paraphernalia (a kitten definitely showed up on the porch recently and made itself at home). the fairly healthy boring grocery order that includes an incongruous tub of candy-filled ice cream going to the home of an elderly woman with toddler toys in the yard (it's clearly for her grandkids, whom she sees often).

shopping for someone else's groceries is a fairly intimate thing. i've bought condoms and pregnancy tests, allergy medicine and nyquil, baby benadryl and teething gel, a huge pile of veggies paired with an equally huge pile of junk food, tampons and shampoo and closet organizers and ant traps and deodorizing shoe inserts and a million other little things that tell a million different stories in their endless combinations. one time someone had me buy one single green bean. i messaged them to confirm that's actually what they wanted, and they said yes - neither of them liked green beans very much, but they had a baby they were introducing to solid foods, and they wanted to let him try one to see if he liked them. another time i had someone request 50 fresh roma tomatoes - not for a restaurant, but for a person in an apartment. the kitchen behind them smelled like basil and garlic when they opened the door. another time i brought groceries to three elderly blind women who share a house. that was one of the few times i have ever broken my rule and gone inside a place i've delivered to, because they asked if i could place the grocery bags in a specific location in the kitchen for them to work on unloading and there was no way i was going to refuse helping.

i gripe about the poor tippers, but people can also be incredibly kind. one time i took shelter from a sudden vicious hailstorm inside an older lady's home in a trailer park, while i was in the middle of delivering her groceries. we both huddled just inside the door, watching in shock as golf-ball-sized hail swept through for about five minutes and then disappeared. she handed me an extra $10 bill on my way out the door.

when covid was at its deadliest, people would leave extra (often lysol-scented) cash tips and thank-you notes for me taped to the door or partially under the mat. i especially loved the clearly kid-drawn thank you notes with marker renderings of blobby people in masks, or trees, or rainbows. in summer of 2020 i delivered to a nice older couple who lived outside of town in the hills, and they insisted i take a huge double handful of extra disposable gloves and masks to wear while shopping - those were hard to find in stores at the time, but they wanted me to have some of their supply and wouldn't take no for an answer.

anyway. all this to say people are mostly good, or at least trying to be, despite my complaints.

[malcolmschmitz]

The Insider and Outsider Detectives

So there's a lot of discourse about detectives floating around, ever since 2020 shifted a lot of people's Views on the police. Everyone likes a good mystery story, but no one seems to know what to make of a detective protagonist- especially if they're a cop. And everyone who cares about this kind of thing likes to argue over whether detective stories hold up the existing order or subvert it. Are they inherently copaganda? Are they subversive commentary on the uselessness of the police?

I think they can be both. And I think there's a framework we can use to look at individual detectives, and their stories, that illuminates the space between "a show like LAPD straight-up exists to make the cops look good" and "Boy Detective is a gender to me, actually".

So. You can sort most detectives in fiction into two boxes, based on their role in society: the Insider Detective and the Outsider Detective.

The Insider Detective is a part of the society they're investigating in, and has access to at least some of the levers of power in that society. They can throw money at their problems, or call in reinforcements, and if they contact the authorities, those authorities will take them seriously. Even the people they're investigating usually treat them with respect. They're a nice normal person in a nice normal world, thank you very much; they're not particularly eccentric. You could describe them as "sensible". And crime is a threat to that normal world. It's an intrusion that they have to fight off. An Insider Detective solving a crime is restoring the way things ought to be.

Some clear-cut examples of Insider Detectives are the Hardy Boys (and their father Fenton), Soichiro "Light's Dad" Yagami, or Father Brown. Many police procedural detectives are Insider Detectives, though not all.

The Outsider Detective, in contrast, is not a part of the society they're investigating in. They're often a marginalized person- they're neurodivergent, or elderly, or foreign, or a woman in a historical setting, or a child. They don't have access to any of the levers of power in their world- the authorities may not believe them (and might harass them), the people they're investigating think they're a joke (and can often wave them off), and they're unlikely to have access to things like "a forensics lab". The Outsider Detective is not respectable, and not welcome here- and yet they persist and solve the crime anyway. A lot of the time, when an Outsider Detective solves a crime, it's less "restoring the world to its rightful state" and more "exposing the rot in the normal world, and forcing it to change."

Some clear-cut examples of Outsider Detectives are Dirk Gently, Philip Marlowe, Sammy Keyes, or Mello from Death Note.

Now, here's the catch: these aren't immutable categories, and they are almost never clear-cut. The same detective can be an Insider Detective in one setting and an Outsider Detective in another. A good writer will know this, and will balance the two to say something about power and society.

Tumblr's second-favourite detective Benoit Blanc is a great example of this. Theoretically, Mr. Blanc should be an Insider Detective- he's a world-famous detective, he collaborates with the police, he's odd but respectable. But because of the circumstances he's in- investigating the ultra-rich, who live in their own horrid little bubbles- he comes off as the Outsider Detective, exposing the rot and helping everyone get what they deserve. And that's deliberate. There is no world where a nice, slightly eccentric, mildly fruity, fairly privileged guy like Benoit Blanc should be an outsider. But the turbo-rich live in such an insular world, full of so much contempt for anyone who isn't Them, that even Benoit Blanc gets left out in the cold. It's a scathing political statement, if you think about it.

But even a writer who isn't trying to Say Something About The World will still often veer between making their detective an Insider Detective and an Outsider Detective, because you can tell different kinds of stories within those frameworks. Jessica Fletcher from Murder She Wrote is a really good example of this-- she's a respectable older lady, whose runaway success as a mystery novelist gives her access to some social cachet. Key word: some.

Within her hometown of Cabot Cove, Fletcher is an Insider Detective. She's good friends with the local sheriff, she's incredibly familiar with the town's social dynamics, she can call in a favour from basically anyone... but she's still a little old lady. The second she leaves town, she might run into someone who likes her books... but she's just as likely to run into a police officer who thinks she's crazy or a perp who thinks she's an easy target. She has the incredibly tenuous social power that belongs to a little old lady that everyone likes- and when that's gone, she's incredibly vulnerable.

This is also why a lot of Sherlock Holmes adaptations tend to be so... divisive. Holmes is all things to all people, and depending on which stories you choose to focus on, you can get a very different detective. If you focus on the stories where Holmes collaborates with the police, on the stories with that very special kind of Victorian racism, or the stories where Holmes is fighting Moriarty, you've got an Insider Detective. If you focus on the stories where Holmes is consulting for a Nice Young Lady, on the stories where Holmes' neurodivergence is most prominent, or on his addictions, you've got an Outsider Detective.

Finally, a lot of buddy detective stories have an Insider Detective and an Outsider Detective sharing the spotlight. Think Scully and Mulder, or Judy Hopps and Nick Wilde. This lets the writer play with both pieces of the thematic puzzle at the same time, without sacrificing the consistency of their detective's character.

Back to my original point: if you like detective fiction, you probably like one kind of story better than the other. I know I personally really prefer Outsider Detective Stories to Insider Detective Stories- and while I can enjoy a good Insider Detective (I'd argue that Brother Cadfael, my beloved, is one most of the time), I seek out detectives who don't quite fit into the world they live in more often than not.

And if that's the vibe you're looking for... you're not going to run into a lot of police stories. It's absolutely possible to make a story where a cop (or, even better, an FBI agent) is an Outsider Detective-- Nick Angel from Hot Fuzz was originally going to be one of my 'clear-cut examples' until I remembered that he is, in fact, legally a cop! But a cop who's an Outsider Detective is going to be spending a lot of time butting heads with local law enforcement, to the point where he doesn't particularly feel like one. He's probably going to get fired at some point, and even if his badge gets reinstated, he's going to struggle with his place in the world. And a lot of Outsider Detective stories where the detective is a cop or an FBI agent are intensely political, and not in a conservative way- they have Things To Say about small towns, clannishness, and the injustice that can happen when a Pillar Of The Community does something wrong and everyone looks the other way. (Think Twin Peaks or The Wicker Man.)

Does this mean Insider Detective Stories are Bad Copaganda and Outsider Detective Stories are Good Revolutionary Stories? No. If you take one thing away from this post, please make it that these categories are morally neutral. There are Outsider Detective stories about cops who are Outsiders because they really, really want an excuse to shoot people. There are Insider Detective stories about little old people who are trying to keep misapplied justice from hurting the kids in their community. Neither of these types of stories are good or bad on their own. They're different kinds of storytelling framework and they serve different purposes.

But, if you find yourself really gravitating to certain kinds of mysteries and really put off by other kinds, and you're trying to express why, this might be a framework that's useful for you. If your gender is Boy Detective, but you absolutely loathe cop stories? This might be why.

(PS: @anim-ttrpgs was posting about their game Eureka again, and that got me to make this post- thank them if you're happy to finally see it. Eureka is designed as an Outsider Detective simulator, and so the rules actively forbid you from playing as a cop- they're trying to make it so that you have limited resources and have to rely on your own competence. It's a fantastic looking game and I can't recommend it enough.)

(PPS: I'm probably going to come back to this once I finish Psycho-Pass with my partner, because they said I'd probably have Thoughts.)

(PPPS: Encyclopedia Brown is an Insider Detective, and that's why no one likes him. This is my most controversial detective take.)

[deconstructthesoup]

One thing I absolutely adore about Dead Boy Detectives is the immaculate costume design. Specifically, how it perfectly encapsulates who the characters are, both as a whole and who they are in the moment.

From the very first scene of the show, we know immediately that Edwin is a bookish, somewhat stuffy guy from the Edwardian era who attended a boarding school, and Charles is a punk from the 1980's who's most likely the wildcard between the two of them, just going off of the way that they're dressed. Both of them have distinct color schemes and different styles, but the general shape of their outfits is actually relatively similar---both of them have collared shirts (Edwin's dress shirt, Charles's polo), something over those shirts (Edwin's vest, Charles's suspenders), a jacket of some kind (Edwin's suit jacket, Charles's flannel thing), a longer overcoat (Edwin's traveling coat, Charles's peacoat), something around the neck (Edwin's bowtie, Charles's necklace), slacks, and nice shoes. They're distinct, yet matching, two clearly defined separate characters yet part of a set.

Edwin's prim, proper, buttoned-up personality lends itself to the way he dresses throughout the season---in the first episode, he only dresses down when he's in the office with Charles, aka his safe place and his safe person, and he doesn't really dress down like that again for a good long while after getting stuck in Port Townsend (though, if my memory serves me correctly, he does take off the suit jacket while watching TV with Niko). But in episode six, he's changed up his usual look for a cozier, casual-looking sweater and a little bit of collarbone, and in episode seven... well, he's in his nightclothes, and he's about as open, raw, and vulnerable as you can get. Edwin's color scheme is also predominately blue, which lines up nicely with his logical and practical, yet deeply sad and closed off personality, and the only time he really wears anything other than his normal blue-and-brown outfit (willingly, that is) is when he's in that green sweater in episode six. And, uh... all I can say is that it's quite telling how blue and green---or, well, teal---are the main colors of the gay/mlm flag.

Charles, by contrast, dresses down a lot, and that makes a lot of sense when you consider the fact that unlike Edwin, he feels comfortable pretty much anywhere. On any given episode, he goes from wearing his peacoat to just wearing his flannel to ditching the flannel to not even wearing the freaking polo---though, again, the latter is something that only happens when he's in the office with Edwin. Safe space, safe person. And, well, plenty of people have analyzed Charles's polo shirt going from red to burgundy to black over the course of the series, and there being a little bit of red under the collar of his coat that's only visible when Edwin fixes it, and then it goes back to burgundy, and then it's red again when Edwin's out of Hell... for good reason! It's color symbolism at its finest! Not to mention, the red and black not only perfectly contrasts Edwin's color scheme, but it also lines up with Charles's personality---he's a rebel, he's hotheaded, he's bold and brash and loud... and yes, he's angry, but he's also so, so loving.

When we first meet Crystal after she loses her memories, her outfit choices feel very deliberate. They're stylish and vaguely trendy, they're arty and a little bit witchy---pretty fitting for a psychic who's also a showbiz kid, even if she doesn't know that last part. But all of her clothes appear thrifted, or at the very least vintage, and the patterns and the general vibe all feel natural and comforting. Her makeup's always fairly simple, her hair's either down or up in a couple of cute space buns... overall, this Crystal looks like the kind of person who'd make you tea when you're in a bad mood, who'll listen when you just need to vent, and who may not always know the right thing to say but will understand what you're going through. But when we see her in the flashbacks, her clothing's flashy and prioritizes high-end trends over comfort, she's either got her hair up or has it straightened, and she not only has dramatic makeup, but acrylics. This is a girl who talks shit about you behind your back, who's bitter and cynical and wants everyone to feel the same way, who makes up for the lack of love and stability in her life via material things. It's also worth noting that Crystal's color scheme has a lot of purple, which is a color that connects to wealth and luxury, but also creativity and magic---which, yeah, fits her two conflicting sides pretty damn well.

You cannot talk about Niko Sasaki without talking about her outfits, and the meaning behind each of them has already been talked about at length. However, one thing that really stands out to me is that the reason they're so iconic isn't just because of the monochrome color schemes, but because they're out there. They're weird, they're eclectic, they're a little mismatched in style sometimes, and they're so unapologetically her. Niko wears heart-shaped sunglasses, unironically. Everything about the way she dresses speaks to how, even though she's a recovering shut-in who initially doesn't want to be perceived, she's still very sure of who she is.

Jenny's design, like Charles and Edwin's, is a design that gives you the key information you need the minute she first appears onscreen. The dark makeup, the silver jewelry, the leather apron, and the hairstyle all point to a person who's tough, doesn't take anyone's shit, and has long since given up on caring what other people think---in other words, she's a badass. But the butterfly tattoo hints at a softer side, a side that we see time and time again throughout the series as she shows that she cares about Crystal and Niko, and even the boys... eventually. Also, Jenny's design is perhaps one of the most clearly queer-coded in the series, to the point where her being a confirmed lesbian is pretty much a no-brainer.

Esther's design oozes camp, from top to bottom. The fluffy coat, the bustier, the boots and the cane and the everything, speak to a woman who's kept with the times and yet has seen it all. There's really not a lot I can fully say about her design, other than what Charles has already said: "She looks like a witch... like, kind of a sexy witch, who smokes a lot." (Or maybe I'm just tired and running out of steam at this point, idk, I love Esther's design and I can't really put it into words.) It's also pretty fitting that her color scheme has a lot of yellow in it---after all, she's always striving for more, so what better color for her than the color of gold?

Everything about the Night Nurse's design speaks to a woman who follows rules and discipline above all else, from the pantsuit to the pinned-up hairstyles to the tie to the heels. She's also the most muted out of the main cast in terms of color, dressing mostly in browns, dull greens, and duller browns---and while I don't have a lot to go into detail about there, I feel like that's kind of a symbol of her narrow-minded and bureaucratic worldview.

And the animal characters... Jesus Christ, I fully forget that they're all being played by human actors. Tragic Mick dresses like a man who's always spent his life by the sea, layered denim and all, and it's never a stretch to see this sad, bushy-bearded, baggy-clothed fisherman and imagine him as a walrus lounging on a beach. Monty, at first glance, seems to only wear black, which would be perfectly fitting for a crow, but when he's in better lighting, you see that he dresses in layers of red and blue, calling to how he envies Charles and Edwin and clearly longs for something more---and this might just be me, but I think that even though his outfits seem fairly normal at first glance, they feel kind of like a costume for Monty more than anything else, like he's trying to emulate a teenager that he's seen on TV more than someone in real life.

The Cat King fits this just as well, with all of his outfits aligning perfectly with whatever his cat form is at the time---when he's a fluffy ginger, it's always sequins and fur coats and clothing pieces that are specifically designed to take up space and call attention, and when he's a black shorthair, it's sleek styles and shiny leather and pieces that are designed to cut an intimidating yet more subtle figure. And while I could go into detail about all of those, what really stands out to me is how clearly queer everything is---more than Jenny's alt lesbian attire, more than Esther's campy coat and corset. From the very first scene he's in, he's wearing a skirt, and it looks natural. Nothing about the way the Cat King presents himself is exaggerated, nothing about the way he dresses is played for laughs---he's flamboyant and feminine and flirty, and he looks so fucking hot while he does it. It's gorgeous.

So... yeah, uh, all the awards for the Dead Boy Detectives costume designers!

[timkontheunsure]

"and if he's only here as a prisoner, what kind of monster does that make me?"

Ok think I've finally worked out what was bugging me with them miscommunicating when Blitz yells.

"Would he want me if he were free?" Stolas' starting premise is if Blitz wasn't ok with the deal, and didn't like him; then he's a monster and an abuser.

If it's was only sex to Blitz, then he's just like Stella.

It's why he gives up, saying he has his answer; when Blitz assumes the crystal must be a prop for more of their deal.

"tethered to someone in such an unfair way". Ok this bit had my mind immediately go to the divorce.

The marriage was arranged by someone must more powerful than Stolas, to someone he'd never choose for himself. An "entire life's been written in stone" in fact; he thinks he's done the same thing to the man he loves.

While it is perfectly reasonable for Blitz to get angry, feeling blindsided and dismissed; asking for a "fucking minute", the next bit reads very differently to both of them.

"You spring this feeling bullshit on me. Are you fucking kidding! *Kicks open the door* Can I get a Fucking minute to think after everything you put me through! You pompous rich Asshole! *Stolas' flinches the same way he does when Stella screams at him.*

"Treat me like one of your little butler imps. You can't just Dismiss me like that. I mean you royal Fucks think you can think you can do this every single time. Like you can just play with our feelings, because we're smaller and not as important. Well I'm Not letting you bitch. *Flinches again* Let's Go!".

Blitz is telling Stolas that he doesn't want to be sent away, and that he wants think about it. His abandonment issues are fully kicked in.

He's trying to force Stolas into a fight, to get him to engage with him. Likely a repeated pattern from his last serious relationship with Voroskia.

Trying to pick a fight, to get to make up sex, to get them back to 'normal'. Because that's how he's been dealing with their "complicated" for a while now. If it's about sex he knows how to deal with what they have.

(Blitz is word perfect on the fight with Verosika after all; so they probably got back together a few times after stealing from her).

Blitz immediately goes to "I can do better", and try give it back; when he thinks Stolas doesn't want to see him anymore.

"you royal Fucks think you can think you can do this every single time."

But that's not what Stolas is hearing right now. Stolas hears is 'your all the same. All royal are as bad as eachother'.

It's very close to Striker explaining how the world works during his torture.

And now he thinks that the only man he's ever loved hates him because what he is.

That's what he meant by "think so of low of me".

And he's not exactly wrong. Fizz even calls Blitz on hating that Stolas is a prince.

And Blitz does say "They're all the fuckin' same". (Blitz isn't wrong for calling out Stolas on how he treats his staff either)...

Then there's the bit that seems fairly contentious. Stolas portaling Blitz out.

Stolas is a domestic abuse survivor, only a couple of weeks out of the hospital, because his wife tried to murder him. He's going freak out at loud voices, angry swearing, and doors being kicked in.

He going assume that this is Blitz getting a few kicks in on the way out; not him genuinely trying to talk through their problems just because of the format.

They are both stumbling over eachothers trauma landmines here.

Neither is wrong.

Not Stolas for walking away, or making the shouty person leave.

Not Blitz for getting scared, upset and feeling abandoned. Thinking Stolas isn't giving him a chance to think it through.

Blitz is going to get that time he wants to think it over. It's not an all or none thing.

He now has his business safe and secured in his own hands, and knows that Stolas likes him too. Those are biggys.

It's entirely up to Blitz what he wants to do now.

[harmoonix]

☯ Natal/Sidereal Birth Chart Observations ☯

✅ The next following observations can apply to both tropical or sidereal ✅

☯ Mars in Scorpio or Mars at 8°, 20° degrees, these natives are very dedicated to what they are doing, is like they do everything with passion and love

☯ Mars in Aries/ at 1°, 13°, 25° degrees may love to practice sports, especially those who consume a lot of energy

☯ Mars square/conjunct/opposite Saturn, their personality can be very powerful and bold but they may struggle when it comes to self - expression and with keeping a routine for their hobbies

☯ Planets in the same house at different degrees matter a lot, even if they are at far degrees from eachother. They still hold a powerful energy

☯ Pay attention if Chiron moves the houses from your tropical to sidereal chart because you may have to focus on more things to heal yourself

☯ Mars in Libra or at 7°. 19° Can have a mix of chaotic - peace energy in their lives, but they somehow need to create a balance between those two

☯ Capricorn Rising in your solar return chart can indicate working on yourself a lot in that year

☯ Mercury in the 5H or Gemini/Virgo in the 5H may love to surround themselves with lots of art/music/fun/

☯ Ascendant aspecting Sun ☀️, The native personality can be easily liked by others, and they can often be very social/popular

☯ Mars or Venus in the 8H can find themselves being very attach to people with a powerful personality/aura

☯ Uranus in the 8H is a very unique placement.. if you have it, this placement gives the chance to explore your sexual energy in different ways

☯ Fire Risings have an unique excitement, a wild fire/sparkle in their eyes when they're happy. You can easily tell when they're in a good mood

☯ 8°, 20°, 10°, 22° degrees on the ascendant can give intimidating vibes, someone very powerful

☯ Aries and Capricorn Placements can often be very stubborn especially in big 3!! They like to do things in their own ways

☯ Having Jupiter as your dominant planet in the birth chart makes you extremely spiritual/kind and you may have a powerful desire to grow and to discover

☯ Capricorn Mercury or Mercury in the 10H or 10° 22° on Mercury natives can have a deeper voice than others but in a very mesmerizing way

☯ Venus in the 4H or Venus at 4°, 16° or 28° degrees can find themselves being the home and safe space for others, your way of sharing love is amazing

☯ Mars in Gemini/3rd house or Mars at 3°, 15°,27° degrees can have a very bold way of talking, their humour style is the best and sometimes they can have cracked jokes

☯ Lilith in the 11H or Lilith in Aquarius can find themselves being in groups with people who have experienced different traumas/bad things and can share those things between them!

☯ Lilith in Leo Degrees 5°. 17°, 29° can have a feline typo of appearance/personality even beauty like their face can easily be associated with a lion/feline

☯ Pluto in the 3rd house can make the native to be very curious about the taboo/dark/horror things, like they're so deep into the lore

☯ Cancer Degrees on ascendant 4°, 16°, 28° degrees can be more soft/sensible than others since young/since childhood. They're just more chill and calm than most people

☯ Natives with heavy Capricorn or Saturn placements can have strong legs/ and very beautiful ones

☯ Taurus Mercury/Mars or at Taurus Degrees 2°, 14°, 26° can be highly sensual in the room, also if they get excited

☯ Varuna (2000) conjunct/trine/sextile Lilith can be pretty known for their sensual nature, mesmerizing aura

☯ Mercury Dominant natives are truly the best ones who have around you! They're communicative/open minded, have a good sense of humor and they're also extremely supportive

☯ Pallas Asteroid (2) or 7H in Libra natives can inspire others to seek for their guidance, they often judge fairly and won't pick a side

☯ Pallas Asteroid (2) in Sagittarius or 9H can make the native to always seek for higher knowledge, this placement gives the high priestess in tarot cards vibes

☯ Pallas Asteroid (2) in Pisces or 12H natives are connected with the universe/source/God in a way that, they can feel its presence around

☯ Pallas Asteroid (2) in Leo or 5H can combine philosophy with fun/creativity, they can be really talented and share lots of good vibes

☯ Since the 9H is also related with school/education Mars/Saturn/Pluto and even Lilith in this house can have it quite hard/challenging in those topics, sometimes even getting in fights with the teachers as well

☯ Something natives with Lilith in the 10H or in Capricorn fight with is that most people in their lives try to be dominant and to overtake them and control their lives which is extremely wrong! Never let anyone do that

☯ How Venus - Pluto aspects/Venus in Scorpio/Venus in the 8H always fall for the people who have a bad reputation like?? Is like you are attracted to the villain of a fairytale/story

☯ Sun opposite or square Saturn can bring a difficult relationship with their dad, or they could've grow up in a strict household

☯ Lilith/Chiron in the 2H natives can have problems with their self esteem or self worth, sometimes even ED aka eating disorders

☯ Leo & Capricorn combos in your chart can make you very intelligent and likable

☯ I feel natives with Mars/Saturn/Pluto in the 4H or 5H may like to stay alone more than being 24/7 with people, like to have their own space

☯ Saturn or Capricorn in the 6H can be quite draining to have, it's practical but exhausting in the same time

☯ Having all your big 3 in the same element is quite unusual but powerful in the same time

☯ Jupiter in Aquarius or Aquarius Degrees/11H/11°, 23°. Their spouse can be extremely social and friendly,kind, humanitarian, helping, supportive. Is so hubby material

☯ Juno in the 1H natives can get into relationships since young ages as a lesson to learn and to explore an specific side of relationships, so that they learn to be more mature in their next relationships

☯ Virgo Risings have their 7H in Pisces which makes them to be dependent of their partner at times, like very attached and clingy

☯ Lilith at 0° degrees in the chart can indicate breaking the norms and bringing something new with them

☯ Lilith Asteroid (1181) opposite/square/conjunct Neptune or Venus, they have a catchy appearance and approach to people

☯ Moon in Aquarius can be known as that person of the family who is just born different, but in a good way like that cool sibling/cousin/friend etc..

☯ Aquarius Placements combined with Gemini and Virgo placements can be really into gaming since they have a very analytical mind

☯ While if you have Aries Placements and if you are into gaming you can be quite competitive in your games

☯ Pisces/Cancer and Libra Moons natives are the easiest to catch in love, is just their energy being in love 24/7, they can aslo switch up very fast if the person they like is not like they thought

☯ Lilith in Gemini/3rd house or aspecting Mercury can find themselves surrounding with people who gossip a lot, at some point people can gossip about them as well so take care who you spend your time with

☯ Lilith in Taurus/2H or at Taurus Degrees can be afraid of being rejected, as like an anxiety thing, you deserve a lot better if you have people in your life who may try to reject you

☯ Moon aspecting Pluto natives can often find themselves with people who may try to manipulate them into making bad decisions, don't always let yourself that easy to people

☯ Lilith square Moon/Venus can make women specifically hate you for no reason. Like creating this hate energy for nothing, protect yours at least

🦋🫶🏼 A new week is a new astro post🥰🫶🏼

Hope you all have it good 🤍🤍🤍

🤍 [H a r m o o n i x ] 🤍

[abyssembraced]

((Quick heads up that my portrayal of Ghost might seem a little inconsistent for a little bit. There are a couple things I'm not super satisfied with right now))

[rederiswrites]

I think the idea or suggestion that Lucanis should have said in the game that he was demi/ace is so odd. It doesn't really make sense from the perspective of a demi/ace person. I think a TON of demi/ace people do not even understand that about themselves until they're older than he probably is. You have to have both the language and the experience.

He says (in, admittedly, a fairly obscure dialogue, but nonetheless in canon) that he "doesn't get any of it" in reference to sexual attraction-- and my dude that is as close as you could realistically ask for! Even assuming Thedas would have that sort of language broadly available to people, the absence of something (attraction) is far harder to understand and name in yourself than the presence of something (say, same-gender or multiple attractions). And it's just not something you generally have any REASON to share with people, even if you know it about yourself. It's much more of a private identity thing even in the real world, outside of spaces like Tumblr.

[teaboot]

how are you both bisexual and asexual. are you also both autistic and neurotypical? are you both trans and cis too? please help me out here

okay so first off I don't think you meant this to come off as confrontational, so in the future please do keep in mind that these are highly personal questions. I don't actually owe anyone this information

So, sexual attraction and romantic attraction are different things. Someone who is asexual may desire a romantic relationship with someone, while someone who is aromantic may desire a sexual relationship with someone.

Alternatively, someone who is AroAce may desire strong, intimate connections that have nothing to do with sex OR romance.

So someone who is romantically attracted to all genders but sexually attracted to nobody may be more accurately described as "Biromantic / Panromantic Asexual", but that's a bit of a mouthful and uses terminology and concepts a lot of people don't get so they may just say they're ace and bi.

I've known for a long time that I'm asexual, that one was relatively easy. Romantic attraction, I've found, is harder to evaluate because "deep, intimate friendship" and "romance" have a lot of overlap and are difficult to distinguish.

For a long time, I thought, "I feel the same level of attraction to all genders, so I must be bi or pan". It just so happens that that level of sexual attraction was zero.

(Apparently this is a fairly common experience.)

Also, not entirely what you asked, but recently I've come to the realization that I may be Aromantic as well as Asexual- I may just experience aesthetic attraction to all genders, which is a third thing, in which you can see someone and go "Ohhhhhhh my god you're so fuckin cool and pretty I'm dying" but not actually really wanna do anything about it.

And since I may be aesthetically attracted to all genders, romantically attracted to like 5 people ever, and sexually attracted to nobody, I could go around saying, "Yeah I'm an asexual demiromantic with panaesthetic attraction", confusing half the people I talk to and sounding like a queer zoomer in a conservative political cartoon, I could also just say, "yeah I'm ace and bi" or "I'm queer" and keep the rest to myself.

Also, while I openly use he/him pronouns now and for the last couple years, growing up I thought for about a decade that I was Genderfluid and I'm still pretty attached to the Genderqueer identity, so trans and cis isn't really the reach you may think it is.

So, yeah. Autistic, Asexual, Bi, Trans.

But I've found that my personal identity is less like a business card and more like a witness statement.

Any wordier than you need to be, and you start giving the opposition room to poke holes.

"Queer", though. Queer is good