#andrew was necessary to this show in a way no one else was

[kingandrewburnap]

"I really could not have done this show without Andrew Burnap playing the king. He’s so incredibly great in it." - Bart Sher

[vampirevatican]

Can you do a Judd birch alphabet? You can decide if it’s nsfw or not

I've decided to do both, so here's the...

SFW & NSFW JUDDPHABET

Affection

He's affectionate but it's mostly through actions. (i.e. dinner date from the valentines day episode) I think he'd have his hands on you in public but in subtle ways. Finger in the belt loop of your pants, arm around your waist, arm on the back of the couch when you both sit together.

Best friend

He's a good guy at his core. you can not talk me down from that hill So I think he'd make a great friend. Hell quite a few alt people are and that usually comes from their beliefs.

A great listener, doesn't solve the problem unless you're looking for a solution, would offer to go torch some abandoned building or some other crimes but is only dead set if you are and it'd actually help you feel better.

Cuddles

He's big spoon, loves when you guys get ready to sleep and you get as close as possible without him having to do it.

Dirty secret

He's actually a softie. You can't tell me that he's not. The raccoons, melon ball, Judd has a soft side and it's canon.

Experience (NSFW)

No, yeah, he's experienced. Sexual and Romantic. Two girlfriends shown in the show, or rather at least one girl that he planned a dinner date for that was kinda fancy? Which makes me think they would've had at least a year together.

Favorite position(s) (NSFW)

Speaking of the letter 'E'

Face down, ass up is his usual go to. To get more specific? I think he'd love doing the mating press so he can really drill in. Big boy go deep... However also, rapid fire

69, The bicycle, hoisting you up on counters or bending you over. It depends on the amount of horny and where but one thing is for sure, he wants to bury himself into the hilt.

Gentle (NSFW implied)

I say, he's gentle when he wants to be. Ofc great at aftercare but outside of the obvious I think he's attentive to emotions of others, maybe not empathetic but what is he if not an observer.

Hair (NSFW implied)

So I've been over how he doesn't use a 16 in 1. Now let's talk about how I think he maintains his hair, and... a brief headcanon on the situation downstairs.

So getting general around 6 to 12 weeks he'll re-dye his hair. Probably at the 6 mark and with the sides of his hair, maybe even back, then we have the 2 to 4 week timing of him shaving it again. Notice how I say he does it. Sure he could get someone else too and depending on his schedule he sometimes does.

As for his junk... I don't think he shaves, maybe trims?

I love you

He's not about to say it first, and if he is then it's probably in response to you doing something he didn't expect or some random cuddle session in the back of his van.

Jacking off (NSFW)

Id love to bring in the concept of his own hormone monster but it's not necessary. He doesn't wank it often but when he does it's either built up or an in the moment thing.

Kisses (NSFW implied)

He's such a... good kisser 🎶~

Speaking wild... He's great at making out, imo, very passionate and heated.

Speaking soft? I like to think he'd kiss your forehead if you're small, or like the top of your head?? Before pulling you closer to him. Is it spur of the moment or he notices you being pouty, yeah.

Little ones (is he good with kids)

Again see letter 'D'. I swear he's good with kids. ffs he also helped out Andrew, reluctantly ofc, but i swear this dude is great with kids.

Mornings

Picture with me waking up in his bed, sharing the bathroom together and heading downstairs to a greeting from his supportive parents. Very cute, usually chill, and yes he drives you home or you head out with him. Nice breakfast into little adventures with your punk rock boyfriend, isn't that fun!

Nights

I love to think when it's not spent in his or your bedroom then it's his van or at some abandoned building. Lots of cuddles, maybe some arson or bne of an old abandoned business but if y'all were caught by the owner you'd be in trouble because you're defacing the property.

Open

I don't think he's an open guy, unless he's actually comfortable around you. It definitely takes some time but the more he learns about you the more you learn about him and it starts subtle af too. That is til y'all are a few drinks or blunt hits deep and everything starts to bleed

Pace (NSFW)

What pace do you need or want him to go? Naturally I think he'd have a steady pace and rhythm but if you needed it to be different then he'll adjust.

Questions (does he ask about you?)

See letter 'O'. I feel like he's direct but also would ask others about you if you aren't close enough yet and he doesn't have much of a choice. Mainly out of curiosity or wanting to do something for you.

Remember (and from those questions what does he remember?)

I say everything because again, he is an observer. Any little thing you like, stuff you hate, your fashion taste, favorite food, color, music genres. He knows it.

Stamina (NSFW)

For a dude that exercises, and is built the way he is i think it only makes sense for him to have really good stamina. Which means multiple rounds... if you're up for it.

Toys (NSFW)

For those who've been liking my works from last year about this man. Im going to call the knife a toy, but ofc he's definitely open to using a vibrator or other things in the bedroom

Ugly (the good, the bad and the ugly - headcanon negative traits)

So the canon aside, i feel like if you guys got into a genuine argument he'd shut down or double down. Not a huge red flag, and a better option to calm down and walk away but for those who can't handle that he ready for a breakup and him saying some real mean shit.

I can't see him being controlling or possessive but there's a possibility of it ramping up and if you two don't get to the route of it then... hwoof. especially if you aren't okay with it

Volume (NSFW)

He doesn't get loud... At all. But by god do I want him to be. Mfer can make you scream but him?? He be up in your ear mummering nd shit.

Warning (would be protect you? even from himself?)

Absolutely! If he's going out to do something really bad then he's not bringing you along, no matter how badass you are. Y'all get into an argument? Like I said before. I think he'd warn you or before taking the gloves off he'd address how this is just anger, and if you two wanna continue then he's okay with it as long as you know this is just being genuinely pissed

X exes (what's it like being his ex?)

Friends, friends with benefits if he's not dating someone else and you're okay with it. Things slip back into friend territory if y'all separated on good terms. Bad terms? No y'all do not talk... At all.

Yelling

Again he's not known to raise his voice but that doesn't mean he's not capable of doing so and I'm a firm believer that it'd be scary as fuck. Seeing you scared, if you do get scared, or even tear up bc if you don't do well with confrontation then he'd stop. If he was still mad or irritated then he just walks off to cook down, but if not then he instantly apologizes.

Zzz (going to bed together)

See the letter 'C', but anyways. I swear he's a cuddle bug, i need him to be. But he'd never admit it.

[lririx]

This ask

VALE boys x shy gn reader

I'm sorry it took so long anon😭

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Victor Grantz

Expressing yourself has always been hard. Being shy makes talking to people a really hard task for you. Victor understood. He isn't good with words but can talk in necessary situations so it's not as hard for him. But he still understands.

Every day he saw how you struggled to keep a conversation and how nervous it made you feel.

He decided to leave notes for you. Notes that had words of encouragement. Notes that showed how much he loved you.

You always found notes in your pockets that had words that calmed you down.

It was his way of comforting you when he wasn't there.

Today was a tiring day. It was Emma's birthday and everyone decided to celebrate it together.

Parties aren't your thing. Kevin dragged you with him to talk to everyone else.

This was one of the most awkward days of your life.

You just stood there while everyone else talked and laughed.

Victor saw you and came towards you. He took your hand and walked to the green house.

The greenhouse is a quiet place. All the flowers and plants make the place feel like another world.

You sit on a chair as the moonlight shines on you.

Victor can't take his eyes off of you. You look beautiful is all he could think of.

He sits next to you and takes your hand.

“[Name].” He says.

“Hm?”

“You know you can ask me for help right?”

You giggle. “Where did that come from?”

“I just don't like seeing you struggle so much to talk to people. I mean you slightly change when you're talking to different people. It's tiring no?”

You look down to the floor. He's right. Altering your personality every time you talked to someone was tiring. You could only be yourself around Victor.

“I know you're worried it's just…I can't do anything about it it just happens.” Your said with a low voice.

“I know.” He said while smiling. “That's why I said you can ask me for help."

You blushed. You felt happy. He was the first ever person you expressed yourself to. The fact that he goes out of his way to tell you this made you feel warm inside.

You lean towards him and kiss him on the lips.

“I love you.” You said.

“I love you too.”

Andrew Kreiss

You've been participating in matches day after day.

You not only have your matches but end up participating in place of others when they can't attend.

This match was a long one. You ended up kiting Bane for pretty much the whole game but in the end you lost.

You came back to the Manor with cuts and bruises all over your body.

Andrew rushed to Emily's office to check on you.

“Are you OK?” He said as he panted.

“I'm OK don't worry.” You said with a weak smile. “I'm just tired.”

He took a deep breath and sat on a chair next to your bed.

He took your hands and sat there quietly.

The sight of you like this made his heart ache but also made his blood boil. Those selfish people. How can they keep giving their work to you?

“Andrew?” You said as you brushed a strand of hair away from his face.

“Why do you keep doing this?” He asked.

“What?”

“This. Why have you been attending others' matches left and right?”

“...Are you mad?”

“Of course I'm angry. I'm angry at you for throwing away your needs. I’m angry at you for overworking yourself. Im angry that you never asked me for help.!”

He went quiet for a second and then continued with a lower voice.

“But most of all I’m angry at myself. At the fact that I’m so useless that I don’t stand up for you…Whenever I think of the times where I could've pulled you away when someone asked for you to do something. The times where if I didn't let you attend a match you wouldn't have been in pain. Whenever I think of those I hate myself. I hate myself because I didn't do anything.”

Andrew understands you well. You two are really similar. So you can understand what he's feeling right now. You know how much he's beating himself up for it.

You drag him into a hug and you don't let go.

You start to kiss the top of his head and caress his hair.

“I'm sorry.” You muttered. “I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.”

“Please. Just stop wearing yourself out. For me.” He said in a low voice.

You nod. “I promise.” You whispered.

Luca Balsa

How many times has Orpheus made you “help him” and then dump all of his work on you because “he got a new idea”? You've lost count at this point.

You've gotten used to it but you obviously don't enjoy it but you just can't say no to him. You wanted to a couple of times but you just couldn't bring yourself to do it. You didn't want to turn him down when he asked for your help. Well that was one of the reasons. You didn't want him to dislike you. You don't want anyone to dislike you but Orpheus was one of the people that the idea of him disliking you scared you.

It wasn't only you who was bothered by this situation. Luca was really worried about you. You would come to his room, exhausted and drop yourself onto his bed and pass out pretty much every night.

Luca always stays up late. You have to drag him to bed if you want him to sleep. But after this routine with you and Orpheus started you would sleep without a word out of exhaustion. On some days he barely even saw you.

Orpheus told you to wake up earlier than usual today. You didn't sleep last night which didn't help. You get up, wash your face, get changed and go to the library where Orpheus told you to meet him.

“These are murder case files. I'm going to use these in my Novel.” He says. “So read these papers and write me a summary of them. I need it by tomorrow evening.”

You blacked out for half of the conversation. Your mind started to properly work just now and this is all you understood. You sighed and were about to say “I'll do it.” When you felt a hand on your shoulder.

“Sorry Orpheus.” Said a person you cherish. “But I need y/n's help today. I know you had plans but it's really urgent. I'm sure you can do this yourself.” He continued with a smile.

“Oh.” Said Orpheus. “Well I guess I wouldn't mind since they've helped me so much. Then bye for now.” He takes the papers and takes a seat in the library.

“What's wrong?” You ask Luca.

“Come on I need your help.” He takes your hand and drags you to his room.

You enter and he closes the door. “Well?” You ask.

He lays on the bed and pats the spot beside him. “I need you to sleep.” He says with a cocky smile.

“You dragged me all the way here to sleep?” you asked a bit annoyed. “I was supposed to help Orpheus.”

He gets up and sits on the bed. “You call that helping?” He asks. “He is using you. Well even if he doesn't have bad intentions he still doesn't care if you want to do it or not. You can't just say yes to everything people ask of you.”

He sounds a bit mad but he's keeping his cool. You lower your gaze and play with your fingers. You don't know what to say. I mean what can you say? You know he's right.

He sighs and gets up from the bed to stand in front of you and takes your hand. He grabs your chin and gently pulls up your head. “I'm worried about you OK? You're just tiring yourself like this it's not good for you.”

“You're one to talk.” You say annoyed.

He laughs. “Well at least I do something I enjoy. Plus you always make me rest. But you just won't listen to me no matter how hard I try.” He kisses your forehead. “I won't let you try to please people like this anymore. You have to start saying no to them.”

You don't say anything. Instead bury your face into his chest. Luca wraps his arms around you and kisses your head. “Come on. Let's sleep. Neither of us have slept these days.”

You tighten your arms around him and nod in response. Then both of you get on the bed and drift away into a deep sleep.

Edgar Valden

Failed rescues, terror shocks, short kites. You really messed up in today's match.

Well, everyone messes up.

But Freddy came up to you and started bickering with you.

“How can anyone be so bad?”

“Practicing is a good thing you know?”

“If you're going to mess up everything don't play the games.”

“Why did you even come to the Manor?”

His remarks didn't stop.

You couldn't say anything. You knew you did terribly in the match but it happens to everyone. He doesn't have the right to be this mad. But you couldn't say anything. Not a single word came out of your mouth. You just stood there while he said anything he wanted to you.

“What makes you think you can talk to them like that?!” You heard someone shout from across the room.

You look over Freddy's shoulder and see Edgar. He was fuming and coming towards Freddy.

“Your little lover over here messed up the whole game!” Freddy shouted. “Why do they even participate if they plays like this?”

Edgar grabbed Freddy by the collar. “You're disgusting.Have you forgotten how many times you've messed up the game yourself? How many times our win turned into a loss because of you? You think you have any right to be shouting at them like this?”

Freddy was surprised. His face was turning red. He quickly snatched away from Edgar's hand and left the room.

He huffed. Then he turned to you. “Why weren't you saying anything to him?” He looked angry.

You just burst into tears. He was surprised and came to his senses.

“I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say it like that. I'm sorry.” He panicked and pulled you into a hug.

“I'm sorry. I couldn't stand seeing you like that.”

You just cried into his chest. Freddy shouting at you like that scared you.

He caresses your hair and whispers “It's OK.” Sometimes.

After you've calmed down he pulls you away and wipes your tears. “Please. Stand up for yourself OK?” Then he pulled you into a hug again.

“I'm always here for you.”

[c-t-r-l14]

Why Alex’s Break Up Audio Made Me Appreciate Andrew’s Character More

A couple of days ago, as I was drafting the dialogue for the second part of Alex’s story, I started to think about Andrew Marston, our beloved Literature Professor. I remember when I first listened to the Alex’s break up audio, in the description of the video, Saku states that this was the first break up audio he’s ever done. But that isn’t true, ‘cause Andrew broke up with his partner at some point in his story, too. And then I started thinking about Andrew’s break up audio—and what I realized is that throughout that breakup audio—It never felt like Andrew was trying to get rid of listener.

One of the biggest things that pissed me off about Alex was his blatant disregard of the person he claims to love. He absolutely refused to try and make the relationship work, he gaslights listener and blames the failure of their relationship all on them, makes dumbass excuses that hold no merit whatsoever, and tried to make it seem like it was such a hard decision to come to, when in reality, it probably wasn’t. He tells them that he loves them and how he wants to be with them so badly, but never gives them actual chance to make that happen. And it honestly feels like he made all of these excuses and blamed listener for their relationship falling apart so he wouldn’t feel bad for leaving them behind. It was quite obvious that he saw listener as a burden that was holding him back, and he wanted nothing than more to get rid of them so he could finally be free and run away from them. He is a selfish, manipulative, gaslighting asshole with a victim complex. If he really loved listener as much as he says he does, then none of the excuse making or gaslighting would be necessary; but it seemed like to him—doing all of that would be the only way out without feeling bad about it. So, instead of being truthful about how he actually feels and just straight up telling listener, “I don’t want to be in a long distance relationship,” or “I’ve fallen out of love with you”, or literally ANYTHING ELSE, he decided to make things a lot more harder for them by pulling any excuse out of his ass and praying that it will work. It just felt like he was just throwing them away—like how a child throws away a toy after they’ve outgrown it—and it’s SICKENING.

But, Andrew was never like this.

Through his entire break-up audio, you could feel that he truly felt like he was making the right decision here—because above all else, Darling was the only thing that mattered to him. Something I’ve learned from Alex’s audio is that it’s really easy to point the finger to someone else and put all the blame on one party. It would’ve been all too easy for Andrew to straight up tell listener that it was their fault for perusing him—and if they’d just simply looked somewhere else to find love, then their exposé would’ve never happened—and both of their reputations would be spared from online scrutiny and embarrassment. But he didn’t. He and Darling both perused this relationship with the consequences in the back of their mind. They knew what would happen if they got caught, and repercussions that will follow. Andrew had enough integrity and honesty within himself to pour his heart out to Darling and told them how much he loved them. And you can tell that he was doing it because he thought that it was the best thing he could do for them—and that’s because he was HONEST. He never once made excuses, or gaslit them into thinking this was entirely their fault. And it never felt like he was just throwing them aside when it suited him.

And it shows more even when he came back to apologize for his behavior. Even then, he realized that it was wrong to make definitive decisions about their relationship without talking to his partner first—and was ready to accept the consequences of his actions because he realized how much he hurt Darling. He was honest about everything—even when it was hard for him. He made sure to put in the effort in his relationship to make sure he keeps Darling by his side. Even when people came after him—even after he got publicly humiliated—even after he lost his job. He tried so hard because he told Darling how much he loved them—and he meant it.

I respect the living hell out of Andrew because his actions always matched his words.

I want to make this clear—I’m not saying that Alex has to stay with listener. And I’m not mad that he wanted to leave. I’m mad because of the way he broke up with them. There was absolutely no reason to blame them for everything. There was absolutely no reason to gaslight and manipulate them. And there was certainly no reason for his dumbass to make such stupid excuses. He tells listener he loves them and yet does everything he could to get away from them. He wasn’t even man enough to be honest during their break-up. His actions matched the opposite of his words and that makes me sick. Alex makes me sick.

When he sees all of his friends move on to the next level in their relationships—whether that be marriage, or having kids—his stupid, sorry, good-for-nothing-except-crying-and-making-excuses headass will be ALONE. And he’ll stay that way until he realizes that being unwilling to put actual effort in a relationship and having no integrity is a rather unattractive trait of his. Although, I highly doubt that he’ll be smart enough to realize that AT ALL—because he has such a victim complex.

In short, fuck Alex, and stan Andrew. ❤️

[afurtivecake]

Hear me out: the whole Andrew/Roland thing is really interesting and I quite like how it was portrayed actually.

From the outside, from the perspective of a stranger, it looks bad. Teenager hooking up with older superior from his job that he's working illegally, while fresh from juvie and recently medicated for an assault charge? Anyone would be like "nope NOPE. BAD fucking idea. For SO many reasons." From the perspective of anyone who knows him or is familiar with his history, they'd maybe think he was repeating patterns of the past and putting himself in dangerous situations because that's what he knows and is used to.

But from Andrew's perspective? It's kind of a badass move. What better way of proving to yourself that your psychological issues don't define you than literally fucking around with the type of person (on paper at least. Roland isn't like the people from his past, even if he doesn't make the best choices) that caused your issues and dominating the hell out of that relationship? Is it a good idea? Idk, but this is Andrew Minyard we're talking about. He doesn't believe in regrets and he doesn't believe in pussy-footing around problems that he can just face head-on and bulldoze through.

He knows where his boundaries are and he WILL enforce them when necessary. But he is also constantly trying to expand his boundaries. Andrew being in a casual, but fairly consistent relationship with Roland where Andrew is essentially the one in control, the one who dictates the terms of when they meet, what they do and how they do it is, if nothing else, a big fuck you to all those rapists and predatory assholes in his past and to the fear inside him. Same way that Andrew purposely puts Neil's hand on his chest despite physically tensing from being touched, he is asserting his autonomy by deliberately and carefully putting himself in a potentially risky situation that he has control over. It shows that he can judge who will be good to him and respect his boundaries and it shows that he has enough self-awareness to know when and how far he is willing to stretch his boundaries.

[ninyard]

hii. as someone who hates driving or even being driven by most people I was having Thoughts about the monsters and their driving. like who taught them? are they good at driving? why did andrew trust nicky and neil but not aaron nor kevin with his fancy cars? how did aaron feel getting in the car with andrew after tilda’s death? kevin after kayleigh’s (is it canon she died in a car crash? I forget)?

here are my thoughts please add or disagree as you’d like

I think nicky and aaron would have taken driving lessons at school. I think aaron drives really safely but will only drive if necessary, while nicky is passable but will volunteer to take you places (with the music on blast ofc)

I think andrew learned from nicky after juvie though, but due to his car obsession has really good intuition. like he doesn’t necessarily follow all the rules since he likes going fast, but he knows exactly when it would be safe/reasonable to break them.

neil obviously learned from mary on the run so he’s good at navigating dangerous or crowded roads, but I have no idea if you’d *feel* safe with him driving. I could see him driving like a grandma or a reckless teen but no in between.

kevin would be the ultimate passenger princess. like he has a drivers license but it’s useless since the nest gave out its own drivers “tests.” he has no common sense while driving so four way stop signs confuse him so bad (me).

thoughts?

okokok here’s my thoughts

- Cass taught Andrew how to drive. He was way too young to be driving, but he mentioned once that he always wanted to learn, and so she grabbed her keys and took him out to an empty parking lot, and showed him how. One of the perks of Cass was that she taught him so many of these little life skills, and every once in a while he’d ask if they could drive. Definitely illegal and definitely not the safest but Cass loved to see Andrew smile, and when he had the freedom of driving down a long open road or when she clapped at him reversing into a parking spot perfectly, there was a part of him that was still young enough to find joy in that. Andrew is safe when he drives, you wouldn’t be afraid being in a car with him, but that’s not to say he doesn’t drive and park like a dick. He has a fucking sports car. Trust you’ll be glad you made it home alive if he ever gave you a ride. Plus he’s just a general menace. Don’t you dare take more than two seconds pulling off on a green light or he’s honking that horn. He drives too close to everyone. Pressures learner drivers. Cuts people off all the time. Takes up two spaces when he parks. King of parking illegally. But he wouldn’t dare risk damaging his car. He’s reckless but safe.

- Aaron has a license but I feel like he either doesn’t really drive because he doesn’t have to/need to, or else he’s like a Climate Conscious king and takes the bus or cycles places. I think him and Nicky would’ve learned together, and Nicky had a beat up piece of shit car when he was in highschool. Nicky drove them to school and blared music out the windows at 7am and Aaron always covered his face in the passenger seat. If Aaron did drive he’d probably be the safest driver. Nicky is a pretty safe driver too but he HATES driving in heavy traffic. He has such bad road rage when it’s busy.

- Neil is messy as fuck because he never learned from an instructor or anything. He had bad habits from the START. I like to imagine he either learned how to drive in the UK and is used to driving on the left side of the road, or else he’s just hoping and praying that muscle memory is going to save him every time he steps into a car. He also is more used to driving manual/stick shift so he occasionally forgets the difference in pedals, and brakes far too hard with the wrong foot. He also can’t parallel park. At all. He either takes corners way too quickly or wayyyy too slowly. He’s competent. But he’s rusty! And either drives like a grandma, as you say, or like a boy racer. There’s no in between.

- (Andrew is sitting in the passenger side for some reason one time he’s driving the Maserati and he makes him pull over. He asks Neil if he ever actually learned how to drive and he’s like well…not technically no. And Andrew tells him that if he was driving behind him he’d cut him off because he drives like a fucking jerk.)

- Kevin. Passenger princess Kevin. “Knows” how to drive. “Learned” how to drive. Can drive, but if you’re near him in traffic you better have a dash cam because oh. He nearly crashes into people because he merges without checking his blind spot and then just goes whoops and keeps going. Will quickly change lanes if he’s going to miss his turn without double checking that he’s safe and like. It’s completely unintentional. Kevin has no idea that he drives like an idiot. But people blow their horn at him so often he fucking hates driving because he’s like god what am I doing wrong?? When he’s just nearly caused a four car pileup. You’ll be waiting for hours if you get caught behind him coming up to a roundabout. It’s just Kevin “no thoughts head empty” day with the clicking of his blinker and a dozen missed opportunities where he could’ve gone ahead. Kevin Day is and always will be a passenger princess. Which he deserves and is fully allowed to be btw. It’s just a miracle he hasn’t been in a huge accident. But I bet his perfect Raven car that has been gathering dust in the PSU parking lot with flat tyres and a handful of parking tickets under his wipers is dinged up TO FUCK. Scratches down the side where he misjudged the position of a wall. Dents in his bumper from when he parked too fast and bumped the car into bollards. Ask that man to change a tyre and he’ll cry. Kevin is NOT a car guy.

[whoreviewswho]

Nothing's just rubbish if you have an enquiring mind - Paradise Towers, 1987

At the time of writing, it is impossible to refute that the production history of Doctor Who in the 1980s is incredibly, thoroughly documented. Recently, I saw a video floating around fandom on Twitter from the now current production team being disparaging and critical toward the mid-80s period of the show. None of the talking points that came out of this were anything new but it did highlight, for me, the biggest problem of this era by way of how much it was not discussed. Mid-80s Doctor Who was bad. Mid-80s Doctor Who was also made exclusively for the fans. I think that fans feel, to this day, somewhat uncomfortable addressing this fact. After all, they are a significant and vocal subset of the programme’s audience and the ones who imbue themselves, or in the mid-80s were imbued by the production team proper, with a sense of ownership and understanding of the show that eclipses everybody else’s. We know how Doctor Who works because we’ve seen it all, we know it inside out. If it isn’t working for us, it must not be working.

Of course it goes without saying that this is completely tosh. Doctor Who did and does not exist solely for Doctor Who fans. It doesn’t even exist primarily for them. Doctor Who is a programme produced by a public broadcaster in Britain as part of their remit to inform, educate and entertain. No matter how much Russell T Davies and the BBC at large would prefer one to believe otherwise. At any rate, a programme with that comfortably met the BBC’s mission statement and was appealing across demographics of the British public was not the one they John Nathan-Turner had been producing for, arguably, four years at this point. 

But this was, thankfully, to change thanks to A. the appointment of Andrew Cartmel in the role of script-editor and B. the enormous falling out between Eric Saward and JNT leading to the latter refusing to hire any old hands that would have previously worked with them as a duo. Incredibly, this decision led to an enormous uptick in quality for the next three years. Wild. One of the first writers that JNT sought after for season twenty-four was Stephen Wyatt, a promising new talent at the BBC in late 1986. Following the hiring of Andrew Cartmel as script-editor, in early 1987, JNT arranged a meeting between the two writers where they got to discussing their mutual admiration for the works of J. G. Ballard. The pair began to construct the basic plot that would become Paradise Towers with Wyatt taking particular inspiration from his own experiences frequenting council housing in London's East End.

Season twenty-four, and really beginning with Paradise Towers, would mark a significant shift in the style and tone of Doctor Who from previous years. Cartmel and his team of writers were heavily inspired by contemporary comics, specifically the series 2000AD and the works of its writers such as Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, Dave Gibbons, Pat Mills and John Wagner. The second major change Cartmel employed, however, was a distinct turn back toward Doctor Who's cultural role as key viewing for British families. Regaining the general audience, and by that I mean adult non-fans watching the BBC, is one thing (and arguably the much easier one) but the task of reframing Doctor Who as an important programme for children was surely the more mammoth and, I would argue, necessary effort. Let’s not kid ourselves, where would the older fans come from if not childhood passion for the show? This is really the sole reason why fandom can never be trusted for knowing what makes for good Doctor Who on television since the answer invariably returns to “the ones that are like what I watched as a kid”. I don’t mean to spend any more time ragging on the latter half of the Eric Saward era than I have to but fully appreciating Paradise Towers simply has to go hand-in-hand with the acknowledgement that seasons twenty-one through three were playing to an older audience than Doctor Who was ever designed for. Yes, it was conceived as a programme to bridge audiences between two programmes that were targeted at older and younger demographics and Philip Hinchcliffe was correct in refuting claims that his version of the show needed to be watered down by arguing that it’s not made the children’s department; it’s made by the drama department. 

BUT this line of thinking was part of a wider rationale and objective for the show to introduce children and families to mature concepts and themes through the lens of a science-fantasy adventure serial. That’s what Doctor Who does best. The violent thrillers being told about video nasties and psychotic mercenaries being chopped up by cyborgs don’t cut it as family entertainment, even if they were really good. Paradise Towers is the Cartmel era at its most children's television. This is no way a discredit and certainly not something that disappears after this season; the balance simply becomes more nuanced. Despite its reappraisal over the years, I would find it would be hard to object to any adult viewer now whose opinion is simply that this was a bit too children's TV for their sensibilities but I think that this was still the right move. Even if this did swing too far into the realm of pure children's entertainment, Doctor Who had been so far away from that realm for so long at this point that an aggressive swing the other way was necessary. The show needed to even the scales before we could move back toward something a bit more overtly mature. Paradise Towers carries sense of a new era really beginning to fall into place (Time and the Rani is really a hangover from the Colin Baker era) but it's not quite there yet. It is similar in that way to a story like The Beast Below, for example.

With that family audience in mind, it is no surprise that the basic story of Paradise Towers is incredibly easy to get your head around; a dilapidated housing complex, that was designed by an evil mind who thinks his work is ruined by having people actually live in it, is out to kill the inhabitants. The foundational elements of this story, however, and the broader socio-political context is incredibly dense and opens itself up to thoughtful conversation about modernist architecture as an extension of urban renewal. Paradise Towers is, quite blatantly, a council estate, a place where all of the children and elderly were shunted into while the able-bodied were sent off to war. Contextualising the story in real-world history of Britain, we know that this is not what was really happened. What was actually happening under Thatcher's government, and buy no means ended with her, wax urban renewal of low socio-economic areas that largely neglected the people who actually lived there, redeveloping these parts pop England to be glimmering examples of perfect modernist architecture. Whether they were homes for those who needed them or not was a less important concern. In the case of Kroagnon here, the triumph of having built something is more important than it actually being put to use; "The whole place is polluted with flesh". And, of course, the more intellectual members of the audience would be quick to realise that Paradise Towers is obviously riffing on High-Rise. None of these things matter to a six year old though. What matters to six year olds is that the bad guys follow orders from a monstrous entity that prioritises a product and an aesthetic over living people. And, perhaps even more importantly, those same guys are just as capable of realising this is wrong and joining the good guys if they know that they should. The takeaway from this parable is as simple as 'Everybody should work together to take out the common enemy'. Which, in this case, is an actually life-threatening entity that is abusing, and symptomatic of, a larger system.

While Nicholas Mallet would never be my first choice for all-time best Doctor Who director, he does some very admirable work in this serial. Right form the off, there is a great juxtaposition between the devastated horror of the towers and a Yellow Kang being hunted and killed with the stark, shiny retro-futurism of the Doctor and Mel's, themselves an extension of those aristocratic adventurers of Victorian fiction, absorbing their bright and chipper tourist material. That being said, I love the Doctor's immediate resistance to the advertising material. The beginnings of Cartmel's interpretation of the Doctor as a scruffy defender of the lower classes are immediately apparent in this story.

The Kangs themselves are an incredibly simple realisation of what is unambiguously a political idea; they are the children neglected by the system who grew up to be warriors and hunters, just like the Rezzies did though in a much less malicious fashion as children would. It is a very dark idea but all of it is extremely pllatable for families. Speaking of the Rezzies, Tilda and Tabby are easily the most hilarious aspect of this story as an adult but they would surely be quite genuinely frightening for kids. When you are a child, there is something deeply unsettling and unnerving about the elderly. Their existence is so far beyond your scope of understanding that they are really quite alien and ripe for scares. Mel's kidnapping in episodes two and three is actually very unsettling considering the limitations on play here. For the adults, residents of the dilapidated towers descending into cannibalism is either going to come off as hilariously silly or the least apologetic Ballard rip in the whole serial. For those who really love this, it is obviously both. Tabby hilariously layering cream on Mel's biscuit is probably my favourite moment of comedy in the whole story.You can see the influence this era and this story specifically must have had on Russell T Davies' conception of Doctor Who. Gridlock and Dot and Bubble have far more in common with the stories of season twenty-four than any other in the show's history.

The 2000 AD influences are really all over this production. The aesthetic of this world and the specific socio-political subtext feel perfectly in-step with any of that house's publications. For all the Kangs' dialogue, their use of language, is silly and naff on-screen, it would be incredibly easy to dismiss on the written page. Is this especially different from, say, the language of the Mutants in The Dark Knight Returns? It is no surprise that this particular story inspired its own independent comic-book series later down the line.

But, that being said, the biggest problem here is the actual production which is, frankly, overextending its reach once again. Everybody involved is trying very hard to sell the story but this production team is not up to the task of realising Wyatt's world (Richard Briers is probably the sole exception to the claim that everybody here is trying their best to realise this material. Granted, his performance is well within the remit of children's TV villain but not in the right way). The sets are quite good though the lighting does ether cheapness no favours. The Happiness Patrol, for example, improves on this. Take the lighting in episode three's interrogation scene. The idea is there but it doesn't quite work. The cleaning robots are bloody terrible too. A redesign could have gone a long way to saving them. The legs hanging out the back are great but they're just not scary at all despite how great they are on paper. Pex is probably the biggest victim of this production not working. great character and Howard Cooke gives his all in it but he is simply the wrong casting choice for this. With that comic-book influence in mind, it is easy to see how Pex was intended too operate as this headstrong, hyper-masculine parody of the typical superhero/comic book action hero. Again, imagine him on paper being drawn like The Punisher or Judge Dread. The scrawny Howard Cooke is not the actor to convincingly sell this. I'm not entirely sure that this idea actually lends itself to the story being told. Pex is perfectly suited to the aesthetic of Paradise Towers, the tone is on point but this quite angry story about a very specific cultural context seems at odds with Pex's little story about being a deserter from war that tries to play as a superhero but is naturally ill-suited to it. It's very endearing but just its own little thing in this world rather than part of a greater thematic whole.

In his second story, Sylvester McCoy is great but, again, is plagued by that affect of being not-quite there. The script characterise shim well enough though somewhat generic and the matter is not helped but his performance still being in its infancy. It's not all pratfalls and mixed metaphors as some would lead you to believe but the multitudes that came to define the Seventh Doctor are certainly not here yet. Just like watching him parade around with a not quite right umbrella, the shape of it is there but the full definition isn't. The Doctor has so many excellent moments in this story. His outwitting the Caretakers by simply weaponising authoritarianism to suit his agenda. It's a very simple and somewhat obvious little scene but it perfectly illustrates the idiocy of blindly following inane orders; "Rules should always make sense". The shifting seats in the interrogation is also a lovely bit of theatrical play and there is a surprising glimmer of darkness when Pex volunteers for the mission that will kill him in episode four, as if the Doctor knew things were always going to play out that way. He doesn't even try to stop him from tackling Kroagnon and being blown up.

Then there's Mel. Mel sits awkwardly in this story. The world of a decaying, children's television dystopia is not an inappropriate place for a character such as Mel, who is already really just a kid's TV idea of 'the smart and plucky girl one", to inhabit. Bonnie Langford commits herself admirably but, in contrast to the Doctor, her presence is not much of a disruption to the narrative and the character is so thinly drawn that any attempt at thematic or subtextual threads to be drawn between her and the events of the story are so thin as to be entirely non-existent. Langford and McCoy play off of each other well enough but it is nevertheless painfully apparent that her character was conceived to play off of Colin Baker's Doctor and a lot of her role as a foil is nullified by the stark difference between their respective characterisations of the Doctor.

When I first saw Paradise Towers, I really did not take to it. Likely it was my previous conceptions of the Cartmel era as a fan, misconceptions that were likely informed by the impact of the New Adventures novels in fandom, that blinded me to how much good really is in here. The Cartmel era is not hard-edged science-fiction for mature audiences and Doctor Who fans. Like the best offerings of this programme have always been, the Cartmel era, and Paradise Towers, is an idiosyncratic little show for families that's punching above its weight. 

[cinematicnomad]

do you want hot priest to return on 911 just to maybe shake eddies straightness just a little bit?

WELL, a few things to preface before i answer that:

one, i'm actually behind on 911 since i've been traveling so much for work, so i haven't seen the latest ep yet. i'm planning to catch up this week but i just haven't gotten around to it quite yet. so, two, bc i'm behind, i haven't seen the priest's return or his interactions with eddie through anything other than the gifs i've seen on tumblr. also, three, not to be biased but i cannot think of any character as Hot Priest™ other than andrew scott in fleabag 😅

ANYWAY, my answer would be probably, not really?? i dunno, i think bc i was raised catholic i'm just never quite as interested in 911's forays into catholicism as the writers seem to want me to be, and i have negative interest in eddie finding his way back to his faith or whatever. also, if buddie were to become canon, the show already gave us buck figuring out his sexuality through someone else, so i would want eddie to have the full blown romcom realization bc of buck himself. no third party necessary.

i wouldn't say no to more of the priest, but yeah, i'm not interested in him as a lens for eddie to work out his sexuality. let buck be that for eddie lol.

✨sleepover weekend✨

[john-smiths-jawline]

The Making Of Canon

Summary: The news behind the Making of Sherlock Series 5, and what happens once it came out.

The Making of Canon

---2023---

“Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat have just confirmed the release of Sherlock series 5…” (BBC Sounds, 2023)

“Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman have since talked about reprising their roles as Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson…” (Radio Times, 2023)

“Reports have just arisen of a fifth season of BBC’s Sherlock, and we have reason to believe them true…” (CNN, 2023)

“Sherlock Season 5 Has Been Confirmed!

[Picture of Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes and Martin Freeman and John Watson in promotional photos for BBC Sherlock Season 1]

We’ve all been waiting for it since 2017! After six years, we have results! Here’s what we know so far:

-Benedict, Martin, Mark, and Andrew will all be reprising their roles!

-The show will not re-cast Mrs. Hudson following Una Stubbs’ death. How exactly the show will handle her death is currently unknown.

-There are unproven rumors that this will be a “re-do” of season 4, instead of a continuation. We can only hope!” (NPR, 2023)

---2025---

“…the BBC proudly stands with the LGTBQ+ community, and series 5 of Sherlock is only part of our mission to create shows that proudly reflect the diversity that exists both in the world and in the BBC itself…” (BBC), 2025

“In a show of solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community of London, the BBC has made one of their biggest couples—finally a couple.” (CNN), 2025

“In a stunningly beautiful scene, the BBC shows that is accepts everyone—no matter whether you’re Sherlock or John.” (New York Times), 2025

Mrs. Hudson’s Funeral (Sherlock S5E1, The Third Stain) by BBC on YouTube:

“Somber violin music plays in the background, one of Sherlock’s own compositions, as a closed casket makes its way into the ground. Sherlock, John, Mycroft, Greg, and Molly are standing there, all dressed in black. John’s arm has wrapped around Sherlock’s waist as a means to keep him upright. He himself is looking on with a soldier’s determination, but he’s clearly barely holding it together. Mycroft and Greg are standing closer together than necessary, sharing Mycroft’s umbrella even though it’s not raining.

Later, once everyone else is gone, Sherlock and John stand alone, loosely holding hands. The camera is positioned to make it reminiscent of John’s graveyard scene from The Reichenbach Fall.

“Sorry for being the worst tenants ever,” they said simultaneously, voices clearly strained and close to tears. Their hands squeeze together as they look at the cold stone. This is the start of something.”

John and Sherlock Confess (Sherlock S5E3, The Three Garridebs) by BBC on YouTube:

“John and Sherlock are running across rooftops. John starts lagging behind and Sherlock grabs his hand to help him keep up. A slight blush crosses both of their faces, barely visible in the dark London sky. The criminal they are chasing, a serial killer named Mr. Asmium, is cornered, and, seeing the silver flash of John’s Sig Sauer, shoots. The bullet hits John in the leg, and he goes down, dragging Sherlock with him. Sherlock takes John’s gun and shoots Asmium in the shoulder, snarling at him, before letting the gun clatter to the ground and dropping to John’s side, supporting his head as he uses his navy blue scarf to stop as much bleeding as he can. John’s eyes flutter open again, and relief floods through Sherlock so extremely that his thoughts disappear and he leans his head forward and kisses John. It’s messy, and John is in pain and bleeding, but it’s perfect. John slowly manages to take the control away from Sherlock, surging up and having Sherlock move his hands to support his head again, as the blood loss forced John to lay back as Sherlock broke the kiss, gasping for breath.

“I love you, John. I’ve loved you for so long.”

“I love you, Sherlock. I’ve loved you for so long.””

here’s the ao3:

[mojaves]

shooting star, comet, milky way, see no evil

also your description is cute

OHEHheheegrghgd ok im gonna do this for andrew my new favourite squeaky toy

🙈 SEE-NO-EVIL - whats a side of your oc that they don't want to show other people?

ohrhfddghj great start!! great start. he used to be the head of the special programs branch at arasaka [: basically, overseeing projects that primarily experimented on people in one way or another, and lead to SO many deaths and a whole lot of misery for anyone who didn't get outright killed by the experiments. he started working at arasaka when he was barely even 20, and became the head of the branch not long after - which is a LOT of power to give to a guy who's basically a kid in the corporate world, and has never had anyone tell him no before. and arasaka didnt do that either, they actively encouraged him to do whatever he wanted, as long as it would push their technology forward and get them more money. and he absolutely let that get to his head. who wouldnt in that situation!! he also just so Desperately wanted his family to be proud of him, to be better than his siblings, better than his cousins by any means necessary. he did a Lot of things that he's not proud of. he used to be an absolute asshole. self-centered self-absorbed corpo bastard man who was only in it for himself. and he doesnt want people to see him like that ever again. if they do, thats fair. he cant change that. he knows what he's done. it's far too late to apologise for it. but if he can present himself in literally any other way, a more positive light - a man who is actively trying to change, he would much rather people see that side of him. and not the monster he was once. So badly.

🌌 MILKY WAY - what was the inspiration behind your oc? what was the first thing you decided about them?

another fun one!! there wasn't really any inspiration really??? i just needed a guy for part of seb's story - the reason he almost died and got thrown out of arasaka. and up until very VERY recently thats all he was, asshole who beat seb within an inch of his life for no clear reason - which lead to the countless problems seb has had since, and the reason why he has a cyber jaw and prosthetic leg. but over like. the past week or so?? he has been through a lot of developments so ^ that incident is a lot more grey now rather than just good and bad. don't even worry about it.

🌠 SHOOTING STAR - if they could make any wish with no repercussions, what wish would they make?

above all else he just wants to be happy. but would also feel like wishing for that would be 'too selfish'. so, he would much rather wish to undo all the damage and death and pain he caused when he worked at arasaka. wish to have never worked there in the first place, to have never listened to his family, leave them behind, do his own thing, pursue a career he's actually interested in. learn what it's like to no longer be a sheltered rich kid who buys whatever he wants with his father's credit card.

☄️ COMET - what do people assume about them? are they right?

it depends on the time frame, because back at arasaka, the assumptions about him being a cold heartless asshole would kind of be right??? like. 80% right. he has very much let all of that consume him, but somewhere under all of that, it's just a sad pathetic guy who's trying his best to prove himself to anyone who will listen. he's weak. he's letting people walk all over him. without the money and status, he's powerless. he doesn't want to be there - the horrible personality is a front to not let people close to him. the mask will slip occasionally, and people will get to see him for how he really is.

after that, people really would just assume he's a depressed alcoholic who may or may not be barely clinging onto sanity and onto life at any given moment. at that point they'd be right. unfortunately he is unlucky enough for death to avoid him at every possible turn, so he has to live with the consequences of his actions. what he does with that though?? hehe. well. [: dont worry about it.

[xgenesisrei]

Re/Doing Theology

For Jaroslav Pelikan, theology is what the church believes, teaches, and confesses based on the word of God. I think, this is fair summary with a specific attention to how 'doctrines' or Christian teachings were formulated and articulated over time, of which some get 'systematized' in particular faith traditions, e.g, Patristic theology, Reformed theology, Wesleyan theology, Dispensational theology, Roman Catholic theology. Tracing how all these 'theologies' developed and got to 'interact' with each other is more properly treated in the field of Historical Theology. A very important development in recent years in this discipline is the increasing awareness of how deep theologizing were taking shape in early centers of the faith most notably Africa and Asia, in the so-called 'lost' or forgotten history of Christianity' as highlighted in the scholarly works of Philip Jenkins and Andrew Walls. An era so often overshadowed (sometimes even erased) by what transpired in the European Medieval and Modern period, e.g., 16th Century Reformation and Counter-Reformation. But theology will receive a vista wider than the summary provided by Pelican.

Consider for example the kind of theological works done in Central and South America, especially in the postcolonial era. The works of Gutierrez, Cardenal, and Padilla, to mention a few, paid attention on how reading the 'text' (word of God) is fundamentally shaped by the 'context' from which such reading is done. A context that demands liberation more than anything else, cf., Liberation Theology. 

In Africa, the role of worldviews, culture and language became more pronounced as an indispensable aspect of any context from which theologizing is to be conducted. 

In Asia, doing theology needed to situate itself in relation to (and conversation with) the imposing religious diversity and traditions of spirituality in the region.

This kind of study about theologies constructed from outside the Western centers of Christianity, what is now called as the Majority World, came to be regarded as Contextual Theology -an unfortunate label considering that all theologies did develop from a particular context -including those from the West!

Now, that we are also talking of people inhabiting a digital world, the metaverses, with AIs capable of theological articulation, the new emerging field of Digital Theology can only get even more interesting!

In all these, one realizes that theology not only has a 'history', it also has a 'geography'!

Tell me from which city your theology was forged, and it will show how much of your city is in that theology, an elderly church leader once said. An exciting development that is conscious of this geographical reality is the push to do Decolonial Theologizing. This is to highlight the necessary delinking or uncoupling of epistemic assumptions involved in theological studies to pave way for the pursuit of re-rooting theological work not only in specific places but in the very 'soul' of the destituted people who inhabit those spaces.

We see today the re/emergence of multiple centers of Christianity in the regions of Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Unfolding with it is the story of theology that is way older than how it has been popularly taught, wider than how it has been normally conceived, and deeper than how it has been usually portrayed. Indeed it is an exciting time to re/do theology as most of us have known it.

-Rei Lemuel Crizaldo (February 8, 2023)

[mayasdeluca]

I love how we’re all thinking it’ll be Carina in the hospital for the big crossover ep, but lol I think we’re all a little delulu. Sadly, like Grey’s, S19 has never made an effort with Carina outside of being Maya’s love interest. On Grey’s she was just comedic relief, a plot device for Arizona and Andrew.

I’m all for our theory to be right, that’s she’s giving birth, but I seriously doubt it. It’ll be Andy because the theme seems to be ‘look at how great of a Captain Andy is’ this season. I don’t mind her much, she can be funny, but she’s going to be insufferable this season. I can feel it. Or it’ll be Travis. I doubt it’s Theo. Literally no one cares about him.

The pessimistic in me thinks that the whole IVF stuff is going to get dropped. They’ll maybe mention it a few more times but it’ll be left open ended. The focus is going to be on working through the adoption and adjusting to having a sudden baby and they’ll have carina either no longer want it or choose to delay it. I’m hoping ima thousand percent wrong. That’ll be Marina angst this season. Which kinda boring, but as long as they don’t fight for multiple episodes again. Maybe we’ll get cute arguments like them arguing over what’s an acceptable amount of money to spend on baby clothes. Carina would hands down buy Liam designer onesies. However, I’m not opposed to them switching the script and seeing a pregnant Maya. Only because I think Danielle in a baby bump suit would be freaking adorable. I mean stef too but Dani will break my brain.

showrunners tend to stick to what they know: Liam’s bio family is going to rock the boat. Maybe one of the bio grandma shows up wanting custody. I forgot what was said about the bio dad if at all. Predictable and boring, but it plays into the drama they’re going for. I’m curious about what the Maya centric ep will be about. Her dad and upbringing again or something else? What other drama could she possible have? Could she be hiding something? Hate to think after last season she’d go back to keeping things from carina.

But who the hell knows. With what Danielle said in her live, anything can happen. if we’re gonna see badass Carina I think it’ll be dealing with the baby’s bio fam and legal proceedings. Unless she’s saving people’s lives outside the hospital again.

I hope we get a rated m scene from them. That shower scene has kept us feed but we’d like some more please. don’t let it be wasted on Travis being a ho again or Sullivan/Ross, respectfully.

Side note: They’re gonna be moms and I love that for them but I hope all new fics aren’t baby centric fics. Kids are awful and I say that lovingly. 😂

Yeah we're always hopeful that Carina is involved in some big way (like the clinic doxxing storyline but that ended up just focusing on Bailey and even Addison) and it usually doesn't happen. It probably does have to do with Andy since Jaina mentioned it but we now know Carina is going to appear on Grey's this season, so who knows.

It would be a shame if they just leave the IVF/pregnancy stuff open ended when they could at least have it lead to something in the season finale, but we'll see how they do it. I think it would be incredibly lazy and disappointing if they go the whole 'bio family comes to cause trouble' route considering they just did that not too long ago with Pru and Bailey/Ben. And with a shortened season as is, that feels even less necessary. I think it's probably now going to lean more towards them not necessarily agreeing on how to parent in certain situations so I guess they're going to bump heads a little in that sense but hopefully it's nothing too crazy since this is supposed to be a happy time for them.

I'm very curious what the heavy Maya episode could be about too. I would lean towards it being Mason related since that's something that hasn't been addressed in some time and they could do a lot with still or maybe it's Maya's mom coming back. It feels like it has to be family related because I can't see it being any kind of drama with work or Carina or anything like that.

Hopefully they do get their 10 pm sex scene like every other couple I assume will. You know Sullivan and Ross will get at least one so it's only right Marina do too. And I'm sure there will still be some kidless fics out there but you may have to look a little harder once this storyline plays out. 😂

[moderngeekdom]

ECHO: Was it all that bad?

OK, so it's time we talked about the latest Disney+ show for the MCU: Echo.

I wish I could say I binged the series in it's entirety, but alas, life got in the way and I had to split up viewing between two days. Not that that was difficult, seeing as how it clocked in at a mere five episodes. Still, I was able to watch the first two episodes then had to let a couple days pass before I could make time to watch the remaining three.

I'm not sure that break was all that advisable to be honest.

See, the first two episodes, while being filled with call-backs to other series, were the most well executed and it really felt like the producers and writers knew what they were doing.

Episode 1 especially had some excellent fight choreography, pacing, and story building. Episode 2 followed suit by pushing further into Maya's family and past.

But then episode 3 happened, and while I appreciate the overall story being told, the inconsistencies and poor plotting and pacing started to creep in. If I had hope that this was going to be an overall well excecuted series at the end of episode 2, those hopes were dashed by the end of episode 3.

Despite the train sequence in episode 3, and the roller rink sequence in episode 4, there wasn't much dynamic storytelling to fill out the last 3 episodes. I guess when you have to truncate six episodes down to five some things need to get rearranged and squeezed together. Let alone a good portion of the story probably got left on the editing room floor.

But here's the thing: realistically, I get it. This series was shot during the pandemic and had to deal with all sorts of mandates and limitations. THEN their budget got slashed and they had to make do. So I get it, all of my qualms with the show make sense within that context.

So lets talk about the series knowing that it's issues are completely understandable:

Overall, I liked it!

It's a nice, street-level anti-hero story. Alaqua Cox is great, she has an excellent screen presence and can be incredibly intimidating when she wants to be.

Personally I felt that Chaske Spencer's Henry worked, despite being a bit over-the-top.

Cody Lightning's Biscuits was a nice addition; a well-meaning cousin just happy to see his family after so many years. Always good for levity and a bit of comic relief.

Tantoo Cardinal was top notch as Chula, and I can't remember a single thing I haven't loved Graham Greene (Skully) in. Presumably when Echo lives on in other series, hopefully Skully will at least make an appearance!

Rounding out the main cast we have Devery Jacobs as Bonnie, Zahn McClarnon as Echos's dad, and Andrew Howard as the smarmy henchman Zane.

Of course, we can't not talk about Vincent D'Onofrio's Kingpin. He was spot on, per usual, and a great relief that Marvel made sure to bring him over from the Netflix series. Kingpin chews every scene he's in, even when it feels like he got shoehorned. D'Onofrio does such a great job adding gravitas to the character that you get a sense he genuinely enjoys playing him. Which is only further proven by the fact that he's publicly stated how he hopes to continue to portray Kingpin for as long as Marvel and Disney will let him.

All the better for us fans.

All-in-all I have to say the cast was excellent, especially when you consider many of the main members weren't as heavily experienced as the veterans. But those veterans helped bring everything together, and they all seemed to play along nicely with one another.

The story itself was also, I feel, a good one worth telling. It was a great way to bring Echo out of someone else's' series and into their own. Most of the elements made sense, although the obvious reworking of episode 4 kinda made some beats a bit confusing. The sit-down between Maya and Kingpin in Maya's old house for example...necessary, but forced. Still, despite it's awkwardness and what the scene did to the overall pacing, I'd say all the main beats were accomplished, and the show only got muddied due to the small details, or lack thereof, and some of the timing.

If this show hadn't been produced during a pandemic. If it had a decent budget and the proper amount of time to tell a full and complete story. If it had been taken seriously by the Disney Execs. If it hadn't had to deal with all of it's internal problems...it'd probably have been great. As it is, however, it's just adequate bordering good. Totally watchable, and I'm grateful it exists, but it's issues overshadow its quality.

Hopefully we'll get to see more Maya Lopez in future street-level MCU projects. Till then, I'd recommend watching Echo, but be sure to temper your expectations.

3/5 Stars

[catalystchapter1and2]

Chapter 1

Chuck Wolfe was facing an impossible task. Florida’s governor had asked him to head up a new program. This itself was nothing new. Chuck had served the governor for almost a decade in a variety of dierent roles: operations manager, director of external aairs, and executive director of nancial oversight. He had developed and implemented programs that aided relief eorts after Hurricane Andrew and helped the city of Miami dig itself out of its nancial crisis. But this time the challenge was much larger. Chuck’s job was to build a team to ght an industry that sold more than a trillion products to more than a billion consumers worldwide. An industry that spent almost $10 billion a year marketing its products and in which leading companies individually had prots larger than Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and McDonald’s. Combined. Chuck’s goal? To do something dozens of organizations had failed at for decades: to get teens to stop smoking. In the late 1990s, smoking was the biggest public health crisis facing the nation. Cigarettes were the largest cause of preventable deaths and disease, killing tens of millions of people worldwide. In the United States alone, smoking was responsible for one in ve deaths and had an economic cost of almost $150 billion a year.1 The problem was particularly acute among teens. Tobacco companies knew the youth market was vital to their success. While outwardly they claimed to avoid teens and children, internally they knew that wasn’t an option. “Today’s

teenager is tomorrow’s potential regular customer, and the overwhelming majority of smokers rst begin to smoke while still in their teens,” a Philip Morris memo noted. Not selling to children meant going out of business. So companies used all manner of devices to appeal to the younger demographic. When the Flintstones cartoon debuted in 1960, Winston cigarettes was the sponsor, and commercials showed Fred and Barney Rubble taking cigarette breaks. When advertising on television and radio was banned in the early 1970s, cigarette companies invented friendly cartoon characters like Joe Camel to make cigarettes seem fun. And when regular cigarettes didn’t seem attractive enough for younger palates, they introduced avored tobacco in colorful candy wrappers to make the product more appealing. It worked. Teen smoking rates should be low. Federal law requires that people be at least eighteen to purchase cigarettes in the United States, and most students don’t reach that age until midway through their last year of high school. Some cities have raised the age even higher. But by the late 1990s, things looked ominous. Almost three-quarters of high school students had smoked.2 One in four seniors reported smoking daily. Teen smoking was at a nineteen-year high. And the numbers were increasing. Someone needed to shut teen smoking down. And fast. But stopping teens smoking was no easy task. Organizations had tried—and failed—for decades. Countries banned cigarette advertising. They added health warnings to tobacco packaging. And they spent billions of dollars trying to persuade young people to quit. But despite all these eorts, smoking rates actually increased.3 How could Chuck Wolfe succeed when everything else had failed? When Warnings Become Recommendations To answer that question, it helps to understand why prior warnings fell short. And what better way to do that than examine a warning that shouldn’t have even been necessary in the rst place?

In early 2018, Procter & Gamble had a small PR problem. Fifty years earlier they had launched Salvo, a granular laundry detergent compacted into tablet form. The tablets weren’t that successful, but after decades of work, Procter & Gamble had a new formulation that they thought would be more eective. Rather than having to measure out exactly how much detergent to use, or risk getting a sticky mess on their clothes, consumers could just pull one of these small self-encased bubbles from a box and toss it into the washing machine. The plastic would dissolve in the water, releasing the detergent only when needed. No muss, no fuss. Procter & Gamble introduced the product under the Tide brand, called them Tide Pods, and launched them with the promise of making laundry easier. The company invested more than $150 million in marketing, believing that the pods could ultimately capture 30 percent of the $6.5 billion U.S. laundry detergent market. There was only one problem: people were eating them. The Tide Pod Challenge, as it was called, started as a joke. Someone remarked that the bright orange and blue swirls looked good enough to eat, and after an Onion article (“So Help Me God, I’m Going to Eat One of Those Multicolored Detergent Pods”), a CollegeHumor video, and various social media posts, a buzz started. Now people were challenging others to eat detergent. Teens would shoot videos of themselves chewing or gagging on the pods and post them on YouTube, daring others to do the same. In feats of culinary inspiration, some were even cooking the pods before ingesting them.4 Soon everyone from Fox News to the Washington Post was covering the craze. Doctors were brought in to comment, parents wrung their hands, and everyone puzzled over the odd trend that was picking up steam. So Procter & Gamble did what many companies would do in this situation. They told people not to do it. On January 12, 2018, Tide tweeted “What should Tide PODs be used for? DOING LAUNDRY. Nothing else. Eating a Tide POD is a BAD IDEA…”

To make things even clearer, Tide enlisted celebrity football player Rob “Gronk” Gronkowski to help. In a short video, Tide asks Gronk whether eating Tide Pods is ever a good idea. His answer is simple. “NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,” Gronk says as he shakes his nger at the camera and the screen lls with “NOs.” “Not even as a joke?” they ask. “NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,” Gronk replies. “Should you use Tide Pods for anything but cleaning clothes?” they say. “NO,” says Gronk. The video closes with a warning: “Laundry packs are highly concentrated detergent meant only to clean clothes.” And as if that weren’t unambiguous enough, they add a quote from Gronk: “Do not eat.” For good measure, a couple hours later Gronk himself followed up on social media. “I’ve partnered with @Tide to make sure you know, Tide PODs are for doing laundry,” he tweeted. “Nothing else!” And that’s when all hell broke loose. Warning people about health risks has been a standard approach for decades. Eat less fat. Don’t drink and drive. Wear your seat belt. Pick any health concern, add an admonishment to do it (if it’s good) or not do it (if it’s bad), and you’ve basically captured the essence of public health messaging for the last fty years. So it’s no surprise that Procter & Gamble thought this is what they should do. The Tide execs probably thought it was ridiculous that they had to say anything in the rst place. Who would think that eating something lled with alcohol ethoxy sulfate and propylene glycol would be a good idea? After all, the website already had a helpful note saying, “Keep out of reach of children.” Enlisting Gronk to tell people not to eat the pods should help spread the word and stem any doubt. But that’s not what happened. Right after Gronk and Tide warned people not to eat them, Google searches for Tide Pods spiked to their highest level ever. Four days later they had more than doubled. Within a week they were up almost 700 percent. Unfortunately, the trac wasn’t from concerned parents trying to gure out why Tide had taken to Twitter to remind people of the obvious. Visits to

poison control centers shot up as well. In all of 2016, there had been only thirty-nine cases of teens ingesting, inhaling, or absorbing laundry packets. In a dozen days following the Tide announcement, there were twice that many. Within a few months the number had more than doubled that of the prior two years combined. Tide’s eorts had backred. The Tide Pod Challenge might seem unusual, but it’s actually an example of a much broader phenomenon.5 Instructing jurors to disregard inadmissible testimony can encourage them to weigh it more heavily. Alcohol prevention messages can lead college students to drink more. And trying to persuade people that smoking is bad for their health can actually make them more interested in smoking in the future. In these and similar examples, warnings became recommendations. Just as telling a teenager not to date someone somehow makes that person more alluring, telling people not to do something has the opposite eect: it makes them more likely to do it. The Need for Freedom and Autonomy In the late 1970s, researchers from Harvard and Yale published a study that helps explain why warnings backre. Working with a local nursing home called the Arden House, they conducted a simple experiment.6 On one oor, residents were reminded of how much freedom and control they had over their lives. They could choose how they wanted their rooms to be arranged and whether they wanted the sta to help them rearrange the furniture. They could decide how they wanted to spend their time and whether they wanted to visit other residents or do something else. And they were reminded that if they had any complaints, they could provide feedback so that things would change. To underscore their autonomy, these residents were given some additional choices. A box of houseplants was passed around, and residents were asked

whether they wanted a plant to take care of, and, if so, which one. A movie was being shown two nights the following week, and residents were asked which night they wanted to go, if they wanted to go at all. On another oor, residents received a similar speech but without the inclusion of freedom and control. They were reminded that the sta had set up their rooms to try to make them as happy as possible. They were handed houseplants and told the nurses would take care of them on their behalf. And they were reminded there was a movie the following week and told they would be assigned to watch it one day or the other. After some time passed, researchers followed up to see how residents were doing and whether the reminders had any eect. The results were striking. Residents who had been given more control were more cheerful, active, and alert. But even more astonishing were the longer-term eects. Eighteen months later the researchers examined mortality rates across the two groups. On the oor that had been given more freedom and control, less than half as many residents had died. Feeling that they had more autonomy seemed to make people live longer. People have a need for freedom and autonomy. To feel that their lives and actions are within their personal control. That, rather than driven by randomness, or subject to the whims of others, they get to choose. Consequently, people are loath to give up agency. In fact, choice is so important that people prefer it even when it makes them worse o. Even when having choice makes them less happy. In one study,7 researchers asked people to imagine being the parents of Julie, a premature baby admitted to a hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit with a brain hemorrhage. Julie’s life was being sustained by a ventilator, but unfortunately, after three weeks of treatment, her health had not improved. Consequently, the doctors summoned Julie’s parents to explain the situation. There were two options: stop the treatment, which meant Julie would die, or continue the treatment, although Julie might die anyway. Even if she

survived, she would suer crippling neurological impairment. Both options were far from ideal. Participants were divided into two groups. One group was asked to make the choice themselves. Whether to stop treatment or continue it. The other group was told that the doctors made the decision for them. They were told that the doctors had decided it was in Julie’s best interest to stop the treatment. This is clearly a terrible situation to be in. Whether people made the choice themselves or the doctors made it for them, all participants felt nervous, upset, distressed—and guilty. But researchers found that the choosers felt worse. Having to personally choose whether to pull the plug made the situation feel all the more awful. That said, choosers still didn’t want to give up control. When asked, they said they preferred making the decision themselves rather than letting the doctor decide. Even though it made them feel worse, they still wanted to have control. Reactance and the Anti-Persuasion Radar The choice study and the nursing home study help explain what happened with Procter & Gamble and the Tide Pods. People like to feel they have control over their choices and actions. That they have the freedom to drive their own behavior. When others threaten or restrict that freedom, people get upset. When told they can’t or shouldn’t do something, it interferes with their autonomy. Their ability to see their actions as driven by themselves. So they push back: Who are you to tell me I can’t text while driving or walk my dog on that pristine patch of grass? I can do whatever I want! When people’s ability to make their own choices is taken away or even threatened, they react against the potential loss of control. And one way to reassert that sense of control—to feel autonomous—is to engage in the forbidden behavior: to text while driving, let the dog loose on the grass, or even chomp down on some Tide Pods. Doing the forbidden thing becomes an easy way to reassert their sense of being in the driver’s seat.8

While texting while driving might not have even been that attractive originally, threatening to restrict it makes it more desirable. The forbidden fruit tastes ever more sweet. And it tastes sweeter because eating it is a way to reclaim one’s autonomy. Restriction generates a psychological phenomenon called reactance. An unpleasant state that occurs when people feel their freedom is lost or threatened. And reactance happens even when asking people to do something rather than telling them not to. Whether made to encourage people to buy a hybrid car or save money for retirement, any eort is often unintentionally seen as impinging on people’s freedom. It interferes with their ability to see their behavior as driven by themselves. In the absence of persuasion, people think they are doing what they want. They see their actions as driven by their own thoughts and preferences. The only reason they’re interested in buying a hybrid car is because of these. They like helping the environment. They like the way the car looks. Try to convince people, though, and things get more complex. Because now if they nd themselves thinking of buying a hybrid, there is another explanation. In addition to their own inherent interest, now there is also a second possibility: maybe they’re thinking about buying a hybrid because someone told them they should. And that alternate explanation for their interest threatens their perceived freedom. If they’re considering buying a hybrid because someone told them they should, their behavior is not really being driven by themselves. They’re not really in the driver’s seat. Someone else is. So, just like the Tide Pod Challenge, to reestablish a sense of autonomy, people often react against persuasion. They do the opposite of whatever is being requested.I Want me to buy a hybrid? No, thanks, I’ll get a gas guzzler instead. Want me to save money for retirement? I’ll show you. I’ll buy whatever I want!9 Pushing, telling, or just encouraging people to do something often makes them less likely to do it.

Reactance even happens when people had wanted to do what was suggested in the rst place. Take a new workplace initiative to get people to speak up in meetings. Some people may want to speak up already, so the initiative should be an easy sell. People want to speak up; the company wants people to speak up; everybody wins. But if the initiative crowds out people’s ability to see their behavior as internally or freely driven, it can backre. Someone who is thinking of speaking up now has an alternate explanation for that thought: that they’re doing so not because they want to but because the initiative told them to. It interferes with their ability to see their decisions as their own. And if they don’t want to feel like they’re just going along with a directive, they might end up staying silent. Just as a missile defense system protects a country against incoming projectiles, people have anti-persuasion radar. An innate anti-inuence system that shields them from being swayed. They’re constantly scanning the environment for inuence attempts, and when they detect one, they deploy a set of countermeasures.10 Responses that help them avoid being persuaded. The simplest countermeasure is avoidance, or just ignoring the message. Leaving the room during a commercial, hanging up on a sales call, or shutting a pop-up window. Shoppers avoid salespeople and online shoppers avoid looking at banner ads. The more a commercial seems like it’s trying to persuade people, the more likely they are to change the channel. By reducing exposure to incoming communication, its potential impact is weakened. The more complex (and eortful) response is counterarguing. Rather than just ignoring the message, people actively contest it or work to combat it. Take a message from Ford about its F-150 Truck: “CLASS-LEADING CAPABILITY… The Ford F-150 outperforms every other truck in its class when hauling cargo in the bed or towing a trailer. No wonder the competition is always in a scramble to follow the leader.” Rather than taking the message at face value, people contest its contents and source, scrutinizing the claims and arguing against them. Does the F-150 really have class-leading capability? Of course Ford would say that: they’re trying to convince people to buy it. I bet Chevrolet says the same thing. Notice how they don’t just say “outperforms every other truck.” They qualify it with “in its class”

and “when hauling cargo in the bed or towing a trailer.” I wonder if it always outperforms the other trucks or only in a small set of specic situations. And what does “outperform” mean, anyway? Like an overzealous high school debate team, people refute each claim and undermine the source. They poke and prod and raise objections until the message comes crumbling down. Allow for Agency To avoid reactance and the persuasion radar, then, catalysts allow for agency. They stop trying to persuade and instead get people to persuade themselves. After Chuck Wolfe met with the governor, he put together a team to drive Florida’s teen anti-smoking program. The team knew that traditional advertising wouldn’t work. Teens were savvy enough to know when someone was trying to convince them. And they knew that health information by itself wouldn’t solve the problem. It wasn’t like teens thought smoking was healthy. Teens knew it was bad for them and they were doing it anyway. So what was left? After discussing various directions, Wolfe’s team landed on a devastatingly simple idea. Something that had never been done before. They stopped telling kids what to do. For decades, adults had been telling kids not to smoke. Smoking is bad. Cigarettes will kill you. Stay away from them. Again and again and again. Other public health campaigns had taken similar approaches. Sure, there was some variation. Some appeals emphasized health (“Don’t smoke: it will kill you”) while others focused on vanity (“Don’t smoke: it will give you yellow teeth”). Some highlighted athletics (“Don’t smoke: it will make you worse at sports”), while others focused on peers (“Don’t smoke: you’ll get left out”). But, regardless of avor or style, the subtext was the same. Whether explicit or not, there was always a request, demand, or suggested action: We know what’s best for you and you should behave accordingly.

And it wasn’t working. So rather than assuming they had the answers, Wolfe’s team asked teens for their perspective. In March 1998 they convened a Teen Tobacco Summit, where students came together to talk about and understand the problem. And rather than tell teens smoking was bad, Chuck and the organizers let the teens take the lead. All the organizers did was lay out the facts: how the tobacco industry used manipulation and inuence to sell cigarettes; how companies manipulated the political system and used sports, television, and movies to make smoking seem aspirational. Here is what the industry is doing, they said. You tell us what you want to do about it. Many things came out of that summit. A new statewide organization called Students Working Against Tobacco, or SWAT, was formed to coordinate youth empowerment eorts. Workbooks were created to bring information about the tobacco industry into the classroom (e.g., if a carton of cigarettes generates $2 of prot, how much money would a tobacco executive make if they sold fourteen cartons of cigarettes?). And a dierent approach to media was formulated. Take one of the rst “truth” ads that ran soon after. Two regular teens, sitting in their regular-looking living room, call a magazine executive to ask why the publication accepted tobacco advertising, given they have a youth readership. The executive says the magazine supports anti-tobacco ads, but when one of the teens asks whether the magazine would run some as a public service, the executive says no. When asked why not, he says, “We’re in this business to make money.” When the other teen asks, “Is this about people or about money?” the executive responds incredulously. “Publishing is about money,” he says before quickly hanging up. That’s it. The ad didn’t demand anything from teens. There was no message at the end telling them not to smoke, what to do, or what would or wouldn’t make them cool. The spot just let them know that, whether they realized it or not, cigarette companies were trying to inuence them—and that the media was in on it. Rather than trying to persuade, the messages simply laid out the truth and left it up to teens to decide. And decide they did.

In just a few months, the “truth campaign,” as the program came to be known, led more than 30,000 Florida teens to quit smoking.11 Within a couple years it cut teen smoking rates in half. It was the most eective large-scale prevention program. Ever. The pilot program quickly became a worldwide model for youth tobacco control. When a national foundation was formed to eliminate teen smoking, it adopted Florida’s strategy and converted “truth” into a national campaign. And it hired Chuck Wolfe to come on as its executive vice president. Over the course of the national campaign, teen smoking rates dropped by 75 percent. Teens were less likely to start smoking, and those who already smoked were less likely to continue. The program prevented more than 450,000 youths from smoking in the rst four years alone and saved tens of billions of dollars in health care costs. In fact, the truth campaign was so eective in changing minds that in 2002 the program received one of strongest testaments to the success of their approach: Tobacco companies led a lawsuit to stop it. The truth campaign got teens to stop smoking because it didn’t tell them to stop smoking. Wolfe understood that teens were smart enough to make their own decisions. But, more than that, he understood that by letting them make those decisions, rather than telling them what to do, they’d be more likely to make good decisions in the end. Wolfe let teens chart their own path to his destination. By encouraging them to be active participants rather than passive bystanders, Chuck made them feel that they were in control. Lowering their radar and increasing action.12 To reduce reactance, catalysts allow for agency—not by telling people what to do or by being completely hands-o, but by nding the middle ground. By guiding their path. Four key ways to do that are: (1) Provide a menu, (2) ask, don’t tell, (3) highlight a gap, and (4) start with understanding. Provide a Menu

One way to allow for agency is to let people pick the path. Let them choose how they get where you are hoping they’ll go. Parents use this idea all the time. Telling toddlers they have to eat a certain food usually fails. If they aren’t interested in broccoli or chicken to begin with, pushing it on them is only going to build their resistance. So, instead of pushing, savvy parents give their toddlers a choice: Which do you want to eat rst, broccoli or chicken? By giving kids options, the kids get to feel like they are in control: Mom and Dad aren’t telling me what to do; I’m picking what I want to eat. But by selecting the options Mom and Dad shape the decision. Little Liza is still eating the food she needs to be eating, just in the order she chooses. You need to go to the doctor to get a shot; do you want it in the right or left arm? You need to get ready for bed; do you want to take a bath now or after you brush your teeth? Guided choices like these let children retain a sense of freedom and control while helping parents reach their desired outcomes.13 Smart bosses often do the same thing. Potential hires know they are supposed to negotiate, so—almost regardless of what they’re oered—they usually ask for more. One way to deal with this is to give candidates the tradeos. An extra week of vacation is equivalent to $5,000 less salary. Ten thousand more in salary is equivalent to this much less in equity. Letting potential hires choose which dimension is more important makes them feel like they have more of an active role in the process14—and hopefully satises their need to negotiate. By letting candidates choose between two options the boss is equally happy with, potential hires feel like they have more autonomy without making the boss any worse o. It’s providing a menu: a limited set of options from which people can choose. Go to most Italian restaurants for dinner, and there is more than one option available. Patrons can choose whether they want the spaghetti and meatballs or the lamb ragù. The Bolognese or the macadamia nut pesto. Can consumers order anything they want? No. They can’t order sushi, egg rolls, lamb souvlaki, or any of several other things that the restaurant doesn’t

oer. But within the limited set of things that are on the menu, they get to choose. It’s choice, but it’s bounded or guided choice. The restaurant sets the menu, and consumers choose within those bounds. Advertising agencies do something similar when presenting work to clients. If the agency shares only one idea, the client spends the entire meeting poking holes in the presentation, looking for aws or listing reasons why it won’t work. So smart agencies share multiple directions—not ten or fteen but two or three—and let the client pick which one they like the best. Increasing buy-in for whichever route is selected. Try to convince people to do something, and they spend a lot of time counterarguing. Thinking about all the various reasons why it’s a bad idea or why something else would be better. Why they don’t want to do what was suggested. But give people multiple options, and suddenly things shift. Rather than thinking about what is wrong with whatever was suggested, they think about which one is better. Rather than poking holes in whatever was raised, they think about which of the options is best for them. And because they’ve been participating, they’re much more likely to go along with one of them in the end. A friend of mine used to gripe about how his wife asked his opinion but then shot down his suggestions. She’d ask, “Where do you want to go to dinner?” or “What do you feel like doing this weekend?” But if he responded, “Mexican sounds good” or “Let’s check out that festival that’s happening on Sunday,” she’d always say no: “We just had Mexican last week” or “I think it’ll be too hot on Sunday to be outside all day.” It would drive him nuts. “Why does she ask me what I want, just so she can say no?” he would complain. “Is she using me like some perverse sounding board?” Then he tried a slightly dierent tack. Rather than suggesting one thing, he suggested two. Rather than just suggesting Mexican, he would say either Mexican or sushi sounded good. Rather than suggesting the festival, he’d say

they could go to the festival or binge-watch one of their favorite shows. Rather than giving her one option, he gave her a menu. And suddenly she stopped arguing. She never liked both options he suggested, and she’d still come up with some reason why one option was less than ideal, but at least she’d pick one. Because now that option wasn’t just his suggestion that was being foisted on her; it was hers. After all, she had chosen it.15 Ask, Don’t Tell Another way to allow for agency is to ask questions rather than make statements. Nafeez Amin co-owns Sherpa Prep, a test prep and admissions consulting company in Washington, DC. The company runs GMAT and GRE courses, and for more than a decade it has helped hundreds of students get into some of the best graduate programs in the country. In the early days, though, Nafeez noticed the same problem coming up again and again: students weren’t studying enough. In addition to helping run the company, Nafeez often steps in to teach courses. Most students haven’t taken math for several years, and the GMAT doesn’t allow test takers to use a calculator, so the rst day usually starts with some fundamentals of arithmetic. In addition, Nafeez briey goes over course logistics. Encouraging the students to form study plans or tell friends that they are taking the course to encourage accountability. But when he spoke to students, Nafeez noticed a huge disparity between their expectations and the kind of work that GMAT success would require. Many had no idea what they were in for. Everyone was applying to the same top ten schools, assuming that with just a little eort they would get in. Students didn’t understand that top schools often had a 5 percent acceptance rate, even among really qualied applicants. Many came in thinking about how they had destroyed the SATs or done well on tests in the past. But this was a dierent pool. It wasn’t high school anymore. His students were going against people who’d not only graduated college but

had done well enough to think seriously about graduate school. It was a smarter subset. Just doing whatever they’d done before wasn’t going to be enough. When Nafeez asked students how much they planned to study outside of class, the numbers he got back were shockingly low. Five hours a week, most would say; ten tops. Around fty hours by the end of the course. Nowhere near the two hundred or three hundred hours it usually takes for people to get the scores they need. But when Nafeez tried to tell students that, all he got back were blank stares. Students either didn’t believe him or were so overwhelmed that they dropped out. It came across as pretty harsh on the rst day. Who is this guy to tell me I need to study more? Nafeez didn’t want to be demotivating, but he wanted students to be realistic. He wanted them to realize that they needed to spend more hours studying outside of class. That it was going to be harder than they anticipated. That it was going to take longer. That it was going to be a process. So instead of telling students what they needed to do, Nafeez started asking about what they wanted. The next time he taught a class, he started by asking, “Why are you here? What’s your goal? Why are you taking the GMAT?” “I want to get into a top business school,” one student said. “Okay. Do you know what it takes to get into a place like that?” Nafeez asked. “I’vegottogeta720,”onestudentreplied.“A750,”saidanother. “How’d you get to that number?” Nafeez asked. Dierent students chimed in, and the group started having a conversation. Through the process, it came out that around 250,000 people take the GMAT every year. For the top twenty MBA programs, the enrollment is around 10,000. That means lots and lots of people competing for a small number of slots. The students started realizing this was going to be tougher than they thought. Once this sunk in, Nafeez started guiding the conversation to where he wanted to end up in the rst place: how much they needed to study. “So, to get a score that places you in that top percentile, how many hours a week do you think you’ll need to study?” Nafeez asked.

Rather than just guessing or throwing out numbers ohand, the students realized they didn’t know the answer. So they started asking Nafeez questions. “You’ve done this for a while, what do you think?” one student asked. “How much does someone like me usually have to study to get a score that will get me into a top program?” A lightbulb had gone on. Now when Nafeez threw out the three-hundred-hour number, everyone listened. They did the division and realized that they were not going to be able to pack in three hundred or so hours over a ten-week course in ve hours a week. They had to adjust their plans. And by the end of the discussion the students ended up tripling the number of hours that they said they were going to study. Using questions boosted outcomes. Nafeez found that students studied more, got more out of the course, and did better on the test. Not because he told them how much to study, but because he helped them reach that realization on their own. Questions do a couple things. First, like providing a menu, questions shift the listener’s role. Rather than counterarguing or thinking about all the reasons they disagree with a statement, listeners are occupied with a dierent task: guring out an answer to the question. How they feel about it or their opinion. Something most people are more than happy to do. Second, and more importantly, questions increase buy-in. Because while people may not want to follow someone else’s lead, they’re much more likely to follow their own. The answer to the question isn’t just any answer; it’s their answer. And because it’s their own personal answer, reecting their own personal thoughts, beliefs, and preferences, that answer is much more likely to drive them to action. Warning labels and public health campaigns often provide information, but they do so in the form of declarations: “Junk food makes you fat” or “Drunk driving is murder.”

The goal is to be direct, but these approaches often come across as preachy, which generates reactance and activates defensive responses: There’s no way junk food makes you fat; I know lots of people who eat at McDonald’s and they never seem to gain weight. Or: The ad is exaggerating. My friend drove drunk last week, and no one died. Particularly if people feel strongly about the issue, being too forceful can make them feel threatened and lead the messages to backre. The same content, though, can be phrased in terms of a question: Do you think junk food is good for you? If a person’s answer to that question is no, they’re now in a tough spot. Because, by asking them to articulate their opinion, the question has encouraged them to put a stake in the ground. To consciously admit that junk food isn’t good for them. And once they’ve done that, it becomes harder to keep eating it. Questions encourage listeners to commit to the conclusion. To behave consistently with whatever answer they gave. Nafeez asked students what they wanted to achieve, but he didn’t pick that question randomly. He picked it knowing that the students’ answers would guide them to where he wanted them to go all along.16 An executive for a medical device company was having trouble getting salespeople to mentor their subordinates. She sent email after email and had meeting after meeting, encouraging senior employees to guide the younger people they were supposed to be managing. But pushing wasn’t working. Compensation depended on the number of sales made, so managers preferred to spend their time closing deals rather than training others. Frustrated by the lack of progress, the executive nally asked one of the salespeople, “How did you learn to become such a successful salesman? Where did you learn all those techniques you use today?” “Oh, I learned from Tim, my old manager who used to work here,” the salesman replied. The executive thought for a moment and then responded, “Well, then how will your team become better salespeople if they don’t learn from you?”

Now that salesman is one of the best mentors in the company. Trying to change company culture or to get a team to go along with a tough reorganization? Rather than taking a predetermined plan and pushing it on people, catalysts do the opposite. They start by asking questions. Visiting with stakeholders, getting their perspectives, and engaging them in the planning process. This approach has two benets. First, it gathers information about the problem—not just from survey data or abstract anecdotes but from the real people who are dealing with it every day. Which will make the solution more eective. Second, and more importantly, when it comes time to roll things out, everyone is more likely to be on board. Because rather than feeling like a declaration that’s imposed on them, it’ll be a shift they feel they participated in. They’ve already committed to the conclusion, which will make them more willing to go along with the work to get there—which will speed the change. Ask, don’t tell.II Highlight a Gap Giving people a menu, or asking rather than telling, avoids usurping their sense of control. But another route to self-persuasion is to highlight a gap—a disconnect between someone’s thoughts and actions or a disparity between what they might recommend for others versus do themselves. Can I get a light? Talk to any smoker, even someone who smokes casually, and they’ve probably heard this question at least once if not hundreds of times. It’s a modest request from one fraternity member to another, like asking someone to hold the elevator. Most people are happy to oblige.

But when smokers in Thailand were stopped on the street and asked this question, their responses were nowhere near as positive. “I’m not giving it to you,” said one smoker. “Cigarettes contain poison,” responded another. “They drill a hole in your throat for cancer. Aren’t you afraid of surgery?” lectured a third. Smoking makes you die faster, leads to lung cancer, and causes a variety of other ailments, they replied. These weren’t public health workers talking. These were everyday smokers who were currently in mid-cigarette themselves. Yet they were inspired to rant about how smoking was a terrible idea. And they did so because of the person who asked. Because the person who made the request was a child. A small boy wearing a monkey T-shirt, or a girl in pigtails. Each no more than four feet tall and barely over ten years old. The kids pulled cigarettes from their pockets and politely asked smokers for a light. After being rejected and often chastised for their request, the kids turned to walk away. But before they did, they handed the smoker a piece of paper. A small note, folded into fourths, almost like a secret passed under the table at school. “You worry about me,” it said, “but why not about yourself?” And at the bottom was a toll-free number smokers could call to kick the habit.III For more than twenty-ve years, the Thai Health Promotion Foundation had promoted this free hotline to help smokers quit. But despite investing millions of dollars in advertising and other persuasive messaging, few people called. Smokers either ignored the campaigns or didn’t give the messages much thought. They knew smoking was harmful but weren’t doing anything about it. So, in 2012, the foundation tried reducing roadblocks. They realized that the most convincing speaker wasn’t the foundation or celebrities; it was the smokers themselves. To really quit, people had to convince themselves. The foundation designed the Smoking Kid campaign with that insight in mind. Almost every smoker who received the note from a child paused and threw away their cigarette. But no one threw away the brochure. With a meager budget of only $5,000 and no media spending at all, the campaign had an enormous impact. Calls to the helpline jumped more than 60

percent. A video lming these interactions went viral, gaining more than 5 million views in barely more than a week. Even months later, calls to the helpline remained up by almost a third. Many called it the most eective anti- smoking ad ever. The Smoking Kid campaign worked because it highlighted a gap, a disconnect between what smokers were suggesting to others (kids) and what they were doing themselves. People strive for internal consistency. They want their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to align. Someone who says they care about the environment tries to reduce their carbon footprint. Someone who preaches the virtues of honesty tries not to tell lies. Consequently, when attitudes and behaviors conict, people get uncomfortable. And to reduce this discomfort, or what scientists call cognitive dissonance, people take steps to bring things back in line. Thai smokers faced exactly this discord. They were already smoking, but after telling kids smoking was bad they were stuck. Their attitudes and behavior weren’t lining up. To reduce that dissonance, something had to give. Either they started telling kids that smoking isn’t so bad after all, or they took a closer look at their own behavior and thought harder about quitting. Which was exactly what they did. Researchers used a similar idea to get people to save water.17 California was facing one of its periodic water shortages, and university administrators were desperate to get students to save water by taking shorter showers. Traditional persuasive approaches had some eect, but not enough. So scientists tried highlighting the gap between attitudes and action. A research assistant stood outside the women’s locker room at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and asked students who were about to shower if they would sign a poster encouraging other people to save water. “Take shorter showers,” it read. “If I can do it, so can you!” Support a pro-social cause? Students were more than happy to help.

Then, after signing the poster, students were asked a few brief questions about their own water use, such as “When showering, do you always turn o the water while soaping up or shampooing?” These questions highlighted that their own behavior was less than ideal. That they sometimes wasted water while showering. Finally, students went to shower. And unbeknown to them, a second research assistant unobtrusively recorded how long they left the water on. (To make sure the students didn’t realize they were being timed, the assistant pretended to shower in another stall while timing things using a waterproof stopwatch.) Highlighting the gap between students’ attitudes and actions drastically reduced water use. They shortened their showers by more than a minute, or more than 25 percent. And they were twice as likely to turn o the shower while shampooing or soaping up. Reminding students that they didn’t always practice what they preached encouraged them to change their practices. This approach works even when the dissonance isn’t as obvious. People who deny climate change exists are unlikely to want polluted air for their kids. Employees who are wedded to old, inecient processes are unlikely to recommend the same approach to new hires. There’s a disconnect between what people are saying or doing and what they would want or recommend for others. Take a project that’s not working out, or a division that is consistently losing money. It really should be killed o, but some people are wedded to it. “Give it a chance,” they say. “Give it more time.” Inertia kicks in and they can’t seem to let go, even though they should. Rather than trying to convince them to kill it, take a dierent tack. Shift the reference point. If they were starting from scratch today, given what they know now, would they suggest starting the project? If a new CEO were hired, would they suggest keeping the division? If not, why should we?

Highlighting such dissonance, and bringing it to the fore, encourages people not only to see the discord but also to work to resolve it. Start with Understanding The nal way catalysts allow for autonomy goes back, as surprising as it may seem, to the approach used by hostage negotiators like Greg Vecchi. Over the last few decades, negotiators have relied on a simple stairway model. Whether trying to convince an international terrorist to let hostages go or to change someone’s mind about committing suicide, a basic set of steps consistently works. The rst step isn’t inuence or persuasion. Like most people trying to change minds, novice negotiators want to be direct, saying, “Let the hostages go now or we’ll shoot!” Immediately jumping to the outcome they want to achieve. Not surprisingly, tactics like this don’t work. They come across as blunt and overly aggressive, and often lead conicts to escalate. Because starting by trying to inuence someone makes it all about you. It’s not about other people, and their wants and motivations; it’s about you and what you want. Before people will change, they have to be willing to listen. They have to trust the person they’re communicating with. And until that happens, no amount of persuasion is going to work. Think about why word of mouth is more persuasive than advertising. If an advertisement says a new restaurant is good, people don’t usually believe it. Because they don’t think they can trust what the ad is saying.

But if their friend says they’ll love the homemade tagliatelle, they’re much more likely to give it a shot. Why? Because that friend has earned permission. They’ve known the friend long enough to assume she has their best interests at heart. Consequently, seasoned negotiators don’t start with what they want; they start with whom they want to change. Working to gain insight into where that person is coming from. Comprehending and appreciating that person’s situation, feelings, and motives, and showing them that someone else understands. People in a crisis can feel like they have no support. They’re angry and upset and want to be heard. But it’s gotten to this crisis point because they don’t feel like anyone is listening. Consequently, Greg Vecchi starts every negotiation the same way: “Hi, I’m Greg with the FBI. Are you okay?” He says that whether the person is a ve- year-old child or a fty-year-old bank robber, a suicidal mom or a murderer. That’s his opening line. It’s not something formal, like “This is Special Agent Vecchi,” and it’s certainly not “come out with your hands up or we’re going to take you out.” That doesn’t exactly build trust. Instead, Greg starts by building a bridge. By letting the person talk, without judgment and without inserting himself, he starts forming a relationship. Making the person feel like they are a true stakeholder in the interaction. By asking the right questions, he shows that he’s listening, and that he cares. In addition to showing compassion and understanding, the questions also help gather valuable information. So-called tactical empathy helps negotiators understand what the underlying issue really is: why a suspect is upset or what they need. By staying in the person’s frame and making it about them, smart negotiators both build connection and lay the groundwork for inuence. This is often the hardest thing for inexperienced negotiators to do. To listen to someone else and put themselves in that person’s shoes rather than move directly toward resolution. But resolution can only be achieved after building the foundation to get there.

Because when people feel like someone is truly listening and cares about their well-being, a sense of trust begins to form. Greg talks about it as becoming their helper. Their advocate or means to get what they want. “It sounds like you’re hungry. Let me get you some food.” “You want a getaway car? What type of car do you want?” He becomes the intermediary, their partner. From the beginning he establishes that he is there to help them and that they are a team. This even shows up in the language Greg uses. “You and I are going to work this out.” “We’ve got to keep working together, because we don’t want it taken out of our hands, right?” Inclusive pronouns create a world where Greg is going to help and protect the person as much as he can, but the person needs to help him do that. It’s hard for people to remain angry at someone trying to help them. Only then, after he’s built understanding and established trust, does Greg try to create change. He’s got to get the person to the place where they are willing to listen to his suggestions and direction. And even when he gets to that place, he makes sure to solve things from their perspective. Got a would-be bank robber holed up with two hostages? Telling them to come out so they can be taken into custody probably isn’t going to work. That’s what Greg wants them to do, but the robber doesn’t want to go to jail. What’s more eective is getting the robber to feel that the solution was their idea. Getting them to convince themselves. Vecchi uses the bank robber’s own words and mirrors them back to make it t what he wants. Encouraging the bank robber to come to his own conclusion that coming out with his hands up is the best way to go. This doesn’t just mean doing whatever the bank robber wants. Because the robber’s rst preference would be to escape with all the money, never to be heard from again. To get o scot-free. And Greg can’t let that happen. Instead, what is so powerful about Greg’s approach is that he gets the bank robber to comply, not by telling them what to do, but by making them feel like Greg is looking out for them. In this way Greg helps the bank robber get to the

place Greg wanted to go all along. Where the best way for the robber to achieve their own goals is to come out with their hands up. Several years ago Greg was negotiating with a father (call him John) who was threatening to commit suicide. John was despondent. He’d lost his job, couldn’t nd another one, and was worried about being able to provide for his family. The only way he could see to help them was to kill himself. He had a large life insurance policy, and if he died, he hoped the money would help take care of them. In situations like this, people’s rst reaction is to be direct. The insurance company is not going to pay out if John commits suicide, so you should tell him, right? But that’s not in John’s frame. That’s not understanding where he’s coming from. And if you start trying to be rational with him and talk from your perspective rather than his, he’s probably going to kill himself. So Greg started with John. He introduced himself, asked John if he was okay, and began to work to understand what his underlying issues were. “I worked for this guy for twenty years,” John says, “and I was red and now I have no income. The bank owns everything. I’ve got to take care of my family, and so this is what I’m going to do. I’ve got good insurance money. No one needs me.” “Tell me about your family,” Greg says, turning into Mr. Helper, trying to learn about John because he cares about him. “Oh, well, I’ve got a wife and two great kids,” says John. And because he put emphasis on the kids, Greg picks that positive subject as the one to explore further. “Well, tell me about your kids.” “Well, yeah. I’ve got—they’re two boys,” said John. “They’re two boys? Really?” said Greg, paraphrasing and mirroring. “Yeah,” replied John. “Well, sounds like you love them,” said Greg, labeling the emotions. “Sounds like you really love them.” “Well, yeah, of course I do,” said John.

“Seems to me you’re a really, really great dad who’s trying to do the right thing.” said Greg. “Well, yeah, of course I am, right?” replied John. Greg gets John to start talking about his kids and their relationship. How John wants them to be good boys and respect women. How John takes them out shing and teaches them life skills. How much his kids love spending time with him. And after they’ve been talking for a while and John shares all this information, Greg comes back with “Well, gee, John. It seems to me that if you kill yourself today, your boys are going to lose their best friend.” And then: silence. Vecchi says nothing and just lets what he said sink in. Because Vecchi just put a dilemma in John’s head. Not by telling him what to do, or by pushing, but by listening and reframing John’s own words. And because he’s developed a relationship with John, and helped him, and done it all without judgment, it’s tough not to listen. Now John’s not going to kill himself. Because suicide no longer seems like a viable option. Trying to prevent someone from committing suicide is an extremely tough situation. Hopefully it’s one that most of us will never have to be in. But the approach Greg used is equally eective in a range of daily encounters. From conversations with a supplier to arguments with a spouse. Rather than trying to persuade, start by understanding. Why is the supplier’s price higher than desired? Perhaps their costs have gone up. What about dirty dishes in the sink makes your spouse so upset? Maybe it’s the dishes themselves, but maybe it’s a constant reminder of a larger, unresolved issue. When people feel understood and cared about, trust develops. The supplier realizes the goal is a long-term partnership and not just a money grab. The spouse realizes that sometimes dirty dishes are just dirty dishes. And along the way, together, you nd a path to a solution.IV

It’s like weeding a garden. The quickest approach is grab the top of the weed, rip it out of the ground, and move on to the next one. But while that is a fast way to make things look better, it’s a terrible long- term solution. Because if only the top of the weed is removed, it just grows back. Soon. What seems like a shortcut ends up taking more time. To truly get rid of weeds, or change minds, nd the root. Discover whatever needs and motivations are driving behavior in the rst place. Find the root and the rest will follow. For more tactics negotiators use to change minds, see the Active Listening appendix. Repurposing Reactance When people feel like someone is pushing or trying to convince them, they often push back, digging in their heels and resisting. To change minds, then, we need to stop trying to persuade, and encourage people to persuade themselves. Like savvy parents, we need to provide a menu or guided choices that allow people to pick their path to the desired outcome. Like Nafeez Amin, we need to ask, don’t tell; using questions to encourage people to commit to the conclusion and see how what we want is actually the best way for them to reach an outcome they care about. Like the Thai Health Promotion Foundation, we need to highlight a gap or a disconnect between what people might recommend for others versus do themselves. And, like Greg Vecchi, we need to start with understanding, building trust by nding the root. No one likes feeling someone is trying to inuence them. After all, when’s the last time you changed your mind because someone told you to?

[spaciousreasoning]

Letting Go

Since announcing to my recovery fellowship and my church the future date for ending my volunteer work as a webmaster, I have become less and less interested in doing the work. The problem is, at this point there is nobody to take either position, and I find myself losing track of tasks.

Of course, I’ve already lost track of my personal work here on this site, which means losing track of some personal history. Not that it’s ever been important, but at some point in time my life will disappear into the mist. Which is pretty much as it always has been.

Perhaps I need to learn to let go. After all, that is the lesson being taught by recovery and the spirituality I have been immersed in for so long. That I continue to hang on to everything and kick and scream when things don’t seem to be going my way means that I still have a great deal of work to do in learning to let go.

That’s kind of the point of giving up the volunteer work. I’ve been at it for many years, and even in retirement I find myself overwhelmed occasionally by the work. Like taking my laptop on vacation because there’s nobody else to take over, even for three weeks.

Maybe I set the deadline too far in the future. But it’s likely that August will show up much sooner than it feels. It’s already April after all. And another folk festival has arrived in Tucson. And somehow I find myself less enthusiastic about taking pictures than last year. And less enthusiastic about actually even being there.

Last year I took more than 300 photos on each of the two days. Yesterday, I only shot 90, and more than a few of them were from the seats where we sat listening to the music. Of course, I still felt like getting up and wandering about, but mostly because the horrible plastic seats were quite uncomfortable. Not to mention I find my joints creaking more with age when I stand up.

It’s not that I don’t enjoy taking pictures. I definitely still do. Last Sunday we went down to Tumacacori, where the mission was surrounded by wildflowers and the peach trees in the orchard were blossoming and I got some excellent shots. And our visit to the botanical garden in town this past week yielded an absolute treasure trove of images.

But I’m already regretting volunteering to update the church directory before my planned retirement. It’s not so much taking the actual pictures of people, but the technical planning necessary beforehand. I would like to keep it simple, as I did for the St. Andrew’s directory shoots, but it will likely require more than that to get decent results. Not to mention the fact that it will require my presence at church on four Sundays in a row, including one on which old friends will be in town.

I’m probably whining because I’m up early once again, having awakened with a little pain in my hip and thigh and knee. Which suggests that I may wind up not wishing to be present at the second day of the folk festival. We bailed early yesterday, leaving our friends on their own, because we started the day so early and were missing our nap.

Seems like I’ve got a lot more letting go to do than I have thought about thus far. There will certainly be more kvetching here in the future, if nothing else.

[emeryleewho]

Some advice on ways to describe your narrator characters with the caveat that I'm an "a little goes a long way" description writer:

Comparisons to another person, i.e. "Mary runs a hand through her hair, fingers getting knotted up in all the tight curls. As jealous as I can be about how cute her hair looks wrapped up in a bun, I'm grateful for my thin, stick-straight strands in that regard". Keep in mind that comparisons like these can sometimes be a bit clunky, so it's often easier to describe by omission and let the reader piece the rest together. i.e. "Mary runs her hands through her hair, fingers getting knotted up in all the tight curls. I can't relate." hence implying that the character's hair is straight or at least straighter than Mary's.

Change, meaning the character remarking on an element *because* it's different than it used to be/normally is. i.e. "My skin has been a pretty dark shade of brown since I've been baking under the sun six-hours a day." You might be tempted to write something like, "while my skin is usually a light sandy brown, it's recently darkened quite a few shades since..." but keep in mind that this can make your descriptions read overly clunky if the before part isn't really necessary. It's implied that the dark brown is darker than the character's natural color, so decide if the natural color is actually important here or not.

Contrast, meaning what makes this character feel "odd" or "different". This is similar to the first one, but it's less specific and moreso highlights a character's insecurities as something that they're constantly aware of. i.e. "Jenna calls us all together to take a selfie, but I already know my 5'0" ass will barely make it into the frame." Basically how is this character different than what is seen as "normal". Just keep in mind that when you write it this way, you're also revealing what your character sees as normal, so you don't want to accidentally insult readers by implying something bigoted.

Dialogue, which is both the easiest to use and the easiest to overdo. There's nothing wrong with having another character remark on how your narrator looks, but just try to make it feel natural. i.e. "Aw, Maggie, that shirt looks so good on you! It really makes the most of your cleavage" is a way that someone's large boobs could organically come up in conversation. Meanwhile, "Wow, Maggie, you're so pretty. You have such a nice smile and such a great body, especially your cleavage!" is not.

Action/Movement: similar to change, there are certain things that you may become aware of, and therefore naturally have a way to remark on, depending on the action or movement of your character and scene. I.E. "As I rush up to the park bench, I leap, my long legs extending just far enough to clear its rounded back." Now we get that the character has long legs because it's relevant to the action, and this makes it sound a lot more natural than just stating the character has long legs.

This one can only be used sparingly, but if your character looks a lot like a celebrity or even another character who's already been described, you can just have the character acknowledge this or have someone else say it. "My mom keeps trying to get me to dress more like her since everyone always says I'm basically her carbon copy but just a few inches shorter" or "I'm half-tempted to move to Florida and try to get a job at Disney World since everyone says I look exactly like Julie Andrews when she shot Mary Poppins"

A few bonus tips:

Keep in mind that you don't need to describe your character all at once. You can continue to drop details as the story goes, looking for the most natural moments.

A lot of your character's identity/appearance may shape the way they see the world, so what they choose to comment on or not to will say something about what they look like too. For instance, a Black character may walk into a room and think, "Okay, there are way too many white people in here" showing you that they aren't white. Likewise, you can use a character remarking on something in a way that will be contradictory to your reader's expectations to show something about that character as well. For instance, if your character walks up to an expensive store (let's say Gucci) and says, "My outfit of choice today is worth more than this whole shop combined", you now know that they dress in ridiculously expensive clothing, and also that they're a snob about it.

YOU DON'T NEED TO DESCRIBE EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR NARRATOR. People aren't going to picture them exactly as you intend them anyway, so you're better off just getting across the key details that are actually important to you.

Hope this helps!

ok guys for real how do you naturally describe your narrator characters