#anyway guys guys the NARRATIVE POTENTIAL HERE......

[a-sky-of-diamonds]

wait i just realised that martyn “plagued by the watchers” inthelittlewood and scott “i refuse to do anything the watchers say” smajor are on the same team...

(and... you know, back in last life, martyn scott and ren being the last three standing and the watchers trying to get martyn to kill scott specifically, because he disobeyed them by refusing to be the boogeyman – scott being the only one they weren’t fine with winning and martyn failing to make that happen, and now they’re in a duo together and the watchers’ voices have returned...)

[thewingedwolf]

they were doing “is madeleine a pedo for being attracted to claudia” discourse on twitter the other day and i would like it very much if twitter was just nuked as a website lol

[crossbackpoke-check]

Dysprosium, Mary Soon Lee

dysprosium, AN 66, is a silvery-white rare earth metal. its name is derived from the greek dysprositos, meaning “hard to get at”, owing to the difficulty in separating and isolating this rare earth element. dysprosium is used to measure neutron flux, to fuel reactors, and to activate phosphors. terfenol-d is a magnetorestrictive alloy, meaning that it changes shape when a magnetic field is applied, and is used to manufacture underwater acoustic systems.

jason “robo” robertson, dallas stars #21 for @simmyfrobby’s nhl periodic table poems <3

[jaypgartifacts]

october is coming. which means, of course, that it is time for the horrors. tfw the dream self must confront the Nightmare Self

[timespenttogethercomic]

ah, young love

[hendrickz]

kirby dach x a burning hill, mitski.

[thydungeongal]

There's this idea floating around the general TTRPG space that's kind of hard to put one's finger on which I think is best articulated as "the purpose of an RPG is to produce a conventionally shaped satisfying narrative," and in this context I mean RPG as not just the game as it exists in the book but the act of play itself.

And this isn't exactly a new thing: since time immemorial people have tried to force TTRPGs to produce traditional narratives for them, often to be disappointed. I also feel this was behind a lot of the discussion that emerged from the Forge and that informed the first "narrativist" RPGs (I'm only using the word here as a shorthand: I don't think the GNS taxonomy is very useful as more than a shibboleth): that at least for some TTRPGs the creation of a story was the primary goal (heck, some of them even called themselves Storytelling games), but since those games when played as written actually ended up resisting narrative convention they were on some level dysfunctional for that purpose.

There's some truth to this but also a lot of nuance: when you get down to the roots of the hobby, the purpose of a game of D&D wasn't the production of a narrative. It was to imagine a guy and put that guy in situations, as primarily a game that challenged the player. The production of a narrative was secondary and entirely emergent.

But in the eighties you basically get the first generation of players without the background from wargames, whose impressions of RPGs aren't colored by the assumption that "it's kind of like a wargame but you only control one guy." And you start getting lots of RPGs, some of which specifically try to model specific types of stories. But because the medium is still new the tools used to achieve those stories are sometimes inelegant (even though people see the potential for telling lots of stories using the medium, they are still largely letting their designs be informed by the "wargame where you only control one guy" types of game) and players and designers alike start to realize that these systems need a bit of help to nudge the games in the direction of a satisfying narrative. Games start having lots of advice not only from the point of view of the administrative point of view of refereeing a game, but also from the point of view of treating the GM as a storyteller whose purpose is to sometimes give the rules a bit of a nudge to make the story go a certain way. What you ultimately get is Vampire: the Masquerade, which while a paradigm shift for its time is still ultimately a D&D ass game that wants to be used for the sake of telling a conventional narrative, so you get a lot of explicit advice to ignore the systems when they don't produce a satisfying story.

Anyway, the point is that in some games the production of a satisfying narrative isn't a primary design goal even when the game itself tries to portray itself as such.

But what you also get is this idea that since the production of a satisfying narrative is seen as the goal of these games (even though it isn't necessarily so), if a game (as in the act of play) doesn't produce a satisfying narrative, then the game itself must be somehow dysfunctional.

A lot of people are willing to blame this on players: the GM isn't doing enough work, a good GM can tell a good story with any system, your players aren't engaging with the game properly, your players are bad if they don't see the point in telling a greater story. When the real culprit might actually be the game system itself, or rather a misalignment between the group's desired fiction and the type of fiction that the game produces. And when players end up misidentifying what is actually an issue their group has with the system as a player issue, you end up with unhappy players fighting against the type of narrative the game itself wants to tell.

I don't think an RPG is dysfunctional even if it doesn't produce a conventionally shaped, satisfying narrative, because while I do think the act of play inevitably ends up creating an emergent narrative, that emergent narrative conforming to conventions of storytelling isn't always the primary goal of play. Conversely, a game whose systems have been built to facilitate the production of a narrative that conforms to conventions of storytelling or emulates some genre well is also hella good. But regardless, there's a lot to be said for playing games the way the games themselves present themselves as.

Your traditional challenge-based dungeon game might not produce a conventionally satisfying narrative and that's okay and it's not your or any of your players' fault. The production of a conventionally satisfying narrative as an emergent function of play was never a design goal when that challenge-based dungeon game was being made.

[faggy--butch]

sorry to ramble in your inbox but its kinda fucking me up how "trans man with a cishet boyfriend who misgenders him behind his back" is like seen to be a person to make fun of in the general queer tumblr space instead of a person who is in a vulnerable situation. i know that there is trans men who are also women and there are trans men who are genuinely okay with dating a cis man who considers himself straight but people talking about these hypothetical couples arent talking about these situations but rather about "haha stupid trans man doesnt realize hes dating a bigot"

theres this attitude that the hypothetical cishet boyfriend is actually a conservative so it should be obvious to trans man that he doesnt respect his identity but i feel like its less "oh its obvious that this specific man is a bigot" and more "obviously cishet white men are bigots" and its weird how people laugh at this person instead of acknowledging that even if you are dating a bigot its usually not a big win for you personally. like the bigot cishet boyfriend isnt going to be okay with his trans man boyfriend starting testosterone. like we can sympathize with emotional abuse happening towards other groups but when its gay and mspec trans men its like "oh he should have known that would happen" or "its his fault for dating a bigot"?

of course people have the same making fun of the victim narrative with afab nonbinary people who date cishet men who misgender them [and im sure this bleeds over to affecting all nonbinary people if people arbitrarily decide theyre afab if the nonbinary person refuses to tell them personal information about themselves but the larger narrative always specifies that this is an afab person] and its almost like a "this is what you get for being attracted to men" sort of thing.

and also i theres something to be said about warning people for signs their partner or potential partner doesnt respect their identity but considering i imagine its a common anxiety among trans and nonbinary people who are into that sorta thing to wonder "am i ever going to find someone who loves me and is also accepting of me for being [insert gender here]?" its sort of fucked up for it to be common to basically claim "yea if youre dating a cis man who said he was straight before he started dating you but says he respects your identity hes probably just straight up lying to your face" and then laugh at the person getting misgendered for not knowing they were being misgendered.

anyway sorry for this big ramble i cant even remember specific instances of this to reference so i might seem like im making up a guy to be mad at but i swear this is like a general attitude and almost running joke i see around. anyway. have a good day.

I absolutely see that too, and I think it's a mixture of straight up victim blaming, because oh noo how dare you WANT to date *gasp* cis men

but it come with an intense transandrophobia and exorsexism because there's a lot more sympathy when it comes to cis women dating cishet men "poor things uwu" but when it's trans men or in this case non binary people assumed to be women, it's always "see I told you so" smug superiority. (cis women get this too, because of misogyny obviously, but it's different and worse for trans men) People are just waiting for a chance to be misogynistic and trans men are an acceptable target. This is honestly extra fucked up when we remember that trans men experience some of the highest rates of domestic violence and rape in the community though.

being trans is such a vulnerable place to be in, and a lot of people, trans or not are insecure or just want to be loved, that's normal. A lot of people are willing to accept certain behaviors from their partners that are bad, because of those reasons as well, victim blaming, and ESPECIALLy telling trans men to toughen up or "what did you expect" is apart of the toxic expectations that get placed of trans men as well. I could honestly go on for hours about this. good ask,anon

[jackwhiteprophetic]

Hey guys have been doing some data analysis on hit TV show 9-1-1 today as one does, and basically:

- based on data from 7x01 to present (8x04, excluding 7x08 as none of the related characters are in this episode).

- Buck says "Eddie" an average of 0 (ZERO) times per episode if Tommy is not present.

- if Tommy is in a scene, Buck says "Eddie" an average of 2.75 times per episode.

- this is over double Buck's over all "Eddie" average per episode since season 2, which is currently 1.08 EPEs (eddie-per-episodes).

(here is my graph with data from S2 to S7, I will make a new one maybe at end of 8A but definitely by the end of season 8)

More data/analyses under the cut

If anyone is curious on similar data for Eddie:

- 0.4 BPEs if no T.

- 1.125 BPEs if T present.

(currently overall, Eddie is at 0.73 BPEs)

Sorry if I counted anything wrong lmao ANYWAY we bear in mind that when Tommy is present it is due to a Buck/Eddie plot in that episode (because they are often deliberately paired together by the writers) and just have more lines anyway so may be more likely to speak each others' names.

To me this highlights that Buck and Eddie are being heavily linked together whenever Tommy is there, which indicates that the writers want the audience to associate Buck's romantic relationships with Eddie. Also when interpreting Tommy as a storytelling device used to represent part of Buck's queer awakening, having Eddie be tied to this is another potentially interesting writing choice.

Basically gay Eddie is haunting bi Buck's narrative and Buck is narratively condemned to be unable to separate his queerness from his attachment to Eddie

[ask-the-rag-dolly]

ok the askbox is open. im taking this opportunity to say ohhhhh im going crazy over the narrative constructed here. specifically with how audience (anon) interaction is intertwined with the main conflict.

because its like.. we are inherently a BAD THING. yes, some of us are actually malicious, but even if we do have kind intentions, and only want the best for ragatha.. just being there is a negative impact that outweighs any positives. we are a parasite, after all. and technically, the only positive action we could do is to simply.. stop engaging. leave the askblog alone. leave ragatha alone. except we could never do that, because we're too curious now, too attached- we want to see how the story continues, how it ends. we cant leave well enough alone, we just have to know. we need to know. so the cycle will continue nonetheless due to our nature. and we have to watch as our main character, the person we're rooting for, gets worse and worse. knowing that its our fault, because we're choosing to engage. we're choosing this path of pain. because we're curious, and that curiosity would kill us if we didn't feed it.

and of course its on a tadc tumblr ask blog of all things lol. no hate btw. im here enjoying it after all! though honestly i say that like this had any opportunity of existing outside of the askblog genre... or even the tumblr landscape itself- i feel like the anon feature itself is also a big part of this sort of narrative, as it allows those actively malicious anons to be even nastier. because it distances us from our actions. like.. we're given a mask, something that obscures our true identities (both to the other askers.. and to ragatha to an extent, as most all look the same to her. who knows, maybe that one supportive anon trying to cheer her up is the same one also encouraging her downfall! she cant tell!)- a thing that wipes our hands free of any consequences. a chance to become faceless and untraceable- so of course some people will indulge. be as horrible as possible. because, hey, its not like you'll be getting any consequences for it! no way to trace it back to you! no way to be held accountable! you can just sit back and watch the fire you made grow higher. more bright. thats the main goal, after all- to make a spectacle! to move the story along and make it exciting! thats the only thing that matters to you. that its entertaining. not the people you'll be harming in the process.

anyways sorry for the fucking. essay. in your askbox. i like talking and also i fucking love dissecting meta-aligned narratives like this. gggrrggrgrgrrrr chewing on this blog like a chewtoy. i hope everyone gets worse and this whole blog blows up!!!!!!!

i can't stop giggling at ' its on a tadc tumblr ask blog of all things ' . this was really originally supposed to just be a silly blog with little story but here we are . you really won't get this anywhere else

i get pretty happy when someone dissects this silly thing so no need to apologize !! i'm my own harshest critic when it comes to this blog so it's often difficult for me to grasp what meaning people get out of this lol truly thank you guys for wanting to see my insane , Unhinged ideas come through

and i love the dissection on the mean anons - a lot of this thing hinges on actions having consequences after all ! every little thing will have an impact on ragatha's mental state . i'll say i think the anons have potential to not be as harmful - as there was a point in the blog's time where they acted more like inner therapists to ragatha than reality-bending beings of chaos ( good times ) . it just really depends on being patient with an actually mentally ill person like ragatha - it does fascinate me how people's frustration with her echoes real life mental health situations .

but yeah thanks !!! i'll be kissing this essay and pinning it on the refrigerator that i call my brain (:

[explodingchantry]

The thing is it really isn't about anders' actions. It isn't. It's genuinely all about framing.

FF7 sees us partake in actual eco-terrorism - they call THEMSELVES eco-terrorists. And we're still seen as the irrevocable hero, and everyone who plays the game understands Cloud & AVALANCHE to be heroes. Complicated, flawed heroes, but heroes anyway. When Shinra collapses the upper city into sector 7, it's as a direct result of AVALANCHE's actions. But you don't see the wider fandom bickering and yelling at each other and hating Cloud or any other AVALANCHE members for the innocent lives lost. It's understood to be Shinra's fault, as they were the ones to destroy an entire sector. But what of potential innocents dying or being injured from the reactor we blow up within the first few minutes of the game? That's definitely our actions causing direct destruction, killing the employees at the facility and the ones we directly fight, the irreparable damage. We don't see people yapping about it because the writing makes it clear that their cause is just and the fandom understands.

What of bg3's Astarion? He was forced to charm these people and bring them to Cazador, yeah, sure - but he could've also chosen to let Cazador kill him or torture him more! The choice here is obvious - that he had to do what he did to survive, and the writing makes it clear as well that he is at no fault for his actions when literally a tortured slave with very limited free will. The game also looks at his rather... Morally corrupt behavior even after escaping Cazador's control via the tadpole with a lens of sympathy and understanding and compassion because our guy is still on the "kill or be killed" grindset and genuinely needs a guiding hand to teach him that he can be free without sacrificing everything - including his humanity - for it. Though the game does allow you to hate him and kill him or turn him into a piece of shit - those are openly considered "bad" endings. There is an obvious right thing to do, here. An obvious side the writing takes.

When Anders, at the time controlled by Justice, almost kills that mage girl in Dissent - it is framed as obviously a bad thing and Anders is immediately horrified. However, some of those around him try to cheer him up, for example Varric who points out the ludonarrative dissonance happening: in which Hawke and their whole party, including Anders, have killed in the hundreds or perhaps thousands and thus Anders ought to relax about the innocent life he almost took. Of course, Varric himself is presented as morally imperfect, but also deeply sympathetic. The player is most likely to side with him on most matters and be influenced by his opinions if only because of his position as your best friend in da2 and general incredible charisma and friendly attitude. This is genuinely good writing of a very sad and nuanced scene. Dissent is pretty good, overall. Unfortunately, it isn't the norm.

The game also goes out of its way to have Varric warn Hawke about Anders being crazy if they romance him, and a humorous/sarcastic Hawke may reply that they like crazy rather than actually defend him. In general, there are very few moments where we can openly support and comfort Anders without any caveats. It goes so far as to having the popular diplomatic options sometimes defending templars rather than supporting Anders, thus placing him, in the narrative, as an 'extremist' the same way Fenris is an extremist in his hatred of mages.

Even if Anders was a terrorist - which he is not - and the chantry boom was an act of terrorism - which it isn't - this wouldn't actually stop another narrative from offering him sympathy. In any other story written by any other writer, Anders would be the obvious victim, and obvious tragic hero. In another story written by any other writer, DAI would have several characters defend him. Even if you wanted to really argue that it makes sense for Varric to hate Anders and complain about him as much as he did (there is some truth to that but I personally remain of the opinion that it did go a bit too far and thus broke character in places), you would expect other characters to speak on him positively. Such as, oh idk, rebel mages or A HAWKE WHO ROMANCED HIM AND SUPPORTED HIM. Or maybe, oh I don't know, a respected and wise elven mage who undertook a difficult revolution in the past. it's these constant remarks about him, the fact that whenever he is mentioned post da2 has been negative, the fact that bioware has parroted the "all mages betray us" stupid fucking 'joke', the fact that the 'crazed' rebel mages attacking you in the hinterlands wear anders' outfit and when you meet anders in da:a he wears tevinter robes and the gift you can give him in da2 is a tevinter amulet thus drawing connections between him and tevinter when all we ever knew of tevinter until extremely recently was "everyone living there is an evil mage slaver". Literally any other writer would have made different choices in their framing that would make people see anders for the tragic hero he is.

Cullen is given 4 entire pages on his history in WoT2. It gives him a dream of becoming a Templar to 'help' and 'protect' people, for which he worked incredibly hard for. It gives him siblings who care for him and support him no matter what, and goes at length to tell you how traumatised and 'unlike himself' Cullen was post dao broken circle. Anders gets 2 pages, which in fairness is more than most. And those two pages are, also in fairness, fairly sympathetic. But we are given nothing of what Anders does post da2, aside from a couple lines in da2 itself. I know that part of it is because there is the possibility of him being killed by Hawke, but potential character death has never stopped bioware from continuing their stories somehow, and with Anders being possessed by Justice giving him an out from certain death (why would Hawke stabbing him with a knife kill him but not a Templar spearing him with their sword in the pre-da2 short story?) there is little excuses. Furthermore, they could pull something similar to what they did with Hawke, with a simple line saying "whether or not Anders lived depends on the person telling the story" etc etc. Honestly I'm not too miffed about the absence of that, I'm not saying I want Anders to have ten pages dedicated to himself in WoT, I just wanted to point out the imbalance between a character obviously loved by Bioware and one obviously disliked.

When I offer the facts of the story to my friends who haven't touched dragon age, and try to remain as objective as possible, and remove the negative framing the game gives - they genuinely struggle to understand how anders would even possibly be hated. They're pretty baffled. And I always have to tell them, it's because of narrative bias. It genuinely, fully, is because of narrative bias.

[rey-jake-therapist]

Folks need to get over Celeborn already. Not even Tolkien cared enough to make him into a actual character, he’s just “Galadriel’s husband” because Arwen needed to exist. In some versions, Celeborn wasn’t even around when Celebrian was conceived and born! He and Galadriel spend centuries apart, and in the end she leaves for Valinor and he stays behind in Middle-earth! Literally, Galadriel could have spend centuries in love with Sauron that Celeborn would t even matter, since they were always apart doing their own thing.

Yep.

I don't understand this obsession with Celeborn and Celebrian. Like wanting Mirdania to be Celebrian while nothing, I say nothing, speaks in favor of that theory in the show except for the fact that Sauron compared her hair to Galadriel's.

Mirdania is framed since the beginning as a very secondary character, and probably doomed to die before the end of the season. If she was a "mystery daughter", she wouldn't be kept in the background, she would have been shown at least once in the trailer imho

She's down bad for Sauron since she met him at the gate (girl I GET IT), and Sauron is not an idiot, he perceived that. So now, he's using vile flattery to get her on his side, like, "wow, you totally look like Lady Galadriel in this light". It's not said in the show and it's probably a mistake, but Galadriel is considered a very, very pretty lady. Her hair in particular is FAMOUS. So comparing Mirdania to Galadriel is a huge compliment. Of course he got caught at his own game and found himself thinking of "the one that got away", but that's beyond the subject.

And frankly, I think we should hang on to our seat belts, because there might even be a kiss coming at some point. That won't mean a thing, (not to him anyway), but I don't trust him to play fair in this game LOL

Now, Celeborn. I think there's a reason why Galadriel dropped his name like a hot potato and never mentioned him again : right now, he's not important. It was the writers telling us "we know, he exists, but there's no room here for him now. Move on!" It doesn't mean he can't ever show up in the show at some point (he definitely will imho), but I don't see it happening before season 3, even season 4 !

And he's not a threat to the connection between Sauron and Galadriel anyway lol If Sauron had remained Halbrand, a man of the Southlands, that's a discussion that would be worth having, because Elves generally mate for life and fall in love only once. So if Galadriel fell in love with another man, worse, a mortal, it would raise questions regarding her true feelings for Celeborn. And it would be very boring too. We had enough mortal/Elves failed and successful romances, thank you very much.

But we can clown ourselves as much as we like : Sauron and Galadriel will never, EVER become a couple, and it's NOT because Galadriel has already fallen in love once, or because she's already married. She's the Light, Sauron's Darkness. She's GOOD, he's EVIL !

I don't know about you, but I think it's a more solid threat to a potential romance between the two than... Galadriel's marriage or Sauron flirting with a coworker lol

Sauron's never going to be a good guy, and Galadriel's never going to fall into darkness. They're literally doomed by the narrative. Sauron could have a wife of his own that it would add absolutely nothing.

[delawaredetroit]

Are you still a dfo truther? If so, why?

I'm not counting it out just because the body that All for One was eventually planning on discarding anyway is dead. The naysayers are taking too early a victory lap on that one. That said, if it does happen, this Deku vs Shigaraki fight is the last place where it feasibly could happen. There's no way All for One's vestige isn't making another appearance regardless considering his plotlines with Yoichi and Shigaraki have not been resolved.

Why do I think it's still possible? Because Horikoshi usually carefully plans the names of his characters. And it's odd that an ordinary businessman would have a name meaning leader and "a long time"/"eternal" when that sure matches the goals of the manga's villain who basically wants to be reborn in a new body so he can rule the world (and have Yoichi under his thumb). It's weirder when the alleged son in this theory has a name that includes a character that can be read "to be born" and the exact same a long time/eternal character. (Especially when unlike any of his classmates, he is the only one with both parents' names introduced where his name only has influence from one parent)

Also, it's because the themes between Izuku and Shigaraki currently feel incomplete. And they would feel more complete if this fight was also about the villain born from heroic origins versus the hero born from villainous origins. Touya, the villain character Shigaraki has the most parallels with, already has one of these in Hawks. And like Izuku and Shigaraki, those two are some of the only ones that really play with the visuals of angelic looking villains versus demonic looking heroes. All for One said that heroes/villains used to receive their "names" based on what their enemy called them - so it would make sense if what remained of All for One was defeated once and for all by those he has named. Izuku is the odd one out in this fight if dfo theory isn't true if he didn't receive a name from All for One like Shigaraki and Yoichi.

The general impression I get from people who hate this theory is that they don't want Izuku to not be an ordinary person or intended for some special destiny. And I'm ????? about that because I think these people have bought Izuku's unreliable narrative about himself hook, line, and sinker. Again, that "ordinary" interpretation goes against the actual reading of Izuku's name. Second of all, I have no idea what people are smoking to have interpreted the guy who knowingly and repeatedly breaks his bones like they're glow sticks as the most normal guy. Even before One for All - Izuku wasn't "normal" - he was part of a minority group and faced discrimination for being quirkless.

The second impression I get from naysayers is that DFO theorists are wrong because their characterizations of All for One and Inko are way off. To that I say - the original Dabi=Touya theorists were almost all way off about Touya's personality/motivations - but their conclusion was still correct. There's also more potential evidence to back up DFO theory now than there was to support the Dabi is a Todoroki theory at the time of that reveal.

At a minimum, if this theory turns out not to be true, there's enough bread crumbs left by Horikoshi that he was clearly trying to steer people into thinking there was a connection here. So am I sure it will be canon: no. Is there still a good chance it could still happen: yes.

[ardentpoop]

Would you mind expanding on Sam/Amara and Dean/Chuck parallels?

hi :) please see the screencaps I just reblogged as a starting point.

quick summary:

amara is made out to be a villain by chuck, who had used the threat she supposedly posed to humanity as justification for locking her away, when what the real issue turns out to be is that he couldn’t handle not being the one guy in control. obvious parallels with samndean’s relationship in s4. the time that amara spent locked up is comparable to sam’s time not just in the panic room but in the cage as well.

because dean is this story’s central patriarch there are always easy comparisons to make between him and every other patriarch, but especially one with the level of sway over the narrative that chuck is revealed to have, given how seriously dean’s perspective biases the audience’s reaction to everything that transpires. even if you can’t stand chuck as a character/plot development (understandable tbh) you should be able to get some enjoyment out of these comparisons if you really understand dean’s role in the story. dean’s outraged reaction at discovering chuck’s orchestration of samndean’s lives and his desperation to sacrifice jack (and everyone else…. except sam) to ensure that he doesn’t have to live under chuck’s thumb is VERY telling btw. “I can’t live like that, man! I won’t!” because dean hasn’t had to since john died and dean became him. sam, on the other hand, is used to having no control over his own life. it is an essential condition of samndean’s relationship.

plus there’s this, which you can read however you like:

now I’m gonna drop in some dialogue excerpts from one of my top favorite late-seasons episodes, 15.17 “unity.” it is genuinely so delicious and so underrated.

I hope you’re picking up what I’m putting down. there is so much insight into the imbalanced nature of samndean’s relationship, about the way it functions at sam’s expense, and about dean’s influence over the story that you can extract from these scenes.

notably, chuck and amara’s Beautiful Grand Love Story ends with chuck literally consuming amara to keep them “together” and give “them” the best chance at wresting control back from samndean. this ending only came about because dean lied to amara to get her to work against chuck - of course not telling her that he intended to kill her alongside chuck. I don’t remember exactly why but I think dean believed it to be a necessary sacrifice. anyway, potential s4 parallels yet again!

also I used the term “literary chiaroscuro” once to refer to dean and sam’s respective Light and Dark roles and the way these roles are intentionally subverted/messed with - the brothers are compared to michael and lucifer, to cain and abel but also to cain and colette, to their own parents john and mary, to god (chuck) and “the darkness” (amara). I can’t get into the validity of all of these individual comparisons or I’ll be here all day, but they are worth exploring beyond their surface-level similarities.

final note: the difference between chuck and amara’s ending and samndean’s ending in “unity” (which is not-so-secretly my preferred series finale) is that dean backs out of his rampage, his intention to sacrifice Everyone to ensure he got to kill chuck as revenge for puppeteering him to pieces, because sam reminds him of his life’s purpose, instilled in him by john: “protecting” sam. like… dean points a gun at sam and forcibly knocks him to the ground after having convinced jack to kill himself for The Greater Good, and he’s furious and shouting and his hand is on his gun again… but when it comes down to it nothing matters more to dean than sam does. which is dangerous. sam hasn’t been any less “consumed” than amara is by the end of the series, but when a situation with dean needs to be deescalated sam is the only one who knows what dean needs to hear.

I’ll stop here because I think there’s so much more I could say about this episode if I kept thinking about it; perhaps I’ll do a full breakdown at a later date. in the meantime I hope any of this was interesting to you lol.

[mecachrome]

i swear there is something about landoscar that makes me insane like i got into this fandom and have liked a lot of ships like maxiel, carlando, lestappen etc but there is just something different about landoscar??? idk if it's the dynamic between the two?? or if it's oscar's personality that makes their interactions feel genuine but i would love your analysis or thoughts on this cause WHYYYYYYY have these boys taken over my brain like so??? i swear other ships are literally out here hugging like mad and saying sexual innuendos to each other etc etc and im unfazed but i see oscar and lando have the slightest touch or glance at each other and im feral foaming at the mouth lmfaooooo !!!

omggg anon i answered an ask here about why 814's personalities appeal to Me Personally but maybe i shouldn't get too into that... 😔

anyway idk whether this makes any sense but perso with some rpf ships i find that the myth somewhat outweighs the canon or vice versa — i.e. the "potential narrative" of a ship is really compelling but it doesn't quite exist as it's written in canon, or a ship doesn't have that many compelling extra narratives other than the existing relationship that's strongly visible in canon. and i think these are all great and fun to ship, but i guess as EYE see it it sort of feels like 814 balance those aspects fairly well? like they have a dece amount of sweet and interesting interactions with each other, but obviously they're not best friends and there's enough of this like, sense of repression + the fact of their personalities being not fully diametric but still different enough that it feels like you can take them in a lot of directions. i really like that landoscar aren't quite foils but also aren't "twins" either as some people say, and oscar despite being so lauded as mature is still inspired by lando in many ways and shares the same sarcastic humor as him and enjoys his presence a lot. they work because they aren't opposites but there are enough crucial aspects that separate them so you can make a lot of tropes and aus fit them. which isn't to say you can't do the same with the other ships you mentioned but... idk i'm also just biased because i'm an oscarybroTM so i don't really think about 90% of the grid so i'm fundamentally less invested HLKSDFHLH

also i've mentioned this b4 but my favorite hockey ship (2124) is literally the hockey version of oscar (dorky californian sportsnerd who brings his gaming setup on road trips to play fifa) x his dry finnish linemate whom he doesn't even interact with off the ice but ON the ice they have the most electric wordless chemistry and are constantly aware of where the other is and play beautifully together and get super awkward when reporters try to talk to them about it. so like to me unspoken collaboration IS a beautiful and worthy thing to rpf about.... *__* so clearly i enjoy teammate repression and awkwardness in my ships already but then 814 are kind of even more insane because they're less myth than 2124 so there's SO much to chew on. at least for moi 🥰 icl i'm a little bit anti-pda so constructing intricate rituals to look longingly at other men and laugh at their bad jokes is more compelling to me than straight up skinship/bgp... i was just telling @inchidentally whose analysis i feel like might be up your alley that i don't rly get why people act like oscar's "heart eyes" toward lando are "pr" (???) because from everyth we've been told and see about him it's so clear that he's always been just himself and the level of... unguarded emotion he displays around lando isn't something you can just make up imo. even if it's just little things and they go off and do completely different things off-track (which again i kind of enjoy. like romanze can be guy who goes off to party with models the day after a race x guy who's in bed gearing up his 10th joke about getting his wisdom teeth removed) it makes them rly fun to watch ;__;

[transmutationisms]

I would love to hear more of your thoughts on House & its relation to the detective genre ! I think that house (completely accidentally and very badly) stumbles into a good critique of how doctors & medical structures view addicts & disabled people, with house being a horrible hegemonic mr malpractice to his patients frequently yet half is series is unironically just about all the injustice/mistreatment he faces because his doctor colleagues can’t see him as a person but only as a problem to be solved/rehabbed/therapized/institutionalized/treated like a child with stolen candy/treated like a criminal. and then it also randomly takes an incredibly pro MAID stance. which isn’t really part of this but I just remembered how batshit insane that show was. and then chase killed a dictator and I feel like the show was squarely on his side for that one. Anyway. Do you have thoughts? I really like house.

ok here's my house md take. like a lot of medical dramas, the show essentially relies for its dramatic appeal on the construal of patients as gross, weird, and stupid—rubes who are too uneducated and self-serving in their petty lies to solve their own bodies, and thus need the intervention of house to fix them. this is standard for the genre, although slightly meaner on house than on some other examples (cf. grey's or even the older and soapier generation of these shows). i don't even think house committing malpractice is all that new; it's relatively common as a plot point that positions the noble rule-breaking doctor as someone who 'does what needs to be done' and skirts the bureaucratic red tape to follow their own superior judgment. what makes house more interesting is that from the get-go, house himself is both a doctor and an unwilling patient. in itself this isn't a tension that's new to the medical soap (injuring a major character is pretty par for the course) but house's particular interactions with the ruling biomedical epistemology are, as you point out, characterised by hostility and resistance, and the show frequently either sides with house, or at least leaves it somewhat up to the viewer to decide whether house is right to resist the pathologisation that cuddy and wilson try to impose on him.

this is kind of a tricky line to walk for 7 seasons or however long the show is. my recollection is there are episodes, for example, where it's very clear that house's pain is physical, and the writers use this to morally justify his vicodin use. this is obviously not a full-throated defence of opioid users, but it is at least pointing to a position on chronic pain that allows for the possibility that for some people, long-term use of drugs with a high addiction potential and side effects is legitimately the best thing. but, this messaging is also undercut by the fact that it's primetime television, they need to make drama, and there are definitely also episodes where house is framed as potentially lying about his pain, or at least mistaking a somatic problem for a physical one, which the writers often (not always, but often) present as evidence that actually, house shouldn't be trusted to make his own decisions about drug use, and ideally should be 'de-toxed' and probably sent to cbt or whatever. of course all of these considerations are also contextualised by the fact that house is, again, not just a patient but a doctor: his right and ability to make these types of calls for himself is, it's suggested, a result of his having attained medical education and credentials. the patients who come to be treated by him are seldom, if ever, given this same level of consideration or presumed to have sufficient self-awareness to make their own medical decisions. this isn't to say they're portrayed entirely unsympathetically, but ultimately the narrative engine of the show relies on house being the smartest guy in the room (though ofc, sometimes tragically 'held back by his addiction').

so, although there are moments on the show that genuinely transgress some of the norms of the med-drama genre, i have never agreed with people who thought that the show as a whole was presenting any sustained critique of the medical system, the treatment of chronic pain/disability, or the power-imbalanced doctor-patient relationship. ultimately all authority on house md is supposed to emanate from the physician, or the physician's superiors (cuddy as a 'check' on house, though sometimes a failed one! again because of the need to generate drama for like 140 episodes), and at its most radical the show is really only capable of presenting house himself as an out-of-control aberration whose existence strains the existing system rather than being produced by it.

this is where i think the comparison to the cop show genre becomes more clarifying. house md never made a secret of being an interpolation of the detective genre, specifically sherlock holmes. however, i'm not sure i've ever really seen writing on the show that analyses what effect this actually has on house. like police, doctors are tasked with maintaining certain social norms; the dichotomy between policing and medicine isn't even a solid line, as criminality is frequently rhetorically construed as a pathology in itself and medical authorities can and do have recourse to carceral systems in order to discipline and confine recalcitrant patients, the 'criminally insane', addicts, and so forth. (policing has historically also been understood in a more expansive sense than how we use the word today; our understanding of the medical/public health system as separate from police authority is arguably more to do with university credentialling than the actual exercise of social and political power).

so, if we want to be serious about the portrayal of medicine in popular culture (i am always serious about this) then we're necessarily talking about broader systems of power, social control, and discipline, and doubly so on a show like house that is explicitly inspired by detective fiction. this is where house md is most ideologically objectionable to me: as with the trope of the cop who breaks all the rules, house is basically positioned in one of two ways throughout the show. either he's a lone genius who alone is willing to achieve noble ends (cure) through distasteful means (breaking into patients' homes, berating them, performing risky interventions on them, &c), or—and this is rarer on house but does happen—he's portrayed as genuinely crossing an ethical line, in which case he's a kind of monstrous aberration from the normal, ethical functioning of the medical system, often represented metonymously by the objections that cuddy, wilson, or house's underlings raise. in both of these cases, as with copaganda, the function is ultimately to reinforce the idea that doctors, though occasionally capable of human error, are prima facie wiser than their patients, looking out for their patients' best interests, and performing noble social roles as healers. house, ofc, is very rarely willing to admit that he has any underlying ethical motivations, though much of the show is driven by the flashes where he is revealed to 'secretly' care about another person (often wilson) and anyway, the construction of an ethical society in which all individual actors are motivated solely by selfish interests is a very established rhetorical move for those interested in defending liberal capitalist societies (cf. charles darwin, thomas malthus, adam smith, &c).

because of television's need to generate profit via audience engagement, house md always relied on a certain level of shock or at least provocation in order to sustain itself. so, there are certain aberrations from the more overtly doctor-valorising medical dramas, like the suggestion (sometimes tongue-in-cheek) that house was better at his job when he was mildly high on opioids. this was, for the reasons outlined above, never a serious entry into political critique, but it was at least refreshing in a certain way as a departure from, eg, the portrayal of addiction and drug use that we see on grey's, which is completely limited to the medicalised AA narrative of 'recovery' as a battle against the malevolent intervention of an external chemical agent. which is to say that although house md is ultimately reactionary in the way we should expect from an american tv show, it did at least dabble in a certain level of caustic iconoclasm that allowed limited departures from the genre conventions. even with what was ultimately a pretty solid vindication of the anti-opioid narrative, the show does stand out in my mind as one of the few very popular presentations of any kind of alternative stance on chronic drug use. that it's usually put in house's own mouth means it is occasionally legitimated by his epistemological authority as a physician, though ofc ultimately this authority is challenged not through a critique of the medical system, but by presenting house as individually and aberrantly licentious, undisciplined, and insane—and his chronic pain/disability are both a justification for this, and a shorthand for conveying it.