#anything to claim it’s not a deconstruction

[xbuster]

Why do Madoka fans like to pretend their anime wasn’t conceived by Gen Urobuchi

[seaweedstarshine]

Sometimes I think of Amy Pond, who grew up being called mad by those who wielded the word as a tool of exclusion and shame —

Amy Pond, who though forced into the hands of four psychiatrists, still clung to that which they called madness until those systems which elevate psychosocial conformity above humanity stripped it from her —

Amy Pond, whose imaginary friend reappeared for a single hour after twelve years and reignited that faith before disappearing for two more years —

Amy Pond, who spent those those two years under the same implicit threat ingrained in her through psychiatric violence, and thus began to believe the man who stopped the invasion was “just a madman with a box,” only for him to agree, and to also call her “mad, impossible Amy Pond,” reframing madness as non-negative for the first time in her life —

Amy Pond, who ignored the disembodied voice of her imaginary friend even as she ran away with him for real, who still lived each day with the traumatic internalization of deviancy dictated upon her by the psychiatric-industrial complex that shaped her from childhood —

Amy Pond, who wouldn't acknowledge the Doctor's voice, such that it took an Angel in her eye that was literally killing her to ensure she couldn't reality check herself —

Amy Pond, who stood before a room which muttered about “the psychiatrists we brought her to,” and though afraid, escaped their rigid parameters of acceptable existence.

[fromtheseventhhell]

I'd be interested in seeing Sansa's reaction to Robb's will and the news of her being disinherited. She's spent so much of the story being tangled in the plots of others because of her claim to Winterfell and it's something she reflects on often, and quite bitterly. I wonder if the news is going to be met with relief on some level; she's no longer the valuable pawn that has motivated so many people to use her.

[ardent-apostasy]

fellas is it gay to be homosexual?

according to my ex-church, the answer is no.

because they want to be able to "acknowledge" that homosexuality exists. they want to be able to say "we're not homophobic because we acknowledge the existence of homosexual attraction!" while condemning gay people.

[nakeurnez]

i hate him . and him . and him and him and him and all of them

[musical-chick-13]

ANYWAY, I love deconstructionist works. :) <3

[aptericia]

Not proud to be here.

--

Ok, here goes draft like 5 of this fucking post. I spent 4 hours tossing and turning in bed last night thinking about this, and then this morning I found a tumblr post that really helped me understand what I was trying to say.

The post talks about how aromantic "advocates" claim that "aros don't take up resources, so there's no reason not to include them!" And if that's actually what people believe, I think I can finally articulate why it is that I feel so alienated in queer spaces.

It's because aspecs in general aren't "welcomed" by much of the queer community. We're tolerated. We perhaps get the luxury of not being contradicted on our own identities, or not being specifically kicked out of LGBTQ-only spaces, but that's the whole point: what we get out of the queer "community" is people NOT doing things, not actually doing things FOR us. And that, frankly, is not enough. We deserve conversations about us. We deserve to have others consider our feelings, even when making lighthearted jokes. We deserve varied, respectful representation in media. We deserve the active deconstruction of amatonormativity in society. We deserve to have space made for us, rather than at most being told we should "go take up more space!" ourselves.

Of course, the reality is that my being aspec is a personal matter that does not inherently affect anyone else. But the same can be said for literally any queer identity. Your being gay doesn't say anything about me, so of course I shouldn't hurt you for it, but why should I help you either? Because your happiness and comfort are important. The same goes for aspecs.

And most of the time, I don't even need anyone to make space for or expend resources on me; I can live fine in everyday, non-queer-specific places without mentioning my identity at all. But it's the queer community that claims it will make that space for me, doesn't, and then acts defensive and morally pure if I call out the hypocrisy because "we're queer too, you can't erase our identities to advocate for yours!!!!"

Again, this post isn't about specifics. I have queer friends who are incredibly thoughtful and supportive about my identity, just as I have non-queer friends who are. I find more solidarity in aspec-only communities, as well as trans/genderqueer ones, although there are still many exceptions. This post is also not about amatonormative ideology, which is extremely common from queer and non-queer people alike. This post is about the reason I've felt so betrayed by the queer community.

--

On a personal note, I remember being so excited when I started identifying as aromantic (and later asexual). Fitting myself into labels has been a lifelong struggle for me; to this day I still can't confidently say if I'm White or PoC, neurotypical or neurodivergent, abled or disabled, cisgender or not cisgender. I continue to struggle making friends because I don't fall into social cliques. To discover that I officially, certainly, was LGBTQ+ lifted a huge weight off my shoulders. And now I'm just so sad to find that despite that, I'm still stuck in the middle. I didn't get rewarded with a community. I still feel alienated from both queer and non-queer people. I know it was silly to get my hopes up when there's such vast diversity in both groups, but it really was a disappointment. Going to my first Pride parade last year was really the moment where I realized this.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

"Decentralization" as accountability sink

the common meaning of ‘decentralized’ as applied to blockchain systems functions as a veil that covers over and prevents many from seeing the actions of key actors within the system. Hence, Hinman’s (and others’) inability to see the small groups of people who wield concentrated power in operating the blockchain protocol. In essence, if it’s decentralized, well, no particular people are doing things of consequence. Going further, if one believes that no particular people are doing things of consequence, and power is diffuse, then there is effectively no human agency within the system to hold accountable for anything.

-Angela Walch, Deconstructing 'Decentralization': Exploring the Core Claim of Crypto Systems

h/t DSHR

[ladyloveandjustice]

oh god I'm seeing all these posts in the dandadan tag about how the sex jokes/fanservice/nudity is "meaningful and deep" and even calling it a successor to klk and please. we cannot go back to 2013 we can't go through this again in year of our lord 2024.

Please can we accept we're watching a shonen with a side of raunchy sex comedy, with occasional moments done pretty poorly, and not make it this subversive empowering deep meaningful thing. I do think some of the sex stuff in DandaDan is an expression/metaphor of wrestling with sexuality as a teen and the insecurites and fears and I think that's fun to analyze. But can we not pretend the fanservice and sexy comedy ISN'T there to be funny and sexy and often absurd?

It's okay to admit you like a show with sex jokes, fanservice and occasional skeevy moments that don't sit right (like what happened in episode 1 for me tbh). It's fine! You don't have to make it some huge "it deconstructs our preoccupation with of bodies and aesthetics and showcases strength and vulnerability in our society" when we see someone in their skivvies.

Like please. it's okay. You don't have to feel bad for liking it. You don't have to twist yourself into knots. Unlike KLK, DandaDan ISN'T trying to claim it's anything other than what it is, so you don't need to do that for it. We do not need infographs about how the the fanservice is feminist and empowering like in the klk era. I refuse to go back.

People with common sense will not judge you for liking this! I personally enjoy some of the absurd comedy. I'm bleh about some things, but it's got great characters and good chemistry and great fights and I also understand it's trying to appeal to a horny teenage audience. I can also completely get those who don't want to watch it because of how Momo's near assault in ep 1 was handled, or some other fanservice thing that didn't sit right with them. Please please please accept what you're watching isn't as pure as driven snow. I can't do this again.

[genericpuff]

lord help me some pals and i were talking and the subject of LO's theme of "deconstructing purity culture" came up, and we just-

who wants to bet that the message of LO's "deconstruction of purity culture" was literally just "it's okay if you were sexually assaulted, you can still wear white to your wedding" with no further elaboration or analyses or discussion as to why the white wedding dress exists in the first place

like there's definitely something to be discussed there about how virginity is a social construct that is enforced upon both men and women and LO certainly tries to discuss it, but it also makes virginity into a very real tangible thing that can be detected and controlled by the gods of love (ex. Eros) and it seems the message in the end was simply reduced down to "no it's okay, Persephone is still perfect and pure regardless of what Apollo did to her!!!!" while never once stopping to ask itself if maybe the pursuit of being "pure" goes against the entire notion of "deconstructing purity culture" in the first place

but idk man at this point it's easier just to say that LO has no point, no theme, no message, because ultimately it only exists to satisfy the whims of a nearly 40 year old woman with a lot of unresolved shit she claims to be an expert on despite clearly never fully unpacking for herself

the reason we can't come to the "deep conclusion" that rachel wants is because the actual deep conclusion is the stuff she doesn't want us thinking too hard about and the stuff she WANTS us to conclude and give her credit for is the most unfinished, half-baked, fortune cookie, middle school level of "analysis" that isn't even coherent enough to add anything of value to its own call for discussion, and even contradicts its own self-proclaimed intentions through its execution

and i'm so fucking glad it's over.

[rightwheretheyleftme]

I’m watching Korra book 2 and I have so many emotions about Aang’s neglect of his kids

After watching ATLA earlier this year, I started following a bunch of fan accounts and saw the same discourse regurgitated over and over again; One of the main points of discourse is whether Aang was bad father.

The discussions that I saw would always play out the same way. Aang’s detractors would say: “Aang didn’t take 2/3 of his kids on vacations. That’s neglect” and Aang’s defenders would reply “Aang is not a bad father! The places that he took Tenzin to were built for airbenders so Kya and Bumi wouldn’t have anything to do there!” And you know what? When I was reading those arguments, I thought that both sides had valid points and that this was a complex discussion.

Oh boy.

Now that I’m watching the episode, I realized that the people in this fandom are lying through their teeth. Aang only taking 1 out of his 3 kids on vacations is true, but the claim that that happened because Aang only visited places made for airbenders is completely false. Let’s recap the places that Aang and Tenzin went to:

- Kyoshi Island; to ride the elephant koi

- Ember Island; to build sandcastles on the beach

Now explain to me, why on earth does the majority of the fandom say that Aang went to airbender-only places? Kyoshi and Ember islands have 0 historical significance to the airbenders. These are just fun vacation spots, we know this because we saw the Gaang vacation at these places multiple times.

Moreover, according to Bumi, Aang was busy due to his job as the Avatar but he made time for Tenzin, only Tenzin. Kya agrees with this.

I’m so disgusted by this information. There is no way that a grown man in his 40s wouldn’t realize that taking only 1 of your kids on fun vacations and leaving the others behind is hurtful, the only possible conclusion that you can reach here is that Aang was intentionally trying to hurt his kids’ feelings.

And that breaks my heart.

This is not the Aang that I know and love. Aang is a fun, caring, accepting, and loving person. The behavior that I’ve described above is not only emotional neglect, it borders on abuse.

At first, I thought that maybe this storyline was meant to deconstrue the “The hero can do no wrong” cliché. Except that it ends with Kya and Bumi looking at a family picture and reminiscing about how happy they were. So no, there is no deconstruction; Aang is portrayed as a flawed but otherwise good father. Apparently, not loving 2/3 of your children enough to want to spend leisure time with them is a common flaw and not parental neglect, according to TLOK.

I feel so betrayed not only by the writers and the story that I love, but also by the fandom who silences victims of parental abuse when they are rightfully pissed off by Aang’s actions. I never wanted for Aang to be a neglectful father, but he is. Harassing people who are mad about his actions and calling them bitter Zutaras is a disgusting way to try to silence conversations about parental abuse.

Side note: Where tf was Katara while this was happening? Did she not take offense that her husband was neglecting 2/3 of her kids? Why didn’t Aang respect Katara enough to not play favorites with the kids she gave him?

[maxdibert]

Lily doesn’t seem to think she’s done anything wrong by insulting his poverty and aligning herself with his abusers - only Severus is remorseful, and the trauma that caused him to lash out was considerably worse than the trauma that caused her to lash out. She believes he deserves it, as apparently she believed his abuse was amusing. And I’d be totally fine with this from a character perspective because it’s the teenage condition to be self-centred and poor at self-reflection. But the *narrative* (and the author in interviews) doesn’t believe Lily was in the wrong here. And it believes Lily made the correct moral judgment on the two boys when she casts Severus off for his crime and falls in love with James despite his. But I just don’t buy into that framing, and I didn’t even when I was 10. The use of the word ‘mudblood’ while in considerable distress is not a greater sin than sexual assault.

Lily feels no remorse, nor does she think it's wrong to half-smile at the bully who’s targeting your so-called friend. She doesn’t even consider that this might be why your supposed best friend insulted you in the first place. But here’s the thing: this isn't Lily's fault. It's J.K. Rowling's fault, and the way she portrays ethical dilemmas throughout the series, blurring the lines between what's morally right and wrong. Now, if you’ll allow me, before diving into the dynamics between Lily and Severus, I’d like to provide some context as to why I believe the biggest issue with many of the characters’ attitudes in the series lies in Rowling’s constant attempt to project her own moral compass through her writing. In doing so, she falls into repeated inconsistencies and creates a narrative that’s all over the place when it comes to how certain characters are treated.

Rowling is never consistent. She portrays Draco Malfoy as an irredeemable, terrible character because he’s a rich kid spoiled by his parents, using his power and influence to bully those weaker than him. Yet, she gives James the benefit of the doubt, even though he behaved exactly the same way: a rich bully who used his status and his friends to gang up on the vulnerable. From early interviews, Rowling claimed Pansy Parkinson is practically the reincarnation of Satan, even though, of all the antagonists, Pansy is probably one of the least relevant and harmless. This is simply because Rowling projected onto her the stereotypical “mean girls” who mock those who read and study—something Rowling clearly couldn’t stand. On the other hand, she glorifies characters like Ginny, who has a pretty nasty attitude towards any girl she doesn’t consider cool or "not like the other girls." Ginny treats Fleur like a witch when Fleur has done nothing wrong—her only crime is being incredibly beautiful, knowing it, and not constantly apologizing for it. And this treatment of female characters throughout the series deserves a proper gendered critique, because they fall into every stereotype and archetype set by the traditional male gaze.

In Rowling's world, there are always two kinds of women. When it comes to younger, adolescent characters, there are the "good" women—those who don’t fit the typical feminine mold, the weird ones (like Luna), the tomboys who are “one of the guys” (like Ginny), or the overly studious ones who don’t have time for frivolous things like reading magazines or talking about boys (like Hermione). In other words, the cool girls, the ones who are supposed to be role models, are those who "aren’t like the other girls." But not because they’re deconstructing gender roles consciously—they just happen to embody the fantasy of the woman who can give you kids while still being one of your bros. It’s a common male fantasy, where women abandon the graceful, ethereal, delicate image to fit into a set of needs the modern man has. These are "manic pixie dream girls," hiding a deeply internalized misogyny as they are presented as individuals opposed to the “other” women—the “other” being less cool because they lack traditionally masculine traits, and thus are less than. We see this not only with how Fleur is treated but also with the disdain or prejudice Hermione shows towards girls like Lavender or the Patil sisters, just because they act like normal teenagers instead of validating themselves through academia to compensate for their inferiority complex (cough, cough).

Then we have the adult female characters, where Rowling’s toxic and incredibly conservative view of motherhood kicks in. Except for McGonagall, the rest of the adult women who are seen in a positive light are either already mothers or end up becoming mothers. And for them, motherhood is everything. They are mothers first and women second, in every case. Lily is Harry’s mother, who sacrifices herself for him. Molly is the Weasley matriarch, whose entire life revolves around her kids—she hasn’t even looked for a job (which wouldn’t be a bad idea, considering the family’s financial situation), nor does she have any aspirations beyond knitting sweaters and worrying about her children. Even Narcissa, a negative character throughout most of the saga, earns her redemption solely because she loves her son and is willing to risk everything for him. Nymphadora Tonks, a 25-year-old woman, ends up pregnant by a man 13 years older than her and goes from being an independent Auror with her own life to a passive housewife waiting for her man, who is off having an existential crisis. The adult women in the saga aren’t independent individuals—they’re extensions of their children. And any woman who isn’t a perfect, self-sacrificing mother (like Merope Gaunt) is either a psychopath or portrayed as a terrible person.

What I’m getting at is that Rowling is far from impartial in the moral narrative of the story. In fact, she’s absolutely inconsistent. She presents characters she sells as "good," whose attitudes are absolute trash, yet she continues to insist that they’re good and perfect. This is especially obvious with her female characters, because throughout the seven books, she constantly emphasizes her ideal of the "perfect woman" in terms of tastes, motivations, and behavior. Hermione is a self-insert, Ginny is probably a projection of who Rowling wishes she could’ve been, and Luna is the quirky girl who isn’t “threatening” to other women, and is treated with a condescending, paternalistic lens. They are either Rowling’s aspirational figures or archetypes that don’t bother her, or they’re reduced to filler characters who are mistreated by the narrative.

When it comes to Lily, the problem is that Rowling spends half the saga painting her as some kind of Mother Teresa. She’s the quintessence of motherhood—but not a conscious, modern motherhood, but one rooted in traditional Judeo-Christian ideals. This is the kind of motherhood that can do no wrong, the one that represents women because, in this view, a woman can’t be fulfilled unless she’s a mother. Lily dies for her son, and that love creates a divine, protective magic. She’s beautiful, popular, and one of the most popular guys at school is after her. Clearly, she must be a saint, because everyone describes her as such. And while the narrative does question James’s perfection, even if vaguely and unsuccessfully, it doesn’t do the same with Lily. Harry questions his father’s actions but never his mother’s. He never stops to think about how problematic it is that his mother almost laughed at Severus or refused to hear his apology, or that she couldn’t empathize with what he was going through, knowing full well the kind of situation Severus had at home. When a narrative tells you something but never shows it, and worse, never questions it, that’s a problem. Something doesn’t add up. Rowling is obsessed with showing her own moral line through her characters and doesn’t realize how incoherent it is to portray Lily as someone who always does the right thing when what we actually see of her suggests that, if she really liked James all along, not only is she a hypocrite, but she’s also quite superficial with questionable principles. But this is never addressed, never explored. It would be fascinating if it were, giving the character more depth and making her more relatable. But Rowling brushes all this aside, as she does with so many other things, because to her, Lily was a role model, despite the fact that anyone with common sense can see she was just a terrible friend who got tired of justifying why she hung out with a poor, scruffy kid and ultimately decided it made more sense to date the rich, handsome bully.

[txttletale]

can you elaborate on the reasons ? what criticisms do you disagree with?

criticisms i disagree with:

"they character assassinated jane" amiguita there was no character to assisnate.

"they character assassinated dirk" dirk is at his most interesting and likeable ever and is just about the only redeeming thing about these

"they were just written to spite the fans" if true tht would have been Epic, and Based. but they very obviously werent

"its too violent and sexual for cheap shock humour" did you. read homestuck, the web comic? what were you Expecting... also like it or not the sexual content isnt just random or gratuitous it is obviously trying to be a conclusion to the whoel coming-of-age theme of homestuck as a work.

"so-and-so is out of character" homestuck characters are malleable little dolls that can be rearranged to suit the narrative at a whim. this is true about all fictional characters ofc but it is like explicitly textually metaphysically true in homestuck

my criticisms:

the heavy-handed political messaging is fucking tedious and awful and so profoundly of its time in a bad way. its clearly a reaction to trump but it doesnt have anything interesting to say about him or fascism or racism or anything, really, except, um. Cheeto in the white house?. the whole Evil Jane plot is too stupid and contrived for the sake of the satire to take seriously but also its awful satire written by liberals who think fascism as invented in 2016 by the orange man

god can we fucking talk about how fucking embarassing the obama shit is. jesus fucking christ. for a start it's a callback to a running jhoke in homestuck that is straight up just super racist. and they decide to pivot from the joke being 'its funny that theres a black president', which is good, but they pivot it to 'obama seems so heroic and magical now that we're stuck with the Orange Man', which, admittedly, is better than Being Racist, but also sucks shit. he killed people amiguitas.

'post-canon' is cheap bullshit. like, the work makes a big deal about tryng to talk about What Canon Is, without ever acknowledging the concept of, like, IP law. claiming to just be a non-canon continuation like any other when it's made by people with the Official Exclusive Legal Rights just feels hollow and detooths any liberatory/deconstructive potential there. unironically my opinion of it would go up like tenfold if it had been actually published in AO3 instead of just joking about it.

in general i think that all of the attempt to deconstruct fiction or storytelling is rooted in a really weird and flawed model of storytelling. a lot of it seems to be taking an extremely long route to writing something bad on purpose and then saying 'see, if you wrote something like this, it would be bad'. Okay. i like deconstructive collapsing narrative shit in e.g. if on a winter's night a traveller because i think calvino has trenchant and interesting insights about literature and storytelling. i do think hussie also has those but they essentially dropped and explored all of them in homestuck and the epilogues just seem like an attempt to connect ohomstuck's disparate and contradictory approaches to Narrative into one overarching schemata and then crtiique that schemata, which i think is a doomed project that results in little of interest to me.

[a-d-nox]

pluto in aquarius: a prediction of what's to come

this is a huge astrological event, pluto is moving into aquarius for the first time since the late 1700s. last time pluto was in aquarius america fought for independence from britain, uranus was discovered, the french revolution began, the bill of rights was ratified, etc.

so for day one, i want to create predictions of what is to come!

some house matters!!!

TWO PLUTO RETROGRADES WILL OCCUR - june 11th - jan 20th, 2024 is the first so we won't see too much wildness just yet as pluto will return into capricorn during this time and THE FINAL RETROGRADE BACK INTO CAPRICORN will be september 1st, 2024 - november 19th, 2024. then we are full steam ahead with pluto in aquarius until march 9th, 2043.

i personally am NOT a witch or anything wild, everything i am saying is purely theoretical - it is not fated to happen just because i am saying it. i am simply socially aware. i know what's up generally in the world today and what was up in world in the 1700s - "history typically repeats itself."

i live in the usa so my post likely will be slightly more focused there examples wise so i apologize in advance! feel free to comment, dm, or reblog with other examples from your country based on my prediction key phrases.

i am going to start light and get darker so mentally prepare yourself for that (tw: STI/STD outbreaks, war, 9/11, COVID-19, and other abrasive topics that may make people uncomfortable depending on where they are currently reading from) - but we are talking about pluto so... expect the unexpected?!

let's do this.

renewable energy sources

aquarius is electricity, light, inventions, electronics, telephones, televisions, etc while pluto can be change! i recently bought a new tv and the back of the remote has a solar panel instead of a battery pack. i do believe we will see more evolution with technology; perhaps we will see solar changed phones! otherwise pluto is also pollution and natural disasters - the climate is in crisis mode perhaps we will see more responsibility and thus changes in our sourcing of energy! example: recently i read that japan has a great source of geothermal energy. currently the conversion to using this source (instead of coal, gas, and nuclear energy) is being held up by a higher up in the hot spring business who claims switching to a new energy system "threatens centuries-old traditions" (bang - a capricorn term - tradition - so perhaps after the retrogrades are through we will see a major shift in energy sourcing).

general technological advancements/inventions

last time pluto was in aquarius the cotton gin was invented; which aided in quicker production of goods and higher demand for american cotton. i strongly believe this is a general indicator that AI is going to become an even bigger part of day to day life. i have seen AI already replace those who take orders in the panera drive thru, there is a higher demand for philosophy/english grads to help teach AI, etc. aquarius is also new teachers/occupations so AI could become the new teachers OR new careers could be coming in the area of interacting with AI generally so it gains more consciousness. so it could be AI or it could be something else that is only just a dream in the back of someone's mind at this moment in time.

altruistic extremists

we may see utopian dreamers rise up! they are likely to advocate for the deconstruction of pre-existing political institutions in favor of either self governance or egalitarian policies. they will likely do whatever it takes to make this statement; we may see more protests / political statements similar to wynn bruce's.

fanatical/extremist announcers radio/tv

we already have biased stations and channels (fox, abc, cnn, nbc, etc). we are likely to see a further rise in politically biased newscasters and announcers.

demonization of astrology

astrology is aquarian in nature but pluto is fanatics, evil, demonics, etc. the community has been saying about the next world war for a while now. we are moving out of conservative pluto in capricorn, so we may find that those of deep belief systems accusing us [astrologers] of conspiring with the devil if/when something militant arises (similar to how the tarot community gets told constantly by christians that they must be satanists).

something with birds

i don't have this nailed down yet specifically, but both aquarius and pluto are rulers of birds. aquarius is large birds while pluto is wading/swamp birds and/or flesh eating birds. no one freak out and start thinking that i am indicating something like the 1963 horror film the birds. if anything i can see more bird-spread illness and/or parasites. OR pluto can be archaeology! there may be a bird related discovery or something to do with the distant relative of the bird - aka the raptor (dinosaur related).

a new STI/STD discovery/outbreak

aquarius represents the distribution of bodily fluids while pluto is often representative of sexual activity. this could either be an outbreak because pluto can be death, extremes, catastrophes, and/or casualties OR pluto can be ph balance in the body (possible new discoveries for feminine sexual health), kidneys (perhaps a discovery will be linked to the diminished functionality associated with syphilis, hiv, etc and how to combat more symptomatic issues), and even purification (aka a cure perhaps to help viral carriers to no longer pass the sti/std to sexual partners).

collapse of congress / house of commons/representatives

i mean it only stands to reason that the bill of rights was created/approved last time pluto was in aquarius that either those rights will disappear (pluto also represents dictators) OR simply the people rise up and demolish the institution as it stands: "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

airplane catastrophes

aquarius rules over planes and pluto can represent accomplices, catastrophes, casualties, b0mbs, and t3rr0r!sm. we may experience another event similar to 9/11 OR we may see air strikes in a potential world war 3 scenario.

societal change: crime, war, leadership, and more

world war 3 is on the horizon so say pluto in aquarius (probably in the wake of election year in the US - when the final retrograde into capricorn concludes). but this could also just be governmental restructuring - this could be seen as rebellions (similar to the French Revolution), the rise of organized crime if good become more scarce, religious shifts (pluto is the antichrist, aquarius is freewill (first amendment), and capricorn is the old church (christian schools of thought)), etc.

aquarian terms i can't think of change in but seem important to note / keep in mind: freethinkers, hamburg germany, heart weakness (biden - perhaps the early death of a president in office?), motion picture (already changing as more theaters close), photography, psychology (we are already starting to care more about everyone's mental health), science (general scientific discoveries?), social affairs (there is always something going on - the question is how big will this be?), society, sweden, syria, and xray.

plutonian terms i can't think of change in but seem important to note / keep in mind: abductions (aliens - ufo sights?), aliases, alibis (governmental riffing similar to how no plan was in place when for COVID-19), assass!nat!0n (hopefully not), betrayal, bootlegging (bootleg tiktok if america bans it?), cemeteries (removal of that method if too many are dying at any giving time - mass graves?), convicts (prison release due to overcrowding? the mega-prison of el salvador?), corruption (governmental likely?), demolitions, earthquakes (more environmental issues?), electrocution, executions (war?), fanatic, extremes, floods (environmental? emigration - society is aquarius after all?), liars, massacres (the rise of crime?), murder, nihilism (the rise of philosophy at the time of war?), ransom (war?), satire (rise of political satire?), stolen goods, and taxes (trump-esque no?).

like what you read? leave a tip and state what post it is for! please use my “suggest a post topic” button if you want to see a specific post or mythical asteroid next!

click here for the masterlist

want a personal reading? click here to check out my reading options and prices!

© a-d-nox 2023 all rights reserved

[necrotic-nephilim]

For the ask game, Jason/Tim where the Pit makes Jason possessive rather than mad and so he imprints on Tim as being his and needing to take him and make him fully his, turn Tim into Jason's own creature? I think that could be a cool idea, since the Pit has different effects on different people.

for the ask game!

oooh, i love explorations of what the Pit does to the psyche, especially if it falls outside of the typical Pit Madness schtick. here's how i would try and write that

so what i think is fun about Jason and the Pit is, he wasn't *dead* when he got dunked, he was just mentally catatonic. dunking him in the Pit was a gamble on Talia's part and Ra's even points out in Red Hood: Lost Days it may not work. so to have it work but just... wire Jason *differently* is a lot of fun to me. i like the idea of Jason being a bit aimless after the Pit. he's got his wits to him but it's still the "came back wrong" vibes. and when Talia shows him the pictures of Tim as Robin, trying to show him that Bruce replaced him, it has the opposite effect. Jason's wires are crossed in all sorts of directions and all he can think of is he won't let what happened to him happen to another kid. so he spirals, looking into Tim and getting more and more obsessed. what starts as a genuine concern for Tim's safety becomes a possessive imprinting. Tim becoming Jason's purpose.

one of the defining things about Jason's feelings on Tim, in canon, is feeling like Tim is being held back by his loyalty to Bruce. so, i don't know how literal you meant creature, but i'm taking it balls to the walls bc i like fucked up monster vibes. the *how* is the fun part of it. it's easy for Jason to corner Tim, kidnap him. but how does Jason decide to corrupt Tim? i know the Court of Owls is a New-52 thing and i'm going off of pre-Flashpointt, but, i think it'd be fun to steal it. just because well. i really fucking like Talons. and Jason making Tim a Talon would be a twofold thing- for one, it protects Tim. it's a lot harder to kill a Talon than a person. and for two, it makes Tim easier to control. i think Tim would fight it hard, but the Talon programming combined with Jason's fierce protectiveness would snap him pretty easily.

Jason would be smart about it. he'd keep Tim locked up for at least a few months. because if Robin goes missing, then the calvary is going to start looking for him. Batman, Nightwing, Batgirl, Oracle, Huntress, the Titans, everyone. and Jason knows even if he puts a mask on Tim, he needs to wait. needs to let the smoke blow over. so for months, it's just Jason and Tim somewhere underground where no one can find them. that's where the bulk of their bonding comes in. because i do think Jason would want Tim to *genuinely* like him outside of just monsterous programming. Jason would work to earn that trust, even if it's through manipulation. tbh i think he'd lie to Tim, either gaslighting Tim about his loved ones not looking for him, or straight up tell Tim he's imagining having been Robin. anything that deconstructs Tim's idea of a support system outside of Jason. Jason is Tim's savior, in his eyes, and he'd want Tim to believe that too. that Jason had to protect Tim, from the Bat. very fucked up vibes.

once Jason's sure it's safe, he'd slowly start making his presence known as Red Hood, with Tim by his side. Jason would still want to do the whole Red Hood thing, but now, he has the ability to taunt Bruce about Tim. it'd be a fun mind game for Jason, telling Bruce that he lost *another* Robin. (three, if you count Steph) meanwhile, Jason gets to go home to Tim the whole time. it's a fun game to him, while also making him preen that he's protecting what he believes belongs to him.

eventually, the truth would come out. but by then, Tim's too deep in Jason's pocket to listen to anyone, even Dick. he'd lash out at anyone claiming Jason is manipulating him, and he'd be Jason's perfect little partner. very fucked up ending where Jason and Tim are "happy" together, but in the most fucked up way. i'd give Tim a new codename, something like Shrike because that sounds fun and pointy. they'd almost be a Batman and Robin parallel/foil, in a way.

also, just as a bonus alternative: another route i think you could take this idea is playing with Joker Junior. like, Jason imprinting on Tim *just* as Joker kidnaps Tim. so that's what sets Jason's plans into action, he was going to wait for the perfect moment but now, Tim is missing and Jason will be *damned* if someone gets to Tim first. and since Jason has well. firsthand experience with the Joker, he's able to find Tim first and since Tim is so mentally shattered at this point, it makes him easy to manipulate. easy to get him to traumabond onto the person who saved him and even once he's mentally recovered, he's so attached to Jason he wouldn't want to leave Jason. and maybe Jason would use Lazarus Resin or something similar to make Tim more creature-like, and even get Tim to agree to it, under the guise of it helping protect Tim. this route could be fun bc it plays more with just how "consensual" it is for Tim and how much he really has his wits about him, choosing Jason after being brainwashed.

[melrosing]

I’m sure you’ve talked about this before but tumblr’s search function is ass 😭 what’s your endgame prediction for Jaime esp in light of the show? I think Jaime is def fighting the others as hinted in his weirwood dream. But the way got ended doesn’t feel right to me. On Reddit everyone’s saying it makes no sense so it has to be a bad adaptation of what GRRM told them but idk I don’t buy it. Especially since it seems like Cersei replaced young griff’s role

i have talked about it before but even i can't find it ha so i don't mind talking about it again however.... my thoughts on this are vague. longwinded post ahead which is more thought starters than anything definitive.

to briefly address the show ending... I mean it's literally impossible for Jaime's story to end like that, because we know that Cersei's can't end that way. Cersei is going to be murdered by the valonqar, whoever that turns out to be. and even apart from that, the book version of the twins are so done romantically. sure, there are the barest vestiges of that connection in Jaime's ADWD chapter ('back to Cersei, another part of him whispered'), but ASOS/AFFC otherwise make for an extremely thorough deconstruction of that relationship that ends with Jaime leaving Cersei for dead and wandering off the grid with Brienne. like.... GRRM didn't write all that for nothing. and sure, some people still think he might still bounce back to her in some way or another, but generally i have found.... that those theories don't tend to accompany the strongest takes on jaime's character dhjkls

for the same reason, I don't really know where this leaves us wrt the valonqar prophecy. if Jaime were still preoccupied with Cersei's cheating, he would've acted on it by now. Tyrion thinks in ACOK that if Jaime ever found out about Lancel, he'd have killed the kid himself. Jaime in AFFC suggests Lancel eat something and go to therapy. Jaime himself imagines in AFFC scenarios where he exacts revenge on the Kettleblacks and Cersei herself, and yet given the opportunity to do so.... he wanders off in the opposite direction.

the reason being that the connection Jaime once felt to Cersei has died. that bond was his reason for living, for doing anything at all - and now it's not enough for him to even stick around long enough to see what's happened to her in KL, never mind return to her side to exact revenge on her himself. in practise, he doesn't harbour the kind of action and rage he dreams about, or claims to Ilyn Payne. it's the same as how he claims he's Tywin's heir, and then keeps letting people off the hook t any given opportunity. like for all Jaime knows, he could die fighting """"the Hound"""", and never see Cersei again, and that's apparently just fine. the opposite of love isn't hate it's indifference etc. and no I don't think Jaime will ever feel truly indifferent to Cersei - she is his twin, the mother of his children, and the woman he has loved all his life. but I think it's entirely fair to say that the extremes of love and hate he felt within the context of their romance are gone, because the romance itself has gone. Jaime's feelings towards Cersei exist outside of that now.

returning to the valonqar prophecy. I don't think it's necessarily guaranteed that Jaime the valonqar, but I do think it would be myopic to claim that he isn't a real possibility. and since Cersei's end has to factor into what Jaime's is or isn't in some kind of way, I'll suppose that he is the valonqar for the sake of this post. it's not written, so I can't say how exactly I'll end up feeling about its execution, but per the previous paragraph, I don't imagine this will have anything to do with the 'Moonboy for all I know' shit. that was for AFFC. that was building to Jaime burning her letter. Jaime in TWOW is going to have left much of that behind, bc frankly he'll have other stuff to worry about.

but we know that Cersei will be dealing w wildfire (apart from what happens in the show, this is one of the most heavily foreshadowed events in the book), and whilst it's not clear when or why she'll use it, it seems like a natural site for the valonqar prophecy to come true, in whatever way it does. and Jaime has been here before w Aerys etc, this has perturbed him in other Cersei x wildfire scenes in AFFC, so it seems it's a likely full circle moment. potentially Tommen's life is wrapped up in this too - I think it's also foreshadowed that Cersei (I assume accidentally) will manage to kill Tommen in the wildfire blast as well. so like, sure, ig that would set the scene for valonqar Jaime. I've never really liked this prophecy for a whole host of reasons, but the idea of spurned lover Jaime tramping back to KL to kill Cersei over Moonboy is uh. ??? yeah im not worried about that

[as for the more sensitive implications of Jaime being the valonqar as Cersei's ex lover, which I believe exist regardless of whether the act is about Moonboy or not: I think that's an important conversation to be had, but not one I feel effectively able to have until we have the scene itself. so whilst i want to acknowledge that context, I've found that conversations aren't often productive when participants are each imagining a different version of the scene in their minds]

then we're just left to contemplate where exactly any of this comes in the broader picture of TWOW/ADOS. if it is (per the show) effectively the last act of the series, then idk. maybe Jaime dies in Cersei's wildfire/the general pyre that is KL by this point idk?? like ok sure. he saved the city once but he couldn't save it this time etc.

however I tend to believe that TLN will follow what happens in KL, or in the very least will follow Cersei's death. i'm never certain of this, but if not, it leaves you wondering what exactly Cersei, Aegon, Arianne, Joncon etc are even doing in the south throughout all this. like. carrying on as normal?? do they even notice TLN?? winter is setting in everywhere.

and I do fully believe Jaime will fight in TLN per the weirwood dream, widow's wail etc. Jaime's story is a redemption arc (whether ppl like that term or not, GRRM uses it himself), and fighting in TLN is a natural conclusion to Jaime's pivot to the pursuit of honour, and his arc's own gradual turn towards the northern storyline. Jaime's story has always been about leaving behind loyalty to individuals and institutions, and instead fighting for causes he believes in, according to his own set of values. there's also the fact that he has to attain widow's wail somehow (which i'm certain he will), and as it is currently in KL.... it seems reasonable to assume that Jaime will be stopping by KL before he moves north again. this could be a tenuous assumption or it could be entirely correct, guess we'll see. but whatever

so if TLN is the final act of the series, then Jaime either dies in TLN (fine), or possibly even survives the series (though on this I always hedge my optimism). survival possibilities include becoming Hand or a KG to Bran, joining the Night's Watch, becoming a hedge knight, literally whatever. I like the idea that he stays with Brienne whatever ends up happening, but if it's some bittersweet long distance shit then sure whatever that's workable. however i do prefer to just assume he'll die for my own sake xo