#because they seem them as singularly responsible for creating Thing They Liked because of the aforementioned spokesmanship

[thanatika]

low-coherency rambling in the tags

[decepti-geek]

I think the other thing Sarina and Melora have in common, though, besides being women, is that their relationships with Julian are nowhere near as developed going either forwards or backwards from Those episodes (which is probably, ultimately, to do with them being women too, but more on a meta level in terms of how the writers treated/viewed them [ie, less in need of that development] than really saying anything further about the power dynamic imo). Which means that pretty much all you get is Those episodes, and that's the extent of the relationship, and the direct power imbalance whilst Julian is actively providing care to them takes up a much, much higher percentage of the time dedicated to telling the story of their dynamic in total.

Like, I know Sarina is in an episode prior to Chrysalis, but that episode doesn't set up the strength of dynamic between her and Julian that even Past Prologue establishes for Julian and Garak. I can't remember if she does actually speak, but the writers didn't seem interested in doing anything much more with her than emphasising how being augmented had affected her, iirc. (And it's not like the relationship established in Past Prologue is super deep but it does at least... exist. And is then expanded upon in Cardassians). Like, in the text of the show, whether you're reading fic or not, there's a wider variety of experiences between Julian and Garak, that forms your impression of their dynamic, than there are to form your impression of things with Melora or Sarina. I guess in the sense that, the og garashir shippers also got the idea from somewhere, without any fic to read, and looking at what's just... in the show, I have a hard time believing that all of it would've begun with The Wire.

By the time of The Wire, there's already an existing, somewhat developed relationship outside of the episode-centric medical scenario, and neither Sarina nor Melora get that. I think if they had gotten more development of their (not necessarily romantic) relationships with Julian, in a volume even approaching the same with Garak (which... I would Not have wanted with the same writing team handling it, but in a hypothetical where you have the same conclusion of, he fucked up, and then extend the development of their dynamic either forwards or backwards keeping that in mind) - like, people have still found more to explore in fanworks anyway, but there would've just been more source material to use as a starting point for exploration in the first place.

If there'd been a comparable amount of screentime with either of them and Julian, to what he has with Garak, there would have just straight-up been more of an opportunity to explore/create a more involved, complicated relationship than the single instance which is kind of, singular and singularly focused because of media conventions apart from anything else. And probably some hypothetical fan responses to something like that would be that the incident of abuse is all that matters and anything else is superfluous. And probably some responses would have been to romanticise a bunch of stuff (especially at the time it aired)... like, honestly, I think part of the reason it feels like there's such a consensus on the Sarina and Melora stuff is because the Stuff is little and unambiguous enough (even in spite of the poor handling of it) that it's easy for people to reach that consensus. And I think in a weird roundabout way, that's also to do with them being female characters, but less maybe to do with the fan response, and more like, what the fans had/have that was there to respond to.

I also can't help feeling that the fact Julian and Garak's relationship continues to develop after The Wire - the after being where the greater quantity of their interactions happen - would be likely to colour any rewatch of The Wire (not even just in terms of a romantic relationship so much as simply, the level of participation in whatever relationship it is that they have), even if you never read a single word of garashir fic. Like, same as the above - Melora and Sarina may as well have left Julian's life once their Episodes are done, and whether that choice is more informed by standard TV episode format, or by the writers making character choices, it reads as their response, and that response also colours how Julian's preceding abuse of power is interpreted. I'm really not sure that if that hadn't been the case, the aforementioned consensus would seem so unanimous.

And I'm definitely not suggesting that a character's continued involvement is some kind of failsafe against the possibility of an abusive dynamic. But I also think that without any real information provided, or ideas explored within the text, about how willing/aware a character is to continue in a relationship that contains the possibility of something like that (in part because touching on something like that for Garak and Julian probably would've set off Berman's kill bill sirens)... I don't know that it's as easy a thing to call, even if you're fully aware of the implications. Or at least, I think that, since it's a work of fiction, it opens itself up to multiple interpretations (because there's space to speculate on those interpretations, because there's no danger of getting it wrong according to concrete facts, and someone being harmed as a result). And I think this interpretation is definitely an important one to bring up! But I don't think that as-written in the show, it defines the relationship in nearly the same way as the same for Melora or Sarina. And I don't think that either is specifically a good or a bad approach, at least purely in terms of how easy it is to interpret the characters' dynamic. I also think that the nature of the writing itself shares some influence with individuals' viewpoints, when it comes to interpreting those dynamics.

My other thing about Julian being the one to treat Garak is that even before you get to the story beats/plot devices that only Julian would've probably been told about - Garak was refusing treatment. Part of the reason for that was about concealing the implant's existence/nature, but even after that's found out, Garak still refuses the infirmary, and his response is... I mean Julian, in his dialogue, chalks it up to an issue of dignity, but honestly I see no reason why, from a medical standpoint, it wouldn't be treated as a problem related to vulnerability, even if the vulnerability is only perceived, since even then it could still potentially cause significant distress. Particularly when the patient may be in an altered mental state.

Garak doesn't want to be in the medbay for reasons of privacy, and because, I mean, whatever else he is, he is one, currently very physically and mentally vulnerable Cardassian, on a Bajoran station, where the medical team besides Julian is primarily (maybe entirely?) made up of Bajorans. And idk if it'd necessarily be at the front of Garak's mind, but we as an audience know that Maritza got stabbed last season. I don't think aspersions of any kind like that on the medbay team are at all fair, but if that's anywhere in the region of where Garak's mind might be at while he's sick like this, I'm sure that in itself would be a cause for concern in a medical sense.

Point being - wouldn't that kind of be an ethical dilemma in and of itself? Do you ignore the patient's wishes entirely and force them to undergo treatment (which, honestly, may turn out to be palliative care, if a solution can't be found) according to recommended standards, and risk causing them significant psychological distress when they're already vulnerable, possibly at the end of their life, but possibly causing long-term complications in the process if they do survive? Do you treat that as the only available option and otherwise allow the patient to die? Or if the option is there, do you give them an alternate location for their treatment to take place, and allow them to be treated by the practitioner far and away least likely to distress the patient further with their presence - although the reason for that in the first place is also an ethical issue? And following that, I figure the best option according to procedure would be for the doctor to distance themselves from the patient afterwards, if they're potentially the only person the patient is willing to receive care from. But I think in this case, the reason for that is kind of enmeshed with the (little-r) relationship being pre-existing, and with the probability that an end to that relationship could mean a change in the patient's willingness to receive treatment, or a lack of any way to tell if they need treatment at all. And subsequently, the potential that you're putting them in danger by putting them at a distance from the one connecting point that they will accept.

Obviously, I don't think Julian's necessarily considering all that. But once Garak gets to medbay, I don't think he's the only one involved in deciding on an answer for that stuff (and even if he has final say as CMO, he also does ultimately have people that he's answerable to as a doctor). I also just think that... because it's a work of fiction, it presents a really interesting dynamic to explore - the idea of someone whose vulnerabilities/mental health issues have them in an intense enough place, that they're only willing to put themselves in the vulnerable position of receiving help/treatment if it comes from a person who, conventionally, has too close of a relationship to be giving that help. Maybe that dynamic isn't 'healthy,' but maybe it's more healthy than the alternative, and maybe that's sometimes the genuinely best thing to focus on, or even just the only thing available (and honestly, I mean that sincerely and have quite strong feelings on it. There's a popular post that goes around about shipping, along the same lines, but I look at it and I'm a bit like... I honestly think that's how more interactions in the world work than we realise, and I don't think the tone of that post really encompasses it. It's a bit too detached for my personal taste).

(I think part of the reason why this idea appeals to me is linked to the way that... so much of the irl structure of mental health treatment is underdeveloped, and part of this idea I think honestly speaks to the unmet needs in that regard. Not so much the specific idea of a close loved one administering treatment, but the idea of a more individualised, somewhat more considered tailored approach to treating serious mental health issues in a single person. Although another part of the personal appeal is actually related to that specific approach, in a roundabout way; because sometimes these defined systems do collapse in certain situations, sometimes they genuinely are inadequate, if the goal is 'do as little additional harm as possible, in the healing of this.' So, sometimes a medic might end up administering care to a close loved one in an extreme situation, because the alternative is that the loved one either dies or is further damaged. And yes, that's in extreme situations, but what is the whole concept of Star Trek if not just one long laundry list of extreme situations - also honestly, I have a whole Thing about how a lot of just... Garak... is a kind of, deliberately manufactured extreme situation even beyond the typically-presenting irl scope of 'extreme' issues/questions/parallels that the show uses him to explore. But that gets into my general thoughts on sff 'hypertrauma' and such so I SHALL NOT start talking about it).

If the risks presented by conventional treatment are great enough, it requires building up a new approach, that in turn requires looking at the limits of the conventional treatment model, and where it potentially presents problems of its own that might need adapting to. And idk if I'd ever explore that more clinical side of it in a fic, but I know I'd definitely love to explore the kind of, more emotional, subjective, people-kind-of-ultimaltely-just-having-to-live-their-lives-and-maybe-trying-to-minimise-the-harm-they-do-if-theyre-that-kind-of-person, side of it.

I think I got away from the original point a bit, but I guess... this is a side of the whole issue that definitely Exists, because I have it, which means it exists, and if it turns out I'm the only one who has anything even remotely close to this then nobody needs pay me much attention, but there's at least a chance that there's other people approaching it in a similar way and that hasn't been added to the discussion yet.

Okay fic idea: you know how with Melora and Sarina, Julian became so caught up in a romanticized, naive vision of what they’d be to each other after he fixed/solved whatever their deemed problem was that he ignored all the red flags of maybe they’re not recovering so well or want or are ready for all this: That but with Garak post-wire.

Julian gets so caught up in his own little fantasy of saving Garak and nursing him back to recovery and rehabilitating him in every way, (showing him the light of Federation ideals and bringing him to the Good side), that he doesn’t realize Garak has started to secretly abuse other drugs to cope and needs more emotional space and doesn’t want to be brought to see the ‘light’. Essentially, a photo negative of why post-The Wire might not be such a great place to start up a relationship.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

The article goes on to point out a number of bible verses that seem to contradict that notion as well as a couple of the aforementioned arguments but one I'm surprised to never see anyone bring up is: if god already knows whether or not were gonna follow his "rules" and either way were still following his "plan" then why impose rules in the first place?

[cont'd] I still don't find Abrahamic religions to be particularly believable for a number of reasons but I'd say this at least gives them a lot more internal consistency

[That is, regarding the Abrahamic god not having the "omni" attributes.]

The Abrahamic god was created to supplant polytheistic religions and their various gods, all of whom had unique interests or quirks or tendencies. The competing interests of those various gods could explain the unpredictability of the world. You pray to the goddess of the harvest for rain for your crops, but she's at war with the god of the sun, so whether your crops will grow or shrivel in a drought depends on the fates of the gods, none of whom was omni in nature, or singularly held power.

Monotheism consolidated these gods down into a single god, so that there is a single word of god, single doctrine, rather than the mishmash of devotees of the sun god, the war god, the harvest god, etc, etc, all with their own practices. Abrahamism attempts to control everyone consistently, and therefore makes one god responsible for all of it, made "omni" by granting it all the powers and qualities of all the gods combined.

The problem is that the world is not consistent, and the cracks in this mythology show much more readily. Especially around its omni-ness. The polytheistic pantheons had an excuse: all the various gods had domain over only whatever they had domain over. They were one of many. The contentions and relationships and drama between the gods may give you some rain but not enough for your crops to survive.

But a monotheistic god has domain over everything. It is solely responsible. If you don't get enough rain, it's because your omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omnitemporal god somehow doesn't want you to, doesn't know yo need it, or can't give it to you.

Not being omni does make the story more internally consistent. But it also makes randomness more powerful than the deity, and undercuts the entire point of theism in the first place. Because if a god isn't in control of everything, then god doesn't have control of everything. And trying to explain randomness, due to people's discomfort with it, is one the key driving factors for religiosity in the first place. That there is some kind of order to the universe, that something is in control and will prevent it all from spiralling into utter chaos, as well as being able to seek some form of control themselves, that they can petition for help from, or the favor of, god. That there's a reason for the lightning, the drought, the floods, the infant mortality, not just the indifferent arbitrariness of nature. If god doesn't have those omni qualities, then nobody is fully in control, and help from above is bounded by limitations. This god is subject to the restrictions and boundaries of the universe, like anyone.

So, while it’s more consistent narratively, it’s more unpalatable to the believer and what they need from their imaginary friends.

--

The bible is explicit about predestination. It says it again and again that "Lord" doesn't just already know, but decided and made things, chose people to believe and those not to believe, right from the very beginning, before anything even existed.

Romans 8:29-30

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Romans 9:11-22

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Ephesians 1:4-5

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

2 Timothy 1:9

Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

"Lord" made unbelievers, deliberately makes people to not believe the purported "truth" of Xianity, even "tricks" them into non-belief.

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Mark 4:11-12

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Matthew 7:13-14

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

So it's not even just that this god already knows, and therefore it's all completely unnecessary, the bible is unrelentingly insistent that it's outright what it wants, what it intends, what this creator god, this "potter" who has "power over the clay," created by design.

[teawaffles]

The Fugitives from the Fire: Chapter 5, Part 2

“Hey, madam innkeeper: where would you normally have been in the building?”

“……Since when did you get in charge of the investigation?”

As Sherlock took the lead, it seemed Gregson was displeased, but also no longer in the mood to put up a fight.

Hillary sniffed.

“I was always at the reception desk. I’m the only one managing the inn; I don’t have a single employee.”

“In that case, do you remember when these three men came to book their rooms? Or rather, at the time, had there been anyone with burns on their face?”

Sherlock was now diverting the conversation away from the case, instead attempting to verify if there were eyewitness accounts of the other fugitive. However, Gregson responded in a low voice.

“Holmes: it’s not going to work. We also tried asking her when we arrived at the scene back then, but it seems she has a strange policy of protecting her guests’ privacy, so she doesn’t check her guests’ appearances and such too closely.”

It seemed Hillary had heard him whispering, for she spoke up in defiance.

“You know, these parts are full of people with something to hide. I always make sure they pay up, but I don’t do such tactless things as staring people in the face.”

“Tactful, eh……”

Even Sherlock couldn’t stop himself; he cracked a wry grin. He didn’t know if it was an unwritten rule of the slums, but the innkeeper’s response was certainly a little too risky.

Nevertheless, at this point, there was nothing to be gained from laying blame on her. Sherlock continued.

“In that case, when the fire started, were you also at the reception?”

“That’s right. I wanted to stay there until the fire was contained, but a bunch of bobbies dragged me out at the very last moment.”

It seemed the lady possessed a truly dauntless spirit, so much so she had been willing to go down with her inn. That elicited something close to admiration within Sherlock, and he looked over the suspects.

“You mentioned ‘the very last moment’… That means you stayed at the reception until everyone had escaped?”

“Indeed: as the landlady, I have to ensure my guests are safe. Besides these guys, I definitely saw the ones from rooms 102 and 201 escape out the front door.”

“You’re indeed the epitome of a host.”

In his mind, Sherlock added this new piece of information on the guests’ rooms.

Excluding the murder victim, there had been five guests in total.

On the ground floor, rooms 101 (Jerry Dorff) and 102 had been occupied.

On the first floor, rooms 201 and 203 (Mike Myers).

Then on the second floor, room 301 (Bruno Campbell).

As he gathered the respective locations of the guests, the proprietress spoke up.

“Oh yes — earlier, everyone was talking about who had the chance to go up to the second floor, right? You’ll have to rule out Mr Jerry over there: for some reason, he immediately ran outside when the fire began. He seemed the very picture of alarm.”

“Hmm; this man, panicked?”

As far as he was concerned, people were free to run away in any manner they liked. But the gap between that and the taciturn, mysterious man before them made even Sherlock’s expression soften. It seemed Jerry had been strangely embarrassed by that reaction, deliberately clearing his throat.

Then, the detective turned to Gregson.

“Come to think of it, when you were going back upstairs, did you go past anyone? There must’ve been people rushing to escape.”

“I remember that: I passed by Bruno, Mike, and one other guest on the stairs. But is that important somehow?”

“If the killer had been among them, then he must’ve murdered the victim in the short period between the time you went downstairs to check the situation, and the time you returned to the second floor.”

Gregson groaned. “……Of course, that interval feels way too short. It didn’t even take me 30 seconds to go downstairs and back up again. So, that means……”

The locations of the suspects’ rooms. The escape route. The span of time until the victim had been murdered. Putting together all the clues they’d gathered by questioning the people involved, a single answer surfaced of its own accord.

“——It’s impossible for the killer to have gone upstairs and murdered him.”

Sherlock sounded as if he were pronouncing a judgement. Then, Gregson finally got his head around it — just like what a detective’s assistant would’ve done.

——“In that case, how did he murder the man in the room?”

“T-Then, the man in the room — how was he murdered……?”

Once again, the John in his imagination overlapped with Gregson. In theory, this ‘riddle’ had turned into something impossible to solve, and the assistant inspector was wracked with an anguish akin to agony.

However, that was a tale that only applied to ordinary people.

With his singularly transcendent powers of deduction, the consulting detective had already narrowed down two answers to this case.

Truthfully, right now, he could proceed to the solution right away. But for some reason, he didn’t want to do that. Surely, the reason why he was investigating the truth like this, was because he saw the figure of the man before him strenuously racking his brains.

As Gregson continued to despair, Sherlock Holmes placed a hand on his back.

“Gregson, do you have a moment?”

“……What do you want?”

He looked exhausted — but that was a weariness born from his own sense of responsibility, and even Sherlock refused to take a jibe at him now.

Gregson was shouldering a duty as a police inspector, so the detective resolved to use a little discretion.

“I want to talk to you outside for a bit.”

“…………”

Sherlock had said so in a serious tone, and Gregson didn’t put up a fight.

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

Once they left the inn, an unnerving oppressiveness made their skin prickle: clearly, the locals’ anger had only intensified. Lestrade was trying his best to negotiate with and conciliate them, but it wouldn’t be long before their frustration boiled over.

Yet, even as they were caught in this race against time, Sherlock remained unhurried. On the streets to which filth clung here and there, he began to speak as if they were simply having a chat.

“First off, from the conversation earlier, we’ve eliminated the possibility that the culprit went to room 303 and killed him. As such, we have to consider a different tack.”

“A different tack?”

“What I mean is, the idea that he didn’t attack from the door — rather, the window.”

Sherlock proposed the theory he’d thought up at the start: that the man had been shot from the window. With this idea, they could break free of the ‘riddle’ created by the locked room — the murderer could kill the victim even without going all the way to the second floor.

However, Gregson shrugged in amazement, and explained in an indifferent tone.

“This might dispute the deduction you’re so proud of, but we did look into that as well. Firstly, for this method to work, there must’ve been two men in total: one to start the fire at the inn, and the other to shoot the victim from outside. But hiring another collaborator to silence an accomplice, or settle a falling-out, brings its own share of danger. In addition, in order to shoot his victim, a gunman would minimally have to be at the same height as him. There’s a brothel across the street from the inn, facing its north wall, and with three floors to boot, it fits the bill. But at the time of the murder, there’d been people on its second floor, and no one testified that they heard a gunshot. Hence, that explanation has to be rejected.”

Unusually, the inspector had discussed his view without a hint of his usual thorny attitude.

But Sherlock was adamant. “If that’s the case, then——”

——“If that’s the case, then how about something like this? Sherlock.”

His partner’s voice resounded through his mind. Now, the detective persisted in playing the role of an assistant, raising another idea to the inspector.

“From the street beside the inn, he could’ve aimed at room 303’s window and shot the victim. With that, he wouldn’t have raised suspicions among the people in the brothel.”

“……That’s rather cliché. There were officers outside the inn, so if there’d been someone with a gun outside, they would’ve arrested him long ago. Moreover, the victim collapsed a step away from the room door. If he’d been shot from the window, he would’ve lain there still. Even if he had then used the last of his strength to crawl all the way to the door, with that level of blood loss, it’d be strange that there hadn’t been a trail of blood leading from the window. As I said earlier, as far as I could tell through the keyhole, I didn’t see any marks like that.”

The inspector calmly refuted his theory, and Sherlock made the same troubled face as John always did.

——Then and there, he eliminated one of his two suppositions, and completely saw through the ‘riddle’ of this case.

“Is that so? Then I’m completely at a loss here.”

“Hmm, what’s gotten into you since earlier? ……You kept making deductions that were quite unlike you.”

Gregson had casually said something that, deep down, revealed a glimpse of his recognition of the detective’s ability. Unwittingly, Sherlock broke into a gentle smile.

But just as quickly, he replaced it with the troubled expression required of the fool he was playing. Sherlock put both hands behind his head, and looked up at the sky.

“Hey, Gregson. Somehow, we’ve been talking over and over and getting nowhere; so for a change of pace, how about a quiz?”

“Huh? You purposely brought me all the way outside, for a quiz?!”

Gregson frowned, but Sherlock continued without a care.

“Let’s say there are two children, A and B, and they’re friends. One day, the two of them play catch at a distance of about 20 steps away from one another. But although A can throw the ball to B, B can’t throw it back to A. Why is that so? In case you were wondering, the two of them have the same strength.”

“……Hmm.”

Gregson forgot about his complaints for a moment, and pondered.

“Did B sprain his shoulder?”

“In a quiz like this, that kind of reasoning’s rubbish, isn’t it?”

“There’s a wall between them.”

“Then A couldn’t have thrown the ball over.”

“……Another kid suddenly appeared and stole the ball.”

“You’re being a little careless, aren’t ya?”

It was unclear what the intention behind this quiz was, and to top it off, Sherlock had rejected every one of his answers. At last, Gregson raised his voice.

“Dammit, just tell me the answer already! Also, what’s the point of a quiz like this?!”

“Come on, now,” Sherlock parried. “I’ll give you a hint: for example, try looking at this building here.”

“Hmm……”

The detective pointed to the inn they had just stepped out of. Coincidentally, just like the one that had burnt down, this building also had three floors.

“What about it?”

“Man, you’re still as slow as ever. Look……”

Sherlock pointed to a window on the upper floors, and moved his finger between that and the window below it a few times.

Watching that action, Gregson seemed to have arrived at the answer himself.

“I see. So the children were standing on the upper and lower floors respectively, and leaning out the windows to throw the ball? Although it could be thrown from the floor above to the one below, it would be difficult to throw the ball back up in the other direction. That’s to say, the distance of 20 steps was not lengthwise, but vertical——”

Right then, as if a bolt of electricity had coursed through him, Gregson twitched. His hand shot to his chin; sinking deep into thought, he remained absolutely motionless, with only his lips piecing fragments together into clues.

“There’s only one way…… To be able to kill without going upstairs…… In that case, the position of the body…… And it ending up as a locked room…… But, such an extraordinary method –– is it even possible?”

At his final question, Sherlock grinned.

“I don’t have the foggiest idea what you just thought of…… But when you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” [1]

“………!”

Gregson looked at the detective, standing boldly where he was.

Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

That was what he’d always maintained.

A suicide, or an accident. Pretending to be dead. Entering the room and murdering him. A sniper shot from the window. After carefully pursuing all lines of thought, in the end, only this solution remained.

In that case, it had to be the truth.

Could it be, that he’d started this entire conversation in order to guide him here……?

“……Hmph.”

At that thought, Assistant Inspector Gregson reassumed his usual, haughty attitude: the manner of a police inspector who saw the detective as his enemy.

“Let’s go, Holmes. I’ll tell you what I’ve deduced.”

——This is my case.

As Gregson strode away triumphantly, Sherlock chuckled.

T/N: Sherlock has grown so much..! (my /heart/)

Footnotes:

[1] A quote from Chapter 6 of the Sherlock Holmes novel The Sign of the Four, by Arthur Conan Doyle. (Wikipedia)

[kaile-hultner]

Nihilism is so easy, which is why we need to kill it

(I initially published this here a couple weeks ago.)

So last night it dawned on me that, after over two years of being relatively symptom-free, my depression snuck back up on me and has taken over. It’s still pretty mild in comparison to other times I’ve been stuck in the hole, but after 24 months (and more) of mostly being good to go, I can tell that it’s here for a hot minute again.

How do I know? Well, it might be the fact that I spent more time sleeping during my recent vacation from work than I did just about anything else, and how it’s suddenly really hard for me to stay awake during work hours. I don’t really have an appetite, and in fact nausea hits me frequently. I don’t really have any emotional reactions to things outside of tears, even when tears aren’t super appropriate to the situation (like watching someone play Outer Wilds for the first time). And I’ve been consuming a lot of apocalyptic media, to which the only response, emotional or otherwise, I can really muster is “dude same.”

For a long time I was huge into absurdist philosophy, because it felt to my depressed brain like just the right balance between straight up denying that things are bad (and thus we should fix them, or at least try to do so) and full-blown nihilism. This gives absurdism a lot of credit; mostly it’s just a loose set of spicy existentialist ideas and shit that sounds good on a sticker, like “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”

In the last couple years, while outside of my depressive state, I went back to Camus’ work and found a lot of almost full-on abusive shit in it. Not toward anyone specifically, but shit like “nobody and nothing will care if you’re gone, so live out of spite of them all” rubs me the wrong way in retrospect. The philosophy Camus puts out opens the door for living in a very self-destructive fashion; that in fact the good life is living without care for yourself or anyone/anything else. The way Camus describes and derides suicide especially is grim as fuck, and certainly I would never recommend The Myth of Sisyphus to anyone currently struggling with ideation. That “perfect balance” between denial and nihilism is really not that perfect at all, and in fact skews much more heavily towards the latter.

Neon Genesis Evangelion has been a big albatross around my neck in terms of the media products I’ve consumed in my life that I believe have influenced my depression hardcore. It sits in a similar conversational space to Camus’ work, in that it confronts nihilism and at once rejects and facilitates it. A lot of folks remark that Evangelion is pretty unique – or at least uncommon – in its accurate portrayal of depression, especially for mid-90s anime properties. The thing I notice always seems to be missing in these discussions is that along with that accurate portrayal comes a spot-on – to me, at least – depiction of what depression does to resist being treated. This is a disease that uses a person’s rational faculties to suggest that nobody else could possibly understand their pain, and therefore there’s no use in getting better or moving forward. Shinji Ikari is as self-centered as Hideaki Anno is as I am when it comes to confronting the truth: there are paths out of this hole, but nobody else can take that step out but us, and part of our illness is that refusal to do just that. Depression lies, it provides a cold comfort to the sufferer, that there is no existence other than the one where we are in pain and there is no way out, so pull the blanket up over our head and go back to sleep.

Watching Evangelion for the first time corresponded with the onset of one of the worst depressive spirals I’ve ever been in, and so, much like the time I got a stomach virus at the same time that I ate Arby’s curly fries, I kind of can’t associate Evangelion with anything else. No matter what else it might signify, no matter what other meaning there is to derive from it, for me Eva is the Bad Feeling Anime™. Which is why, naturally, I had to binge all four of the Evangelion theatrical releases upon the release of Evangelion 3.0+1.0 Thrice Upon A Time last month.

If Neon Genesis Evangelion and End of Evangelion are works produced by someone with untreated depression just fucking rawdogging existence, then the Eva movies are works produced by someone who has gone to therapy even just one fucking time. Whether that therapy is working or not is to be determined, but they have taken that step out of the hole and are able to believe that there is a possibility of living a depression-free life. The first 40 minutes or so of Evangelion 3.0+1.0 are perfect cinema to me. The world is destroyed but there is a way to bring it back. Restoration and existence is possible even when the surface of the planet might as well be the surface of the Moon. The only thing about this is, everyone has to be on board to help. Even though WILLE fired one of its special de-corefication devices into the ground to give the residents of Village 3 a chance at survival, the maintenance of this pocket ecosystem is actively their responsibility. There is no room or time for people who won’t actively contribute, won’t actively participate in making a better world from the ashes of the old.

There are a lot of essentialist claims and assumptions made by the film in this first act about how the body interacts with the social – the concept of disability itself just doesn’t seem to have made it into the ring of safety provided by Misato and the Wunder, which seems frankly wild to me, and women are almost singularly portrayed in traditionalist support roles while men are the doers and the fixers and the makers. I think it’s worth raising a skeptical eyebrow at this trad conservative “back to old ways” expression of the post-apocalypse wherever it comes up, just as it’s important to acknowledge where the movie pushes back on these themes, like when Toji (or possibly Kensuke) is telling Shinji that, despite all the hard work everyone is doing like farming and building, the village is far from self-sufficient and will likely always rely on provisions from the Wunder.

As idyllic as the setting is, it’s not the ideal. As Shinji emerges from his catatonia, Kensuke takes him around the village perimeter. It’s quiet, rural Japan as far as the eye can see, but everywhere there are contingencies; rationing means Kensuke can only catch one fish a week, all the entry points where flowing water comes into the radius of the de-corefication devices have to be checked for blockages because the water supply will run out. There is a looming possibility that the de-corefication machines could break or shut down at some point, and nobody knows what will happen when that happens. On the perimeter, lumbering, pilot-less and headless Eva units shuffle around; it is unknown whether they’re horrors endlessly biding their time or simply ghosts looking to reconnect to the ember of humanity on the other side of the wall. Survival is always an open question, and mutual aid is the expectation. Still: the apocalypse happened, and we’re still here. The question Village 3 answers is “what now?” We move on, we adapt.

Evangelion is still a work that does its level best to defy easy interpretation, but the modern version of the franchise has largely abandoned the nihilism that was at its core in the 90s version. It’s not just that Shinji no longer denies the world until the last possible second – it’s that he frequently actively reaches out and is frustrated by other people’s denials. He wants to connect, he wants to be social, but he’s also burdened with the idea that he’s only good to others if he’s useful, and he’s only useful if he pilots the Eva unit. This last movie separates him and what he is worth to others (and himself) from his agency in being an Eva pilot, finally. In doing so, he’s able to reconcile with nearly everyone in his life who he has harmed or who has hurt him, and create a world in which there is no Evangelion. While this ending is much more wishful thinking than one more grounded in the reality of the franchise – one that, say, focuses on the existence and possible flourishing of Village 3 and other settlements like it while keeping one eye on the precarious balancing act they’re all playing – it feels better than the ending of End of Eva, and even than the last two episodes of the original series.

I’m glad the nihilism in Evangelion is gone, for the most part. I’m glad that I didn’t spend roughly eight hours watching the Evamovies only to be met yet again with a message of “everything is pointless, fuck off and die.” Because I’ve been absorbing that sentiment a lot lately, from a lot of different sources, and it really just fuckin sucks to hear over and over again.

It is a truth we can’t easily ignore that the confluence of pandemic, climate change, authoritarian surge and capitalist decay has made shit miserable recently. But the spike in lamentations over the intractability of this mix of shit – the inevitability of our destruction, to put it in simpler terms – really is pissing me off. No one person is going to fix the world, that much is absolutely true, but if everyone just goes limp and decides to “123 not it” the apocalypse then everyone crying about how the world is fucked on Twitter will simply be adding to the opening bars of a self-fulfilling prophesy.

We can’t get in a mech to save the world but then, neither realistically could Shinji Ikari. What we can do looks a lot more like what’s being done in Village 3: people helping each other with limited resources wherever they can.

Last week, Hurricane Ida slammed into the Gulf Coast and churned there for hours – decimating Bayou communities in Louisiana and disrupting the supply chain extensively – before powering down and moving inland. Last night the powerful remnants of that storm tore through the Northeast, causing intense flooding. Areas not typically affected by hurricanes suddenly found themselves in a similar boat – pun not intended – to folks for whom hurricanes are simply a fact of life. There’s a once-in-a-millennium drought and heatwave ripping through the West Coast and hey – who can forget back in February when Oklahoma and Texas experienced -20 degree temperatures for several days in a row? All of this against the backdrop of a deadly and terrifying pandemic and worsening political climate. It’s genuinely scary! But there are things we can do.

First, if you’re in a weather disaster-prone area, get to know your local mutual aid organizations. Some of these groups might be official non-profits; one such group in the Louisiana area, for example, is Common Ground Relief. Check their social media accounts for updates on what to do and who needs help. If you’re not sure if there’s one in your area, check out groups like Mutual Aid Disaster Relief for that same information. Even if you’re not in a place that expects to see the immediate effects of climate change, you should still consider linking up with organizing groups in your area. Tenant unions, homeless organizations, safe injection sites and needle exchanges, immigrant rights groups, environmental activist orgs, reproductive health groups – all could use some help right now, in whatever capacity you might be able to provide it.

In none of these scenarios are we going to be the heroes of the story, and we shouldn’t view this kind of work in that way. But neither should we give into the nihilistic impulse to insist upon doing nothing, insist that inaction is the best course of action, and get back under the blankets for our final sleep. Kill that impulse in your head, and fuck, if you have to, simply just fucking wish for that better world. Then get out of bed and help make it happen.

[quickdeaths]

(thoughts under cut)

I think the message is pretty muddled and weak tbh, and it basically has two arguments. It tries to make a meta-point about how something as awful as a killing game can only exist through the consent of its audience, and tries to turn the mirror around on the players like "look what you have done," which falls flat since it's a video game, not real life. There is no moral culpability in the deaths of fictional characters, and it also ignores the capitalistic argument that in both cases, in our real world where Danganronpa is a video game series, and in the world inside v3 where it's a reality show, the property only exists because the creators are driven by profit motives over anything else. There are hundreds if not thousands of media properties that people would pay for a new installment of, but that aren't made because the creators don't feel strongly about them, or want to make something else. It feels weird to introduce a narrative element of "you the audience (real and fictional) are the real villains for enjoying such sick media," while absolving oneself as the creator from any responsibility for creating it.

It's a bad argument and it makes v3's ending fall apart, because it's so based on meta-narratives. It feels like v3 wants to engage with the player personally, for the ending to be an Undertale moment or a Stanley Parable moment or whatever, but it just doesn't really hit beyond an IAm14AndThisIsDeep way. It fails to go hard enough on that goal to really pierce the fourth wall and make a serious impact on the player, but the fact that it's there at all sort of robs the moment of character-based impact, so to me, the ending fails to deliver a satisfying conclusion for the characters, and also fails to really give the player something to chew on with regards to their own engagement with the game.

Where it succeeds, I think, (both intentionally and unintentionally) is showing how Danganronpa has run its course and has no more reason to exist. There are franchises like Pokemon that can be iterated upon forever with new regions and new characters, and there are franchises like Persona that are an anthology - there are recurring characters and themes, but each is a standalone entity that can exist by itself. Danganronpa, between the first two games, the spinoff, the mobile games, all the anime seasons, the OVAs, etc. has been singularly focused on a story about Junko Enoshima, Monokuma, Hope's Peak Academy, The Tragedy, etc, and by the end of SDR2 and DR3 the anime, that story is concluded. Danganronpa isn't just a game about killing games, it's a game about a specific event drawn up by a specific girl and her fursona and all the supplemental media tie into that story.

V3 shows that "where do we go from that" is a question without an answer, because a killing game without HPA, without Ultimates, without Monokuma, without the specter of Junko Enoshima, isn't Danganronpa, it's something else. But, including those things, shoehorning Monokuma in, making characters Ultimates without the connection to HPA, adding Junko content, without any real connection to the story of the other games feels wrong. It feels like cheap fanservice. V3 adheres so rigidly to the Danganronpa "formula," as well, that it draws attention to it, and makes it almost seem like a parody, even where the structural similarities between THH and SDR2 felt like affectionate callbacks or funny coincidences. A softer male protagonist and a less emotional female sidekick. A frustrating male antagonist who nevertheless has good intentions. An early chapter where the kill was accidental, or the victim wasn't the intended victim. A middle chapter with two victims. A late-middle chapter that involves a serious puzzle about the nature of the situation itself. An ending with a big twist and also Junko is there.

Whether intentional or not, it asks "is this what you want? do you want a formula? do you want us to bend over backwards so that the silly blonde girl and her bear show up, do you want the Sad Kill chapter and the Double Kill chapter and the Mindbending Puzzle Kill chapter, do you want us to constantly be in conversation with the structure of a PSP game from 2010? Do you want a copy of a copy of a copy forever?" and I think the answer to that question should be no. I don't want to see Junko in Fortnite or Smash, I don't want Danganronpa 7: We're Out Of Ideas But People Keep Buying Them For Some Reason, I don't want a franchise that I enjoy (despite everything and I do mean EVERYTHING) to become paint-by-numbers and just churned out forever.

I think v3 is the weakest story. It's clear from the writing and the ending that they were struggling with what it was "about," and were brushing up against that same problem of if Danganronpa can be an anthology series or whether it needs to relate to its original story to be Danganronpa. That feels uncontroversial to me, but I still enjoy it and believe it's a great game. I love the characters, and I think the actual gameplay is the best in the series, with good minigames and bonus modes and a much nicer presentation. The ending is just the point at which I realized there probably wasn't going to be another full mainline Danganronpa game for a long time, if ever, and decided that was probably the right call.

As for what is and is not true from the ending, I'm sure if you played the entire game, keeping track of everything, you could find some definitive statements to make about what is and is not true, but I don't think that's the point. Even if it's badly executed, I think the theming of the game means you're supposed to accept what is told to the characters by Tsumugi as at least mostly true. More than that, though, I think it doesn't matter because the game sacrifices the characters in favor of trying to grab the player's attention and interface with the player directly. I have thoughts about how to incorporate v3's ending into RP and storytelling in an interesting (I hope?) way, but that's beside the point and this post is long enough already.

so also. v3 fans! i'm super curious to hear your thoughts on what the main message of the game is, if anything at all?? and thoughts on the ending, what is and isn't a lie in your opinion, etc too would be awesome.

i've been spoiled on everything and watched a fair bit of the ending already, so feel free to go crazy with spoilers! i've been wanting to get into the game and hearing people's takes on it helps generate hype for me + i'm genuinely really curious as well, lol. thank youuuuu ;w;

[deadpcnned]

the gamble of the heart | chapter 1 (r.l.)

chapter one: certain uncertainty 

series masterlist

pairing: remus lupin x potter!reader

chapter summary: remus reflects on when he lost the person he held closest to his heart. 

warnings: swearing 

wordcount: 2.2k

a/n: hi! this is a new remus series i’m working on. WARNING it’s going to be slowburn. hope you enjoy <33

REMUS LUPIN was never one to rely on the idea of certainty. In his sixteen years of life, Remus had gathered that the way the world worked didn’t allow for anything to be certain. For example, he could have been certain that the only peculiar thing about him would have been that he was a wizard (and really this was only peculiar to unknowing muggles). However, at the age of four, his life went off track and he was suddenly a werewolf and had no understanding of what that meant. It wasn’t always bad, however. Sometimes life was uncertain in a good way. At one time Remus was certain that a life of isolation was a fate he would have to accept, but within his first day at Hogwarts, he was proven wrong. 

And so, Remus decided that it was okay that virtually nothing was certain. He had even begun enjoying the uncertainty of life at times. He enjoyed not knowing what crazy adventure his mates and him would journey through next and he even liked the uncertainty of what subjects he would have to tackle next in his favorite classes. Which is why he couldn’t understand why he was surprised by the events unfolding now. His relationship with Y/N hadn’t even been official, yet he was stuck pondering over her recent actions instead of the notes laid out in front of him. He knew he hadn’t imagined the feelings that had been growing between the two of them and he had the image of intimate touches ingrained in his mind as proof of that. So, why? Why had she stopped looking at Remus like he held the stars in his hands? Why had she trained her sight on that lousy Ravenclaw instead? Why was she holding his hands in the halls, when the two of them had never even been so publicly affectionate? But most importantly, why was he so surprised by the uncertainty of it all?

A part of Remus - the part that resonated with his younger self most - knew he shouldn’t have been surprised. He knew it was unlikely that any girl, especially a girl as captivating as Y/N, would have been interested in him for long. Not only was he singularly boring in his opinion, but he was a monster. The other part of Remus - the part he had spent years working on - couldn’t understand why she was suddenly acting like she forgot he existed. He knew they worked well together. He knew that he understood her in a way no one else had. He knew that he was perfect for her. Or at least he’d say he was. 

“What did that poor piece of parchment ever do to you, Moony?” A voice behind him pulled him out of his thoughts and Remus’ eyes flickered down to the notes in front of him. He had been holding his inked up quill to the paper for so long it had created a hole that was getting bigger from the severity of his hold. Dropping the quill, Remus looked up to see Peter stood in the doorway. 

“Uh, must’ve zoned out,” Remus muttered, sending Peter a lackadaisical smile. “What are you lot up to?” 

“Headed to Hogsmeade. You sure you don’t wanna join, mate? I’m sure you’re not gonna do much good just tearing through your notes. Literally.” Remus ignored Peter’s poor attempt at a pun and considered his options. He really wasn’t doing much good sitting at his desk and he needed to get his mind off certain things. No better way to do that than with the three most troublesome boys. 

“Alright, yah,” Remus nodded his head at Peter who was frowning. “You’re right, Pete. No point in tearing through my notes.” Content with Remus’ validation, Peter led the two out of their dorm and down to the common room.

“YES! Prongs, we’ve got Moony on board!” 

—

Being at Hogsmeade during the start of the year always felt odd. Remus would argue that it was one of those things that only made sense during the holidays. He had gotten into many heated debates with James about whether Hogsmeade could be considered fun this early in the school year. James would start by explaining September was the holidays and Remus would remind him that Christmas wasn’t for another few months. But he didn’t feel like striking that kind of conversation today. Normally, he’d have Y/N to back him up. 

Remus entered The Three Broomsticks with his spirits a lot higher than they had been a half-hour ago. As much as he renounced being too sure about anything, he was certain he could never be bored when he was with his friends. He prayed nothing would put a damper on his mood, but the world didn’t work the way he wanted. He had heard her before he saw her. The familiar laugh had him looking over his shoulder and following Y/N’s figure from the door.

The Y/H/C haired girl was walking hand in hand with Mason Tomlinson as they looked for a seat in the corner of the establishment. As though she felt eyes on her, she turned to the table the boys sat at and waved kindly. Remus wanted to roll his eyes at her gesture but thought better of it. 

“I don’t understand when that even happened,” Sirius mumbled, his eyes still trained on Y/N.

“Apparently they were paired up for a project,” James shook his head slightly before turning to look back at his friends. “You’d think she’d tell her bloody cousin she was seeing someone, wouldn’t you?” Y/N hadn’t been seen by the group of boys as often as they usually did in the past few weeks and Remus could tell it was rubbing James the wrong way. Actually, all of them seemed annoyed by her absence. 

“Two weeks… I swear that’s how long the two have known each other,” Peter commented. “Remus, did she ever say anything about him - OUCH!”

All three boys were now staring at Remus with guilty expressions on their faces (except Peter, who seemed to also be holding his leg in pain). Remus simply shook his head and gave him a shrug in response. 

“I’m sorry, Remus,” Sirius started and this time Remus didn’t stop his eyes from rolling. “I really did think the two of you were going to get together.” Remus froze, halting the way he was nervously pulling at his napkin under the table. He had expected pitying looks or impetus questions, but he hadn’t expected that. Remus hadn’t expected to be confronted with the exact thought that had been haunting him. When would he learn he really couldn’t expect shit? 

“No idea what you mean, mate,” Remus spoke, trying to appear much more nonchalant than he felt. “Haven’t even spoken to her in weeks. Why would we be together?” The three pairs of eyes lingered on him for a moment longer, before Sirius began to nod. 

“Right… Well, boys, I think it's time for some more butterbeer.” Remus’ friends continued with their night, but all Remus could do was stare at the manifestation of his nightmares. Y/N had her elbow resting on the table in front of her and was running her hand up and down the length of Mason’s arm. From what Remus could see Mason's other arm was placed against her hip and he was leaning closer. Within moments Remus’ stomach was lurching forward as he watched Y/N’s lips meet with Mason’s to kiss him passionately. If it had been any other person he would’ve been gagging at the crude disregard of their surroundings, but at the current moment, it was as though he was stuck. He couldn’t look away and he couldn’t vomit the sight away. He was stuck watching Y/N crush his heart into pieces without even lifting a finger. 

“Don’t stare, Remus,” James’ words could’ve been taken as a joke, but Remus knew why he was saying them. He didn’t want Remus hurting. 

“Merlin, I don’t understand what has gotten into her,” Sirius, seemingly not learning from his prior mistake, was looking at Y/N again. “That’s not like her, she doesn’t mouth fuck people in public.”

“Sirius!” James and Remus had yelled at the same time. 

“That’s so vulgar!”

“That’s my cousin!” 

“Oh please, Moony. Like you don’t have the mouth of a sailor. James, I do apologize for talking about your very innocent cousin that way, but there is no other way to explain whatever that is.” James smacked Sirius on the back of his head and the two began to argue amongst themselves, but Remus was too distracted to care about what they were saying.

Sirius was right. It wasn’t like Y/N to get into a relationship so fast and even more unlike her to be so publicly affectionate. But then again, he wondered how much of that was dependent on who was sitting beside her. Maybe she was only affectionate when it wasn’t him crowding the seat next to her. Did they even know Y/N? Did he know her? Remus thought back to the first time he had ever felt a sense of mutual understanding between the two. 

The Gryffindor common room was quieter than usual as a group of five 3rd years faced the welcoming fireplace. Remus, James, Sirius, Peter, and Y/N had opted to stay at Hogwarts instead of going to Hogsmeade that weekend and were glad they had. Other than his friend group, Remus noted that the common room was empty which meant they could do anything without prying eyes. They seized the opportunity by playing Wizard Chess and munching on some leftover candy Y/N had from a previous Hogsmeade trip. 

“Bloody hell,” Sirius whined, as he pushed the table in front of him. “How? Again?” Remus just shrugged as he motioned for Peter to take Sirius’ spot across from him. They had all agreed they would have a tournament of sorts and whoever won would get to be the one who executed their next prank. This prank was especially exciting because it was going to be affecting anyone who was innocently spending time in the Slytherin common room next Thursday. 

“No way,” Peter tutted, crossing his arms across his chest. “I’m not playing just to lose.”

“Peter, the rules were the winner plays the next contestant,” Remus argued. He knew he was undoubtedly the best at Wizarding Chess amongst the five of them and he took pride in any moments he could use that to his advantage. 

“Moons, just let me play Peter,” Sirius started. At Remus’ look of dissent, he continued, “Come on, do you even care about actually being the one that says the incantation?” Remus considered this. He didn’t actually care, but he did want to win. 

“No,” The voice came from the body next to him and Remus looked up to see Y/N shaking her head. “You can’t make the rules and then change them just because Remus is better than you.” 

“Shut up, you Hufflepuff,” James taunted. The Marauders had often told Y/N she would’ve been suitable for Hufflepuff because of how highly she valued fairness. Even if it was something as small as a game, she wanted to see the right thing done. Remus admired that. He figured if more people did that, the world would be a hell of a better place. 

“Eh, let ‘em play. They won’t let me hear the end of it once I win,” Remus uprooted from his spot on the floor and took a seat next to Y/N. The pair sat back as they watched their friends banter and laugh amongst themselves. Remus had only known the lot of them for three years, but he knew that moments like these would be life-altering for him. He had come a long way from the glum eleven-year-old who thought he deserved to be alone. He still battled with whether he deserved the love he received, but he was slowly learning he did. And the only reason he was ever able to get this far in that journey was because of the four smiling idiots around him. 

When James began to chase Peter around the common room, Remus turned his face to the side just as Y/N did and the two of them just smiled at each other. It was like they were both thinking the same things, but Remus had no way of knowing. Y/N and he had always been friends, but they rarely spent time alone the way he did with Sirius and the way she did with James. It wasn’t weird, it was just the dynamic of their group. But at that moment, as they laughed with each other, he felt like he had known her for years. He felt like she was agreeing with him on how much these people meant to both of them. He was probably projecting, but it made him feel warm with comfort. At the time he didn’t know that she would soon grow to be one of the closest friends he’d ever have, but he found solace in that random second of certain uncertainty.  

tiny little taglist: @kitkatkl​ 

[shortnotsweet]

Bakudeku: A Non-Comprehensive Dissection of the Exploitation of Working Bodies, the Murder of Annoying Children, and a Rivals-to-Lovers Complex

I. Bakudeku in Canon, And Why Anti’s Need to Calm the Fuck Down

II. Power is Power: the Brain-Melting Process of Normalization and Toxic Masculinity

III. How to Kill Middle Schoolers, and Why We Should

IV. Parallels in Abuse, EnemiesRivals-to-Lovers, and the Necessity of Redemption ft. ATLA’s Zuko

V. Give it to Me Straight. It’s Homophobic.

VI. Love in Perspective, from the East v. West

VII. Stuck in the Sludge, the Past, and Season One

Disclaimer

It needs to be said that there is definitely a place for disagreement, discourse, debate, and analysis: that is a sign of an active fandom that’s heavily invested, and not inherently a bad thing at all. Considering the amount of source material we do have (from the manga, to the anime, to the movies, to the light novels, to the official art), there are going to be warring interpretations, and that’s inevitable.

I started watching and reading MHA pretty recently, and just got into the fandom. I was weary for a reason, and honestly, based on what I’ve seen, I’m still weary now. I’ve seen a lot of anti posts, and these are basically my thoughts. This entire thing is in no way comprehensive, and it’s my own opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. If I wanted to be thorough about this, I would’ve included manga panels, excerpts from the light novel, shots from the anime, links to other posts/essays/metas that have inspired this, etc. but I’m tired and not about that life right now, so, this is what it is. This is poorly organized, but maybe I’ll return to fix it.

Let’s begin.

Bakudeku in Canon, And Why Anti’s Need to Calm the Fuck Down

There are a lot of different reasons, that can be trivial as you like, to ship or not to ship two (or more) characters. It could be based purely off of character design, proximity, aversion to another ship, or hypotheticals. And I do think that it’s totally valid if someone dislikes the ship or can’t get on board with his character because to them, it does come across as abuse, and the implications make them uncomfortable or, or it just feels unhealthy. If that is your takeaway, and you are going to stick to your guns, the more power to you.

But Bakudeku’s relationship has canonically progressed to the point where it’s not the emotionally (or physically) abusive clusterfuck some people portray it to be, and it’s cheap to assume that it would be, based off of their characterizations as middle schoolers. Izuku intentionally opens the story as a naive little kid who views the lens of the Hero society through rose colored glasses and arguably wants nothing more than assimilation into that society; Bakugou is a privileged little snot who embodies the worst and most hypocritical beliefs of this system. Both of them are intentionally proven wrong. Both are brainwashed, as many little children are, by the propaganda and societal norms that they are exposed to. Both of their arcs include unlearning crucial aspects of the Hero ideology in order to become true heroes.

I will personally never simp for Bakugou because for the longest time, I couldn't help but think of him as a little kid on the playground screaming at the top of his lungs because someone else is on the swingset. He’s red in the face, there are probably veins popping out of his neck, he’s losing it. It’s easy to see why people would prefer Tododeku to Bakudeku.

Even now, seeing him differently, I still personally wouldn’t date Bakugou, especially if I had other options. Why? I probably wouldn’t want to date any of the guys who bullied me, especially because I think that schoolyard bullying, even in middle school, affected me largely in a negative way and created a lot of complexes I’m still trying to work through. I haven’t built a better relationship with them, and I’m not obligated to. Still, I associate them with the kind of soft trauma that they inflicted upon me, and while to them it was probably impersonal, to me, it was an intimate sort of attack that still affects me. That being said, that is me. Those are my personal experiences, and while they could undoubtedly influence how I interpret relationships, I do not want to project and hinder my own interpretation of Deku.

The reality is that Deku himself has an innate understanding of Bakugou that no one else does; I mention later that he seems to understand his language, implicitly, and I do stand by that. He understands what it is he’s actually trying to say, often why he’s saying it, and while others may see him as wimpy or unable to stand up for himself, that’s simply not true. Part of Deku’s characterization is that he is uncommonly observant and empathetic; I’m not denying that Bakugou caused harm or inflicted damage, but infantilizing Deku and preaching about trauma that’s not backed by canon and then assuming random people online excuse abuse is just...the leap of leaps, and an actual toxic thing to do. I’ve read fan works where Bakugou is a bully, and that’s all, and has caused an intimate degree of emotional, mental, and physical insecurity from their middle school years that prevents their relationship from changing, and that’s for the better. I’m not going to argue and say that it’s not an interesting take, or not valid, or has no basis, because it does. Its basis is the character that Bakugou was in middle school, and the person he was when he entered UA.

Not only is Bakugou — the current Bakugou, the one who has accumulated memories and experiences and development — not the same person he was at the beginning of the story, but Deku is not the same person, either. Maybe who they are fundamentally, at their core, stays the same, but at the beginning and end of any story, or even their arcs within the story, the point is that characters will undergo change, and that the reader will gain perspective.

“You wanna be a hero so bad? I’ve got a time-saving idea for you. If you think you’ll have a quirk in your next life...go take a swan dive off the roof!”

Yes. That is a horrible thing to tell someone, even if you are a child, even if you don’t understand the implications, even if you don’t mean what it is you are saying. Had someone told me that in middle school, especially given our history and the context of our interactions, I don’t know if I would ever have forgiven them.

Here’s the thing: I’m not Deku. Neither is anyone reading this. Deku is a fictional character, and everyone we know about him is extrapolated from source material, and his response to this event follows:

“Idiot! If I really jumped, you’d be charged with bullying me into suicide! Think before you speak!”

I think it’s unfair to apply our own projections as a universal rather than an interpersonal interpretation; that’s not to say that the interpretation of Bakudeku being abusive or having unbalanced power dynamics isn’t valid, or unfounded, but rather it’s not a universal interpretation, and it’s not canon. Deku is much more of a verbal thinker; in comparison, Bakugou is a visual one, at least in the format of the manga, and as such, we get various panels demonstrating his guilt, and how deep it runs. His dialogue and rapport with Deku has undeniably shifted, and it’s very clear that the way they treat each other has changed from when they were younger. Part of Bakugou’s growth is him gaining self awareness, and eventually, the strength to wield that. He knows what a fucked up little kid he was, and he carries the weight of that.

“At that moment, there were no thoughts in my head. My body just moved on its own.”

There’s a part of me that really, really disliked Bakugou going into it, partially because of what I’d seen and what I’d heard from a limited, outside perspective. I felt like Bakugou embodied the toxic masculinity (and to an extent, I still believe that) and if he won in some way, that felt like the patriarchy winning, so I couldn't help but want to muzzle and leash him before releasing him into the wild.

The reality, however, of his character in canon is that it isn’t very accurate to assume that he would be an abusive partner in the future, or that Midoryia has not forgiven him to some extent already, that the two do not care about each other or are singularly important, that they respect each other, or that the narrative has forgotten any of this.

Don’t mistake me for a Bakugou simp or apologist. I’m not, but while I definitely could also see Tododeku (and I have a soft spot for them, too, their dynamic is totally different and unique, and Todoroki is arguably treated as the tritagonist) and I’m ambivalent about Izuocha (which is written as cannoncially romantic) I do believe that canonically, Bakugou and Deku are framed as soulmates/character foils, Sasuke + Naruto, Kageyama + Hinata style. Their relationship is arguably the focus of the series. That’s not to undermine the importance or impact of Deku’s relationships with other characters, and theirs with him, but in terms of which one takes priority, and which one this all hinges on?

The manga is about a lot of things, yes, but if it were to be distilled into one relationship, buckle up, because it’s the Bakudeku show.

Power is Power: the Brain-Melting Process of Normalization and Toxic Masculinity

One of the ways in which the biopolitical prioritization of Quirks is exemplified within Hero society is through Quirk marriages. Endeavor partially rationalizes the abuse of his family through the creation of a child with the perfect quirk, a child who can be molded into the perfect Hero. People with powerful, or useful abilities, are ranked high on the hierarchy of power and privilege, and with a powerful ability, the more opportunities and avenues for success are available to them.

For the most part, Bakugou is a super spoiled, privileged little rich kid who is born talented but is enabled for his aggressive behavior and, as a child, cannot move past his many internalized complexes, treats his peers like shit, and gets away with it because the hero society he lives in either has this “boys will be boys” mentality, or it’s an example of the way that power, or Power, is systematically prioritized in this society. The hero system enables and fosters abusers, people who want power and publicity, and people who are genetically predisposed to have advantages over others. There are plenty of good people who believe in and participate in this system, who want to be good, and who do good, but that doesn’t change the way that the hero society is structured, the ethical ambiguity of the Hero Commission, and the way that Heroes are but pawns, idols with machine guns, used to sell merch to the public, to install faith in the government, or the current status quo, and reinforce capitalist propaganda. Even All Might, the epitome of everything a Hero should be, is drained over the years, and exists as a concept or idea, when in reality he is a hollow shell with an entire person inside, struggling to survive. Hero society is functionally dependent on illusion.

In Marxist terms: There is no truth, there is only power.

Although Bakugou does change, and I think that while he regrets his actions, what is long overdue is him verbally expressing his remorse, both to himself and Deku. One might argue that he’s tried to do it in ways that are compatible with his limited emotional range of expression, and Deku seems to understand this language implicitly.

I am of the opinion that the narrative is building up to a verbal acknowledgement, confrontation, and subsequent apology that only speaks what has gone unspoken.

That being said, Bakugou is a great example of the way that figures of authority (parents, teachers, adults) and institutions both in the real world and this fictional universe reward violent behavior while also leaving mental and emotional health — both his own and of the people Bakugou hurts — unchecked, and part of the way he lashes out at others is because he was never taught otherwise.

And by that, I’m referring to the ways that are to me, genuinely disturbing. For example, yelling at his friends is chill. But telling someone to kill themselves, even casually and without intent and then misinterpreting everything they do as a ploy to make you feel weak because you're projecting? And having no teachers stop and intervene, either because they are afraid of you or because they value the weight that your Quirk can benefit society over the safety of children? That, to me, is both real and disturbing.

Not only that, but his parents (at least, Mitsuki), respond to his outbursts with more outbursts, and while this is likely the culture of their home and I hesitate to call it abusive, I do think that it contributed to the way that he approaches things. Bakugou as a character is very complex, but I think that he is primarily an example of the way that the Hero System fails people.

I don’t think we can write off the things he’s done, especially using the line of reasoning that “He didn’t mean it that way”, because in real life, children who hurt others rarely mean it like that either, but that doesn’t change the effect it has on the people who are victimized, but to be absolutely fair, I don’t think that the majority of Bakudeku shippers, at least now, do use that line of reasoning. Most of them seem to have a handle on exactly how fucked up the Hero society is, and exactly why it fucks up the people embedded within that society.

The characters are positioned in this way for a reason, and the discoveries made and the development that these characters undergo are meant to reveal more about the fictional world — and, perhaps, our world — as the narrative progresses.

The world of the Hero society is dependent, to some degree, on biopolitics. I don’t think we have enough evidence to suggest that people with Quirks or Quirkless people place enough identity or placement within society to become equivalent to marginalized groups, exactly, but we can draw parallels to the way that Deku and by extent Quirkless people are viewed as weak, a deviation, or disabled in some way. Deviants, or non-productive bodies, are shunned for their inability to perform ideal labor. While it is suggested to Deku that he could become a police officer or pursue some other occupation to help people, he believes that he can do the most positive good as a Hero. In order to be a Hero, however, in the sense of a career, one needs to have Power.

Deviation from the norm will be punished or policed unless it is exploitable; in order to become integrated into society, a deviant must undergo a process of normalization and become a working, exploitable body. It is only through gaining power from All Might that Deku is allowed to assimilate from the margins and into the upper ranks of society; the manga and the anime give the reader enough perspective, context, and examples to allow us to critique and deconstruct the society that is solely reliant on power.

Through his societal privileges, interpersonal biases, internalized complexes, and his subsequent unlearning of these ideologies, Bakugou provides examples of the way that the system simultaneously fails and indoctrinates those who are targeted, neglected, enabled by, believe in, and participate within the system.

Bakudeku are two sides of the same coin. We are shown visually that the crucial turning point and fracture in their relationship is when Bakugou refuses to take Deku’s outstretched hand; the idea of Deku offering him help messes with his adolescent perspective in that Power creates a hierarchy that must be obeyed, and to be helped is to be weak is to be made a loser.

Largely, their character flaws in terms of understanding the hero society are defined and entangled within the concept of power. Bakugou has power, or privilege, but does not have the moral character to use it as a hero, and believes that Power, or winning, is the only way in which to view life. Izuku has a much better grasp on the way in which heroes wield power (their ideologies can, at first, be differentiated as winning vs. saving), and is a worthy successor because of this understanding, and of circumstance. However, in order to become a Hero, our hero must first gain the Power that he lacks, and learn to wield it.

As the characters change, they bridge the gaps of their character deficiencies, and are brought closer together through character parallelism.

Two sides of the same coin, an outstretched hand.

They are better together.

How to Kill Middle Schoolers, and Why We Should

I think it’s fitting that in the manga, a critical part of Bakugou’s arc explicitly alludes to killing the middle school version of himself in order to progress into a young adult. In the alternative covers Horikoshi released, one of them was a close up of Bakugou in his middle school uniform, being stabbed/impaled, with blood rolling out of his mouth. Clearly this references the scene in which he sacrifices himself to save Deku, on a near-instinctual level.

To me, this only cements Horikoshi’s intent that middle school Bakugou must be debunked, killed, discarded, or destroyed in order for Bakugou the hero to emerge, which is why people who do actually excuse his actions or believe that those actions define him into young adulthood don’t really understand the necessity for change, because they seem to imply that he doesn’t need/cannot reach further growth, and there doesn’t need to be a separation between the Bakugou who is, at heart, volatile and repressed the angry, and the Bakugou who sacrifices himself, a hero who saves people.

Plot twist: there does need to be a difference. Further plot twist: there is a difference.

In sacrificing himself for Deku, Bakugou himself doesn't die, but the injury is fatal in the sense that it could've killed him physically and yet symbolizes the selfish, childish part of him that refused to accept Deku, himself, and the inevitability of change. In killing those selfish remnants, he could actually become the kind of hero that we the reader understand to be the true kind.

That’s why I think that a lot of the people who stress his actions as a child without acknowledging the ways he has changed, grown, and tried to fix what he has broken don’t really get it, because it was always part of his character arc to change and purposely become something different and better. If the effects of his worst and his most childish self stick with you more, and linger despite that, that’s okay. But distilling his character down to the wrong elements doesn’t get you the bare essentials; what it gets you is a skewed and shallow version of a person. If you’re okay with that version, that is also fine.

But you can’t condemn others who aren’t fine with that incomplete version, and to become enraged that others do not see him as you do is childish.

Bakugou’s change and the emphasis on that change is canon.

Parallels in Abuse, EnemiesRivals-to-Lovers, and the Necessity of Redemption ft. ATLA’s Zuko

In real life, the idea that “oh, he must bully you because he likes you” is often used as a way to brush aside or to excuse the action of bullying itself, as if a ‘secret crush’ somehow negates the effects of bullying on the victim or the inability of the bully to properly process and manifest their emotions in certain ways. It doesn’t. It often enables young boys to hurt others, and provides figures of authority to overlook the real source of schoolyard bullying or peer review. The “secret crush”, in real life, is used to undermine abuse, justify toxic masculinity, and is essentially used as a non-solution solution.

A common accusation is that Bakudeku shippers jump on the pairing because they romanticize pairing a bully and a victim together, or believe that the only way for Bakugou to atone for his past would be to date Midoryia in the future. This may be true for some people, in which case, that’s their own preference, but based on my experience and what I’ve witnessed, that’s not the case for most.

The difference being is that as these are characters, we as readers or viewers are meant to analyze them. Not to justify them, or to excuse their actions, but we are given the advantage of the outsider perspective to piece their characters together in context, understand why they are how they are, and witness them change; maybe I just haven’t been exposed to enough of the fandom, but no one (I’ve witnessed) treats the idea that “maybe Bakugou has feelings he can’t process or understand and so they manifest in aggressive and unchecked ways'' as a solution to his inability to communicate or process in a healthy way, rather it is just part of the explanation of his character, something is needs to — and is — working through. The solution to his middle school self is not the revelation of a “teehee, secret crush”, but self-reflection, remorse, and actively working to better oneself, which I do believe is canonically reflected, especially as of recently.

In canon, they are written to be partners, better together than apart, and I genuinely believe that one can like the Bakudeku dynamic not by route of romanticization but by observation.

I do think we are meant to see parallels between him and Endeavor; Endeavor is a high profile abuser who embodies the flaws and hypocrisy of the hero system. Bakugou is a schoolyard bully who emulates and internalizes the flaws of this system as a child, likely due to the structure of the society and the way that children will absorb the propaganda they are exposed to; the idea that Quirks, or power, define the inherent value of the individual, their ability to contribute to society, and subsequently their fundamental human worth. The difference between them is the fact that Endeavor is the literal adult who is fully and knowingly active within a toxic, corrupt system who forces his family to undergo a terrifying amount of trauma and abuse while facing little to no consequences because he knows that his status and the values of their society will protect him from those consequences. In other words, Endeavor is the threat of what Bakugou could have, and would have, become without intervention or genuine change.

Comparisons between characters, as parallels or foils, are tricky in that they imply but cannot confirm sameness. Having parallels with someone does not make them the same, by the way, but can serve to illustrate contrasts, or warnings. Harry Potter, for example, is meant to have obvious parallels with Tom Riddle, with similar abilities, and tragic upbringings. That doesn’t mean Harry grows up to become Lord Voldemort, but rather he helps lead a cross-generational movement to overthrow the facist regime. Harry is offered love, compassion, and friends, and does not embrace the darkness within or around him. As far as moldy old snake men are concerned, they do not deserve a redemption arc because they do not wish for one, and the truest of change only occurs when you actively try to change.

To be frank, either way, Bakugou was probably going to become a good Hero, in the sense that Endeavor is a ‘good’ Hero. Hero capitalized, as in a pro Hero, in the sense that it is a career, an occupation, and a status. Because of his strong Quirk, determination, skill, and work ethic, Bakugou would have made a good Hero. Due to his lack of character, however, he was not on the path to become a hero; defender of the weak, someone who saves people to save people, who is willing to make sacrifices detrimental to themselves, who saves people out of love.

It is necessary for him to undergo both a redemption arc and a symbolic death and rebirth in order for him to follow the path of a hero, having been inspired and prompted by Deku.

I personally don’t really like Endeavor’s little redemption arc, not because I don’t believe that people can change or that they shouldn't at least try to atone for the atrocities they have committed, but because within any narrative, a good redemption arc is important if it matters; what also matters is the context of that arc, and whether or not it was needed. For example, in ATLA, Zuko’s redemption arc is widely regarded as one of the best arcs in television history, something incredible. And it is. That shit fucks. In a good way.

It was confirmed that Azula was also going to get a redemption arc, had Volume 4 gone on as planned, and it was tentatively approached in the comics, which are considered canon. She is an undeniably bad person (who is willing to kill, threaten, exploit, and colonize), but she is also a child, and as viewers, we witness and recognize the factors that contributed to her (debatable) sociopathy, and the way that the system she was raised in failed her. Her family failed her; even Uncle Iroh, the wise mentor who helps guide Zuko to see the light, is willing to give up on her immediately, saying that she’s “crazy” and needs to be “put down”. Yes, it’s comedic, and yes, it’s pragmatic, but Azula is fourteen years old. Her mother is banished, her father is a psychopath, and her older brother, from her perspective, betrayed and abandoned her. She doesn’t have the emotional support that Zuko does; she exploits and controls her friends because it’s all she’s been taught to do; she says herself, her “own mother thought [she] was a monster; she was right, of course, but it still [hurts]”. A parent who does not believe in you, or a parent that uses you and will hurt you, is a genuine indicator of trauma.

The writers understood that both Zuko and Azula deserved redemption arcs. One was arguably further gone than the other, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are both children, products of their environment, who have the time, motive, and reason to change.

In contrast, you know who wouldn’t have deserved a redemption arc? Ozai. That simply would not have been interesting, wouldn’t have served the narrative well, and honestly, is not needed, thematically or otherwise. Am I comparing Ozai to Endeavor? Basically, yes. Fuck those guys. I don’t see a point in Endeavor’s little “I want to be a good dad now” arc, and I think that we don’t need to sympathize with characters in order to understand them or be interested in them. I want Touya/Dabi to expose his abuse, for his career to crumble, and then for him to die.

If they are not challenging the system that we the viewer are meant to question, and there is no thematic relevance to their redemption, is it even needed?

On that note, am I saying that Bakugou is the equivalent to Zuko? No, lmao. Definitely not. They are different characters with different progressions and different pressures. What I am saying is that good redemption arcs shouldn’t be handed out like candy to babies; it is the quality, rather than the quantity, that makes a redemption arc good. In terms of the commentary of the narrative, who needs a redemption arc, who is deserving, and who does it make sense to give one to?

In this case, Bakugou checks those boxes. It was always in the cards for him to change, and he has. In fact, he’s still changing.

Give it to Me Straight. It’s Homophobic.

There does seem to be an urge to obsessively gender either Bakugou or Deku, in making Deku the ultra-feminine, stereotypically hyper-sexualized “woman” of the relationship, with Bakugou becoming similarly sexualized but depicted as the hyper-masculine bodice ripper. On some level, that feels vaguely homophobic if not straight up misogynistic, in that in a gay relationship there’s an urge to compel them to conform under heteronormative stereotypes in order to be interpreted as real or functional. On one hand, I will say that in a lot of cases it feels like more of an expression of a kink, or fetishization and subsequent expression of internalized misogyny, at least, rather than a genuine exploration of the complexity and power imbalances of gender dynamics, expression, and boundaries.

That being said, I don’t think that that problematic aspect of shipping is unique to Bakudeku, or even to the fandom in general. We’ve all read fan work or see fanart of most gay ships in a similiar manner, and I think it’s a broader issue to be addressed than blaming it on a singular ship and calling it a day.

One interpretation of Bakugou’s character is his repression and the way his character functions under toxic masculinity, in a society’s egregious disregard for mental and emotional health (much like in the real world), the horrifying ways in which rage is rationalized or excused due to the concept of masculinity, and the way that characteristics that are associated with femininity — intellect, empathy, anxiety, kindness, hesitation, softness — are seen as stereotypically “weak”, and in men, traditionally emasculating. In terms of the way that the fictional universe is largely about societal priority and power dynamics between individuals and the way that extends to institutions, it’s not a total stretch to guess that gender as a construct is a relevant topic to expand on or at least keep in mind for comparison.

I think that the way in which characters are gendered and the extent to which that is a result of invasive heteronormativity and fetishization is a really important conversation to have, but using it as a case-by-case evolution of a ship used to condemn people isn’t conductive, and at that point, it’s treated as less of a real concern but an issue narrowly weaponised.

Love in Perspective, from the East v. West

Another thing I think could be elaborated on and written about in great detail is the way that the Eastern part of the fandom and the Western part of the fandom have such different perspectives on Bakudeku in particular. I am not going to go in depth with this, and there are many other people who could go into specifics, but just as an overview:

The manga and the anime are created for and targeted at a certain audience; our take on it will differ based on cultural norms, decisions in translation, understanding of the genre, and our own region-specific socialization. This includes the way in which we interpret certain relationships, the way they resonate with us, and what we do and do not find to be acceptable. Of course, this is not a case-by-case basis, and I’m sure there are plenty of people who hold differing beliefs within one area, but speaking generally, there is a reason that Bakudeku is not regarded as nearly as problematic in the East.

Had this been written by a Western creator, marketed primarily to and within the West (for reference, while I am Chinese, but I have lived in the USA for most of my life, so my own perspective is undoubtedly westernized), I would’ve immediately jumped to make comparisons between the Hero System and the American police system, in that a corrupt, or bastardized system is made no less corrupt for the people who do legitimately want to do good and help people, when that system disproportionately values and targets others while relying on propaganda that society must be reliant on that system in order to create safe communities when in reality it perpetuates just as many issues as it appears to solve, not to mention the way it attracts and rewards violent and power-hungry people who are enabled to abuse their power. I think comparisons can still be made, but in terms of analysis, it should be kept in mind that the police system in other parts of the world do not have the same history, place, and context as it does in America, and the police system in Japan, for example, probably wasn’t the basis for the Hero System.

As much as I do believe in the Death of the Author in most cases, the intent of the author does matter when it comes to content like this, if merely on the basis that it provides context that we may be missing as foreign viewers.

As far as the intent of the author goes, Bakugou is on a route of redemption.

He deserves it. It is unavoidable. That, of course, may depend on where you’re reading this.

Stuck in the Sludge, the Past, and Season One

If there’s one thing, to me, that epitomizes middle school Bakugou, it’s him being trapped in a sludge monster, rescued by his Quirkless childhood friend, and unable to believe his eyes. He clings to the ideology he always has, that Quirkless means weak, that there’s no way that Deku could have grown to be strong, or had the capacity to be strong all along. Bakugou is wrong about this, and continuously proven wrong. It is only when he accepts that he is wrong, and that Deku is someone to follow, that he starts his real path to heroics.

If Bakudeku’s relationship does not appeal to someone for whatever reason, there’s nothing wrong with that. They can write all they want about why they don’t ship it, or why it bothers them, or why they think it’s problematic. If it is legitimately triggering to you, then by all means, avoid it, point it out, etc. but do not undermine the reality of abuse simply to point fingers, just because you don’t like a ship. People who intentionally use the anti tag knowing it’ll show up in the main tag, go after people who are literally minding their own business, and accuse people of supporting abuse are the ones looking for a fight, and they’re annoying as hell because they don’t bring anything to the table. No evidence, no analysis, just repeated projection.

To clarify, I’m referring to a specific kind of shipper, not someone who just doesn’t like a ship, but who is so aggressive about it for absolutely no reason. There are plenty of very lovely people in this fandom, who mind their own business, multipship, or just don’t care.

Calling shippers dumb or braindead or toxic (to clarify, this isn’t targeting any one person I’ve seen, but a collective) based on projections and generalizations that come entirely from your own impression of the ship rather than observation is...really biased to me, and comes across as uneducated and trigger happy, rather than constructive or helpful in any way.

I’m not saying someone has to ship anything, or like it, in order to be a ‘good’ participant. But inserting derogatory material into a main tag, and dropping buzzwords with the same tired backing behind it without seeming to understand the implications of those words or acknowledging the development, pacing, and intentional change to the characters within the plot is just...I don’t know, it comes across as redundant, to me at least, and very childish. Aggressive. Toxic. Problematic. Maybe the real toxic shippers were the ones who bitched and moaned along the way. They’re like little kids, stuck in the past, unable to visualize or recognize change, and I think that’s a real shame because it’s preventing them from appreciating the story or its characters as it is, in canon.

But that’s okay, really. To each their own. Interpretations will vary, preferences differ, perspectives are not uniform. There is no one truth. There are five seasons of the show, a feature film, and like, thirty volumes as of this year.

All I’m saying is that if you want to stay stuck in the first season of each character, then that’s what you’re going to get. That’s up to you.

This may be edited or revised.

[rpbetter]

Wha-? Now people are labeling muns who just play devil's advocate and don't have strong feelings either way about what other people write? I didn't sign up to be a 'proshipper' just for not caring what other people ship. I don't care about a lot of things. Why the label for this particular thing? It sounds so dumb, like a way to yank in more muns who just want to mind their own business into drama and 'sides'. I agree with your post, I'm just angry at the rpc for being babies. And the labels...

I'm always angry at the RPC for being babies and the labels, it's alright, Anon.

I believe (and I could be wrong, because for the most part, I tried to stay out of any and all fandom-related things for years and years - I just want to enjoy the movie/shows/books, I don't need or want to discourse about that shit, you know?) that all of those terms originated in fandom, outside/predating transfer to the RPC.

I know when I encountered them initially, it was in fandom, not the RPC part of fandom...and at that time, it was just the label of people being "antis." A label they gave themselves by, literally, asserting themselves as "anti-character here-."

It's been my supposition that the RPC's transition to being more canon character and fandom-based than OC-preferred led to an organic transfer of more fandom-specific terminology (and behaviors). As places like twitter and tumblr became hubs of fandom and RPCs, they brought tags to the table. While that is an absolutely wonderful thing, it also means that we all started out tagging things with good intentions, only meant to be tags. You could tag something, pulling from a random fandom here, "anti-Daryl Dixon" from TWD and the plethora of fans who love that character could block it. It was a peacekeeping measure at that state, not a flag for discourse and drama.

Tag-language influencing and becoming an organic part of language, in general, is a whole other, though fascinating, topic, so I'm going to just leave that there. The point is, it happened.

And unfortunately, you quickly got people popping "anti-whatever" in their bios and blog descriptions. Not as a means of allowing others to avoid it, but as a means of making it really clear that they despised the character, fandom, ship, whatever. With purity culture 3.5 hitting in earnest, the reasons for despising those things became raised stakes. It wasn't a basis of simply disliking them anymore - you needed a dissertation how this thing was morally objectionable and destroying the world. Anyone disagreeing with you, by that logic, is morally reprehensible themselves and must be stopped. Raised stakes.

Actions cause reactions, too. People started making it clear that they were "pro" whatever, too. These became opposing designations, and honestly, I'm not sure who started up "proshipper" first. I only know I saw it being used negatively first, that doesn't mean it happened that way! What I've seen has been the entire ship/write/like what you want crowd being given that label negatively and taking it up themselves in the same way people are given to take up a lot of things they've been negatively called.

By "what I've seen," I don't just mean witnessing it happening in the wild lol it happened to me, as well. I reblogged a post about how shipping wasn't activism, and got an anon informing me that I was a disgusting proshipper (every time I reblog that, I get at least one person popping off in my RP inboxes, actually, it hasn't slowed down any). At which point, I, too, was very much like, I'm a what now? Yes, I am okay with shipping? What the hell is this person even on about?

So, it's my theory that in response to the anti movement, some people stated that they were "pro-ship and let ship" and thus...we got to be "disgusting proshippers."

Regardless, it absolutely is just another way of labeling people in order to single them out and/or keep feeding drama, yes.

And again, I feel you. I know labels, good, bad, reclaimed, whatever, seem to give a lot of people a grounded sense of identity, but I've always been uncomfortable with them. I don't understand the need for them, even if I get that they make others feel a certain way. I just want to feel the way I do, be the person I am, and have that person engaged with based singularly on my actions.

It's alright if someone else wants to freely label themselves in a way they feel is positive (though, I do wish that younger people, especially in the queer community didn't have this batshit pressure to do so, and correctly, the first time), but they've always felt threatening and restrictive to me.

As such, having people create and bestow a label on me for the purpose of designating me a problem is kind of an uncomfortable realization of why I feel negative about them. I don't like it, and it's part of why I don't like the bullshit of making this distinction in DNIs. By doing so, they're literally as hell singling people out...with a negative label they gave them for the criminal act of feeling like it's absurd to police fiction, instead, expecting adults to behave like adults when engaging with fiction and each other.

It's honestly forcing hostility and drama, when the point of being ship/write/like and let ship/write/like is not having that hostility and drama. It's merely a live and let live mentality, that's what y'all are attacking! The labeling is a rotting cherry on top that is so indicative of this same, legitimately problematic, behavior that goes on in the extremism I talked about in the post you referenced. It's...gross, let's just say that.

And I'm really sorry that it makes you upset, too! You don't have to label yourself, you can reject that and refuse to engage with those using it in this negative way. That makes me feel considerably less annoyed and disturbed! I'll totally joke about it, as I do fall into the designated parameters of being both "proship" and "anti-anti," but I don't actually label myself thus. I only consider myself a reasonable adult who has better and more serious shit going on than to worry about what fiction someone else is writing or enjoying.

Just...do be aware that, like myself and others, you're likely to be labeled if one of these hostile parties sees you reblog the "wrong" thing or make the "wrong" statement. You are being labeled in those DNIs for your viewpoint of wishing to avoid absurd drama. So, I'd advise, for your peace of mind, to try to avoid blogs stating that they're "anti" anything but drama/bullying etc., or who feel it necessary to put up those DNIs. You are who they're talking about, they just don't know it because you're not labeling yourself or being otherwise obvious about it :/

Try your best to avoid that changing, you deserve to peacefully enjoy RP! As disturbing as it is, as rightfully upset about it as you are, maybe it's a good thing you found out? In this way, I mean. Without someone bringing it to your inbox hatefully. Now you know what it means, that they mean you, and you can stay away from it! Try to look at it that way - there will always be people weirdly desperate to make their drama hobby everyone else's problem, you can only make an effort to stay out of it if you know what to look for, right?

I hope any of this made you feel better about the fresh hell that is the RPC lol keep doing you, Anon! You're not the problem, infantile drama mongers are <3

[snapeaddict]

YMMV but Lily was a stand in for Rowling. It's why the relationship with James is uncomfortable to read.

(I hope I guessed the meaning of stand in well because I am not totally sure)

In reference to this post about Gryffindor's (and JKR's) belief in their moral superiority.

Ah, yes op. I do think JKR wrote Lily as this, in her eyes, symbol of perfection for Harry, this symbol of goodness and kindness. I'm sure she saw her behaviour toward Severus as completely okay and positive, I'm sure she never questioned her writing of this apparently flawless character even during The Prince's Tale. But the fact she wrote Lily as flawless (more of a symbol than a character, honestly) doesn't mean she is actually flawless and we now know how problematic JKR's work can be.

I think, and this is a personal opinion, that JKR wrote Lily according to her standards of what a good person is like. Standards she also applies to herself, because she, as an author, and Lily, as her stand in character, have many similarities in the way they view the world and behave toward others. I am of course not comparing a real person and fictional character, but trying to show how one can influence the writing of a character - and what this person thinks of this character, which can be reflected through the narrative and main character's POV. Then, by extension, all of this strongly influences our own views on the character as readers, especially when reading the books for the first time. Some things that are disturbing to us and not understood by Rowling:

Strong belief in your own moral integrity: JKR seems to use her books as a weapon against those who point out her narrow-mindness, constantly reminding us she wrote them as a message of love and acceptance, "including" diversity in her world. She never questions her own behavior. She wrote Lily as morally flawless also because she is a Gryffindor and muggle-born: Lily, if you follow her narrative, is in her right to condemn and be critical of Severus' friends and choices, and to highlight her Gryffindor classmates moral superiority (ie they don't use dark magic) to justify the fact she grants herself the right to judge her friend and condemn his friends without addressing bullying. Because she knows better, and is moraly superior. Just as the narrative never really adressed the fact bullying by Gryffondors on a Slytherin isn't justified because they are "on the good side". JKR considers herself to be part of the Good People™, for many reasons, thus doesn't see any problem is writing blog posts explaining to some people why they are a threat to her own feminist fight or how they should behave. Of course I make NO comparison between her transphobia and a fictional character's behaviour; I'm just trying to show there is a similar pattern of behaviour which is, if I have to sum it up: I have moral integrity because [...] ➡️ So this moral superiority cannot be questioned ➡️ So this gives me the right to judge you/tell you how to behave without sweeping my own backyard.

Quick to condemn, unable to understand: This moral superiority (let's face it, Gryffindor are always portrayed as moraly superior in the books which nearly always justifies for discrimination against Slytherin) JKR thinks she has for reasons said above has for consequence the fact she gives herself the right to point out people's supposed flaws and "dangerous" behaviour without ever giving them time to explain, or listening to them. She sees what she wants to see, and so does Lily as she wrote her: the narrative makes of the fact she never gives Snape the opportunity to explain himself a normal thing, because we already know he is in the wrong; she already knows it and decided it, so why would she even ask?

Belief in your own right to judge and change people: for all the reasons I wrote above. You can question behaviours, you can point out flaws and issues: but you, as a person, cannot grand yourself the right to say "I know better than you do because this, this and this, so please change for me or I'll stop being kind to you." To JKR, this is perfectly acceptable behaviour (for example, "she knows and love trans people" but to the condition they remain silent and do not threaten her fragile views on feminism. If they do, she'll consider them a threat.) She writes Lily with a similar kind of behaviour regarding Slytherins: "without trying to understand who you are and why you are the person I see standing in front of me, without educating myself on your motives or asking for you pov, I ask you to change to match my own standards, no matter what it costs you."

Use of minorities, etc to serve personal aims and display your moral integrity: We have a whole history of JKR using sexual orientations or racial minorities to promote her work's open-mindness without ever giving them a voice or listening to them, trying to understand them. She writes Lily as a character who has such a good heart she is friends with Slytherin, dark arts affiliated Severus Snape and who knows it: "My friends (moraly superior Gryffindors) don't even know why I still hang out with you". ie "you should be grateful and their opinions have more values than yours to me." She points out her own benevolence at still accepting Severus as a friend, but never tries to understand Severus' own bravery and struggle at still being friend with her while having to survive in Slytherin house as a half blood (which was obviously more difficult). While reading this particular extract from the text, I cannot unsee the fact she (or JK) seems to think she does Severus a favor for being his friend (in context it's perhaps understandable), but it's very telling JKR would write this - we get the message as readers. The conclusion being, Lily had to be this moraly perfect girl as she had a Slytherin friend. I cannot say it's not implied by the narrative or it's not what JKR thought (she has lesbian and trans friends, so what she says cannot be discriminating/are justified by her supposed openness). Another disturbing and wrong way of thinking.

Belief that your belonging to one oppressed minority prevents you from oppressing others: JKR uses her identity as a woman in a patriarcal society, her statues as a woman who suffered from this patriarchy, to justify her transphobia and point out the fact she, as part of a group which is oppressed, do not oppress others (her blog post on "Why I'm not transphobic" is very telling). My feelings when I read Lily's character (but this may be interpretations from my part) is that her statues as muggle-born also automatically grants her moral integrity or at least a moral compass (narrative-wise) to be judgemental over Severus' relations and to decide whether or not the Marauder's actions toward him were serious: there is a kind of disturbing hierarchy that is created with Slytherin using dark arts and having prejudices against muggle borns (according to her) vs the Marauders and their pranks (not serious at all especially in comparison for her, and anyways they are Gryffindors). As if the fact she is the victim of oppressors means she doesn't have responsibilities or all she does is somehow justified or cannot mean ill (for example, turning her back on Severus while he is being sexually assaulted after he insulted her. She had a duty to perform as a prefect, which she wasn't even doing well before he said anything). The problem isn't her, she has reasons to act the way she does and flaws like all human beings. The problem is that the narrative (thus JKR) sides with her and never have us readers question her behaviour as well. It matches her inner belief that some people's moral integrity cannot be questioned for certain reasons. We are never offered another pov, we are never shown another perspective (of course Lily as a character isn't the one supposed to be this meta): for example, we could have been shown how easy it is to fall into radicalisation especially when you're an abused and neglected child from a poor social background and a minority. (Again I'm not saying it was up to Lily as a character to understand this. She had no obligation toward Severus and isn't all mighty and a Saint. The "problem" is that the narrative is trying to portray her as such because the author truly believes this is how a good person behaves and should be looked at.)

All of this of course being unconsciously accepted, but never put in question. Lily's behavior being of course viewed more positively because no matter how flawed it was, it served honorable aims: fighting against the disgusting blood purity ideology. Her values are honorable. So to me, of course JKR was convinced of Lily's human perfection and inherent goodness because I think she wrote her according to her own views and beliefs on the matter. Which is why, if we grant importance to the narrative, her marrying someone as crual as James Potter is disturbing according of what is said of her:

"Not only was she a singularly gifted witch, she was also an uncommonly kind woman. She had a way of seeing the beauty in others even, and perhaps most especially, when that person couldn't see it in themselves."

But, when you take a step back, you realise that her marriage with James is a consequence of JKR's internalised sexism, as she heavenly implied macho and possessive behaviour such as displayed by James were attractive to girls in the end, and, if you take another step back, you realize JK never understood the seriousness of the bullying she wrote so it didn't look so appealing to her that Lily would date James as it is to us.

Then, if we really think of the characters themselves and not JKR's intentions, I think James and Lily were a good match for various reasons, not all negative.

I'm afraid this is a little clumsy and I just really want to say, I'm not blaming Lily for her behavior even if we must acknowledge the fact she wasn't a very good friend and was very far from being perfect; I'm not making a comparison between real life issues and fictional ones, or between author and fictional character: I'm trying to show why Lily appeared as such a model of goodness into JKR's eyes, which shines through the way she tells the story, because she was written according to the writer's standards - some standards and positions we cry about every day when we open twitter. It's not really about her transphobia or use of minorities, but the reasons why she thinks she has a right to give judgemental opinions and ask people to change, her own system of thinking. Her - phobia are a consequence of this but I have to talk about them to show how it seems to me JKR thinks of herself and of others.

This is not anti Lily Potter, she still was a good person and lived in a particular context which also explains certain aspects of her behavior; this has nothing to do with making Snape look better or finding him excuses.

It has everything to do with the way the author viewed her characters and certainly failed to understand the seriousness and complexity of all subjects she chose to address. With the way she sees things and how her characters behave sometimes accordingly.

(Like, for example, not making any comparison, I'm sure she really thought it was positive when she created the house elves, slaves that are happy to be slaves and making fun of those who are disturbed by their conditions and having the only free elf die; I'm sure she thought the message was good when it clearly reeks of colonialist fantasy, thus her own opinions and views as a white British in the 90s [not generalising this to anyone else!], certainly internalised.)

PLEASE MAKE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "SHE WRITES LILY THIS WAY" AND JUST "LILY".

[endlessdoom]

180 Minutes Pour Vivre

32 + 1 maps

By the French Doom Community

2020

https://doomwiki.org/wiki/180_Minutes_Pour_Vivre

MAP01: De Bronze et de Brique by Arnaud Florian (Oxyde)

A small introduction to this fantastic french flavored adventure. This is a small map that introduces us to a few optional areas while giving us a clear welcome to the kind of visuals we will encounter. A nice and fun map. 3/5

MAP02: Yttrium by William Huber (WH-Wilou84)

Things get a little more dense and complex in this small map that makes use of a circular layout that takes us through different interconnected paths, offering a constant and entertaining progress. 4/5

MAP03: Retour sur Terre by Maxime Bisiaux (Datacore)

Deep level in a subway system with a multitude of secret doors, monster closets and evolving rooms. With a moody ambience and excelent lightning, this is av very lovely stroll. A slightly higher challenge but always finding a good balance with a frenetic pace. 4/5

MAP04: Ignominie by Thenuke - Alia Immortalis

Interesting short map and singularly simple compared to others, but with a combat that despite being somewhat modest in the full range, manages to satisfy with enough. Cute. 3/5

MAP05: Grand Bleu by Alexis Jeanson (Roofi)

A great battle scenario that serves as a small warm-up for the maps coming later in the megawad. With a layout that expands and sends hordes of enemies with plenty of ammunition, this map entertains with sincerity and simplicity. 3/5

MAP06: Complexe Cendré by Jean-Charles Dorne (JCD)

We went through a lot of enemies and now we have the welcome of an interesting layout along with a more tactical enemy positioning. New companions welcome us, demonic companions I mean, and a few surprises in a circuit style map with good fibers. Pretty fun. 4/5

MAP07: Chaologie Quantique by Maxime Bisiaux (Datacore) and William Huber (WH-Wilou84)

We return to the interiors and are now in a dark, tight and relatively simple map that makes more use of constant close encounters than anything else. 3/5

MAP08: Ruée vers Laure by Alexis Jeanson (Roofi)

Interesting change from tech-bases/industrial zones to a more natural area that seems to be inspired by mining caves. With an understandable layout under a small size, this is a fast map that combines different heights in a good layout as well as a decent challenge. 3/5

MAP09: Pour une Vengeance by William Huber (WH-Wilou84)

The first challenge we will face in this great megawad. A large map with a fortress in the middle, guarded by a multitude of enemies in different positions and waiting to fight in different and varied encounters. We are also introduced to the two new enemies of this megawad: the Nightwatch Cacodemon, a slightly stronger and more violent version of the Cacodemon and the Heresiarch, a rather dangerous bastard that replaces the Spidermastermind. Overall, a great map with a solid challenge. 4/5

MAP10: Triléthal by Arnaud Florian (Oxyde) and Jean-Charles Dorne (JCD)

Smaller than the previous one but with a design just as detailed and full of solid visual quality. The virtue of this map lies in its fast flow and constant combat as well as a good positioning of enemies that makes perfect synergy with the type of level we have. I've always found it interesting because there are 2 doors with extra keys that we won't even find, as we'll soon find out as we progress through this map. But I must say, clever design! 4/5

MAP11: Où Est le Berger by Franck Livolant (franckFRAG)

One of the first maps that could be considered as proper slaughter. This is an adventure of varied heights with a great design that shows quality in its progression. With a final combat quite unexpected and large, this map throws us into a fun and balanced challenge. 4/5

MAP12: Impact Ecologique by Maxime Bisiaux (Datacore)

Now that we have completed the previous map and we are with the death-exit, we start from 0 in a map that reminds me of E4M1. Few items, but a lot of blood. The layout and simple architecture make this a very charismatic level. 4/5

MAP13: Chair Boueuse by Blême

What starts out as a vanilla looking map, ends up becoming a corruption of flesh and sin. A fast map with an intricate layout that shows good design and attention to gameplay. 4/5

MAP14: La Belle et la Bête by Alexis Jeanson (Roofi)

Probably one of the most interesting and creative maps in the megawad, although not one of my favorites. The small size of this map emphasizes a closed, dark and claustrophobic environment, as well as full of traps and small puzzles. In UV we will find a rather violent surprise, which gives it a cat-and-mouse style, but in lower skill-levels it is slightly lackluster. 3/5

MAP15: Feinte by William Huber (WH-Wilou84)

The heights contrast with the violent map, illuminated by the metallic ground and the blood of the demons. A medium sized map that combines a simple layout from left to right. Simple in terms of its dynamics but with a hard and welcoming combat. 4/5

MAP16: Sur le Chemin de Satan by Nemo06

A kind of tech-dungeon with dark corners and varied rooms where different demons await us. The combat style and simple layout make this simple map a fun and fast one, with a decent challenge. 3/5

MAP17: Etat D'Urgence by Arnaud Florian (Oxyde) and William Huber (WH-Wilou84)

A huge power station guarded by the infernal hordes. This map has a complex layout that can be a bit lost at times, but it makes up for it with a good design and variety of encounters, as well as a worthy and challenging climax. 4/5

MAP18: Le Temple des Damnés by Nemo06

A kind of small temple in the middle of a canyon, colorful and filled with a few waiting demons. A small combat scenario with a short duration. Fun and decent. 3/5

MAP19: Inquiétude by William Huber (WH-Wilou84)

From one side to the other, we will always find enemies in this medium-sized map that makes excellent use of a constant and dynamic flow that changes the type of encounters and constantly throws new challenges at us. With a simply hellish design and a solid structure, this is an enjoyable, if somewhat punishing, map. 4/5

MAP20: Infernale Résurgence by Maxime Bisiaux (Datacore)

A small and tight map with a simple and entertaining layout. The visuals create an irritating atmosphere that manages to establish the infernal inspiration without a problem. With simple and uncomplicated combat, it's a short and fun map that works as a good intermission. 3/5

MAP21: Canicule by Maxime Bisiaux (Datacore)

We entered the infernal mouth. We will have to go through a kind of lava river while we face different demons in tight corners, all under an excellent red dye that emanates a great ambience. 4/5

MAP22: Une Journée en Enfer by Nemo06

A subway fortress with tight corridors and personal combat. A map that is fast in its progress and with a satisfying flow that delivers entertaining, fast and balanced combat in a simple way. 3/5

MAP23: Anomalie Eternelle by Maxime Bisiaux (Datacore) and William Huber (WH-Wilou84)

With Sign of Evil in the background, we can quickly know that this map is coming to give us a good taste of blood. Tight, bloody and red, the corridors force us to constantly backtrack and seek shelter, while monster closets pop up where we least expect them, including a brutal one at the end. 3/5

MAP24: Rêve Lucide by Alexis Jeanson (Roofi)

A floating island in an ocean of red clouds. With a more earth-like style and colors that remind me slightly of Plutonia, this map makes use of an excellent combat and exploration dynamic while keeping it relatively simple. Nice and fun, as well as challenging at times. 4/5

MAP25: Geôle Nécrosée by William Huber (WH-Wilou84)

Massive and colorful, as well as dark and spooky from time to time; a large map with tough and hard combat. Different encounters form an entertaining and varied progression, as well as solid visuals of great magnitude. 4/5

MAP26: Monument en Béton by Darkwave0000

A square map with a simple layout that takes us through a variety of encounters at different points. Combat is entertaining and dynamic, as well as rewarding and satisfying. 4/5

MAP27: Sable Brûlant by Alexis Jeanson (Roofi)

I have to say that I am a bit biased by the visuals of this map. I love the type of color used and the textures work wonderfully to bring a sort of classic life with a modern twist. A small map with a simple premise and brutal combat. Cool as heck. 4/5

MAP28: Inhumation by Jean-Charles Dorne (JCD)

A beast. A real beast that will probably break many. This is a huge map in terms of the number of enemies, offering brutal combat in every sense and a very entertaining gameplay for slaughter lovers, unfortunately, I'm not one of them. 3/5

MAP29: Xanthophobie by William Huber (WH-Wilou84)

Gigantic, fatal and amazing. A massive adventure of more than 1000 demons where we face in a scenario of infernal proportions. Challenging, punishing and definitely one of the hardest maps in the set. 4/5

MAP30: Celui-Qui-Voit-Les-Mondes by Maxime Bisiaux (Datacore), Alexis Jeanson (Roofi), Franck Livolant (franckFRAG), Jean-Charles Dorne (JCD), Arnaud Florian (Oxyde) & William Huber (WH-Wilou84)

I'm pretty sure this titan was made in over 180 minutes. A huge, gigantic map that is as full of demons as it is varied rooms. With a system of teleporters to different arenas/combat zones, this behemoth feels like a complete odyssey. Absolute beast and a magnificent piece of work. 5/5

MAP31: Dictes Moy Où, N'en Quel Pays est Sérana, la Belle Doomeuse by Jean Bon (Jambon)

A simple map with a funny layout based on two bases connected by bridges. Short, with somewhat lackluster visuals, but decent. 3/5

MAP32: Rêve Brisé by Alexis Jeanson (Roofi)

Small map with a more gothic and claustrophobic design, featuring a variety of traps and interesting paths. Unique aesthetics and a quite appreciable mood. 4/5

End.

Overall:

» 180 Minutes Pour Vivre (2020) By the French Doom Community

The French community has been responsible for providing us with different works over time. Starting with the great series of 3 heures d'agonie, 3 complete megawads made in speedmap style, followed by Tangerine Nightmare, a great medieval beast and finally, 180 Minutes Pour Vivre. A speedmap that collects the best skills of the mappers under a violent French toast. A somewhat burnt one that will give us a good bite on the tongue if we are not careful. The French community has been responsible for leaving us a huge legacy that has no end, and this megawad is here to prove it.

What we have here is a complete megawad with 32 more (plus 1 extra) created under the supposed assumption of 180 minutes, although some suspect that certain authors took more than that. Rumors, people say, right? Anyway. As we can expect, the team has sought to create a cohesive adventure that takes us through a variety of scenarios under the same visual touch and following a progressive balancing system, presenting an increasing hostility curve for each map, but always showing mercy to the idea of overexposing the player to too strong madness. Speaking of crazy, 180MPV also includes two new curious enemies: A common one, the Nightwatch Cacodemon, which is a slightly stronger version of the Cacodemon with a lethal attack, as well as Hexen's Heresiarch that now replaces the Spidermastermind, being a worthy boss in every sense of the word and a dangerous threat. And let’s not forget the awesome re-skins of the Arachnotron, the Mancubus and the scary looking demon Revenant. With a solid concept and the inclusion of new enemies, as well as a well-laid foundation, 180 Minutes Pour Vivre presents fascinating inclusions and new maps for the community that are totally welcome.

180 Minutes Pour Vivre follows a clear and defined visual theme, with dark colors, browns and strong contrasts between the exterior and interior scenery. The vast majority of the maps tend to be similar in visual style and color/texture theme, with a few exceptions. With no clear episodic separation, megawad truly feels like a huge adventure that goes on and on, following a narrative with no real pause at any point. Even the intermission screens often say ''press space to continue'' or something similar. A rather simple touch but one that manages to work as a modest way of saying: don't stop playing. On the other hand, this also creates a cacophony of quantity, creating a huge project that can feel empty of identity at times due to maps that are generally solid, but lack true identification. This could be partly blamed on being speedmaps, but it still doesn't change the whole fact; despite this, each map clearly states its goal and achieves it in an excellent way. There’s no ugly map, or even a boring one. Is plain good, plain fun and plain brutal from time to time, more on that next.

One of the aspects that make this megawad stand out is undoubtedly its gameplay, one of its golden factors that give it a truly unique touch. The Slaughter stage, 2020 was a year filled with a huge multitude of projects following that theme, 180 Minutes Pour Vivre on the other hand manages to establish a good balance between traditional gameplay with a few final surprises. Starting with a solid map that perfectly establishes its intentions, to a final map that will blow our minds. Each map manages to deliver something for all tastes. From casual lovers (in part) to lovers of brutal violence. The new enemies help to create this atmosphere of difficulty with a bit of freshness, as well as the creation of new combat scenarios welcome for those looking for a little change in their traditional gameplay. 180 Minutes Pour Vivre is not an easy megawad, it must be said, however, neither is it an elitist one that blocks the doors to every player. Pleasantly balanced in all skill-levels, it opens the doors to a wide range of players who wish to delve into a glorious example of combining two worlds under one successful mix. With a multitude of maps ranging from tiny adventures to huge fortresses with more than 800 demons. A brutal experience that will take us a few hours to finish, but will leave us fully pleased at the end.

[howwelldoyouknowyourmoon]

A History Of God – The 4,000-year quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam

“I say that religion isn’t about believing things. It’s ethical alchemy. It’s about behaving in a way that changes you, that gives you intimations of holiness and sacredness.” — Karen Armstrong on Powells.com

book by Karen Armstrong (2004)

The idea of a single divine being – God, Yahweh, Allah – has existed for over 4,000 years. But the history of God is also the history of human struggle. While Judaism, Islam and Christianity proclaim the goodness of God, organised religion has too often been the catalyst for violence and ineradicable prejudice. In this fascinating, extensive and original account of the evolution of belief, Karen Armstrong examines Western society’s unerring fidelity to this idea of One God and the many conflicting convictions it engenders. A controversial, extraordinary story of worship and war, A History of God confronts the most fundamental fact – or fiction – of our lives.

____________________________________

Review: Armstrong, a British journalist and former nun, guides us along one of the most elusive and fascinating quests of all time – the search for God. Like all beloved historians, Armstrong entertains us with deft storytelling, astounding research, and makes us feel a greater appreciation for the present because we better understand our past. Be warned: A History of God is not a tidy linear history. Rather, we learn that the definition of God is constantly being repeated, altered, discarded, and resurrected through the ages, responding to its followers’ practical concerns rather than to mystical mandates. Armstrong also shows us how Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have overlapped and influenced one another, gently challenging the secularist history of each of these religions. – Gail Hudson

____________________________________

The Introduction to A History of God:

As a child, I had a number of strong religious beliefs but little faith in God. There is a distinction between belief in a set of propositions and a faith which enables us to put our trust in them. I believed implicitly in the existence of God; I also believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the efficacy of the sacraments, the prospect of eternal damnation and the objective reality of Purgatory. I cannot say, however, that my belief in these religious opinions about the nature of ultimate reality gave me much confidence that life here on earth was good or beneficent. The Roman Catholicism of my childhood was a rather frightening creed. James Joyce got it right in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man: I listened to my share of hell-fire sermons. In fact Hell seemed a more potent reality than God, because it was something that I could grasp imaginatively. God, on the other hand, was a somewhat shadowy figure, defined in intellectual abstractions rather than images. When I was about eight years old, I had to memorise this catechism answer to the question, ‘What is God?’: ‘God is the Supreme Spirit, Who alone exists of Himself and is infinite in all perfections.’ Not surprisingly, it meant little to me and I am bound to say that it still leaves me cold. It has always seemed a singularly arid, pompous and arrogant definition. Since writing this book, however, I have come to believe that it is also incorrect.

As I grew up, I realised that there was more to religion than fear. I read the lives of the saints, the metaphysical poets, T. S. Eliot and some of the simpler writings of the mystics. I began to be moved by the beauty of the liturgy and, though God remained distant, I felt that it was possible to break through to him and that the vision would transfigure the whole of created reality. To do this I entered a religious order and, as a novice and a young nun, I learned a good deal more about the faith. I applied myself to apologetics, scripture, theology and church history. I delved into the history of the monastic life and embarked on a minute discussion of the Rule of my own order, which we had to learn by heart. Strangely enough, God figured very little in any of this. Attention seemed focused on secondary details and the more peripheral aspects of religion. I wrestled with myself in prayer, trying to force my mind to encounter God but he remained a stern taskmaster, who observed my every infringement of the Rule, or tantalisingly absent. The more I read about the raptures of the saints, the more of a failure I felt. I was unhappily aware that what little religious experience I had, had somehow been manufactured by myself as I worked upon my own feelings and imagination. Sometimes a sense of devotion was an aesthetic response to the beauty of the Gregorian chant and the liturgy. But nothing had actually happened to me from a source beyond myself. I never glimpsed the God described by the prophets and mystics. Jesus Christ, about whom we talked far more than about ‘God’, seemed a purely historical figure, inextricably embedded in late antiquity. I also began to have grave doubts about some of the doctrines of the Church. How could anybody possibly know for certain that the man Jesus had been God incarnate and what did such a belief mean? Did the New Testament really teach the elaborate – and highly contradictory – doctrine of the Trinity or was this, like so many other articles of the faith, a fabrication by theologians centuries after the death of Christ in Jerusalem?

Eventually, with regret, I left the religious life and once freed of the burden of failure and inadequacy, I felt my belief in God slip quietly away. He had never really impinged upon my life, though I had done my best to enable him to do so. Now that I no longer felt so guilty and anxious about him, he became too remote to be a reality. My interest in religion continued, however, and I made a number of television programmes about the early history of Christianity and the nature of the religious experience. The more I learned about the history of religion, the more my earlier misgivings were justified. The doctrines that I had accepted without question as a child were indeed man-made, constructed over a long period of time. Science seemed to have disposed of the Creator God and biblical scholars had proved that Jesus had never claimed to be divine. As an epileptic, I had flashes of vision that I knew to be a mere neurological defect: had the visions and raptures of the saints also been a mere mental quirk? Increasingly, God seemed an aberration, something that the human race had outgrown.

Despite my years as a nun, I do not believe that my experience of God is unusual. My ideas about God were formed in childhood and did not keep abreast of my growing knowledge in other disciplines. I had revised simplistic childhood views of Father Christmas; I had come to a more mature understanding of the complexities of the human predicament than had been possible in the kindergarten. Yet my early, confused ideas about God had not been modified or developed. People without my peculiarly religious background may also find that their notion of God was formed in infancy. Since those days, we have put away childish things and have discarded the God of our first years.

Yet my study of the history of religion has revealed that human beings are spiritual animals. Indeed, there is a case for arguing that Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. Men and women started to worship gods as soon as they became recognisably human; they created religions at the same time as they created works of art. This was not simply because they wanted to propitiate powerful forces but these early faiths expressed the wonder and mystery that seems always to have been an essential component of the human experience of this beautiful yet terrifying world. Like art, religion has been an attempt to find meaning and value in life, despite the suffering that flesh is heir to. Like any other human activity, religion can be abused but it seems to have been something that we have always done. It was not tacked on to a primordially secular nature by manipulative kings and priests but was natural to humanity. Indeed, our current secularism is an entirely new experiment, unprecedented in human history. We have yet to see how it will work. It is also true to say that our Western liberal humanism is not something that comes naturally to us; like an appreciation of art or poetry, it has to be cultivated. Humanism is itself a religion without God – not all religions, of course, are theistic. Our ethical secular ideal has its own disciplines of mind and heart and gives people the means of finding faith in the ultimate meaning of human life that were once provided by the more conventional religions.

When I began to research this history of the idea and experience of God in the three related monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, I expected to find that God had simply been a projection of human needs and desires. I thought that ‘he’ would mirror the fears and yearnings of society at each stage of its development. My predictions were not entirely unjustified but I have been extremely surprised by some of my findings and I wish that I had learned all this thirty years ago, when I was starting out in the religious life. It would have saved me a great deal of anxiety to hear – from eminent monotheists in all three faiths – that instead of waiting for God to descend from on high, I should deliberately create a sense of him for myself. Other Rabbis, priests and Sufis would have taken me to task for assuming that God was – in any sense – a reality ‘out there’; they would have warned me not to expect to experience him as an objective fact that could be discovered by the ordinary rational process. They would have told me that in an important sense God was a product of the creative imagination, like the poetry and music that I found so inspiring. A few highly respected monotheists would have told me quietly and firmly that God did not really exist – and yet that ‘he’ was the most important reality in the world.

This book will not be a history of the ineffable reality of God itself, which is beyond time and change, but a history of the way men and women have perceived him from Abraham to the present day. The human idea of God has a history, since it has always meant something slightly different to each group of people who have used it at various points of time. The idea of God formed in one generation by one set of human beings could be meaningless in another. Indeed, the statement: ‘I believe in God’ has no objective meaning, as such, but like any other statement it only means something in context, when proclaimed by a particular community. Consequently there is not one unchanging idea contained in the word ‘God’ but the word contains a whole spectrum of meanings, some of which are contradictory or even mutually exclusive. Had the notion of God not had this flexibility, it would not have survived to become one of the great human ideas. When one conception of God has ceased to have meaning or relevance, it has been quietly discarded and replaced by a new theology. A fundamentalist would deny this, since fundamentalism is anti-historical: it believes that Abraham, Moses and the later prophets all experienced their God in exactly the same way as people do today. Yet if we look at our three religions, it becomes clear that there is no objective view of ‘God’: each generation has to create the image of God that works for them. The same is true of atheism. The statement ‘I do not believe in God’ has always meant something slightly different at each period of history. The people who have been dubbed ‘atheists’ over the years have always been denied a particular conception of the divine. Is the ‘God’ who is rejected by atheists today, the God of the patriarchs, the God of the prophets, the God of the philosophers, the God of the mystics or the God of the eighteenth-century deists? All these deities have been venerated as the God of the Bible and the Koran by Jews, Christians and Muslims at various points of their history. We shall see that they are very different from one another. Atheism has often been a transitional state: thus Jews, Christians and Muslims were all called ‘atheists’ by their pagan contemporaries because they had adopted a revolutionary notion of divinity and transcendence. Is modern atheism a similar denial of a God’ which is no longer adequate to the problems of our time?

Despite its other-worldliness, religion is highly pragmatic. We hall see that it is far more important for a particular idea of God to work than for it to be logically or scientifically sound. As soon as it ceases to be effective it will be changed – sometimes for something radically different. This did not disturb most monotheists before our own day because they were quite clear that their ideas about God were not sacrosanct but could only be provisional. They were man-made – they could be nothing else – and quite separate from the indescribable Reality they symbolised. Some developed quite audacious ways of emphasising this essential distinction. One medieval mystic went so far as to say that this ultimate Reality – mistakenly called ‘God’ – was not even mentioned in the Bible. Throughout history, men and women have experienced a dimension of the spirit that seems to transcend the mundane world. Indeed, it is an arresting characteristic of the human mind to be able to conceive concepts that go beyond it in this way. However we choose to interpret it, this human experience of transcendence has been a fact of life. Not everybody would regard it as divine: Buddhists, as we shall see, would deny that their visions and insights are derived from a supernatural source; they see them as natural to humanity. All the major religions, however, would agree that it is impossible to describe this transcendence in normal conceptual language. Monotheists have called this transcendence ‘God’ but they have hedged this around with important provisos. Jews, for example, are forbidden to pronounce the sacred Name of God and Muslims must not attempt to depict the divine in visual imagery. The discipline is a reminder that the reality that we call ‘God’ exceeds all human expression.

This will not be a history in the usual sense, since the idea of God has not evolved from one point and progressed in a linear fashion to a final conception. Scientific notions work like that but the ideas of art and religion do not. Just as there are only a given number of themes in love poetry, so too people have kept saying the same things about God over and over again. Indeed, we shall find a striking similarity in Jewish, Christian and Muslim ideas of the divine. Even though Jews and Muslims both find the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation almost blasphemous, they have produced their own versions of these controversial theologies. Each expression of these universal themes is slightly different, however, showing the ingenuity and inventiveness of the human imagination as it struggles to express its sense of ‘God’.

Because this is such a big subject, I have deliberately confined myself to the One God worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims, though I have occasionally considered pagan, Hindu and Buddhist conceptions of ultimate reality to make a monotheistic point clearer. It seems that the idea of God is remarkably close to ideas in religions that developed quite independently. Whatever conclusions we reach about the reality of God, the history of this idea must tell us something important about the human mind and the nature of our aspiration. Despite the secular tenor of much Western society, the idea of God still affects the lives of millions of people. Recent surveys have shown that ninety-nine per cent of Americans say that they believe in God: the question is which ‘God’ of the many on offer do they subscribe to?

Theology often comes across as dull and abstract but the history of God has been passionate and intense. Unlike some other conceptions of the ultimate, it was originally attended by agonising struggle and stress. The prophets of Israel experienced their God as a physical pain that wrenched their every limb and filled them with rage and elation. The reality that they called God was often experienced by monotheists in a state of extremity: we shall read of mountain tops, darkness, desolation, crucifixion and terror. The Western experience of God seemed particularly traumatic. What was the reason for this inherent strain? Other monotheists spoke of light and transfiguration. They used very daring imagery to express the complexity of the reality they experienced, which went far beyond the orthodox theology. There has recently been a revived interest in mythology, which may indicate a widespread desire for a more imaginative expression of religious truth. The work of the late American scholar Joseph Campbell has become extremely popular: he has explored the perennial mythology of mankind, linking ancient myths with those still current in traditional societies, is often assumed that the three God-religions are devoid of mythology and poetic symbolism. Yet, although monotheists originally rejected the myths of their pagan neighbours, these often crept back into the faith at a later date. Mystics have seen God incarnated a woman, for example. Others reverently speak of God’s sexuality and have introduced a female element into the divine.

This brings me to a difficult point. Because this God began as a specifically male deity, monotheists have usually referred to it as ‘he’. In recent years, feminists have understandably objected to this. Since I shall be recording the thoughts and insights of people who called God ‘he’, I have used the conventional masculine terminology, except when ‘it’ has been more appropriate. Yet it is perhaps worth mentioning that the masculine tenor of God-talk is particularly problematic in English. In Hebrew, Arabic and French, however, grammatical gender gives theological discourse a sort of sexual counterpoint and dialectic, which provides a balance that is often lacking in English. Thus in Arabic al-Lah (the supreme name for God) is grammatically masculine, but the word for the divine and inscrutable essence of God – al-Dhat – is feminine.

All talk about God staggers under impossible difficulties. Yet monotheists have all been very positive about language at the same time as they have denied its capacity to express the transcendent reality. The God of Jews, Christians and Muslims is a God who – in some sense – speaks. His Word is crucial in all three faiths. The Word of God has shaped the history of our culture. We have to decide whether the word ‘God’ has any meaning for us today.

____________________________________

Biography Karen Armstrong is the author of numerous other books on religious affairs –including A History of God, The Battle for God, Holy War, Islam, Buddha, and The Great Transformation – and two memoirs, Through the Narrow Gate and The Spiral Staircase. Her work has been translated into forty-five languages. She has addressed members of the U.S. Congress on three occasions; lectured to policy makers at the U.S. State Department; participated in the World Economic Forum in New York, Jordan, and Davos; addressed the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington and New York; is increasingly invited to speak in Muslim countries; and is now an ambassador for the UN Alliance of Civilizations. In February 2008 she was awarded the TED Prize and is currently working with TED on a major international project to launch and propagate a Charter for Compassion, created online by the general public and crafted by leading thinkers in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, to be signed in the fall of 2009 by a thousand religious and secular leaders. She lives in London.

_______________________________________

From Publishers Weekly This searching, profound comparative history of the three major monotheistic faiths fearlessly illuminates the sociopolitical ground in which religious ideas take root, blossom and mutate. Armstrong, a British broadcaster, commentator on religious affairs.., argues that Judaism, Christianity and Islam each developed the idea of a personal God, which has helped believers to mature as full human beings. Yet Armstrong also acknowledges that the idea of a personal God can be dangerous, encouraging us to judge, condemn and marginalize others. Recognizing this, each of the three monotheisms, in their different ways, developed a mystical tradition grounded in a realization that our human idea of God is merely a symbol of an ineffable reality. To Armstrong, modern, aggressively righteous fundamentalists of all three faiths represent “a retreat from God.” She views as inevitable a move away from the idea of a personal God who behaves like a larger version of ourselves, and welcomes the grouping of believers toward a notion of God that “works for us in the empirical age.”

_______________________________________

My wish: The Charter for Compassion – Karen Armstrong

Karen Armstrong TED Talk given in 2008

What God is, or isn’t, will continue to morph indefinitely unless…

_______________________________________

Richard Barlow:

‘The whole thing about the messiah is a human construct’

The Divine Principle: Questions to consider about Old Testament figures

How “God’s Day” was established on January 1, 1968

_______________________________________

Divine Principle – Parallels of History

_______________________________________

“… Many Koreans therefore have difficulty understanding and accepting religions that have only one god and emphasize an uncertain and unknowable afterlife rather than the here and now. In the Korean context of things, such religions are anti-life and do not really make sense…”  LINK

[tf-reconciliation]

Prime Megatron vs. IDW1 Megatron analysis that no one asked for

This is really slapdash and was done in like an hour and a half this morning so there’s probably some incorrectness about timeline stuff (especially with IDW1 Megs), but this is pretty much all opinion. This is also really long, so I put it under a read more.

There’s some things to think about regarding Prime Megs vs other Megses with similar backstory (thinking primarily IDW1 [and this is all my interpretation based on what we get in MTMTE] Megs).

In Exodus, it’s implied early on that while Megs does want to reform the government of Cybertron he wants to do it with him at the top as “Prime.” My impression of this is that he has a thought process of “the government sucks, I could do it better, and I deserve to be the one in charge of doing it.”

Here’s Megatron’s speech to the Council in Chapter Thirteen of Exodus, without the narration unless it’s crucial for context:

“In the beginning I had not name. None of us did. We spoke to each other, down in the mines and the smelters, by electronic signature. We indicated each other by function. We assigned each other nicknames. I was D-16, named for the sector of mine where I conducted demolition operations. And then I saw my first match in the gladiator pits. That is where I first learned how life was for the lower castes that none of you ever take a nanoclick to consider. Each Cybertronian in that balcony has seen more Cybertronians die himself than the total of you in the rest of the gallery. Our lives are worthless!

Until--Until we decided we had worth. We, the lower castes. We, the bots who die in subsurface mills and factories creating all of the things that you up here take for granted. We learned that we were individuals by facing off against each other in the gladiator pits in Slaughter City and Kaon, and how did we know we were individuals?” He waited for a moment to let the question sink in. “We knew we were individuals because as we killed our opponents in the ring, we saw in their deaths the realization that they were individuals. And so we knew we were, too. In killing, we understood life. In being the most disposable of commodities--a gladiator, whose remains are thrown into the junkpile to be picked over and scavenged, the healthy pieces sold off to brokers in Iacon and Crystal City--in being disposable, we discovered that we had value. Someone would pay us for what we did. Someone would cheer when we killed, and roar in anger when we died.

So if our lives had worth--even to others just as worthless as we were--then we had the right to names. And that is how the sequence of events started that led to me being here before you today. My friend Orion Pax, I thank you for helping our cause gain this platform; and to the High Council, I express my thanks for your time and attention.”

This is your usual fare for miner-cum-gladiator-cum-revolutionary-cum-tyrant Megatron. The Council goes on to ask him about the bombings at Six Lasers (among others), and he says that he had nothing to do with it and that he “disavow[s] any act that does not ultimately herald a new and better era on Cybertron.” The Council then asks, “Are you not responsible if your rhetoric excites those unfortunates without your willpower, though? Do you not have the same kind of responsiblity that this Council and its members have, if your leadership position is to be taken seriously?”

Megatron does not directly answer the question. Instead he says, “What you have to worry about is what will happen if my leadership is not taken seriously.” I kind of see this response as a thinly veiled threat to the Council.

Now, this chapter is ultimately from Orion Pax’s point of view, so we get his views on things: “Orion Pax couldn’t decide whether to admire him or be scandalized that he could stand up in front of the High Council and ignore the truth.” Orion believes that Megatron is ultimately responsible for these bombings because of his rhetoric.

The plot moves on with Halogen, the main dude on the Council, calling for the Guilds to speak . Orion then gets up to speak, first insulting the Guild representative and subtly blaming the Guilds for loosing contact with the colony worlds. It is Orion who calls for the Council to choose a new prime: “Choose well, for a Prime might either lead Cybertron to a new golden era in history, or stand by as the dark energies of anger and resentment explode into planetwide chaose and war.”

We then move into chapter fourteen.

Halogen then goes on to say that these two have a point the caste system has already begun to be upended. Most of this is just plot and talking about Sentinel Prime and how he’s missing.

Orion has an epiphany: “We cannot count on anything. No existing structure can handle the problems we have raised.” And he realizes that Megatron has realized it as well, but has had a different reaction:

“Megatron looked as if he could gleefully have presided over the permanent and total destruction of every institution of Cybertronian civilization. Orion Pax wanted to be free. But if there were no Cybertron, if there were no Iacon or Hydrax or Sonic Canyons...then what good would freedom do?”

The Council goes on and on about the Matrix of Leadership, culminating with Halogen saying that it has bee lost for billions of cycles and according to Alpha Trion it might be found “in these turbulent times.” Megatron says, very softly, “yes” at this point. He thinks that Halogen is talking about him; he thinks that the council is going to choose him to be the next Prime.

And Megatron starts projecting, in my opinion. He’s angry, which he is allowed to be seeing as things didn’t go his way and anger is a natural reaction to that, he feels betrayed, though he hasn’t actually been betrayed. He accuses Orion of just wanting power. He begins to mock him: “Does Cybertron not call out in its hour of need and find...a data clerk?”

Its at this point that we get back to my earlier point of Megatron thinking that he should be in charge. He reminds Orion that he didn’t know the plights of the lower castes until he met Megatron. He learned from Megatron. I believe at this point that Megatron is having a moment of “Why should the student surpass the master? Why should this more privileged ‘bot be the Prime when I have lived this injustice first hand?” These are fair questions, and I do think that a good portion of why the Council chose Orion as the next Prime has to do with him simply being less confrontational in his speech.

To me, it seems that Prime Megatron wanted the power to change Cybertron himself, and when he was denied it, he resorted to violence. While he was a miner at the start, he is primarily a gladiator. He says it himself that he didn’t truly learn what life was like for the lower castes until he first saw, and began participating in, gladiatorial matches. He knows violent solutions to violent problems first and foremost. He also spends a lot of time in later chapters thinking about “when i’m prime…” and while some of that might be to blame on Dark Energon, I think it’s also a lot of his own thoughts. He first aspired to be the leader of the gladiators, which he became. What’s to stop him aspiring to be Prime?

Now, IDW1 Megatron is an entirely different beast (at least re: early early on ala “Births, Deaths, and Interventions” and Elegant Chaos). I’m not as familiar with him between the events of BD&I and basically the rest of anything. I don’t know how exactly he gets from miner to tyrant.

What I do know is that at the beginning, he does not want to be in charge. Terminus tells him that he has two weapons, his brain and his fists, and he must be prepared to use both of them. Megatron rejects being a figurehead. His job “is to articulate the injustice at the heart of the system in the hope that others might be inspired as one, to push against it.” Terminus is almost pushing him to be this figurehead that he doesn’t want to be.

M: “I’m not a figurehead.”

T: “But you may yet become one—and that’s why you need to listen to me. Never back down. Never compromise. Never bend. The moment you try to accommodate a rival set of interests, you subordinate your own. When your enemies realize they can’t corrupt you, or contain you, or appease you…that’s when you’ll have their attention—because that’s when you become a genuine threat.”

M: “You’re focusing too much on the individual. Lasting power rests with the collective.”

T: “Of course—but the masses need someone to rally behind. Someone to take point. And even after that, even after you’ve forced the world to be fair…the top table is set for one. You must be prepared to sit alone.”

Now. I have opinions about Terminus that aren’t…positive. But here he’s pushing—he’s pushing for Megatron to take control, to lead almost singularly; he’s pushing against what Megatron wants. I think it’s important to realize that at some point you might have to resort to violence of some sort, but I think it’s also important to encourage peacefulness until you get to the point where it is literally impossible to do otherwise.

In Elegant Chaos part 1, present day Megs has a conversation with Orion Pax (we love time travel shenanigans) and he asks, “Why rely on someone else coming along and doing your job for you—someone who may not actually want the job?” This question implies that at some point before the war properly started, he still didn’t want to be the one in charge. I believe that he was somewhat content writing and inspiring people to change the system.  As evidenced in Elegant Chaos pt. 2 when Megatron is talking with Impactor: “Because the revolution will be about ideas. Taking a new step, uttering a new word…That’s what the ruling elite fears the most. Violence solves nothing.” Also, if I remember correctly he hides under the table during the fight in the bar.

[theholycovenantrpg]

CONGRATULATIONS, JENNA! YOU’VE BEEN ACCEPTED FOR THE ROLE OF BASTIEN AVALOS.

Admin Rosey: Jenna, I cannot emphasize enough how in love I am with the way that you captured Bastien. He was one of the characters that is driven singularly by passion and impulse, and he is the one character that takes a person’s heart and never lets go of it until he tires, then goes for another. From your ideas for development, to the para sample - this application holds you captive just as Bastien does. The Holy Land isn’t ready for Bastien to enter center stage, but boy, I definitely am. Thank you for this wonderful application - and please, be handle our hearts gently...before smashing them to pieces.  Please create and send in your account, review the information on our CHECKLIST, and follow everyone on the FOLLOW LIST. Welcome to the Holy Land!

OUT OF CHARACTER

Alias | Jenna Age | 21 Personal Pronouns | she/they Activity Level | My activity really varies throughout the week! I work on weekdays ( gross, I know ), and am also completing an honours degree this year so will mostly be around on evenings and on the weekends!! My aim is usually to get on for replies every couple of days, but I generally make myself available for plotting every day! Timezone | gmt+10 Triggers | REMOVED. How did you find the group?  | in the tags! but I recognised your names from diverona and just knew I had to apply!! Current/Past RP Accounts | https://marymacd.tumblr.com/ // https://leonagw.tumblr.com/

IN CHARACTER

Character | Bastien Avalos

What drew you to this character? | Wow, okay, where do I begin? Bastien is a very different character to the ones I usually play, and I think I was initially drawn to his recklessness. Bastien doesn’t just flirt with danger - he courts it, and I find this very fascinating as I’ve always tended to play very strategic, cautious, and calculated characters in the past, which Bastien just isn’t. I think there’s lots of potential to develop him as a character - both in the way of coming to terms with his past and exploring the events that have brought him to where he is, and in terms of his future - now that he’s had his autonomy ripped from him and burdened with a responsibility he never wanted, and one that he’s quite ill-equipped for, there’s definitely a lot of room to develop him in very interesting ways.

I’m also drawn to the idea of portraying a mortal walking among immortals - and yet, having very little regard for his own mortality. He’s spent his whole life running headfirst into danger - picking fights he knows he won’t win just for the sheer thrill of it - just to get a few battle scars and a great story at the end of it. It’s fascinating to me that, out of all the characters in this group, he’s perhaps the most vulnerable due to his status as mortal, and yet he acts as though he’s unbreakable, living life with a sort of heedlessness that is so uniquely human. He’s aware of his limited lifespan in comparison to those around him, but he’s determined to do as much as he possibly can with the time he has, to ensure that he leaves a great story behind when he goes.

What future plots do you have in mind for the character? |

001. SINS OF THE FATHER - Listen, the potential to explore Bastien’s relationships with his family was far too rich and complex for me to pass up putting it first. Let’s start with the obvious, shall we? Bastien killed his father - obviously, it was in defence of his mother, and I don’t necessarily think that he regrets what he did ( only that it put him into a position of power and left him responsibility he is neither equipped nor wanting to handle ), but it definitely has left an impact on him. Though not specifically mentioned in his bio - I think it’s very unlikely that Bastien has told anyone what really happened that night ( the family probably lied it away, that the former Lord Avalos was murdered by someone seeking some kind of retribution before fleeing in the night, never to be seen again ), and I think it would be very interesting to see how this guilt plays on him, and how he struggles with having to feign anger at the mystery of his father’s demise while knowing full well what really happened. Yes, Bastien may be a dumbass, but he’s not as stupid as everyone thinks, and he knows that the truth of what happened to his father coming out would be bad not only for him, but for his whole family, and he’s going to do whatever it can to keep the secret from surfacing, even if that means lying to the ones closest to him ( of course….. I, personally, would love for people to find out what happened to his father eventually, the drama of it all is too much to pass on ).

I would also love to explore how the death of his father has shaped his relationships with the rest of his family - his mother in particular. Though his sisters may have their suspicions, I also feel that they’re likely as in the dark as anyone else regarding the circumstances of their father’s death ( and, honestly, he wasn’t a particularly nice man, so none of them have any intention of digging any deeper into it ). However, Bastien’s mother knows exactly what happened, and, more importantly, why. I’d honestly love to explore the idea of her being angry with Bastien for what he did - for jeopardising the family name and putting himself in harm’s way yet again, despite it being to save her life. In my head, she cares more about Bastien’s wellbeing than her own, and thinks that what he did was a mistake that he didn’t think through ( which, to be fair, he did not ). Also, now that Bastien is Lord Avalos - how does this change their relationship? It’s a responsibility he never wanted, but one that his mother insisted he must take on after the death of his father. I think there’s the potential for a lot of resentment to build between them, which is particularly interesting ( and sad ) because I think they have always had a fairly strong relationship throughout Bastien’s youth and early adulthood.

002. ADAM & EVE - Let’s! Talk! About! Evangeline! In all seriousness, I think that the relationship between Basien and Evangeline has so, so much potential and is definitely one of the main reasons I was drawn to the character in the first place. I mean, best friends who are practically closer than family is one of my favourite tropes. I really think of Evangeline as being one of the only things that really keeps Bastien grounded - he’s reckless and foolish at the best of times, and she has the potential to be a counter to this rashness. At the same time, Bastien’s immaturity ( for lack of a better word ) can help lift Evangeline and invite some youthfulness into both of their lives. I don’t want to infer too much about their past or their current relationship, as this is obviously something I want to discuss with Evangeline’s mun, but I do want to discuss the secrets that Bastien is keeping from Evangeline. For one, their connection states that he knows the truth about what happened to Evangeline’s parents, something she herself doesn’t know, and something he’s been keeping from her ( for what he believes to be her own good - but, really, shouldn’t Evangeline get to be the judge of that? ).

But, what happens when she finds out what really happened, and that her best friend has been lying to her for so long? Again, I don’t want to assume anything as this is entirely up to Evangeline’s mun, but I do think there is the potential for some drama™ here. Bastien didn’t do what he did for bad reasons, he’s not a sinister character, and he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing - but I can definitely see a world where it doesn’t come across this way. Along the same lines, I think that if Bastien was going to tell anyone about what happened to his father, it would be Evangeline. I don’t imagine that he’s told her yet, but I can definitely see this as a possibility. I think he would be worried about how she would react, and I can really see it going either way ( again, this is all subject to the interpretation of Evangeline’s mun ), but her reaction ( especially in light of what happened to Lady Treme ) is again, something which could be very interesting to explore.

003. A SEAT AT THE TABLE - Does Bastien deserve a seat at the Round Table? Absolutely not. Will he work hard to ensure he is respected and taken seriously? Also no. Bastien and responsibility are two things that nobody would have ever previously thought to associate. Growing up, Bastien seemed to exist on the periphery of his father’s world, a reckless kid always looking for trouble and never bothering to learn from his mistakes - he was an unwelcome stain on an otherwise pristine Avalos legacy. Nobody in any position of power thought to take the former Lord Avalos’ heir seriously, and perhaps many of them prayed the father world outlive the son ( it wouldn’t have been too unreasonable an assumption to make, given the number of times Bastien would return home late at night, bloody and bruised after picking a fight with someone he shoudn’t have ). Perhaps many of them were rightfully surprised to see Bastien take his seat at the Round Table following the untimely demise of his father - perhaps they’d been expecting him to simply walk away from the responsibility, to throw in the towel and leave the Round Table without an Avalos for the first time in history.

He’d wanted to - power and responsibility weren’t well-suited to Bastien’s personality. Sure, he had a knack for military strategy, and he wasn’t a bad fighter on his own, but he never saw himself as a general, as a leader, and he certainly doesn’t see himself this way now. He’d been willing to walk away from it all, but urgent prompting from his mother forced Bastien to rethink this position and take up a seat of power that he never imagined himself holding. He’s angry, of course, that his life has been whittled down to this - that he didn’t see this coming when he’d taken his father’s life, but he’ll do it for the sake of his family. I’d love to explore Bastien’s newfound responsibilities, and how he reacts to this. There’s the potential for a great amount of resentment to form - he never wanted this life for himself, he always imagined himself surmounting to bigger and better things, and, yes, he’s angry that he has to spend his days playing politics when he could be out exploring the world and living a life worthwhile.

I do see a possibility of it all becoming too much for Bastien - of him wanting to give up and escape and start anew. I’m not really sure how this would play out, in all honesty, but I think the resentment that Bastien has towards his life and his position could be very interesting to explore. I also would love to develop Bastien’s connections with the other members of the Round Table. I don’t imagine anyone will take him very seriously, and his naivety leaves him open to manipulation and sabotage. How do the others perceive him? How will they use him? This is the aspect of Bastien that is the most vulnerable - because he has no idea what he’s doing, and I’d love to see this come back to bite him, I’d love to see someone use this to their advantage, and against Bastien’s.

004. REFLECTION OF THE PAST - Although he isn’t aware of it, Bastien’s current life isn’t his first. He’s the reincarnation of Adam - how does this affect the way that he lives? I don’t imagine that Bastien is very aware of this fact, sure, he has strange dreams from time to time, and can’t help but feel as though he’s experienced certain moments in his life beforehand, feelings so familiar that he can practically grasp them - but he never stops for long enough to think much of them. As the memories of his past life begin to come back to him more clearly, I’d really like to explore how this impacts the way that Bastien lives. Is he doomed to simply repeat the same mistakes that he made in the past, or is there room for him to forge his own destiny? I think that Bastien likes to think of himself as a free spirit - all his life, he was actively rebelling from the part that his father wished for him to play, seeking out danger and relishing in the thrill of adrenaline pumping through his veins, rather than playing politics or making power grabs or leading the military with a steady hand - I think it would come as quite a shock to him to realise that he hasn’t really been becoming his own man at all - that he was simply following in the footsteps of a past life. I think it could actually be, potentially, quite upsetting for Bastien, and trigger some serious changes and introspection on his part. Of all my plot ideas, this is probably the least fleshed out, but I really want to explore how this impacts him, as I think there’s potentially a lot of room for some serious character development on the back of him realising that he’s just a copy of someone who came before.

IN DEPTH

Driving Character Motivation | I think, more so than anything else, Bastien is driven by passion. He’s certainly not the type of person to sit around and think things through before he does them - he doesn’t consider consequences or the why of his actions until later on. He chases whatever he imagines will be the most exciting use of his time, what he thinks will make the best story later on, what will make him feel the most alive. He’s not motivated to think very far beyond what is happening right in front of him, to consider how his actions might have repercussions for himself or for others later down the track. He’s motivated to follow whatever will serve him best in any given moment - whether it be pleasure, a thrill, or material gains. He flirts with danger not to test his own mortality ( okay, a little to test his own mortality ) but because he finds there to be no better feeling than that of pure adrenaline coursing through his veins. His loyalties and beliefs come second to that search for adventure, that search for the next high, the next story, the next great escapade.

Character Traits |

+ CHARISMATIC - exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others. + PASSIONATE - having, showing, or caused by strong feelings or beliefs. + OPPORTUNISTIC - exploiting immediate opportunities, especially regardless of planning or principle. - RECKLESS - heedless of danger or the consequences of one’s actions; rash or impetuous. - MERCURIAL - subject to sudden or unpredictable changes of mood or mind. - IRRESPONSIBLE - not showing a proper sense of responsibility.

In-Character Para sample |

It’s raining.

This kind of weather would usually annoy Bastien ( there’s far fewer possibilities of what to do with oneself when the weather is poorly ), but, today, he’s glad for it - while the rain mixes with tears on his mother and sisters’ faces, it manages to conceal the fact that, were it not for the unfortunate weather, Bastien’s own cheeks would be perfectly dry. His eyes are not spilling a single drop, his breath does not hitch, and his limbs only tremble from the cold - his knuckles turning white as he holds an imposing charcoal umbrella over his head.

For one normally so consumed with emotion ( one to whom anger and joy come in equal, loud measures and often within the same beat ), Bastian looks almost akin to the statues he currently finds himself surrounded by - stony faced and lifeless. Normally his face can tell a story all on its own - one of joy, or triumph, adventure, or defeat - and perhaps, to the uninformed observer, his current sterility could be chalked up to grief or to shock, but, in truth, he has quashed any emotion he might feel so as to avoid the catastrophic mistake of letting something slip that he’d prefer the public weren’t privy to. His mother had warned him - you’re grieving. You’re grieving. You’re grieving.

He wasn’t grieving.

Perhaps it should be a concern, he thinks, as he gazes at his father’s headstone ( some ironic inscription about a loving husband and father stares back at him, mockingly ), that he doesn’t feel anything akin to sorrow - the emotion he’d expect most people to feel when attending their parent’s funeral. Perhaps he should be sad - after all, this is the final day of his life as he knows it, is it not? The final day where he is able to wake up and enjoy a clean slate, to have possibilities stretched out ahead of him, tantalisingly close and yet just a stone’s throw out of reach. This ceremony marks the end of his father’s reign as Lord Avalos, and tomorrow morning, the title and responsibilities that come with it will fall to him. It’s a rather unenviable situation, he’d say.

He glances sideways at his mother - she’s sobbing quietly as one of his sisters recites some old poem. He’s suddenly angry, the desire to shake her and scream washes over him - he wasn’t a good man, mother, he had no love for us, mother, he would have killed you, mother - but then he remembers how she had screamed as Bastien plunged the dagger he’d been gifted for his twenty-fifth birthday into the heart of the man who had raised him, remembers the silence that followed as they had cleaned his blood from their clothes, and the urge goes as quickly as it had came, replaced again by stony faced resolve.

It’s been raining for the past two days, and Bastien can feel himself slowly sinking into the mud underfoot.

He’s not cut out for leadership, he thinks. Sure, he has a knack for military strategy, and a keen interest in it ( this is perhaps the only thing he and his father had had in common ), but general? A seat at the Round Table? It all seemed like too much of a stretch for the man who just a few weeks ago was picking fights with men twice his size in the city square for a bit of fun, the man who had three fake teeth because the real ones had been knocked out by quicker, stronger opponents, the man who had skirted responsibility for most of his life. If he’d had time to think, he might have tried a different method to stop his father from laying a hand upon his mother ( it had been a blur, though, adrenaline taking over and the urge to protect stronger than any rationality ) - but this was the problem, wasn’t it?

Bastien didn’t think. He never did. He’d always been a doer - acting with his heart and leaving his head to deal with the consequences later on ( if he ever did deal with them - too often it seemed he simply walked away from the messes he made, leaving a trail of skeletons behind him wherever he went, hoping desperately to outrun them lest they grab hold and pull him back down to face the music ). Now, suddenly, he’s expected to take up a position of power, of responsibility - to represent not only his family ( which he’d never done a particularly good job of ), but all of mortalkind. He’d tried to run from this, too, but sometimes fate is too powerful to escape. His mother had insisted he grin and bear his new responsibilities - he’d hurt the Avalos name enough by this point, hadn’t he?

It seems almost like a cruel twist of fate - that someone who had become so used to avoiding responsibility would be suddenly weighed down by one so great. Suddenly dashed were all of Bastien’s hopes to live life as a free man - to go where he wanted, to do as he pleased. This had never been the life he’d envisioned from himself - from the moment he could dream of something beyond himself, he’d dreamt of a life beyond all of this - beyond the rigid structure his father had long tried to force him into, beyond the rules everyone around here seemed so keen to follow blindly. He’d quickly earned the reputation of reckless, foolhardy, untoward, tempestuous, and he’d secretly reveled in it. Now, he can practically feel the eyes of his father’s former associates boring into the back of his skull - waiting for him to make a mistake, to claw their own way into power.

It’s ironic, really - they’re waiting to make him a villain, yet everything he’d done until now would suggest him to already be one.

He’s become quite accustomed to feigning grief over the past few days - it wasn’t too much of a stretch, really, he’s always been a terribly gifted liar. Not always for nefarious purposes, mind you. More often than not, his lies were altruistic in nature. He’d spin elaborate tales of grandeur and chivalry out of petty fights for his sisters and classmates. He’d convince his mother that the ghastly gash above his eye would heal up just fine ( it didn’t ) and that it didn’t even hurt ( it did ). He could brush off concern or anger or disappointment with a flash of his teeth and a little white lie, he could bounce from person to person, emotion to emotion, leaving everyone he met with a slightly different impression depending on what they wanted to see. And he could keep secrets buried deep in his chest, rotting him from the inside, when he felt they might do more harm when spoken aloud.

He could lie about this, then, too. He could lie that he was ready ( and willing ) to take on this new responsibility - just as he had feigned shock at the sight of his father’s dead body. Just as he had feigned anger that no culprit had yet been found. Just as he could feign mourning around his sisters, or remorse around his mother. Just as he could feign grief - just as he is right now, the fat droplets of rain serving as decent enough replacements for genuine tears. He’d handle this - of course he would handle this, just as he had handled everything else in his life up until now - with a laugh and a grin and a great story at the end of it.

“Bastien,” It’s his mother speaking, she tugs gently at his arm. The ceremony is over. He hadn’t even noticed that people had started to file out of the cemetery. “It’s time to go.”

Extras | Pinterest / Mock blog

Thank you so much for taking the time to read my application ( again )! I love the look of this group, and I love Bastien, and I hope I get the opportunity to write with you all soon!!

[personalityarchive]

Mike Morton 7w6

[[28 August 2020

Originally written as a comment thread on PDB]]

I will admit that I did a double take seeing the consensus vote on Mike’s enneatype. I had thought it rather plain to see that he is a base type 7, but apparently that is not the case. Perhaps his career as a performer is what caused the mistype, but it’s still strange to imagine a type 3 Mike. (I also got a bit of a chuckle out of seeing Mike voted as chaotic good when he’s clearly a chaotic neutral character. More on that in its own thread.)

As a character with a full set of deduction targets, several costumes, and accessories, there is an abundance of information on Mike’s character that I feel is vital in discerning his true enneatype. From his deductions alone, it’s quite obvious that he cares less about personal image or professional success than he does about trying new things and having a good time. Especially the parts of the deduction tree written from Mike’s first person perspective, it’s obvious that image and career is a secondary consideration, tied more to the 7’s desire to be entertaining than from the 3’s desire to maintain a “good image”.

Mike’s second deduction target, entitled “The Secret of Juggling”, has this description line: “Throwing isn't just an interesting skill. It's what makes a juggler successful.” Now, if this was all it had to say about him, I would agree, a 3 interpretation wouldn’t be far-fetched at all. However, the deduction conclusion is what is truly significant here, as it is in fact a diary entry from Mike himself. The deduction tagline could be interpreted as a general statement on Mike’s career, or even as an opinion from Bernard himself. Meanwhile, the conclusion has this to say:

“Diary 1: Bernard said that the size and shape of the bag, as well as the type of filling, are critical. He refused my request to fill the bag with stones, stating that it was ‘hazardous’.”

We can see here that Mike is less interested in appealing to the expectations of others, and indeed, in maintaining a polished image, than Bernard is. What Mike is interested in is in fact trying out new things, even dangerous ones — his phrasing of Bernard’s response to his proposal shows that what he finds frustrating is feeling limited in his options. Mike doesn’t seem too convinced that his idea should have been rejected, and was less concerned with the practicality of it than he was in simply exploring the possibility. This is clearly far more indicative of a 7 than of a 3.

Now, based on what Bernard told Mike — namely, that he identified certain factors as “critical” to the bags used in juggling — we can infer that it is Bernard who is concerned about keeping up appearances, or doing things the “right way” (suggesting perhaps a base 1 or 3 for him). From this, we can further conclude that the tagline of this deduction target is indeed a reflection of Bernard’s thoughts rather than Mike’s.

This flows into the next deduction, “Artistic Acts”, with the description: “Creativity is what ensures that the stage performances continue to improve.” Again, this sounds like a statement from Bernard’s perspective, and perhaps offers us some insight into why Bernard treated Mike with the kind of leniency that permitted Mike’s later experimentation with acid and nitre. Since Bernard is the one in charge of the circus, he is the one concerned with constantly improving the show; because Mike’s creativity allows him to come up with new ideas (and gives him the natural charisma that propelled him into the position of audience favorite), Bernard is willing to let Mike get away with quite a bit.

Meanwhile, the conclusion for Artistic Acts gives us a summary for one of Mike’s own writings: “Notebook: The properties of Nitre and some ‘Test Records’ were recorded in detail.” The implication here is that Mike was not very concerned with how his experiments would directly benefit his performances; in fact, the notebook’s contents give a sense of unease, communicating a message in direct opposition to the deduction target summary. Not only is nitre entirely unnecessary in improving his performance as an acrobat, but Mike’s behavior seems rather secretive in nature. So, the purpose of this deduction target is to show a disconnect between the way Bernard perceived Mike and the activities that Mike was actually engaging in. Bernard saw Mike as an invaluable member of the Hullabaloo Circus, and assumed that the experiments and ideas Mike explored all went into augmenting said performances. Of course, by advancing along the deduction tree, it becomes increasingly clear that Mike’s area of interest had little to do with his professional success.

Taking a step back and analyzing the deduction targets for Mike from a more holistic standpoint, a certain pattern emerges. We can see that the first 5 deduction targets are separated from the last 5 in tone and perspective.

1) “Family: He's like a father; an ideal one.”

2) “The Secret of Juggling: Throwing isn't just an interesting skill. It's what makes a juggler successful.”

3) “Artistic Acts: Creativity is what ensures that the stage performances continue to improve.”

4) “A New Face: The circus is where people come and go. We always welcome new faces, and obviously, the beautiful ones.”

5) “ ‘Darling’: How people call each other often reflects the degree to which the relationship has developed.”

6) “Downcast: Watching a sad face can sometimes bring us some dark pleasure.”

7) “Carnival: Carnivals usually mean chaos, and chaos means opportunity.”

8) “The End: It's all over.”

9) “Encore: Audiences often say this hoping that the performer will continue performing on the stage.”

10) “Reappearance: Call their names and make them return to the stage once again.”

Laying them out side-by-side, it’s clear that the first five have summary lines that focus more on outward appearances, professional achievement, and success — all values of the 3. Key words can be picked out from each to support this conclusion: “ideal” from Family; “successful” from The Secret of Juggling; “improve” from Artistic Acts; “beautiful” from A New Face; “reflects” from “Darling”.

Meanwhile, the second half contain sentiments that are far more self-driven, or self-referential, yet less self-aware. Rather than seeking to appear a particular way in the eyes of others, there is an endogenously-generated drive based on the assessment of the appearances of those around the speaker. This way of approaching the self and others maps to the 7’s desire to forget the self through constant absorption in the external world. For the 7, there is a lack of consideration regarding professional success — real or perceived — and a greater emphasis on living in the moment. Plans for the future all funnel into goals that may not be practical or even fully fleshed-out, since stopping to examine their own thoughts and feelings can frighten the 7.

On top of this, the deduction targets undergo an overall shift in speaking style; while the first half of the deduction targets can be a bit longer, even bordering on long-winded, the second half are far more succinct but, again, less self-reflective. This displays the 7’s style of interacting with the world more than the 3, where focus can be more scattered in the search for instant gratification, although the analytical aspects of the mind center are still present.

What we see in the second set of deduction targets is the perspective of a more active, impatient person than the previous deduction summaries. There’s only one that contains a sentence with more than a single clause, and even then it’s to quickly connect two different concepts without having to go through the trouble of further explication. While indicative of a nimble mind, this cleverness manifests as an underlying impatience. Overall, the tendency in these deduction summaries is towards a more singularly outward-focused attention, with a desire to engage with the world without having to pause for self-reflection.

This pattern in turn suggests a split in the speaker for the first set of deduction target taglines versus the second set. While deductions one through four reflect Bernard’s perspective, six through ten are Mike’s. As for the fifth deduction, that’s the bridge; it’s where the speaker switches from one to the other, segueing into Mike being the deduction’s “voice” for both the summary and conclusion of each. Even more interesting, in fact, is the particular way the fifth deduction target implies an asymmetry in the perspective of the two speakers; the summary is a reflection of both Bernard and Mike’s understanding of the other, though the angle is skewed significantly when moving between the two.

While Bernard and Mike are simultaneously experiencing a shift in their relationship to one another, the directions of perceived development are not only incongruent, they’re fundamentally incompatible. The title and speaking style of this deduction further underline this imbalance; while the tone and pacing of the summary reads as Bernard’s voice, the conclusion and the name “darling” are clearly from Mike’s perspective.

The deduction conclusion is as follows: “Diary 2: I love Nitre! As long as it's mixed with water, even a hot summer's day can become refreshing! Bernard's reaction was hilarious, and he even called me ‘Dear Mr. Mike Morton’! Oh, Bernard, I want to hear it again. Next time, I'll make sure to put my cold hands down your collar.”

This casual and playful writing style is juxtaposed against the matter-of-fact — almost distant — statement on the nature of relationships in the summary, creating further dissonance within the deduction. It is implied, then, that Bernard’s opinion of his relationship to Mike has developed from one of paternal care (see the information given by the first deduction) to one of a more professional nature; Bernard is Mike’s boss, not his caretaker. Meanwhile, Mike has developed what appears to be homoerotic feelings towards Bernard, seeing the nickname “Dear Mr. Mike Morton” as a term of endearment rather than one of separation.

Referring back to the second deduction target, the subtle shift in Mike’s understanding of his and Bernard’s roles in their relationship can be further explored. While the contents of Diary 1 suggest that Mike does still see Bernard as a superior (one that he will listen to, if a bit begrudgingly), Diary 2 shows a significantly more excited response to what can be inferred to be reprimand from Bernard. Mike, it seems, has come to view Bernard and himself as interacting on equal terms, and thus, as eligible for developing a relationship outside the bounds of their previous connection. Similarly, Bernard no longer sees the power dynamic of their relationship as being defined by “guardian” and “child”; however, contrary to Mike’s interpretation, Bernard still very much sees himself as being the superior. In a sense, elevation from “child” to “employee” does put Mike on more equal footing with Bernard, but what Mike has failed to pick up on is the paradoxical increase in distance in their relationship, even as he is elevated to the status of “fellow adult”.

In these differing sets of expectations, we can see a clear conflict between a 7’s approach to relationships and that of a 1 (or a 3 with a strong connection to 1). While Bernard is concerned with the way the relationship is “supposed” to develop (e.g. the way a boss is supposed to treat an employee), the 7 is concerned with exploring possibilities and having fun. Further, the 7 is interested in relationships that are constantly changing, as a way of staving off boredom and maintaining investment in the other person. For many 7’s, the only way to preserve dedication to a single “other” is to NOT preserve some aspect of it. In other words, if he is to be limited in the individuals available for him to form attachments to, he must seek variety in the way the attachment functions.

Bernard seems to be interested in treating Mike as a proper adult now, one who has responsibilities and ought to know the proper way of behaving. His reaction to Mike’s experimentation with explosives is one of frustration, calling him “Dear Mr. Mike Morton” as a combination middle-naming of a misbehaving child, and a more professional way of addressing another adult. So, it can be said that Bernard appears to be straddling the line between criticism for a subordinate’s “improper” behavior, and a lingering fondness for his charge.

Mike, on the other hand, seems to have simply derived great amusement from the situation, whether or not he picked up on the remaining fondness Bernard held. His excited proclamation of love for nitre and his plans to put his cold hands down Bernard’s collar read solidly as a 7’s epicurean desire for pleasure and sensual enjoyment, rather than from any influence from type 3. In fact, it’s questionable if Mike was even consciously aware that Bernard was not as amused as he by the entire affair; indeed, his spin on being scolded is exactly the sort of reaction expected of the positive outlook of the 7.

Additionally, as opposed to the 3’s efforts to maintain a good image in the eyes of others, the 7 tries to hold onto a self-image of being okay through rationalization and positive reframing. As long as they don’t have to acknowledge negativity, they can feel comfortable and happy. At the same time, the 7’s rationalization goes towards thinking of what lies ahead, escaping from the limited present to a future with boundless possibility. What we can see Mike doing in his diary entry is just that: he chooses to see Bernard’s scolding as an expression of endearment, and has already skipped forward to thinking about fun or interesting plans for “next time”. Nowhere in this diary deduction is there even a whiff of the 3’s desire to appeal to the expectations of others, or appear competent and professional.

Following this split perspective, the deduction summaries fall squarely into the realm of Mike’s internal dialogue. Deduction six, Downcast, leads with the following: “Watching a sad face can sometimes bring us some dark pleasure.” When compared to some of the earlier deductions, the contrast is jarring. While the present or implied “others” were previously referenced in terms of interaction or as a source of expectations, here they exist solely as a source of entertainment. There is an absence of people-pleasing or even the sentiment that others are tools to be used; this falls far more in line with the 7’s desire to be entertained or to be entertaining, rather than the 3’s understanding of the give and take of unspoken social contracts. 

More than that, the conclusion of deduction six gives us another glimpse into the shifting dynamic between Mike and Bernard:

“Diary 3: Bernard sent his regards to my beloved little ones. He thought the wounds on Joker's face looked more like ‘corrosions’. His suspicions really hurt me! Of course, I did lose a bottle of strong acid. Maybe I'll have to get another bottle before Bernard finds out about this ‘mismanagement’.”

While I admit to being unsure who Mike is referring to as his “beloved little ones”, the rest of this diary entry is fairly straightforward. Again, we see Mike’s bubbly and enthusiastic character, brushing off what are clearly well-founded misgivings from Bernard. Like with the scolding he received in the second deduction target, Mike — in a very characteristically 7ish way — responds with a playful attitude: “His suspicions really hurt me!” is expressed in a manner completely foreign to the 3, especially one who is experiencing a threat to their image in the eyes of someone they feel close to.

While it may be true that Mike is wounded by Bernard’s ability to suspect him of such a crime, he covers it up with humor, rather than going to the 3’s tactic of trying to prove his integrity or good character. Rather than indicating a wounded ego, Mike shows an avoidance of the negative; he distracts from a situation that could be emotionally difficult by covering it up with a joke, then quickly moving onto something else.

Now, Mike does engage in willful deceit (planning to cover up anything that may further implicate him), the ego fixation of the 3. However, the tone he takes is still one of measured amusement; his cheeky admission of incriminating evidence paired with his word choice “mismanagement” indicates an almost facetious attitude towards Bernard’s accusation, and more broadly, his concern with professionalism and image. After all, “mismanagement” is a term likely employed by Bernard in the past, as previous deduction targets indicate that he is a man who takes his work seriously. By placing this word in quotation marks, Mike expresses two things: first, that he is using someone else’s word; and second, that he himself does not hold the same values.

The following deduction, Carnival, starts with: “Carnivals usually mean chaos, and chaos means opportunity.” Again, there is a clear expression of the 7’s unstructured energy, always looking for the next exciting thing, chasing that high. While a 3 takes a more structured approach to reaching their goals and seizing opportunities, it is the 7 who sees chaos itself as being opportunity. In chaos, anything is possible, and the 7 finds this stimulating, even considering it to be an ideal situation.

Of course, when figuring out one’s enneagram, it is also important to consider the lines of connection. If the core type is uncertain, figuring out just one line can be enough to create a compelling case for one enneatype over another. The final deduction targets and the rumor about Mike, therefore, offer some vital pieces of the puzzle.

Deduction 8, “The End: It's all over.” Short, sweet, to the point, but overall somewhat disappointing. There’s not enough substance to really determine much more about Mike than we already know. But, when including the slightly lengthier conclusion, necessary context is provided. The conclusion follows thusly:

“Newspaper Clipping: The carnival killer remains a mystery. The public feels that the local police did not do a good job and has called for further investigations.”

Despite not being directly from Mike’s own diary or journal, this is still following his perspective; the framing of this information is key in our understanding of its significance. Clearly, this conclusion functions to tell the audience what sort of tragedy occurred at the circus, but also to include Mike as being a member of the public who holds this belief. This hints at the start of a 7’s disintegration into 1, where the focus goes from what is “fun” to what is “right” and “wrong”, edging into the unhealthy territory of becoming critical and punitive.

When faced with the death of his circus family, Mike, in an attempt to distract himself from the painful reality, jumps into action, hoping to escape the fears nipping at his heels. After suffering such a devastating loss, he wastes no time with mourning; he immediately goes to enacting a plan to deal with the perpetrator of the crime. We see in his next deduction, Encore, the following: “Diary 4: I scoured the city's mortuary and found everyone except the strange new couple. They were scheduled for the grand finale and couldn't sneak out.”

We see immediately another massive tone shift in the speaker, though we know that rather than crossing over from one character to another, it is Mike who is undergoing the switch in tone. In stark contrast to the chipper, playful mood of his earlier entries, this one is very matter-of-fact, very controlled. The 1’s desire to be objective and principled has overshadowed the 7’s energetic distractibility. From the rumor on his page, we know that: “Mike Morton is the most popular guy in the traveling circus ‘Hullabaloo’. After surviving the disaster, Mike Morton's only goal is to find the real killer who destroyed his home."

This solidifies the interpretation of Mike disintegrating into a 1. As a 7, his natural instinct when faced with the threat of loss is to reach for more, trying to gather close that which he feels is important to his survival and comfort. Unfortunately, this option has been denied him completely; he cannot have “more” of “nothing”, which is precisely what he has now that his entire way of life, his home, his family, has been destroyed. Faced with this harsh reality, Mike has dedicated himself to the single-minded goal of hunting down the one who dared to steal everything from him. The 7’s impatience is magnified by the 1’s resentment and anger, leading to his overpowering pursuit of a quite 1ish crusade against the wrongdoings of others.

This understanding of the text is only further supported by alternate translations of the original text, which provide additional information and insight into both the tragedy itself, and Mike’s perspective:

1) “Blonde curls, a lively spirit and clear blue eyes forever full of joy, Mike Morton was the most popular guy in Hullabaloo, the travelling circus. Hullabaloo was Mike's entire world, a world where slaughter should never have existed. Having survived from the tragedy, Mike would stop at nothing until he finds the one responsible for shattering his world.”

2) “Now desperate and having lost the only things that mattered in his life, Mike's only goal in life is to find the true murderer of those he cherished.”

In all three translations, we see the overwhelming sense of loss, devastation and panic driving him over the edge. Having found the bodies of his comrades, and having discovered what in his mind is the suspicious departure of the circus’ newest members, the last hopes of employing his instinctive response (read: avoidance) are dashed. All at once, Mike is forced to contend with problems and pain he is unaccustomed to coping with. He dips immediately into the unhealthy emotions of the 1, the 1’s feeling of being the only one who is Right and Good; he alone can know the Truth.

This reading is supplemented by the correspondence we have from Mike to a man by the name of Arthur Russell. Thanks to being included as content for both Mike and Murro’s character days, we have not one but two samples of his writing post-Hullabaloo disaster. Following on the heels of the Encore deduction target, Mike’s drastic tonal shift while writing stands in stark contrast to his earlier, livelier musings. Mike’s birthday letter is as follows:

“Dear Mr. Arthur Russell,

The investigation report you've sent last time was of great assistance to me. In regard to the animal tamer Natalie, also known as Margaretha Zelle, I wish to acquire further information on her upbringing as well as her life before the circus. Starting next week, I will be out of town for a while, and your salary will be paid in the same payment method per usual. There is no need to send in your report this time. I will pick them up at your residence.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours Truly,

Mike Morton”

We can see that he has adopted a very formal voice, adhering to proper etiquette and expressing his thoughts in an impersonal, emotionally distant way. Without knowing whose signature adorns this letter, one could easily be convinced that this was penned by Bernard. In fact, my first time reading this letter caused me a moment of confusion; surely it was a mistake, a particularly egregious error similar to the mistranslation of Priestess’ name. After all, how could Mike have been the one to write in such a clipped, formal style? Yet, here is Murro’s birthday letter:

“Dear Mr. Russell,

Due to unforeseen circumstances, your mission objective has been "eliminated" prior to the engagement of your employee.

Therefore, I regret to inform you that the remaining payment is beyond my obligation, as stated in our agreement. After all, no one could possibly uncover a fully-intact cranial remains within that pile of ashes.

I wish you well.

Your loyal customer,

Mike Morton”

There is no denying it, Mike did in fact send these letters. His playful, somewhat childish persona is just that: an act. Underneath it, he is incredibly capable and self-sufficient, and the letters seem to place a great deal of emphasis on the matter of “should” or “shouldn’t”, whether something “ought to be” or not. He must do the right thing, in the right way; he expects others to do the same. To the reader, there is a feeling that beneath the carefully controlled surface lies a mass of ugly emotions. There is anger. There is resentment. There is a gradual movement towards a breaking point. It is precisely this which led people to initially believe that Mike himself could have been the circus killer. The details are obscure, the content sinister, the controlled tone reading as hiding something — some dark secret. Murro’s birthday letter seems to imply that Mike has hired a hitman to “eliminate” somebody — likely Murro — but an incident (perhaps even one of his own making) has prematurely killed that person off.

What these letters show us is the 1’s methodical approach; they bear a striking similarity to Mike’s early deduction summaries, as though Mike were subconsciously attempting to borrow from Bernard’s more structured, 1ish mannerisms. With a professionalism and formality that is unassailable in its dignity, but with the base 7’s falsely cheerful tone and the 6 wing’s suspicious nature, Mike sends letters to this “Arthur Russell” character.

Why wing 6 rather than wing 8? Especially when given his apparent embrace of violent means? Well, despite his vengeful rage, he does display the 6 wing’s avoidance of conflict, when possible; as far back as the second deduction target, this is made clear. Mike’s reaction to Bernard denying his request was not to lash out, or argue; he simply moped about it later, when he was alone. Then, when Bernard suspected Mike of disfiguring Joker’s face, Mike’s response was again one of disappointment, not aggression.

The mere fact that Mike would say that Bernard’s accusations “really hurt” falls in direct opposition to the 8’s unwillingness to display weakness of any kind. Even in jest, exposing one’s own emotional vulnerability is not something a 7 with a strong 8 wing would be comfortable doing. On the other hand, the 6 wing is far likelier to allow this; one defense mechanism of the 6, after all, is to appear vulnerable in an attempt to elicit protective feelings from an authority figure. Further evidence is supplied by Mike’s Deduction Star 2020 quotes.

Quote: "Don't think I'll trust you so easily, you cute little thing."

Here, Mike is speaking with the playfulness of his base, 7, while communicating a 6ish difficulty in trusting others. Especially when directed at someone (or something?) “little” and “cute”, this suspicion really does play to the 6’s anxiety and doubt. Where an 8 may feel powerful and confident in the presence of something that appears defenseless, a 6 will be wary; it can’t possibly be so simple, right? Surely it’s a trap?

A 7 with an 8 wing would be more likely to find this mixture of traits endearing, perhaps even themself feeling some twinge of protectiveness. The 8, in general, tends to champion the underdog, desiring to defend that which is innocent or tender. Besides which, the 7w8 is far more blunt and forceful; if there is doubt of a person’s trustworthiness, the problem will be dealt with head-on. It is the 7w6 who will communicate a lack of trust in the lighthearted manner used in the quote; after all, the 6 wing doesn’t want to escalate the situation unless it becomes absolutely necessary.

What of this Deduction Star quote: "I won't let go of the person that destroyed Hullabaloo’.”? Does this not embody the 8’s ego fixation, vengeance? Well yes, but actually no. It’s easy to mistake his actions as being driven by this, as both the 7 and the 8 share an assertive Hornevian type. However, the 8 experiences threats as a challenge, a call to battle; the 8 will make their presence known, and the subject of their wrath will be aware that they have a target painted on their back. By contrast, the 7’s aggression is more of an entitlement, and need not manifest itself overtly all of the time. The 6 wing is what allows the 7 to readily employ the dishonest, underhanded scheming that Mike happily does.

8’s “holy idea” is truth, meaning a life-long search for truth and justice. Mike does not show any interest in such a thing until after the slaughter. His 7’s harmonic pattern of optimistic outlook is twisted into the 1’s focus of attention on what’s imperfect and must be made better. His active nature is turned toward a need to do the “right thing” in the “right way”, with the 1’s ego fixation of resentment driving his actions. But what is it that separates the 8’s vengeance from the 1’s resentment, and how does Mike display one over the other?

The 8’s need for justice calls for the righting of all wrongs, notably towards those they feel protective of, while the 1’s resentment stems from needing to do the “good work” that others won’t notice, won’t care about, or won’t make a “strong enough effort” to do. Not only did Mike not feel protective of his fellow Hullabaloo performers, but we see from the newspaper clipping that “insufficient effort” on the part of law enforcement played a significant role in Mike’s outlook. His search for the “truth” behind the killings, then, is the 1ish excuse for his own actions. His goal is “noble”, therefore, his actions are “right” or “necessary”. The final deduction, “Reappearance”, further solidifies this view.

Summary: “Call their names and make them return to the stage once again.”

Conclusion: “Invitation: Enclosed is a photo of a dark-haired woman with a name on the back - Natalie.”

We find out what he was sent that brought him to Oletus: the knowledge that Natalie is at the manor. Remember, now, that he has been investigating Natalie under the suspicion that she was involved; he had no real evidence. Still, he insists that he is after the “truth”. This falls in line with the 1’s strong sense of purpose, coupled with the need to justify their actions to themselves (and sometimes others as well). He has convinced himself that he is following logic and perhaps objective truth, when in reality, he is allowing his own judgements and unsubstantiated convictions to guide his actions.

Driving this point home is one of his dislikes being listed as “violent and rude people”. Yet, somehow, Mike seemingly hired a hitman, and may have had some involvement in Murro’s death. This is the hypocrisy of the unhealthy 1: it is evil and bad when others do it, but the 1 is exempt, since they are acting for a good cause. (On the other hand, a stronger influence from the 8 would allow for the admittance of double standards, but with justification along the lines of “law of the jungle” or “the strong devour the weak”.)

Considering all of this, Mike’s childish persona seems to be a product of a 7 base with a 6 wing; his desire to enact retribution upon the circus killer comes from the 7’s disintegration to 1, not from an 8 wing. Following the tragedy at Hullabaloo, Mike undergoes a transformation: his spirited, ludic nature turns condemnatory, moralistic, and ultimately, vindictive.

[riz7246]

Understanding and Using the Law of Attraction

The History of the Law of Attraction

While the Law of Attraction is getting quite a bit of publicity these days, the concept has been around for centuries and has been known — and used successfully — by great minds throughout history. According to books like The Secret, there’s evidence that the law of attraction was used by Beethoven, Einstein, and even Jesus, but you’ve also used it in your own life whether you’re aware of it or not! This is because the Law of Attraction works whether or not you’re aware of it. The main reason for the current focus on it is that if you’re aware that you're using the Law of Attraction, you can control what you attract into your life.

How the Law of Attraction Works

Basically, the Law of Attraction works like this: you create your own reality. What you focus on, what you emote about, is what you draw into your life. What you believe will happen in your life is what does happen.

This isn’t as simple as it seems, however, or everyone would have the lives that they want naturally. For example, people who are in debt and continually tell themselves, “I need more money,” don’t find more money, they continue to attract “need more money” because that is the reality that they create.

Why It Works

Many people wonder why this works, and there is more than one explanation. The two main schools of thoughts go along these lines:

The Spiritual Explanation: Many people believe that the Law of Attraction works by aligning God or the Universe with our wishes. We are all made of energy, and our energy operates at different frequencies. We can change our frequency of energy with positive thoughts, especially gratitude for what we already have. By using grateful, positive thoughts and feelings and by focusing on our dreams — rather than our frustrations, we can change the frequency of our energy, and the law of attraction brings positive things into our lives. What we attract depends on where and how we focus our attention, but we must believe that it’s already ours, or soon will be.

The Traditionally Scientific Explanation: If you’re one who needs things to be a little more easy to prove, there is also a different explanation for how the law of attraction works. By focusing on attaining a new reality, and by believing it is possible, we tend to take more risks, notice more opportunities, and open ourselves up to new possibilities. Conversely, when we don’t believe that something is in the realm of possibilities for us, we tend to let opportunities pass by unnoticed. When we believe we don’t deserve good things, we behave in ways that sabotage our chances at happiness. By changing our self-talk and feelings about life, we reverse the negative patterns in our lives and create more positive, productive and healthy ones. One good thing leads to another, and the direction of a life can shift from a downward spiral to an upward ascent.

Proof That the Law of Attraction Works

Whatever the underlying reason, reams of anecdotal evidence confirm that the law of attraction works. And, for those science-minded folks out there, research does seem to support the positive effects of the Law of Attraction as well.

For example, research on optimism shows that optimists enjoy better health, greater happiness, and more success in life. (The traits of optimists are that they focus their thoughts on their successes and mentally minimize their failures.)

One of the foundations of therapy is that changing your self-talk can change your life in a positive direction. And millions of people have found success with positive affirmations.

Law of Attraction Caveats

One problem with the book The Secret, and with some people's interpretation of the Law of Attraction, is that it's singularly the belief we hold those good things will come to us that will bring us all that we desire, without any sort of action behind that belief.

Studies on optimists show that it is the optimistic viewpoint that drives the proactive behaviors that in turn bring optimists such great results in their lives. Optimists don't receive their benefits from their attitudes alone — it's the behavior the attitudes inspire that creates real change.

More importantly, critics of The Secret and other books about the Law of Attraction point out the very real concern that people may start to blame themselves for negative events that are outside their control, such as accidents and injuries, layoffs due to the financial crisis, or major illnesses.

We can't always control our circumstances, but we can control our responses to them. In this vein, the Law of Attraction can provide the optimism and proactive attitude that's associated with resilience in difficult situations, but must not be used as a tool of self-blame. Our responses to the challenges we face can make us stronger in the end, and the Law of Attraction can be used for that end, but should not be applied negatively, or it can be more destructive than helpful.

https://bit.ly/32L1MNd