#because fundamentally we will have very little in common if that is the case

[fierceawakening]

Yes! That’s… less of a clear answer than I feel comfortable with to join a movement or admire its leaders, but it’s something.

I always get the sense in conversations like this that people are much more comfortable than I am just being like “who cares about the edge cases?”

I care about them, both because I’ve *been* the victim of things committed by people too deep in their mental illness for anyone who tried to convince them to stop, and because if we truly believe everyone is a person (which I see as a key tenet of leftist values and part of why I choose them over right wing values in the first place) then we believe some things are too cruel even for people who do horrific things.

So I don’t see it as an issue we can avoid.

Also like I’ve mentioned I work at a homeless shelter. The reason a lot of academically inclined leftists can talk about crime like it’s rare is because they don’t spend time in environments where people who’ve committed crimes are common. I don’t think they’re wrong that most people are basically good, but I think they can be naive about what it takes to convince someone crimes are not a great idea. If someone has a patten of criming, it’s because that’s what they believe works for them. Getting them to stop is about changing their outlook and habits, which is far from impossible but a lot slower and more bumpy than many people who never did much criming want to think.

Also I think a lot of people really don’t have an accurate picture in their heads of serious mental illness. I think very often people have an idea that even very acutely ill people are fairly rational, and you can usually help them deal with their anxiety, give them meds, whatever, and they improve a lot. Again, I don’t think this is fundamentally incorrect; disease isn’t destiny. But having interacted with a lot of people whose illness is particularly intractable, I think that people often have… the same kind of image in their mind, where they don’t really understand how incremental incremental can be.

There are many people, including one client I’m very morose about, who improve a little when treated well, but a little isn’t enough. My moroseness? That client has been banned for fighting, unless she appeals the decision and wins. I don’t *like* the thought that she’s going to lose her place here and that’s likely to only make things worse… but I don’t have the fundamental confidence to say that kicking people out for violence is too cruel, we can make sure it’s fine. Making sure it’s fine is very clearly above my pay grade, and while there are people with more experience and better degrees than me I don’t have the impression they’re less confused.

All of which says to me that deciding we’re ready to stop imprisoning people who do bad things is at the very least premature (and to their credit a lot of abolitionists do agree that prisons will be phased out over time.) I think it’s unrealistic not just in a way that paints a rosy picture of humanity (as a whole? My picture of humanity is also fairly rosy!) but also in a way that fundamentally ill prepares us to really help perpetrators in ways that matter.

[fogonsunday]

The only reason I don’t completely buy into the nature vs nurture argument of what makes someone more likely to cause harm is because I know someone who quite literally had a picture-perfect upbringing complete with friends, a loving family, and countless opportunities to succeed, and yet they are still far more likely to cause harm to me and others in our circle than I or our mutual friends are to cause harm to them

[longing-for-rain]

https://www.tumblr.com/atla-confessions/759438562978562048/zutara-and-azutara-both-agree-katara-would-have?source=share

Do a post on this please I don't have the energy

I see this sentiment a lot lately, and yes, it is frustrating. But I’m going to talk about it because it perfectly illustrates the way (kataang) fans take power away from Katara’s narrative and reduce her complexity as a result.

For those too tired to look at the OP (understandable) it’s an anon saying that both Zutara and Kazula would be problematic and harmful to Katara because the Fire Nation would never accept her, and that she and her family would always be in danger yada yada blah blah.

And honestly? I agree with that. It would be dangerous for Katara. But if you think that would stop Katara, you fundamentally don’t understand her character.

Do you really think Katara is some poor little damsel who needs to be protected at all costs and sent away to live a quiet life in the countryside? No; that’s never been Katara. Katara wants to fight and she has never backed down from a challenge. It’s who she is.

Katara is the girl who left her home to travel across a war-torn world to chase even a chance that she could play a part in ending the war. She’s constantly putting herself in dangerous situations because she follows her heart, she does what’s right even if it’s a risk to her safety. The Katara we know from ATLA is not some demure, unassuming girl who would be happy to sit back and become known for her healing above all else while her friends fought in her place. Katara would have hated to see her future as it was written. She is loud. She is proud. She is a fighter.

Katara not only accepts a challenge; she’s eager for it. She’s strong, she knows it, and she isn’t afraid to use her power for good.

I know someone is going to jump in the comments and accuse me of “shaming” Katara for her “choices” (nevermind the fact that she’s a fictional character so every choice she makes isn’t her own; it’s a narrative chosen for her by the male writers) but I’m not even saying that being a healer is inherently weak or bad. I’m saying it’s not Katara.

It’s a shame that so many people are willing to overlook the butchering of her story just because they’re so protective over canon and are completely unwilling to engage with it critically.

This sentiment reflects the issues many fans have with canon kataang, because it’s a very common misogynistic trope in media. A female character can be strong, but it’s only temporary. We can see her fight and triumph, but at the end she’s expected to give that up for marriage and motherhood after the war. Her identity is reduced to her relation to a man. She isn’t expected to retain her strength; she is expected to accept a quiet recognition while the world sings the man’s praises.

That was the fate of Katara in canon. And it is a disservice to her character. Katara would have wanted to continue to fight, because the fight wasn’t over. Anon’s recognition that Fire Nation nobility would have an issue with her holding power shows they understand that too. So why do you think Katara would be fine with sitting back and letting that happen? Why do you think she’d let that scare her away? Not my Katara.

Especially when love enters the picture. Let’s say Katara did canonically love Zuko, or Azula, or anyone outside of her nation for that matter. Yes, it would be more difficult for her. But do you really think Katara would back down for that reason?

In fact, do you realize how insulting it is to imply that she should to anyone in an interracial relationship? Or a same sex relationship? Yes, societal pressure and bigotry make them more difficult. But it doesn’t make them wrong. And the idea that it’s selfish or wrong because it’s endangering the family is insulting.

Especially in the case of Kazula. The Fire Nation is canonically homophobic. There would be danger and backlash for any same sex relationship, especially involving a member of the royal family like Azula. So…what then. Are gay people supposed to stop existing? Is Azula supposed to just never date or marry because it would be too dangerous?

Yeah, no. 0/10, trash take, do better.

(This part is mostly a joke but I also want to point it out)

The anon also implies that Katara’s canon relationship (with the Avatar) wouldn’t also carry the same risks. Which it would, probably even more so. Katara could be used as leverage against Aang by people trying to get to him. I mean, it already happened in canon.

And quite frankly, Aang was pretty useless at protecting Katara in that situation. Look at his face. Literal baby goo-goo-ga-ga shit. She’s lucky Fong wasn’t willing to actually kill her and that she was safely underground when Aang had his Spirit Tantrum because she would have been dead meat. So if your argument is that poor helpless little Katara would be sooooo much safer with Aang, I’m really not convinced.

If you’re going to decide who to ship Katara with based on who can protect her from danger the best, well…

I’m just saying 🤷🏻‍♀️🍵

[deas-junk-bin]

Something interesting I've noticed.

All the characters in the Veilguard assume that Spite is a senselessly destructive problem gremlin, and that Lucanis is reining him in and preventing him from causing harm. Lucanis himself is very insistent that this is the case, and many fans are already accepting this idea as fact. But if you pay attention to Spite's behavior, the reverse is actually true!

Since Dragon Age's handling of mages, demons, and spirits has always invited players to use critical thinking and notice where the characters' cultural biases and prejudices don't line up with what's actually happening, I do think it's weird how few people are talking about this. I suppose it might be possible to miss, if you haven't seen the end of Lucanis' storyline yet and aren't paying close attention to Spite. But even before the scene where Spite's intentions are revealed, there are plenty of clues that he isn't as much of a danger as Lucanis fears.

Once you do reach that scene, it's pretty clearly revealed that Spite has been trying to keep Lucanis' self-destructive behavior in check all along. His efforts were dismissed as troublemaking by the team, but he's actually trying to look after Lucanis, in his weird demon-y way. However, even before his true goal is revealed, Spite's behavior is always consistent with that goal, not with the generic malevolence that Lucanis and some of the other companions ascribe to him. He typically isn't hostile towards anyone Lucanis isn't, with only one major exception. Spite is a bit more emotionally reactive and vindictive than Lucanis, for sure. Lucanis comparing him to a child throwing a tantrum certainly seems to ring true. But he doesn't do pointlessly evil things for no reason.

(That one exception was obviously unusual, too. That dude did something very blatantly rude, which provoked Spite. It was genuine douchebag behavior, and he had bad vibes and needed to get his ass kicked anyway. Spite's violent response was likely an overreaction, based on the information he had at the time, but he was still reacting to someone else's actions, not just randomly turning hostile.)

Of course, you could argue that Spite is acting out of self-interest, since everything that happens to Lucanis also happens to him. However, practically speaking, I don't think that matters very much. Their priorities align a lot, way more than Lucanis realizes they do. Lucanis and Spite share a common interest in survival, something Lucanis himself will point out shortly after you recruit him, and they grow to become a true team with shared goals by the end of their storyline. Under such circumstances, it seems a little pointless to try to distinguish whether Spite is being selfish or genuinely cares for Lucanis. Both amount to the same thing in the end.

In all three previous Dragon Age games, we hear Thedosians assume demons always want indiscriminate violence and can't be reasoned with or appeased, and in all three previous Dragon Age games, we repeatedly see this assumption proven wrong. It's at best a flawed guideline based on edge cases, or at worst, a hateful stereotype. Lucanis claims Spite can't be negotiated with, that "talk doesn't work on Spite" because of his fundamental nature. But by the end of the storyline, talking to Spite and reaching a verbal agreement is actually the only thing that successfully resolves Lucanis' conflict with him!

I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that Lucanis is simply wrong about how demons work. He's ashamed, scared, and traumatized by his experience in the Ossuary, which makes him prone to to intrusive ruminations about potential worst-case scenarios. And since he's not a mage, he is, through no fault of his own, practically guaranteed to be ignorant on this topic. Even many mages don't understand demons very well. It takes a specialist in spirit magic to explain certain things, as we saw in Inquisition with Cole and Solas. Lucanis is perfectly poised to have basically zero factual information about demons, but a ton of cultural and personal reasons to vilify his new possessed self. Considering this context, it really seems odd that fans are interpreting Lucanis' statements about Spite as unbiased narrative fact.

Then again, this is the same fandom where a lot of people apparently still think Fenris' mansion formerly belonged to Danarius. Fenris mistakenly thought it did in Act I, but he later explicitly corrects his mistake aloud! (As Fenris explains, Danarius was only staying there as a guest. The house actually belonged to a merchant who was an acquaintance of his.) So maybe I'm just overly optimistic about how much detail is going to stick for people. These games have a lot going on in them, after all, so I guess it's inevitable for people to miss some things.

[kai-tus]

Our tips for overcoming the wretched Task Paralysis™ for ADHD:

Tl;DR is in the tags, this is kind of a long read.

There are two main types of tasks: physical and mental. Physical tasks require little to no active thinking and moreso rely on bodily movement, while mental tasks require lots of active thinking and don't rely on bodily movement as much.

The fundamentals of how ADHD works is that it requires the presence of dopamine to do something. In other words, you have to actually WANT to do it. This is not a possibility in a lot of cases, and it's very often nearly impossible to try and force yourself to do it, so the best thing you can do is work WITH your ADHD instead of AGAINST it. And that would mean doing something that allows you to have a dopamine supply to get through those mundane and boring tasks.

Now, this dopamine supply can be anything. What we do is we put on some music. It's pretty simple. Although we do put on different music depending on what kind of task we're doing. If it's a physical task, we put on something loud, like Metallica or smth. With the physical tasks, our intention is to fully distract ourselves from the task. It doesn't require us to be completely focused on the task, so we fully allow ourselves to daydream while we do it so that we're not thinking about the task that we're doing. However, if it's a mental task, we instead play some lofi youtube streams on a lower volume so that it doesn't distract us too much. With the mental tasks, our intention is to use the music to calm ourselves down and feel happy whenever we start to get distracted or anxious. We like to call these micro-breaks. If you're doing a task you don't enjoy, then your ADHD will very likely seek dopamine from something else, so these micro-breaks are useful to keep yourself centered on that task without feeling overworked or stressed out.

A common tip we've seen for Task Paralysis™ is to split up the tasks into even smaller tasks. However, we did not think this worked for us because of one important thing we now know: THIS WILL NOT WORK IF YOU DON'T NORMALLY ALLOW YOURSELF TO STOP IN THE MIDDLE OF A TASK. For a very long time, we were (and still kinda are) not allowed to stop doing a task until it was complete. I believe this is why task paralysis with the larger tasks is so much stronger than with the smaller tasks. If you allow yourself to stop in the middle of a task and take an actual break, or even come back to it the next day, then it will be much easier to do it. And it will also be much easier to work with the resulting bite-size tasks.

[read-watch-sleep]

How do you think the dynamic between Mello, Near, Matt, Light and L would be if they were female? Would fantom response to them be different in your opinion?

Hello! Thank you for the ask, anon. I think a lot of their individual personalities wouldn’t change much (largely because otherwise I would have no other framework from which to view them, but also because most traits just aren’t restricted to gender.) Similarly, I don’t think Near, Matt or L would change much in terms of presentation. It’s obvious that they don’t dress for public expectations, and I don’t think that would change. 

I imagine Mello, if anything, would make a greater show of proving herself. Mello is a self-made success of sheer will, charm, and hard work, and I think that common misogyny would challenge that for her. God forbid if Light or anyone else perceives her as another vapid blonde. If you think Mello’s inferiority complex towards Near is large in canon, just wait until she has to work twice as hard just to be taken seriously. She’s going to be twice as mean, driven, competitive, and afraid. She’s that bitch.

Because I believe in shipping Meronia in any format, there’s also something to be said about how intensely she’d have to believe in and trust Near. While I think this is the case no matter what, I imagine if they were women, Mello would be the person who underestimates Near the least. 

Speaking of underestimating Near, I imagine that Near would come off as even more childish/shy as a woman, even if her behaviour does not fundamentally change. Possibly due to a softer voice and smaller frame, but also just because of expectations. She’ll have to work to gain the trust of the US president, or her team. Light doesn't really see how much of a little girl Near appears to be until the very end, but this would probably come as a shock. Unlike Mello, I imagine this isn’t a reflection on Near’s self esteem, and rather, she just finds it annoying. 

I DO think that it would affect her relationship with L and Mello, so far as I think she’d seek out what little connections she has. I think the distance from her team would amplify how much she yearns for a capable mentor, or a strong and willful lover. The same exact taunting and banter between Mello and Near (ie “May the best woman win”) would come off as 100% flirting. 

Honestly, I don’t think L or Matt would change much at all. Matt’s burnout and low-energy lifestyle, or sheer loyalty to Mello, don’t really change with gender. She’s still going to follow Mello anywhere, make dark jokes, and chainsmoke. 

When it comes to L, in canon we already know that L’s identity is incredibly hidden. I think the world at large would assume that L is a man, and she wouldn’t really do anything to dissuade them. Like Near, I imagine she shocks Light by showing up in person and defying that expectation, but the fact that she’s really odd already does that. Also in parallel to Near, I imagine that L’s affection for Light is greater as a woman, but not to the same extent that Near yearns after Mello– I think L is just delighted to have an intellectual equal who isn’t underestimating her. 

Light would be the person who’s dynamic changes the most. Look, she’s not going to suddenly lose the misogyny that canon Light has, it’s just going to change forms. It’s a kind of TERF-adjacent misunderstanding of gender roles. Light is defending women by killing men… and also any women who don’t fit her ideal world. The perfect preppy brunette honour student is going to hate L for being weird, hate Misa for being dumb and blonde (and probably slutty), and underestimate Mello’s capacity for violence (violence is for the men that Light kills, obviously women are more graceful and subtle than that… Or not, as Mello blows up a building with herself inside.) It will take longer for Light to accept the way L behaves, because it’s so antithetical to her worldview. Ladies don’t sit weird. Ladies don’t stuff their faces with cake (I just know she’s jealous of L’s waistline despite the sweets.) Over time, she builds an exception into her world where L’s behaviour is almost okay (she still has to die, though). Eventually, Near will fill this niche, and Light will hate her that much more, for not being L. 

As for the fandom as a whole, I’m really sorry, but I admit I don’t know! I only joined up with the Death Note fandom again recently, and before that, I’ve been out of the fandom sphere for almost a decade. While I may have written about she/her Near back then, obviously a fandom will change within ten years, so my perception would be pretty inaccurate. However, there are some lovely fanworks that play with gender– I suggest you check them out! 

[doctorofmagic]

Why magic in the MCU has failed

I remember the "good" old days when Doctor Strange was about to debut back in 2016. I was obsessed with spotting every single little magic detail in the MCU in the hope that magic would slowly grow in status and importance, only to give up after so much disappointment.

But the major issue? The moment Feige stated that every side project was a part of the MCU. People who experienced phase 1 and 2 will remember that magic was a taboo. "It's just science we don't understand yet". While it's a common line quoted by Marvel's greatest geniuses, we all know it's pure arrogance on their part. Otherwise, they'd be doing what magic users do.

It was not MCU's case. Magic was INDEED treated as science. From Ghost Rider's portal being reproduced by a robot through the Darkhold to Wanda's powers being a product of an experiment but not explained at all. From a loooong season of Cloak and Dagger taking its time to finally introduce magic elements to Nico's staff almost falling to the same old "technology" trope. From whatever is happening in Asgard to Loki's limited magic. It's frustrating, but we'd still find a way to turn the tables, right? The Dark Dimension was introduced (twice?), the (third) Darkhold was finally attached to Chthon, Morgana and Lorelei debuted, Nico's powers were finally acknowledge as magic... So what happened?

My best guess? Structure.

There's no structure to define what is magic in the MCU. Doctor Strange (2016) tried. Really hard. And, although it got several things right, it failed in two fundamental aspects: pre-established comic book knowledge and magic deities.

Remember how we got three Darkholds? The first was just so detached from magic that it became a book used to create a VIRTUAL world in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. The second was used by Morgan le Fey, but how was she associated with the Dark Dimension? Moreover, that was NOT the Dark Dimension from the first DS movie (or any comic book, really). Its last appearance, as seen in WandaVision and DSITMOM, finally mentioned Chthon, but it literally did NOTHING it was supposed to do. That MCU!Wanda has nothing to do with her 616 version, this is not new. But if we're going to use comic books as foundation to adapt a story, the very bare minimum you can do is do it right. Point is, the book does corrupt people, but it's because of Chthon's influence and his connection to Wanda. Where's Chthon in the movie? The corruption was badly explored and her journey towards evil and redemption doesn't make any sense from a magic point.

Now, the "main" magic cast in the MCU could have worked... Except that there's little to no information regarding how Kamar-Taj works as a temple/school for new sorcerers. And worse even, magic isn't connected to its deities. Sure, there were a few name drops, but does it explain where it comes from? And who chooses the next sorcerer supreme if the Vishanti isn't involved?

The truth is, magic was all over the place, and the creative minds were either too oblivious to the importance of learning about how magic works in comics (to the point of adapting a second Dark Dimension that has nothing to do with the original one) or too shy to introduce a magic hierarchy (as in, deities).

There's an actual attempt to create this structure now, but it's too late. Sure, you can ignore past tv shows, but the mess remains. Eternity was supposed to be an abstract entity, deeply connected to magic, cosmic aspects and life itself.

Loki is still so embarrassing because the very foundation of Asgardian mythos started wrong (and why is that? Because no magic, of course!). While I find funny that Stephen trapped Loki in an endless freefall, there's no way the god of stories would be humiliated like that. Loki being taught magic by his alts is infuriating (and it's, again, mostly illusions).

Remember when Stephen was beaten by math? That also happened.

This is the moment I completely give up to see magic portrayed at its fullest, in all its beauty and complexity. Because it's not treated the way it deserves. It has never been.

And here's my boldest take: if you really wish to see the full potential of magic in the MCU, go for What If. The price you pay, the cosmic proportion of being misused, the creative elements... It's all there. Which is sad because it's not the main timeline. Anyways, this is it.

PS: This post may age poorly as DS3 comes out in 20 years. Let's wait and see.

[abby118]

I have a question regarding Asgard prisons. (English is not my first language)

perhaps prisoners are prevented from harming themselves in some way? Is it due to some magical property of the cell or due to the guards monitoring it?

because, unlike the way cells work in our world (prisoners can leave their cells and communicate with other prisoners), these cells seem to work in a way that never allows prisoners to leave. not even dimming the lights for a few moments. and it seems logical to think that such a condition, if prolonged for a long time, would lead anyone to go mad. 

so it wouldn't surprise me if someone decided to escape from that condition by attempting to commit suicide. and this would especially apply to those sentenced to life imprisonment.

for example, loki is already suicidal. and after the many traumatic experiences he has been through, it seems logical to assume that he would just like to get it over with. just as he implied in the dialogue with Odin. but apparently, even he who has this desire and has already tried to do it in the past, is not trying to do it again now. After all, if someone were to commit suicide, he would be running away from serving his sentence. which in the case of life imprisonment is even a better prospect.

so it would make sense to think that Loki isn't performing such an act (but instead he finds himself forced to use illusions to pass the time and keep himself from going mad) because he is unable to do so for some reason. what do you think?

ps. I have another important and fundamental question. but how do they go to the bathroom? the cells are transparent, they have no privacy spaces. furthermore they don't even have toilets or buckets in which they can do their business -.-

The dungeons are the highest security prison of Asgard (because I don't doubt there are other prison establishments intended for civilians with lesser penalties as well as a military prison which is separate). I think the dungeons are designed for outworlders, particularly dangerous individuals such as mages and people with a life sentence. They are located deep under the palace and were the second structure built by king Buri. The cells within the dungeons were upgraded later, supposedly during Bor or Odin's reign.

'perhaps prisoners are prevented from harming themselves in some way?'

Oh yes, definitely. If you look at the cells, they are completely empty (yes, Loki's was an exception, obviously), white and lit by bright lights from above. This is very much intentional.

no furnishing -> no objects to harm yourself with. (This is why I say it was incredibly risky to give Loki a glass carefe as well as a mirror...combine that with illusion use.)

the lights -> From what we've seen, the lights were constantly on. We didn't get to see the dungeons at night but with the little regard of the prisoners' wellbeing, I think it's safe to assume they priorise security and thus keep them on to grant continuous access for the guards to see the cells' interiors. Of course, that makes is nearly impossible for the prisoners to discern the night from the day, unless they choose to mentally keep track of the guards' daily schedule which must be challenging in a long-term sense.

personal possessions -> Keeping in mind Loki was an exception and the prisoners we saw were the ones arrested on Vanaheim (and so probably overwhelmed the spaces available + Odin's guards are not the most skilled bunch), I'd say that generally, personal posessions would be taken upon the prisoner's arrival to the dungeons and stored/repurposed. Again, meaning nothing to harm yourself with or to use as an aid of escape. On a similar note, I think that the most common number of prisoners is one ..or more (if they don't pose a threat to themselves or each other).

no visits -> As we saw, all visit were strictly forbidden with the exception of the king or his direct or indirect permission to let somebody else visit. But even then, I take it that any physical contact is strictly prohibitted.

the energy barriers -> My personal headcanon is that the patterns we see make up these barriers are a binding spell. Most of the cells are equipped with one barrier, with the exception of the corner cells which have two, supposedly for increased supervision by the Einherjar stationed by the entrance gate.

'for example, loki is already suicidal. and after the many traumatic experiences he has been through, it seems logical to assume that he would just like to get it over with. just as he implied in the dialogue with Odin. but apparently, even he who has this desire and has already tried to do it in the past, is not trying to do it again now.'

I simply think Loki was too apathetic to act on anything (yet). I know that to us, a year and a half seems long but he was still coming out of an incredibly stressful course of events and the survival mode that came with that. He was depressed and probably too aware that would he try to take his life, his plans would most likely fail. His illusions would either flicker or dispel before he died and the guards would step in. The barriers themselves are not strong enough to kill (they can't be, that would be too easy) and would alert the Einherjar as well. In all of his depression, he is a strategist, if not under dire pressure, he waits to see how things unravel. Again, a year and a half seems longer to us than to the Aesir with the context of their longevity.

(but instead he finds himself forced to use illusions to pass the time and keep himself from going mad)

He is highly intelligent, the cells are designed to inflict mental torture on their own (mostly sensory deprivarion) so imagine that coupled with a mind like his. He had to create some stimuli to keep himself occupied because what else was there to do. They took everything from him and his magic was the one thing they couldn't touch. Of course he used it to hold on to the last bits of sanity he had left.

'ps. I have another important and fundamental question. but how do they go to the bathroom? the cells are transparent, they have no privacy spaces. furthermore they don't even have toilets or buckets in which they can do their business -.-'

Not a topic I gave too much thought to but @helshades had written a post covering this. I wonder how they distributed the meals there, I suppose there must be a rule on how many you can skip before they give you a tube or something. Similar to our wards.

[isfjmel-phleg]

A few adaptations/retellings don't get the significance of the fact that Mary has grown up unloved and for whatever reason try to soften her relationship with her parents. But many of them do grasp just how neglected she's been and highlight it, especially in light of how prickly it has made her. These versions tend to understand the root of her issues relatively easily.

But an overwhelming number of recent adaptations/retellings do not do the same for Colin. It is extremely common for these versions to give him/his equivalent a warm relationship with his now-deceased mother/equivalent. In The Humming Room, Phillip "adored [his mother] and she adored him back," and he is in the depths of depression after losing her. Callie in The Misselthwaite Archives has fond memories of her late mother and footage of the family enjoying happy times in the glade, as well as a father who, even though he's gone frequently, regularly keeps in touch with her through affectionate postcards. When Mary meets Colin in the 2020 film, he talks about his relationship with his mother, how she "loved me hugely" (painfully awkward wording), and her letters back that up. Colin in The Secret Garden on 81st Street mourns the apparently very recent death of a loving father and, despite his anger toward Mr. Craven, is still surrounded by adults who appear to genuinely care about his wellbeing. Although Clement in The Edge of In Between was an infant when his mother died, he apparently had such a close bond with her already that he lost all color (something that happens to those who succumb to grief in this book's world) after losing her. It's been a while since I've read A Bit of Earth, but if I recall correctly, Colin in that book also knew and loved his mother before her death and struggles more with living up to (perceived?) familial expectations than feeling rejected or unloved.

And I'm not saying that these creative choices were necessarily ineffective within the stories that these authors/creators chose to tell. But it does take the character in a fundamentally different direction. Not only does it eliminate one of the deliberate parallels in his and Mary's backgrounds, but it also alters the root of the character's problems.

There are a lot of messed-up reasons for why he is the way he is, but what it ultimately comes down to is this: Colin is unloved. He has never been loved. Like Mary, he exhibits the behavior he does because he has never learned how to connect with others. It's easy to miss this about him, easy to get so caught up in what a horrid little brat he genuinely is that it might not immediately occur to the reader how loveless his existence has been--every bit as loveless as Mary's. His mother died giving birth to him, his father rejects him because of this, and his caretakers are all "tired of him" and (in one case) have even said in front of him that it would be better for him and everyone else if he died.

No wonder he has such ambivalence toward living. Dickon tells Mary once that his mother believes that unwantedness is "th' worst thing on earth for a child," that "Them as is not wanted scarce ever thrives." And that is the root of Colin's problems, the reason his expectation out of life is to die. This is more of the point than any psychological condition that we might be able to pin on the character--those things are symptoms, not causes. This is why developing strong friendships is so important to his arc, why his getting hugged (possibly for the first time in his life) by Mrs. Sowerby and telling her that he wishes she were his mother is such a poignant moment, why his arc ends with being reunited with and accepted by his father.

(Weirdly enough, an adaptation that did seem to pick up on this was the 1986 musical, in which Colin is introduced with a solo entitled "No One Needs Me." A bit too on-the-nose and self-aware for him to be able to spell out like that, perhaps, but as a summation of the problem? Spot on.)

If, as recent adaptations and retellings interpret him, he is a child who has been loved and has lost that, his behavior as Burnett depicts comes from a different place and possibly makes less sense, his whole character changes, and the themes shift. He becomes someone who needs to work through traditional grief--which in the original book is his father's arc, not his--rather than someone who needs to learn that his existence has meaning and that he can matter to other people (and they to him).

And I think that's why a lot of these reinterpretations of the character feel a bit off to me? There tends to be so much concern for remolding him in light of themes of disability or mental health (which are significant to his character! but not all that there is) that the original point of his being as much an emotionally neglected and unloved child as Mary can get lost in translation.

[voidsuites]

okay, vent post here so buckle up. sorry if it’s too serious for this blog, but i needed to show it.

as a Ukrainian, i left my country when i was barely 11 and went to south america because the war started. i wasn’t old enough to understand the outcomes that could possibly lead to the war in actuality. we needed to leave for our own safety. we needed to leave because either way we were gonna die there eventually; most russians didn’t (don’t) care about our race, our opinions, our culture, our politics, our freedom. it’s been going for centuries, not years, so we and israel have something in common. to know how does it feel to be oppressed.

my mom used to say that everything will be okay, but with every day you DO lose hope when something like today happens — it’s been going on like this for us for decades; but i know i could not understand how does it feel to be in the minority in u.s.a and be seen like an existing, walking crime.

regardless, i do, i REALLY do, hope that this generation won’t let hatred take over themselves as it did with mine. i know being angry and a hater feels like the right decision —hell, i am being angry and hating on my ““brother”” county because they’re killing us— like something you’ve been building up for years and can finally let go on people —white, in my case— who ‘deserve’ this, but please, don’t let it get into your head. no one will feel safe if we’re gonna start hating each other. minorities, black, hispanic, white, NO ONE.

i feel for you americans. i’m not sure how everything will go from now on, but i am one hundred percent sure that it depends on us. don’t let the government and the ‘high grounds’ let your hopes down, because it won’t happen if people keep fighting. does su*cide looks tempting right now? very; it was always like that since COVID started (for me, personally). does it mean we should act on it, if OUR opinion and OUR actions can define how the country will keep running? no, absolutely not. i’m not telling to people who want to kill themselves to stop it —i am no professional by any means; it’s not my right to tell you what to do with your life— but if you CAN make change, why don’t you?

i love you all. i’m very happy that we met each other over tumblr, guys. everything will be okay

i love you too.

but my mere existence has become political. it has been political since i was born. i am a black, mexican, queer woman who lives in a blue state— but regardless of that, my existence has been political long before i even realized it. people who have no idea what i’ve been through and what life i’ve lived think it’s necessary to regulate my own body because they think i’m not capable of doing so. they think because i am non-white that i am not worthy of respect or equal treatment under the law. they think because of who i love that i am less-than-human.

i don’t have the luxury to not dislike someone who has voted for him. when they voted for him, they voted against ME— against everything i am, the fabric of my being, everything that makes me me. i wish i could say didn’t hate anyone who voted for that fucking felon, but i do. it’s the truth. they voted against basic human decency and fundamental human rights because neither of those were enough to overpower their selfish self-interest. i don’t wish to associate with anyone who voted for him, nor do i like them. they’ve clearly voiced that they’re okay with ignoring hate-based ideologies if it means they might “benefit” (they won’t)

he intends to strip away every little thing we can even do in terms of voicing our opinions— he’s been saying from the get go that this would be the last election EVER that we’d have to vote in— is that + the countless false bomb threats + russian interference + in-state interference with mail-in voting/ballot counting not proof enough that they don’t want to even consider what the people want anymore? and i’m not saying that this is reason to give up, but they intend to strip everyone of their autonomy in one way or another, and they will if we allow them to. and we’ve just given them the keys to fucking do it.

i just need to rant and be angry and be upset and be disappointed in the way we’ve let each other down here? because at the end of the day, people voted for that felon because they thought he was the better candidate. and that is appalling.

[fipindustries]

satire must [be funny] lest it becomes [unfunny]

I see all the time people online coming up with these bespoke "rules of comedy". trying to determine what makes something funny or not, what makes a joke valid vs what makes it offensive. what counts as "good satire" and what makes something "bad satire" and, honestly?

i think it's pure cope.

i think in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases what is actually going on is that what makes something funny is dictated by how closely it affects you and how much you agree with the message and that is it.

people like to claim that satire must have a "clarity of intent", or that it must "punch up instead of punch down" or whatever, and i don't believe it, i dont think people are being honest when they say these things, trying to evaluate why THEIR joke about white guys is totally incisive and edgy and hilarious but YOUR joke about hispanic gay women is actually offensive and abusive and problematic.

most often it is not about structure, or format or formula, a joke can be incredibly cleverly done but if it hits a personal nerve or is saying something that makes you upset then whatever mirth one is supposed to derive from the cleverness of the joke is overshadowed by the fact the message is upsetting.

problem is, now a days, that the worst cardinal sin someone can commit online, the absolute most terrible crime someone can be find guilty of, is being offended. nobody wants to be a soy, censorious, tut-tutting, wet blanket whose feelings get hurt. so they try to take on this academic affectation for why actually the problem is not at all with the content or the message but actually the flaw is that is not funny at a fundamental level because of structural reasons, because of a miscalibration of the formula. as if any joke about trans women being ugly and killing themselves would make a trans person laugh if it presented the joke in just the right way (i mean, im sure there are some trans women who would laugh but i dont think it would be the majority)

i can laugh at some terribly offensive joke regarding, say, race or sexuality or crime or death or trauma because i am not the target of the joke, i have very little in common with the demographic the joke is about, is not saying anything about me or the things i care about. but i will balk at jokes that paint me or the people i care about in a bad light because im human and have feelings and things im sensitive about, and i think its time we all start being a bit more honest about it

[lesbiansforboromir]

SPOILERS FOR LOTRO's KING'S GONDOR AND THE NEW BOOK QUESTS BUT as always I have a gripe with the major storyline, which is this mirroring of Arwen and Vidumavi. I understand the point of it, to inspire this xenophobic backlash that drives people to look to the heirs of Castamir in the first place and give us a reason to go to Umbar and I also get that the whole concept of middle men vs high men vs men of darkness has been somewhat scrubbed from the game's concepts of race and racism but STILL I JUST... Gondor didn't disapprove of Vidumavi because she was nebulously 'foreign'!!!

She was of a 'lesser' race of men, the movement against her in Gondor was a eugenicist one, they did not want to 'soil' the line of the kings with lesser blood that might incur issues like smaller life spans. This was an upper class southern dunadain issue! And in-text, Tolkien says essentially 'no don't worry, dunadain blood is stronger so it didnt effect their lifespans', as if we need that reassurance! As if the concerns were justified and needed to be assuaged for us! And Arwen, being both an elf of royal descent and literally the niece of Numenor's founder, is just fundamentally not the same.

Eldarion and Eldacar are not in the same position of mixed 'lesser' blood, the introduction of Arwen into the King's line is meant to 'reinvigorate it', what is the beef that gondorians have for her? If the common gondorian populace was looking for a 'foreign' figure to insight their ire, then why isn't Aragorn himself a target? He is just as foreign as Arwen is, both geographically and racially. The rohirrim are a descent of Vidumavi's people, why isn't Eowyn an issue?

If we're going for a mistrust of elves as the root cause, well that's also an issue for me since Gondorians do not need to call upon xenophobic prejudice to have an issue with elves. Couldn't their worry be the precise opposite? It has been a long time since Gondor was a majority dunadain country, most if not all people are 'middle men' by SOME descent, and now here we are with a 'pure' dunadain king whom was born to an isolationist cult that spurned the company of the common folk and associated mostly with the high-beauty eldar.

What will these new rulers think about their subjects? How will this effect their politics, their plans? Aragorn is no Steward he has all the rights of a King including the DIVINE right, what will such a glut of power be used to do? And how will a previously-immortal queen relate to her very mortal subjects? These are all very pertinent questions, especially considering that Gondor was expecting Boromir 'the rohirrim are true and valiant, our allies' II to rule them once Denethor was gone. It's a big and unexpected shift towards Dunadain and elven supremacy for Gondor, would that not inspire political concern?

Like here;

Aithil mentions that an elven sense of superiority over humans is something she has encountered! Which could be a lie, if it wasn't for the player having been through in-game Lothlorien and witnessed the way elves treated Nona. So it just kind of feels like an a-historical loss to position Arwen as recieving the same animosity as Vidumavi, relegating it to undeserved bigotry when the issue of elven superiority is real and believed by many characters, including Aragorn himself! And also minimising the bigotry Vidumavi and her children suffered to just 'oh they just didn't like foreign people', there was a very specific reason they did not like her!! It frustrates me.

Though admittedly I understand LOTRO can't go too far into these issues, lest Aragorn's kingship begin to look a little less like a beautiful and noble thing that will bring peace and happiness to all middle earth. And in any case I want to go to Umbar so whatever it takes to get me there comrades, I'll kiss Aragorn on his dumbass baby head if I have too. BUT STILL!! I wish there had been some other way to do that.

[intrepid-fictioneer-7]

"[Mages] are liminal creatures at odds with their ineradicable humanity". What I spent thousands of words to say in a long ass post, someone managed to say more succintly and far shorter. While my verbous, pompous post argued that the idea the fandom has of a "perfect magus" is reductive and most the characters people think embodify it actually fail, the line I'm quoting is someone arguing that the very concept of "perfect magus" isn't real and isn't represented by *any* character in Type-Moon. The life of a magus is the story of how a person cannot avoid falling short of that ideal of a "perfect magus" - either because it becomes muddled by their humanity (Rin is the quintessential example, but you also have Kayneth and Gordes of all people), or because, in abandoning humanit,y they lose sight of their goal and cause their own downfall (Roa, Zepia, and Zouken being perfect examples).

Kinda like what Medea says in Fate/hollow ataraxia:

"Hmmm, the combination of magic and everyday life. Caster, what do you think about that?" Since I don't know a lot of magi, I'm a little curious. "That though in itself is incorrect, boy. 'Magic' and 'everyday life' cannot coexist. You should not even think about combing them. The fundamentals of magic are "distortion and reversal." No matter what kind of magic it is, when used, it will distort the norm. Therefore, if you want to live correctly, you have to separate magic from normal life." "You can't live in both worlds?" "You must wholly life in both worlds, that is. A magus is someone who crosses that boundary all the time. He is free to focus on either side, but he must never try to erase the line that separates both. In order to fully immerse yourself in magic, you must exclude your normal life. Once you choose that path as a human, you create an inner and an outer face in order to master it. Then you can start deciding how to live as a person divided between magic and real life." "Then what about you? You are Kuzuki-sensei's wife now, but what about your side as a magus?" "It's no different from what it used to be, naturally. I have no doubts about the magus side of myself. I just use my powers as I see fit. But it's true that nowadays, I don't turn into my magus self as often as I have in the past."

Or what Waver says in Case Files:

It wasn’t limited to magecraft. It wasn’t limited to those beyond humans (monsters). In a world of common sense (the obvious), it was something everyone understood. If you said that misunderstandings, miscommunications, disagreements, and false understandings are what connected them, then… “We are misrecognition. Our world itself is misunderstanding. We can experience a multitude of truths, not just one single reality. No matter how wise you are, or how much time you are given, you will never reach something like a single truth. Magi may just be those who continually reject that fact.” Speaking as if in self-deprecation, my master had pursed his lips at that. He had finally realized that his words and the objective that all Magi pursued, known as the “Spiral of Origin,” were in contradiction.

It's why Reines laments the Clock Tower focusing on petty political squabbles. The heart of the world of magecraft miring itself in human emotions and concerns, forgetting their original esoteric goals in the process. This, to me, is far more illustrative of magi than the often repeated "to be a magus means to walk with death". (An aphorism which, as far as I can tell, is mostly the result of fandom telephone. FSN does talk "magus having death right besides them" and "the essence of magi is in death", but the specific formulation of "walking" with death is nowhere in canon I think, and I checked Mahoyo and KnK to make sure. But that's for another post.) Ironically, what spurred this on is that, that post I mention? It was someone arguing Sanda is the *worst* TM writer for how he wrote magi, and I, as Sanda's strongest fighter, had to fight for his honor to mixed results lol.

[thevegetablewhichnoonedaresname]

I think that people who say "chat is a pronoun, actually" or say that it's prescriptivist or stifling creativity or language development are fundamentally misunderstanding what parts of speech are and how prescriptivism and descriptivism work. there's a huge difference between saying "you can't use neopronouns" or "you can't end a sentence with a preposition" and "chat is not a pronoun." the former two are prescriptive statements, the latter is literally descriptive.

in the first two cases, you're trying to tell people what they can and cannot do regardless of actual usage. people end sentences with prepositions all the time, and even though it isn't mainstream right now, there are established communities of people who use neopronouns.

"chat is not a pronoun," on the other hand, is a statement that describes current actual usage. (rest of the post under the cut: it's very long)

currently, no one is using chat as a pronoun. could someone use it as a pronoun? sure! of course they could! you could theoretically use any combination of sounds to fulfill any function. but that's irrelevant to the debate because "chat is not a pronoun" does not in any way entail the statement "chat can never ever foreseeably be a pronoun." it is just saying that right now, chat is not a pronoun because no one is using it like a pronoun: no more and no less. in none of the examples that I have seen provided has it been used like a pronoun. "chat is not a pronoun" also doesn't negate the possibility that there may be something cool going on socially! it's just not in terms of grammar categories. whatever's going on is a different kind of beast.

another very important thing I feel like a lot of people are misunderstanding is what parts of speech are. their entire purpose is to categorize language and study it, NOT to box it in. we HAVE to name these guys and try to classify them and study how they are alike and different, or we would not be able to talk about language and study it at all. think of it like animal classification: we're trying to sort through a preexisting system of something that exists (language or living organisms) and show how it all fits together. there are infinite complexities to how it all works and it takes an insane amount of study to figure out whether something belongs in one category, another, or needs a new label to accurately categorize it at all. pluto is not a planet and tomatoes are a fruit no matter WHAT kind of ""vibes"" they give off to you because "planet" and "fruit" are terms that scientists need to have precise definitions so they can talk about them. if you expand categories like "noun" or "verb" or "conjunction" to just include whatever, then you've removed your ability to talk about things with precision.

and also, parts of speech are not created by saying, "we should have nouns. okay gang, go out there and put all the words we ought to use as nouns in the noun box. if anyone uses one of those for anything other than a noun, we kill them." no. you look at sentences and the preexisting English language and you say, "boy, it seems like there sure are a lot of words that people use to label people, places, things, and concepts. in terms of syntax, we tend to place them in the subject or object position, and they don't necessarily contain information about the specific properties of how the object, person, or concept looks or moves. they can also be inflected to show that there's more than one, and there seems to be a set amount of endings you can use to do that. you can swap them out for one another and the sentence will stay grammatically correct. let's call these nouns!"

^THIS IS DESCRIPTIVISM. it is the reason why we're constantly updating dictionaries. "Stan" started out as a proper noun: the name of a guy. people started using it like a common noun to describe obsessive fans, and guess what? now it's a common noun! and then a little bit later, it got verbed! people started using it to describe the action or behavior of being an enthusiastic or obsessive fan! and now it's a verb! look it up in Merriam-Webster right now, those definitions are in there. any word can get turned into anything if we start using it that way.

the real issue here is that most people are familiar with nouns and verbs. this is not enough. pronouns have been amassing clout lately, and if you paid attention in English class or were really into Mad Libs as a kid, you might also be familiar with adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, and articles. I was both an English and a Mad Libs kid! imagine my shock and horror when I started college and got exposed to the horrors of the intricacies of tense, aspect, and modality in verbs, nominalization, the nightmare of actually trying to pin down what an adverb even is, all the little subcategories like vocatives and demonstratives... and THEN I decided to do a linguistics minor along with my English major and was forced to realize that although there's a lot of shared terminology and overlap between traditional English parts of speech and linguistic lexical/syntactic categories, both fields make these categorizations for slightly different purposes, so sometimes the terminology and categorization is different. AND PEOPLE ARE DISPUTING THINGS. ALL THE TIME.

HOWEVER.

these disputes are so much more infinitely nuanced then you are even capable of realizing if all you know is the basic eight parts of speech or whatever that they teach you in school. OF COURSE if your understanding of grammar only extends to nouns, verbs, adjectives, and pronouns, you're going to say stuff like "chat is a pronoun." it's like trying to diagnose someone with a mental illness when all you know is ADHD and depression. it's like trying to identify fossils when you've never seen an animal with the skin off. it's like that stupid argument about whether a hot dog is a sandwich or a taco or whatever that was about, which is a fun mental exercise, I guess, but the real answer is that yeah I guess you could say anything with some type of flat processed baked grain base is a sandwich, but the real and useful answer is that we make distinctions between hot dogs, tacos, sandwiches, flatbreads, open-face sandwiches, ravioli, burritos, wraps, and so on because WE NEED SPECIFICITY IN ORDER TO TALK ABOUT THINGS IN REAL LIFE.

i'm not an expert. all i have is a bachelor's degree in English, and i took grammar-related classes on purpose. you know what that equipped me to do upon seeing the initial post? it equipped me to go "that doesn't sound right" and then to go look up some expert opinions to explain why I felt that way and whether it was right or wrong.

so if I can beg you all to do one thing: please, please go on Wikipedia and read about the vocative case and the page on the parts of speech (this link will take you to the part where they talk about how linguists have different classification methods because it's very complex). what I want you to take away from this is that a) modern linguists and grammarians are, for the most part, very aware of how messy things can get and willing to make adjustments, and that b) "chat is a pronoun" is not one of those cases because it already falls perfectly into a category.

and I lied, because there is also a second thing I beg you all to do: realize how easy it is to be dogmatic when stuff seems simple. realize that everything is more complicated than it looks. realize nothing is black and white. realize everything is infinitely layered. and remember that although we're all human, there are always people out there who know more than you, and if you shut your eyes and cover your ears you are closing yourself off to ever being able to understand anything just so you can stay in your little paper cutout dimension where things make sense.

[bougiebutchbitch]

https://www.tumblr.com/avelera/733616528394715136/i-feel-like-one-unexpected-side-effect-in-the

Can I ask your opinion on this post I saw? Just really enjoy your critical input on things. It’s okay if you don’t answer this, I’m not trying to demand spoons you don’t have <3 thanks for reading

Hm! I think it's an interesting post for sure. And I think it's a valid vent to make, from someone who's obviously been in fandom for a very long time!

But I do think it misses A Lot Of Things Out in order to make its point.

I do agree with their point about how fandoms prefer 'potential' ships to the actuality. But. The exact same preference for 'ship bait' is common with loads of popular ships, regardless of whether they're queer or not. Mulder/Scully works so well because they never get together. There's a reason why House/Cuddy was teased for so many seasons before it became canon (and why they broke up pretty damn quickly after becoming established). Ditto with Garcia/Morgan in Criminal Minds, who flirt constantly but never progress to romantic interest.

The preference of viewers for 'will they/won't they' narratives is certainly not unique to queer media, and it is, in fact, well known and accepted across show writing? It's not just fans of queer ships who are lured in by the premise of 'ooooooh are they gonna kiss'.

I'm certainly not so keen on the subtle inference of this post (and the less-subtle inference of the comments) that queer people should Sit Down, Shut Up, And Just Be Grateful because a few years ago, there was so little canon queer rep. Like... That is exactly how progress stagnates. Do other queer people really think we should be happy with scraps tossed to us by studio executives, and thank them for daring to write about queer relationships in the first place?

Um. No?

Keep writing meta. Keep writing criticism. Keep pushing for better and better rep, and don't let anyone tell you 'it was worse in my day, so you should be thankful now'. That sort of subtle conservatism is really damaging, especially when it comes from within the queer community.

And just... Saying that Izzy was 'never even canonically established as queer' when he confessed his love for Edward, had a clearly established Toxic Past Romantic Relationship with him, was said by his crew to be in a "toxic relationship" with him, had a whole arc about accepting his queerness that ended in him dressing in drag and singing La Vie En Rose while his ex and his new boyfriend fucked, and had ridiculous amounts of gay tension with numerous men in the show, just because he never kissed a man on screen is....

Um.

Well, it's certainly A Take, I guess. But. Uh. Buddy. I think you may need to rewatch the show. The baseline for engaging in discussion of queer media should really be recognising that a character can be thoroughly established as queer without them kissing another guy.

And just on a more personal note: I and many other queer fans loved the Good Omens ending because it was perfectly in-character. From the start of the season, we were shown that these two characters love each other, and that is a love that has developed over centuries - but they also have a fundamentally opposing relationship with authority (Heaven in Aziraphale's case, Heaven and Hell in Crowley's). We are shown the chief conflict between them from very early on, and this crescendoes to create a dramatic, bittersweet, brutal, perfectly in-character finale.

OFMD could not be more different.

Most of the criticism of Ed/Stede in S2 is wholly from a storytelling perspective. Yes, it's a canonical central queer relationship; that's great. But like.... the development of that relationship was all over the place. They moved too quick. They agreed to slow down. They immediately had sex after this.

In itself, that's interesting!! That shows a lot about their characters! There's the potential for growth and progression here! Hell, I was happy when they broke up because they had different life goals, because it felt as if they had been building towards that point all season. I wanted them to be a happy endgame, yes, but I expected all that divergent character growth wouldn't be thrown away; that we would get Ed perhaps retiring while Stede stayed at sea, with the suggestion that they're in a long-distance relationship, or that when Stede is ready, he will join Ed. That could have worked really well!

Buuuuuuut.

Instead, Stede gave up on his life goals that have driven his character from the very start with literally 0 build up or in-character reasoning. They settled down together, after an entire season (two seasons, in fact....) of a show demonstrating how and why that wouldn't work. And we're supposed to view it as a 'happy ever after'.

In short: the problem is not nearly as simple as 'queer fans aren't satisfied with a queer relationship'. The problem is with the plot, the pacing, and (predominantly) the character writing. If Ed or Stede were a woman, I doubt anyone would feel differently.

Ed and Stede both went on a self-discovery arc, but that self-discovery was entirely 180'd for both of them in the final episode with only clumsy foreshadowing (mentioning the inn in the early episodes is.... not the sort of solid character development you need to lay if you want to make a character like Stede change the direction of their life so utterly!).

[luxe-pauvre]

But there’s another angle from which it’s oddly consoling. You might think of it as “cosmic insignificance therapy”: When things all seem too much, what better solace than a reminder that they are, provided you’re willing to zoom out a bit, indistinguishable from nothing at all? The anxieties that clutter the average life — relationship troubles, status rivalries, money worries — shrink instantly down to irrelevance. So do pandemics and presidencies, for that matter: the cosmos carries on regardless, calm and imperturbable. Or to quote the title of a book I once reviewed: The Universe Doesn’t Give a Flying Fuck About You. To remember how little you matter, on a cosmic timescale, can feel like putting down a heavy burden that most of us didn’t realise we were carrying in the first place. This sense of relief is worth examining a little more closely, though, because it draws attention to the fact that the rest of the time, most of us do go around thinking of ourselves as fairly central to the unfolding of the universe; if we didn’t, it wouldn’t be any relief to be reminded that in reality this isn’t the case. Nor is this a phenomenon confined to megalomaniacs or pathological narcissists, but something much more fundamental to being human: it’s the understandable tendency to judge everything from the perspective you occupy, so that the few thousand weeks for which you happen to be around inevitably come to feel like the linchpin of history, to which all prior time was always leading up. These self-centred judgments are part of what psychologists call the “egocentricity bias,” and they make good sense from an evolutionary standpoint. If you had a more realistic sense of your own sheer irrelevance, considered on the timescale of the universe, you’d probably be less motivated to struggle to survive, and thereby to propagate your genes. You might imagine, moreover, that living with such an unrealistic sense of your own historical importance would make life feel more meaningful, by investing your every action with a feeling of cosmic significance, however unwarranted. But what actually happens is that this overvaluing of your existence gives rise to an unrealistic definition of what it would mean to use your finite time well. It sets the bar much too high. It suggests that in order to count as having been “well spent,” your life needs to involve deeply impressive accomplishments, or that it should have a lasting impact on future generations — or at the very least that it must, in the words of the philosopher Iddo Landau, “transcend the common and the mundane.” Clearly, it can’t just be ordinary: After all, if your life is as significant in the scheme of things as you tend to believe, how could you not feel obliged to do something truly remarkable with it?

Oliver Burkeman, Four Thousand Weeks