#bbc staged spoilers

[loveagoodmaim]

S2 of Good Omens ended the way S3 of Staged did.

They're both split screen

They're both effectively motionless with the camera focussed on their faces, while action continues around them

They both end with Michael/Michael's character choosing to leave

[ineffableigh]

omg ok I finally watched all of Staged

OW MY FEELINGS jesus that ending

how did they manage to craft an ending that was both heart shattering and hopeful what the fuck lol

[lanniisters]

Save a horse ride a cowboy sooooo…. Saddle up, Sheenie! 🤠

[dudesrysly]

I just started watching Staged for the first time and let me tell you, the fact that Michael and Aziraphale give the same silent treatment is KILLING ME!

This is so cute; I can’t-

Staged: 1x3

Good Omens: 2x6

[thatannoyingbitch]

now Michael Sheen can never tell David Tennant he's not Doctor Who again!! his doctor is out there forever just to troll Michael.

[rainbowpopeworld]

The Doctor to The Toymaker

[cloud-based-and-rainpilled]

To be fair to Michael Sheen, if I had my own TV show I’d write in a pointless bisexual polycule scene that had no bearing on the plot too

[nickyroethemarinebiologist]

Ascending to a whole new plane of insanity right now <- watched ofmd S2 and then ghosts S5 consecutively and will never ever ever get over it

[ancientstone]

I do love that the end of Staged is that nothing lasts forever (affectionate), and the end of good omens s2 is that nothing lasts forever (derogatory)

[despisedtoolofsatan]

I made the mistake of watching Staged like a week after good omens 2. 😭😭😭 Michael I can't keep watching you break up with David. It's too sad.

Good Omens S02E06 // Staged S03E06

They are sick and twisted for this

(insp)

[brian-in-finance]

The Graham Norton Show and Cait just started following each other. Hoping she'll be on the show soon.

Thanks for the message, Anon. 😃 She’s not listed among the guests for the balance of 2024. Let’s hope she shows up on Graham’s stage in the new year. 🥳

The Graham Norton Show / BBC

Thanks for the message, Anon. 😃 I watch Outlander on someone else’s schedule, so have only just seen Brotherly Love. I always enjoy watching Claire/Lord John scenes, and look forward to more of them… my dear. 😉

🚨 Spoilers ahead for S07E11 A Hundredweight of Stones

Things are about to change for Lord John and Claire. Robert Wilson/Starz

What to Watch the Week of December 1: Outlander's Most Jaw-Dropping Episode Yet

Get ready for Outlander to devastate, shock, and surprise you in one of the most explosive hours of TV yet. Following this past week's episode (in which Claire got some devastating news...no spoilers it you're not caught up), we enter episode 711 with Claire's life in shambles, Roger and Buck no closer to finding Jem, and Brianna ready to do battle with anyone who comes between her and her family.

When I previewed the new (half) season of Outlander in this guide a few weeks ago, I teased its gut-wrenching and raw return and this episode is why. Caitríona Balfe (Claire) gives one of the most chilling performances of her impressive career, one that will stay with you long after you've watched the episode.

It wasn't an easy week at work, but it's also great that you get asked to push yourself and force yourself into these crazy situations," Balfe told me last month. "It's amazing that seven seasons in that you're getting thrown something that's as risky and challenging as that.

"That" is something which Outlander book fans will be expecting, but it's still quite unreal to see it play out. Come back to Glamour on Friday, December 6 to read more of what Balfe has to say as well as Sam Heughan's thoughts and more from executive producers Maril Davis and Matthew B. Roberts.

Glamour

Thanks for the message, Anon. 😃 Are you quite sure someone said Caitríona was the weakest link in Season 1? How interesting. The Golden Globe Awards nominations committee must have been very hard up that year. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Here’s a clip from the 2015 Gold Derby video you quote:

Video 📹 clip from YouTube

I’m glad you included the 2015 bit from Tom & Lorenzo because the link refuses to cooperate with me. I imagine a lot of people who read the entire quote would see fightin’ words, but… “second” is an intriguing counter to “the weakest link,” is it not? 🤔

Galway 🇮🇪, November 2024 Instagram

Remember… Balfe gives us a Claire that's not only sympathetic and admirable, but someone anyone would want to get to know. She's smart and wry, bold and funny, empathetic and stubborn. Tom & Lorenzo

[princeloww]

Got and read the Takin Over the Asylum script book today (stage play),,,

Spoiler and trigger warning*

We get some extra Campbell family lore !! Since it's written by Donna Franceschild as well, I think it's safe to consider canon, partly? Campbell has siblings, and was possibly admitted to St. Judes after trying to convince the BBC he was the best comedian in Britain.

The story of the play is generally the same on important parts, with a few differences - it's set in 2010-2013~, I think, and laptops/phones play a part that they didn't in the original, as well as the Internet and streaming the radio show online

Eddie's grandma and home life are not referenced at all - his work is still talked about and we see him on phone calls to his boss, but we never actually meet his boss.

I definitely recommend getting this! It's a very, very quick read but packed full of interesting, new content (such as the Campbell lore and interesting directions - including Rosalie being described as smiling at Campbell in a "maternal" way, which is adorable),, I enjoyed it a lot!

(Source - Takin' Over The Asylum, Donna Franceschild, script book)

[iwillstabyou]

You couldn’t have put that more perfectly. I think the ending was perfect in the way that it was what was needed. Of course I’m not saying it was flawless — there were definitely imperfections — but that just makes it so right.

We’re meant to be upset about the ending. It was never going to be perfect. Because this show is ultimately about life, and life is far from perfect. It’s about death. It’s about endings. It’s about new beginnings. It’s about family. It’s about love. It’s about pain. It’s about change. But most importantly, it’s about how whatever happens, things will eventually be okay.

And that’s what this ending did perfectly. We may upset about this ending, but we will all eventually be okay. It may take time, but we will be alright, we will get over it, we will heal from the pain. Much like how things are okay for the ghosts in the end. They still get to see their family, and the plague ghosts get a bloody steam room (they lucked out fr). Things have changed, and it’s natural to miss how things were before, but in the end, everything is going to be okay. If there’s one message that the finale really hammered home, it’s that one.

And that is what makes this show so special to me.

had some more time to think, and i want to make it clear that i’m not actually disappointed that alison and mike left. yes, initially it felt a bit jarring considering the end of 5x06, julian’s speech, deciding to stay, loving it there etc etc. i also couldn’t imagine the ghosts being okay with the hotel but then i reconsidered and thought of how they’d get over it, realise what perks it has, be nosy and interested as always, and know they had proposed it for alison’s sake. sure it would have been a dream if they could just stay all together and compromise on space, but i suppose the whole point of it was family are sometimes just a bit shit at that however well-meaning and the only solution is to get some space from them. mike’s mum was there to hammer that point home, even if i think it was rushed. and i moved out of my family home a few years ago so i know all this to be true, i visit my family all the time and that space apart doesn’t stop you being family, of course it doesn’t.

alison and mike had to put their needs first and prioritise attention to mia, rather than what the ghosts want to watch on tv or turning pages of books, and it is very in-character of the ghosts - who have grown so much thanks to alison - to be the ones to propose they leave. it was also lovely to see that they kept their room and visited into their old age. all of that is tonally very on-brand with the idiots and their work.

my gripes come from the pacing, which is so hard to do in 30 minute episodes but something i feel slipped in s5 particularly - time spent on certain things that could have been better allocated elsewhere. and i just would have liked a little bit more weight on the goodbye, maybe, let it linger a bit. of course you can then argue that, well, it wasn’t really goodbye, just see you later, but still. end of an era and all that. do we really need to see what the interim was like, what they did? no, we can infer that, it’s the same old alison and her ghosts they would always be. i just wanted literally another few minutes with them as they were. idk if that makes sense.

i thought it was weird that alison so readily agreed, but then it’s like, well maybe she knew it was just time. they all knew but she wanted to keep them all a bit longer, hang onto that dream. the ghosts being the ones to encourage her to go rather than hope she’d stay was the final push she needed to accept things finally were going to change. everything changes. the ghosts know that more than anyone because they’ve seen so much of it.

i did absolutely love the parallels of them leaving vs arriving, alison’s outfit and the car on the drive. so many shots were call-backs to the first episodes and i loved that dearly as a bookend.

ultimately, the ghosts weren’t forgotten and they didn’t get sucked off. they were visited for decades, got to have loads of new experiences with a hotel no doubt, got to watch alison and mike’s kid(s) grow.

i have a lot of feelings and it was bittersweet and imperfect in places but ultimately it was one of the kindest endings they could have given everyone bar alison and mike simply just staying, which in the long run just wouldn’t have been viable.

fuck. ok

[tea-cake-and-sarcasm]

The big and important intro post

I finally made one! I might decorate it later, maybe not.

You can call me Tea/Albert, neither being my real name for privacy reasons! Other nicknames are also cool!

I use she/they pronouns, and I am queer

I mainly reblog, but occasionally you may stumble upon a text post or even my art. I promise at some point I'll get to tagging all of these so you can find things!

Current fandoms:

-Ace attorney

-Death note

-Moriarty the patriot

-Tokyo ghoul

-Botw/totk zelda especially

-Cult of the lamb

-saiki k

-Parkour civ (how did I get here?)

-Alien stage (though I haven't posted it so far)

-Forbidden deductions

-sherlock, the books, though I have been slowly watching the BBC version.

-omniscient readers viewpoint- though I've only read the webtoon so no spoilers please!

Probably more too, I'll add them as I remember them.

Currently watching (last updated 11/12/24):

-Aot

-Code Geass

-Neon Genisis Evangelion

-Arcane

-Case Closed (on occasion)

Favourite music artists:

-Ghost and pals

-Kikuo

-Fish in a birdcage

-Maretu

-Cö shu nie

-eve

-yaelokre

Asks and anon asks are open, but please keep everything sfw!

I won't be answering any donations asks.

Trivia below the cut :D

-My favourite colours are purple and bright red

-my favourite animals are giraffes and crows

-Currently I have somewhat an obsession with vampires, and most of my oc lore is centered around that.

-i am terrible at sports but I do ariel silk and hoop (though I am horrible at it)

-Some careers I was interested in when i was younger: author, fashion design, forensic science, astronomist.

-Some careers I'm interested in currently: game dev, something in law (I'm highly indecisive), Some form of artist.

-I love bugs and like to collect facts on my favourites, but I WILL scream if one creeps up on me. I love them only when they're expected.

More another time maybe! (I'm procrastinating rn) thank you for reading!

-my mbti type is infp-t

[final-fantasy-as-literature]

Maycomb Blume and "Reading" Loveless in Rebirth

Heya, folks. SPOILERS ahead for Rebirth. Loveless is the only thing that should be spoiled, but I do mention foreshadowing for another event without stating the event.

Content Warning: Death is mentioned, and there is an image of a skull being held by David Tenant. This should be the only time I have to provide a David Tennant warning on this blog /s.

I've let this blog go dormant since I started it and emptied it out, but I wanted to use it. Originally, I started this blog to chronicle my readings of FF7, FF8, and FF9 as adaptations of Xiyouji, but that didn't feel like an easy thing to start with.

I did have the first section of a close reading of Loveless as it appears in English posted here, but I wanted to restart with pointing out how "reading" video games more deeply can be rewarding and is something you probably already have the tools to do if you went to primary school in the past 30 or so years. I will throw the close reading back on here when I've edited it, but I want to be doing something with this blog that isn't quite so deeply analytical to start. I also like adding images to break up text, and this is one of the few places I can do that with alt text for accessibility. Tumblr doesn't like outside links, though, so win some, lose some.

I wanna focus on Loveless from Rebirth with one critical lens among many that you can use to find your own meaning from it. You can even use weaker lenses, like the monomyth and its mother goddess guiding a hero or a Wagnerian reading, if you want. Loveless is a story about heroes on the stage set to music, even if it doesn't neatly line up with either lens. One could display how it resists interpretation by those lenses, for example. In any case,

You Probably Already Know About Literature

Loveless is a play. Even being in a game, it is a play that bears features common to European and American plays and operas from the 16th Century to the modern day. While some parts may be foreign to what you were taught in school, like the operatic portion at the beginning and the lead-solo at the end, the three-to-five act structure with exposition, rising action, climax, and falling action is something quite common to primary education in a lot of countries.

If you were taught this in primary school, you were probably also taught it through a few key authors, artists, directors, and playwrights. If you're from the US, those names likely included some people like James Baldwin, Harper Lee, Kurt Vonnegut, and maybe a few authors from South America like Julio Cortázar or Laura Esquivel. Without doubt, though, I bet you had to read Shakespeare.

That isn't without good reason. Regardless of what you think about him or his works, Shakespeare's words have been enjoyed and remade countless times around the world in many languages. His dominance of theater of a European style is to the point that some of his lines in isolation, ripped of their context, are enough to call to mind the drama on stage to much of the world.

If I say "To be or not to be..." most native English speakers are already finishing the line or jumping ahead to picture a skull in hand, dramatically lamenting a fellow of infinite jest who now has none who would mock his grin. I've seen the same happen with "Ser o no ser..." and "Sein oder Nichtsein..." in non-literary conversations.

David Tennant not mocking Yorick's grin as Hamlet. Image retrieved from Yorick on Wikipedia, originally from BBC article Bequeathed skull stars in Hamlet.

But, that aside, a piece of Loveless begins before the play, somewhat like the earlier events of Hamlet reflecting in his own play within a play.

You Probably Already Know How to Find Out More About Literature.

If you went to school in the age of the internet, you probably had to do research online to back up your writing in an essay on some piece of media you might not have cared about. Maybe you just found a website, reputable or not, that made an argument you could pull a quote from and stick in your writing. Hopefully, though, there was at least a time or two where you genuinely connected with a piece of assigned media and wanted to see what you could find from scholars about the plot, symbols, style, etc. to inform and elaborate on your own thoughts. I want to do that second one with Aerith's pseudonym for the solo at the end of Loveless, Maycomb Blume.

If you put "Maycomb Blume" into a search engine, I'm using Google through a VPN on a clean device, you're probably going to see a wall of FF7-related pages discussing the name. Unfortunately, those aren't the best sources for doing more than stimulating reflection on your own ideas. Most of them seem to come to a homophonic conclusion that it sounds like "make em bloom" that first appeared on a fan Twitter account. However, you might see an article or two about a book by Harper Lee set in the fictional town of Maycomb, Alabama - To Kill a Mockingbird.

If you look into them, you'll see that they tend to be reflecting on the resistance, or lack thereof, to oppression present in the novel by its protagonists. At first, that may seem tenuous, but let's follow the string and look into the Maycomb part of Maycomb Blume. A large piece of Final Fantasy VII is resistance or lack of resistance to oppression bringing characters together or pushing them apart, after all.

If you look up 'Maycomb' by itself, you will quickly find that it almost exclusively refers to the fictional town of Maycomb invented by Harper Lee. Google Ngram Viewer confirms this, showing virtually zero mentions of 'Maycomb' until the release of To Kill a Mockingbird. As a deliberate choice of translation, they sure did pick a unique word, no? But what about the "Blume" part? That isn't exactly an uncommon word, and it has myriad variations.

The results of a Google Ngram Viewer search for Maycomb, showing the sudden increase in the appearance of the word Maycomb in text after Lee's publication. Image screenshot from Google Ngram Viewer on October 19, 2024.

If you keep digging and do more looking, you might find that one of the most famous, influential, and controversial literary critics, Shakespeare scholars, and Harry Potter-haters in the world, Harold Bloom, was the editor for an anthology of critical essays on To Kill a Mockingbird. If you know anything about him, you might be aware of his idea that all works of literature are essentially "remakes" that carry influence from the ideas and stories they are latecomers to. This idea is what he called the anxiety of influence.

Harold Bloom, the man who hated Harry Potter before it was cool. Image retrieved from Wikipedia, by Bernard Gotfryd and originally obtained from the page Bernard Gotfryd on the Library of Congress website.

So what did Bloom have to say about Lee's most famous work in this text? Not much, as he was the editor of the volume, but he did say that the protagonists weren't what one would call heroes, but reflections of a sensibility that saw itself without the need to change in the face of racism:

The crises of [Scout’s] book confirm her in her intrinsic strength and goodness, without wounding her sensibility or modifying her view of reality.

So, where our initial look might lead us to a simple homophonic "it sounds like 'make em bloom,'" our deeper look leaves us with a lens from a scholar most focused on works of poetry on the stage, the anxiety of influence, and a theme with which to use that lens with, growth of a protagonist in the face of oppression. These tools seem appropriate for a work that is explicitly part of a "remake" of an earlier work that deals heavily with oppression, how people do or do not resist it, and what that leads them to do - so how well do they apply to Loveless?

You Probably Know How to Apply This to Loveless

Again, if you went to primary school in an English-speaking country in the past 30 years, you were probably taught the basics of how to apply critical lenses to any media you consume. If you had to read A Modest Proposal and discuss how well Jonathan Swift satirizes the plight of the poor in Ireland and upper-class reactions to it, you were being exposed to rudimentary Class or Marxist Criticism. In the US, you might have also been exposed to it while reading The Great Gatsby or The Grapes of Wrath. If you had to analyze the symbols in an Edgar Allan Poe work and explain the ideas, sensations, emotions, and images they called up for you and how well they served the work as they were written, you were being exposed to rudimentary New Criticism. In the US, you might have also been exposed to it while reading Song of Myself or listening to I Have a Dream.

Edward Manet's interpretation of the visit of the raven, both chaotic and clear. Image retrieved from The Raven on Wikipedia, originally on the Library of Congress website linked by a dead link.

The anxiety of influence, or Bloomian criticism, is just like those lenses in that it is a tool for you to apply as an individual reader. Primary schools don't often use even rudimentary Bloomian criticism, though, because it requires a knowledge of a canon, or a body of important works at its simplest, but introducing you to a canon is part of what studying literature in primary school does. Once you have at least a familiarity with a canon, you can start to identify how works influenced by that canon build upon it to deliver their own stories in a way that might or might not change how you read those original works.

Remember how I brought up the "to be or not to be..." soliloquy near the start of this? Are you minimally familiar with Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and King Lear?

If yes, you can apply rudimentary Bloomian criticism to Loveless.

Actually Doing It

The operatic bit of Loveless and the title itself mirror the central tragedy of King Lear: three would-be heroes vie to prove their love for King Lear and all but one are proven loveless. Even more in-line, they are a blonde would-be hero who is imprisoned (Cordelia), a would-be hero with black hair who is slain (Regan), and a would-be hero with red hair whose life is cut short (Goneril).

The Three daughters of King Lear by Gustav Pope. From left to right are Regan, Goneril, and Cordelia. Image retrieved from King Lear on Wikipedia.

The three would-be heroes of Loveless raising their swords. Of the three, only Alphreid on the left is given explicit name, but parallels between the three and other characters within and without the Compilation may be drawn.

While there is a "mother goddess" in the mix, understanding it here without a background understanding of possible precursors (like Campbell's mother goddess or the Guanyin of Chinese/Japanese Buddhism from which he derived it, in part) would only serve to make this longer in explanation. As it goes, she is one of the primary features of the play which connect Loveless to Final Fantasy VII as a whole, but understanding the reason for her inclusion is impossible without looking at FF7 as a whole. As it stands, Loveless can be understood as a work in its own right in a similar way to how Hamlet's play can be understood as a character in the play rehearsing his own mode. That is; Loveless is informative even without understanding Remake and Rebirth in whole.

Already, though, we see that we've reached the point of tragedy of King Lear: it is not long after the imprisonment of Cordelia that she is hanged and her father dies of grief and madness. The Fool, though, appears to deliver the reveal of Bloomian clinamen, the swerving away an author (or authors) makes from the precursors when they create their own misprison (work of art/poetry/literature/etc).

Where King Lear ends shortly after Cordelia's imprisonment, Loveless only truly begins there, and the Fool, a character used to communicate the true nature of things, appears. It is fitting, then, that the character who communicates the true nature of things appears again here as the only character without change or loss in title, being the Fool in both King Lear and Loveless. He introduces us to Alphreid, who himself calls back to the madness of loveless Shakespearean tragedies with his "To proceed... or not to proceed!" line after the tutorial.

Cloud as Alphreid putting on his theater shoes and reminding the reader of the question.

Where Hamlet and Cordelia are condemned to tragedy because of their rejection of love or the rejection of their love, though, Alphreid is freed and empowered by his newfound acceptance of the Goddess' love through the hand of Rosa. This reveals the tessera of the work, the fragment that can be used with other fragments of the work to show where the author (or authors) suggest that the precursors did not go far enough. Hamlet and King Lear, then, are filled with nothing but villains and victims who refuse to embrace the power of love of all things. This makes sense, as those were tragedies.

This blends with the daemonization the work employs, a Counter-Sublime in reaction to the Sublime of the precursors. This is the evidencing of the tessera from before in the way even nature, thundering with Alphreid's rally, reveals in Loveless the counter to the Shakespearean idea that lovelessness flattens all. Where Cordelia and Ophelia die to lack of true love from even one person, Alphreid becomes empowered by love for all things. This reflects even in the reader's/player's ability to progress no matter who they declare their love for among Varvados, Garm, and Rosa, as love conquers all and lack of love flattens. Garm and Varvados, who refuse love, can be expected to fail as long as the player continues.

In hand with the application of the daemonization employed is the kenosis, the breaking device used by an author (or authors) to empty their own work and that of the precursors of their nature as literature. Here, the authors remind the reader that they are playing a game by forcing them to interact to continue Alphreid's story, breaking the illusion of the game's reality while highlighting that Hamlet and King Lear can be put on the shelf as well if you don't wish to continue. Yet, the reader does.

And, when they do, they find revealed in it the reality of the second-to-last revisionary ratio of the anxiety of influence, askesis, the movement stressing the individuality of the author (or authors). They find it most clearly in the Fool of Loveless, pleading with the audience in soliloquy where he calls upon central, humanizing lines of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, and Troilus and Cresside to humanize the creators of his misprison and the misprisons embodied in its precursors,

Cait Sith as the Fool doing his best to evoke pathos for the reader through allusion to the end of things.

Friends, lend me your ears. (Shakespeare, Julius Caesar) Our inspiring hero's and indomitable princess's tale draws to a close. Only one act remains. Parting is indeed such sweet sorrow. (Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet) But as they say, all good things must come to an end. (Chaucer/Shakespeare, Trolius and Criseyde/Troilus and Cressida) Though it is our wish that this tale remain with you long after we are gone.

Emphasis and parenthetical additions mine.

Almost in those words, the Fool draws the reader of both King Lear and Loveless to consider the work as its own unique and novel expression; though, the Fool of King Lear simply tasks the reader with recognizing the application of Lear's lessons. The Fool of Loveless, however, calls on the reader to keep the work as a novel piece with them even as they finish the work.

Even more, it seems to remind the reader that an end in death is soon to come, for Mark Antony was lamenting the death of Caesar in his "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears..." speech, Juliet was foreshadowing in a good night that her cherishing might kill Romeo when she described parting as sorrow and grief, and Chaucer was describing the parting of Criseyde despite the pleas of Troilus when he said, "every thing hath ende" (which Shakespeare later modified). For all of these works, the Fool seems to be showing the ways in which this story will show an end isn't quite so simple - that a death isn't so simple as ending everything for those who survive.

The last of the revisionary ratios of the anxiety of influence, the opening of the work near the end of the author's (or authors') life that reveals the precursors' influence which is apohprades, is evident across the work in the blatant allusions we just discussed and in the name of the trilogy of works that contains it: Remake.

Cloud putting on his standoffish act as Alfred. The translation has served to better the depth, as even Alphreid is the portmanteau of Siegfried and Alberich from The Ring Cycle, highlighting Cloud's dualism.

As the creators of the 1997 release age and face death's tyranny, the anxiety of influence begets renewed misprison that causes the authors to reveal the precursors to their work with their reactions to them. Isolated to just Loveless, a reader can see a return of Shakespeare into a work that originally copied the format he used without clearly showing his presence to reveal a new reading of his most prominent tragedies. This reading, even, mirrors that of Bloom's reading of To Kill a Mockingbird: the tragedies of Shakespeare were preventable or survivable for more of the characters with the same force that could have prevented the crisis of To Kill a Mockingbird.

Why Does This Matter?

Because the curtains don't have to be blue if they mean something to you or the person that made them, and finding meaning in even just a small part of a work can reveal meaning to you in the whole and in other things you enjoy. If we can see Loveless as a take on growth through love of all things and people in the face of oppression influenced by a myriad precursors through baby's first Bloomian lens, we can do that with the Remake trilogy as a whole, even before it is completed. That, even, is just one critical lens that can be used. Jacob Geller has a critique of Midgar as presented in Remake through the lens of architecture and an Akira Kurosawa film that leans towards Class/Marxist Criticism, for example.

I know this was long, but I am rather determined to help people understand that the literacy skills and canons their teachers tried to impart on them are useful outside of reading those same canonical works. Final Fantasy VII suffers from surface-level readings (as opposed to something like Silent Hill or Outer Wilds), but we don't have to read any work like that, especially if we can evidence more deep readings with the text.

So, thanks if you read this far; though, you probably didn't need me to tell you about this stuff if you did.

If you're interested in the Xiyouji thing, it isn't my bigger project, but I'm gonna be semi-regularly posting readings of characters, locations, fiends, concepts, and events as seen in Remake and Rebirth through the lens of adapting Xiyouji. I'll probably be posting Barret Wallace as Sandy first, but it is a tossup between Red XIII as Red Boy, the Trio as the Three from Gensomaden Saiyuki, or The Crow's Nest's Colin as the Crow's Nest Zen Master after that. I wanted to start with this to demonstrate the idea in a smaller part and remind people why they were taught media literacy in school, though. The The Norse Myths That Inspired Final Fantasy VII guy, M.J. Gallagher, seems to be trying to do that in a way, too, but he went a different direction from Dragon Quest and the king of Xiyouji adaptations that come from Japan who helped make it - Akira Toriyama, the creator of Dragon Ball.

The first appearance of Goku by Akira Toriyama also beginning his journey as an adapted Monkey on a cloud towards becoming the Buddha Victorious in Strife. Image retrieved from Goku on Wikipedia.

[hergan416]

Why do I love Moriarty the Patriot?

It's not just like...compelling story. Sure it has compelling story, but ultimately it is a Sherlock Holmes adaptation. Surely I would have gotten into I dunno, Elementary when my mom was super into it when I was a teen, or the old BBC show my ex's grandparents had on at their house all the time (that more or less followed ACD canon). Maybe even ACD's books...which I like but am languishing on reading even after getting into MTP). So why this one?

Admittedly, I am the kind of person who is much more interested in animated works than live action, so I'm a little biased towards the format of an anime (and then finding the manga for more context after I love it). That's definitely a me thing.

But why did I start to hyperfixate on it? How did it become my fandom?

Gonna have some heavy topics and spoilers now.

It's relating to every single character as human. It's the way the relationships are so real and easy to imagine. It's the main character...who basically tries to commit suicide around the same age that I tried to commit suicide, failing, then having to learn to live with himself.

It's about the struggle to relate to people, to communicate, even for brilliant people who are very close (Will and Al and Louis), even for brilliant people who want to be (Sherlock and Liam), even for people who at first glance don't all seem to be neurodivergent (Sherlock and Watson). It's about how no friendship or familial relationship, no matter how deep the ties go, is perfect. It's about found family and blood ties and being true to oneself.

It's about good and evil and what those terms even mean. It's about the inherent worth of humanity. Nobles not finding all people to be people. Louis lives because William has been acknowledging his worth and thinks Holmes can provide that for William. But in the end, Louis and William both find their own worth for themselves. Louis pushes forward and really starts to shine in his new role. He's so good at what he does. He's so comfortable. He's a leader, not a servant. He is the new head of the family.

William too, learns a lot from having to live with just himself to look after (and maybe Sherlock). But he's not enmeshed with Sherlock the way he was with his brothers. He's learning to live as his own person, to become himself. Not an actor on a stage, not someone he is expected to be, to be vulnerable, to not know the answers. Because when you are smart like that...you're supposed to know all the answers. Even now.

It's beautiful. The Final Problem isn't enough. The first part ends with a brief description of how things happen after a three year time skip. Its about healing. And not healing. And struggling to move forward anyway.

How could I NOT love it?