#because we all interpret characters from our own perspectives so no one. no one can be 100% right!

[michanvalentine]

"I just feel numb".

I've come across interpretations of this line or scene that differ drastically from my own perspective. Some even seem to deliberately downplay it, stripping it entirely of its weight and meaning. But to me, it goes far beyond the immediate emotional state Astarion is plunged into in that moment. It’s deeply tied to his past, his future, and even to abstract concepts that echo throughout the psyche of our favorite vampire spawn.

The concept of revenge is both fascinating and complex, because it touches deeply human chords: pain, anger, humiliation, the need for justice. Revenge often arises where justice is absent or perceived as inadequate, and for this reason, it can initially seem like a legitimate or even cathartic response.

From a narrative point of view, revenge is a powerful driving force. From Hamlet to Kill Bill, from The Count of Monte Cristo to The Last of Us, the desire for vengeance pushes characters down dramatic paths that often transform, consume, or destroy them. Revenge promises relief—but rarely delivers it. As Francis Bacon once said, “A man that studieth revenge keeps his own wounds green.” The pain never truly closes, because revenge cannot rewrite the past. And this is a key point to keep in mind—especially when talking about Astarion.

In certain contexts—particularly narrative or symbolic—revenge can also be interpreted as a form of reclamation, especially when it involves recovering one’s identity, breaking free from an oppressor, or achieving a form of social justice. In that sense, it’s not so much “revenge” as it is reparation or liberation. But it all depends on how it’s carried out, with what level of awareness, and whether it leaves space for something afterward: rebirth, change, a future.

That’s the premise. Astarion craves revenge for everything that was done to him. He longs so deeply for vengeance, for vindication, that he’s willing to let it consume him and harm anyone in his path. So what happens the moment that revenge—or, in the vampire spawn ending, that liberation—actually takes place?

Is Astarion sad? Is he depressed? No. Astarion is overwhelmed by the realization that the satisfaction he hoped to gain from Cazador’s death isn’t enough to erase centuries of suffering and humiliation.

Astarion reacts the way any person would in such a situation. Astarion reacts exactly the way a human being would. In that precise moment, Astarion is more human than ever.

He’s overcome by everything he’s lost, and everything he’s gained, as he himself says. He needs time to internally reorganize—his thoughts, his feelings, his very sense of self. There’s so much, and it’s all so intense, so painful, that the only thing he can do is shut down. This is shock, in the clinical sense of the word. After prolonged trauma, it’s common for the body and mind to react not with euphoria, but with numbness.

For years, Astarion yearned for this moment. He built his sense of identity around the need to survive Cazador, to be free of him. And when he finally succeeds, he finds himself… empty.

Because pain was a pillar. And now that the pillar has crumbled, he has nothing to lean on.

Cazador, monstrous as he was, was the gravitational center of Astarion’s existence. Hate and fear kept him alive, motivated him. Removing Cazador from his life also means having to redefine himself from scratch. It’s not just the end of a tormentor—it’s the collapse of a psychological structure. And that’s disorienting.

As if that weren’t enough, we come to the heart of the matter: killing Cazador doesn’t heal Astarion. It doesn’t erase the wounds, it doesn’t return lost time, and it doesn’t remove the trauma.

Revenge offers a conclusion—but not meaning. It’s a final act that doesn’t resolve the pain. And that’s why he feels emotionally frozen as he comes to terms with it all.

This is a theme that, within the game itself, does not concern Astarion alone. We can see the same dynamic in Karlach after she confronts her nemesis, Gortash. The tyrant’s death changes nothing—Karlach was dying before, because of what was done to her, and she’s still dying. She will die regardless of the justice achieved. And that realization hits hard—it flattens, destroys, and drains her with its brutal clarity.

Karlach is different from Astarion and reacts with anger, but when even that—her ever-burning fire, the strength that sustains her even in battle—begins to fade, she temporarily leaves the party. She seeks solitude, retreats inward to reorganize, to come to terms with what happened, what she feels, and what awaits her in the future.

Even more significant—and, narratively speaking, a clear piece of foreshadowing for both Karlach and Astarion—is Dame Aylin’s confrontation with the wizard Lorroakan. Even Selune’s daughter is overwhelmed after the battle. The villain is dead, but the aasimar’s suffering is more alive than ever. The valiant warrior, the beacon of hope, is literally on the ground—and both Astarion and Karlach will have something to say about it.

And it’s no coincidence. From a storytelling perspective, this prepares us for the moment when both of them will face their own abuser.

And it’s almost tender, almost heartbreaking, to hear what they both say: they don’t understand why Dame Aylin is so downcast. And when Tav/Durge suggests the fear of feeling just like her once they’re standing over their own nemesis, both of them dismiss the idea, saying they’ll laugh and dance on the corpses of Gortash and Cazador.

But that’s not how pain works. That’s not how trauma works. That’s not how revenge works.

"That's it. He's gone. After all these years – these centuries – it's really over."

This is the first thing Spawn Astarion says to Tav/Durge after being addressed at the end of the battle. And he says it in a tone of voice that already says everything—a tone that perfectly conveys what he’s feeling and how much that feeling is crushing him.

Let’s break it down: "That's it. He's gone." Just like that, Astarion—centuries of suffering, torture, loneliness, exploitation, and fear, all gone in the blink of an eye. A single moment, one that doesn't even begin to make up for the slow passage of the years—nor the ones still to come. How dare Cazador vanish so quickly? How dare he not take all those feelings with him? Above all, why—despite the hatred, the contempt, and the anger—has he left such an enormous void inside you?

"After all these years – these centuries – it's really over." Yes. It’s over, and you barely had time to process it. You almost didn’t catch the details of what happened—and yet, the memory of the torture, of the people who “had” you, of all the humiliations you endured, is still there. And it will stay with you for the rest of your unlife.

"I just feel numb." That’s okay. Rest, love. Breathe. I’m here with you. You’ve already done more than enough—you were incredible. We’ll take care of the rest tomorrow.

And now you tell me if this isn’t the most wonderfully imperfect and profoundly human vampire spawn to ever exist.

[lassify]

Twilight's Guilt

*Spoilers for Spy x Family Chapter 107*

I haven't seen anyone talking about this yet, but I just can't get it out of my head.

Chapter 107 is a real goldmine for Twilight The Spy. All these amazing connections! All this potential intelligence! He can finally feel like he is extracting what he can from Anya's hard-won connections at Eden, and he is fully using every opportunity possible to squeeze what he can for Operation Strix.

And then Jeeves had to go ahead and say this:

Jeeves really hits the nail on the head here.

He probably knows about the responsibilities and expectations that are put on the Eden kids by all of their parents - of which he understands Damian's position the most intimately - but at this point in time, Jeeves (likely) has no idea of the extra burden that has been put on one child in particular.

That is, Twilight's burden on Anya.

Not just the burden of becoming an Imperial Scholar, and doing well in her tests, and making friends with the right people: only Twilight knows about the burden of being a fake family, of having to complete a mission, and dispose of her when it's over.

"How I hope that these children are to remain forever unburdened by the statures and standpoints of their parents..."

This is what I love about Endo's storytelling so much: so much is said with so few words and gestures.

Because after Jeeves says his piece, we get a look from Twilight. It's interesting - he almost looks bored, but the lack of response is by itself so telling, even when the other parents express their remorse.

To me, he looks exhausted. This pretence must be so exhausting.

Then his gaze turns towards Anya.

And: he's guilty.

Twilight knows that Jeeves is right; that by taking up a fatherly role for this child, he has automatically burdened her with his own goals and expectations.

Which then leads us to this panel:

I love this panel so much. I honestly felt myself tearing up looking at it.

The first thing that the reader notices is the vast expanse of negative space: everything and everyone else has faded away, and now it is only them. Without the bustling festival and rowdy kids and background characters, suddenly the reader is so aware of the distance between Twilight and Anya. We know that this distance is emotional as well as physical; because Twilight has put himself in the position of the 'onlooker', he is separating his emotions and keeping himself distant from Anya as a person.

I also couldn't help but notice that this panel, unlike every other one on this spread, did not have a border. Endo intended the negative space around them to be endless and borderless, to show that the guilt has the potential to swallow Twilight entirely.

Finally, the size difference between them: while we can interpret this as distance, I also see their physical forms as an illustration of their difference in power. In that sense, one could say that Twilight is larger in this panel, because he overwhelms Anya in the power that he holds over her. He is her 'father'; the man who took her away from the orphanage; and the man who could put her back without a second's notice. Twilight is fully aware of all of this.

(Despite his ignorance of Anya's telepathic power, the scale is still very much in Twilight's favour.)

We even see this side of Anya as though from Twilight's perspective: suddenly, Anya is just a child that caught up in something so much bigger. With our view just of Twilight's back, we can imagine the weight that this must have on his shoulders, bearing a burden that only he is aware of.

And yet, here you are, Twilight...

Despite the attention paid to Twilight's guilt in this double-page spread, Twilight is still very much back to 'business as usual' within the next couple of pages after this. After all, he has a mission to complete. As a spy, he should be adept at compartmentalising his emotions by now...

... Or perhaps, his only option is to keep squashing his guilt down, before he drowns in it.

[ashcroft-writes]

Thoughts on Cad Bane in Tales of the Underworld

I almost never post analyses of my fave fandom things! But I've been thinking about nothing but this show for a solid 24 hours, haha. Honestly, I've been pretty light on sharing my thoughts on the beloved blorbos previously because I don't often care for engaging in the hot take trading in Star Wars fandom... and I also know things tend to grow on me over time, even if something bothers me at first. I’m also in times when people like me worry for their lives and futures, so the me that shows up for Star Wars anymore honestly just wants to have a little fun with it and appreciate what these creative teams manage to do, especially today, when I get Cad Bane content so enchantingly rarely!

BUT, these episodes definitely had a big effect on me. So I've sat with them a little, let ‘em roll around in my head, and though there’s parts of the narrative I think I would have also liked to see… what was done with this story, I ultimately really enjoyed.

But let's dig in deeper, because it IS fun.

THE RELATIONSHIP

Alright, to get it outta the way, anything that involves showing a past relationship for a character seems to set off a bomb inside fan heads. And as a queer writer with an MLM Bane series, some folks have seemed to kind of want to feel me out on this one!

Honestly, the Bane and Arin relationship intrigued me, and I like her.

But first, before I dig into why, I have seen some folks uncomfortable with the idea of a character that's had a blank slate backstory past now being given a "love interest," so I'm going to speak to that first. What is presented here doesn’t change all that much about what we know of Bane as a character—this was a relationship that was definitely physical and involved SOME sort of emotional attachment, but that's about all that was said, and I don't see how it really threatens most interpretations of Bane. Yes, even and especially the queer ones. One can write Bane and/or Arin with any earth-equivalent sexuality, gender, or romantic preferences (or lack thereof) that you choose and these interpretations would still work within this canon information (if you even want to keep canon information in your works!) I've been looking at this relationship from the angles of queerplatonism, aromanticism, bisexuality, pansexuality, heterosexuality, gay with a confusing puberty, etc. etc. etc.. And that’s just if Arin is in fact a woman in the sense that many earth humans mean it.

There’s a lot of wide narrative holes for creatives to nest in here, and I'm really happy I can say that, because I'm already building a nest. And, besides all THAT, Bane’s a cowboy alien?? Like. I think we should all keep getting weird with it, because he SURELY would be up to things outside of our earthly human day-to-day perspective.

So yeehaw. Do Whatever You Want Forever!

Moving on.

THOUGHTS ABOUT ARIN HERSELF

I really like her. I love the idea of this young person who was kind, who was trying to pull Cad back from the worst parts of his nature, who was wiser than he was about the possibilities of a future past the violence of their world. That is part of what my own OC Nuni was when I wrote him. And now in canon, there were at least two people—Arin and Niro—both trying to pull Cad back from his fixation on gold and blood, and I like that theme!

Was I curious how Cad and Arin came together…? Yeah. Of COURSE. But I know this was limited time we had, and decisions were made about how to convey the most telling details in shorthand and the story in broad brushstrokes—so here, I settle for the subtle body language, which honestly was very deliberately rendered. It’s clear Cad is attached on some level to Arin; the way he works easily alongside her and doesn’t leave her behind when the going gets tough isn't without meaning at all. For him, it seems as close a relationship as he's able to have. But a lot of their interaction regardless comes across as a very Cad way of handling someone, especially while younger, rasher, his anger hotter. He doesn’t confide in her, he snips, he barely listens. He hardly looks at her or even touches her, though her own gaze is often on him, analyzing, hoping, bidding for him to let go of what doesn’t matter. But he doesn’t consider her needs for a single second as more important than him coming out on top. And this… this was a relationship I’ve seen before in life, in which one side is too focused on what they’re chasing to properly, truly notice the other person, even if some facet of having the other person around comforts them. I couldn't help but wonder if Arin was indeed startled by how easily Cad hugged Niro, when Cad just doesn’t seem to be like that with anyone else that we see, not even her. So yes, his and Arin’s relationship was strange, one-sided, with so much unspoken… but it was a lot we can glean from very little.

I wish in some ways that Arin had still been alive in the final episode, but I am sensing perhaps why it was decided that she wouldn’t be. There’s a narrative hole here I’m going to have to speculate inside, but—when Bane returns an unspecified amount of time after he was arrested, he’s grown up a fair amount. Got new scars. He has crew coming to meet him as if they want to give loyalty, when he didn't exactly come across as Lazlo's second in command previously. And now, the community council seems like they’re wetting their pants about him showing up, and they ALL know and seem to fear his name, whereas when he was arrested, they absolutely didn’t.

Frankly, the writing seems to imply that there was some serious stuff that happened in the interim between when they arrested him and he made his way back to his old stomping grounds. I don't know if it was a situation in which Bane still managed to make trouble from inside his cell, pulling strings, or if there were periods in which he was free, then arrested again.

But either way, Arin was left behind for a long while, just like Niro was once. Enough for Cad to get up to his own mischief, forge at least some part of his intimidating legacy. But again, he’s been so sucked into his own workings that the world he left behind moved on without him. I don't think he ever says that he was coming back for Arin when he does arrive; that’s a guess everyone ELSE is throwing around. He’s seemingly just there to settle accounts in general, and the mention of Arin having married Niro just seems to stick him in the pride. Either way, he's come back far too late to have done anything about it. They've both long moved on, and he wrote her off as a traitor long ago. Arin's had a life alongside a kinder person, and now is gone, and perhaps Cad could have tried to learn anything at all about what had happened before now, found a way for someone to bring him intel, wrote a letter, etc. But he didn’t.

He only returns to old places in this story when it’s time for revenge.

I think it fits his character fairly well, so unwilling to deal with these emotional difficulties that any question of Arin he still held in his heart was answered by a life fully lived without him, one he stayed ignorant of until it came back to needle his ego. The fact that Arin is dead isn't the point. It was that he didn't know she was dead, years gone. If that isn't a character statement, I don't know what is.

So yes, despite the missing parts, Arin is a character I like. I see some folks mentioning the concept of her being “fridged,” but I personally don’t think that entirely fits. Fridging is… specific. She wasn't there in the story only to die of violent or sad means, all to inspire the protagonist into having character development. Conversely, Arin doesn’t pass the Bechdel test, no, and I wish she did! Regardless, the tragedy is that Arin DOES have agency and uses it to live, not die—and her sacrifice doesn't inspire or change Cad, because he was hurtling down into the dark all on his own. She chose to end the violence, defy Cad and steal his gun because she’s kinder and wiser than he is, and knows how to let go and move on. She only died after having lived a life she chose, even an offscreen one, Cad’s choices be damned. I can’t call it a fridging. I do still wish she had more time to tell us more about who she was, but I suppose fic is here, and I’m just going to have to write something about it sometime.

CAD BANE’S SON

I yelled when he appeared. Jfc what a cute kid. This story also told us Cad was a cute kid too. And the narrative spares neither of them. :(

I’m going to get it out of the way: the only thing, literally the only thing, I am having difficulty accepting about this story is the kid’s name. Isaac. What? What?? EXCUSE ME. IS THE BOOK OF GENESIS IN STAR WARS?? I’m going to need ten linguistics and history enthusiasts in my replies immediately so we can figure out what the hell happened culturally with the Duros and Judaism in a galaxy far far away.

BUT I DIGRESS. This kid Isaac looked into my soul with those big eyes and I opened a door in my heart for him and now I’m in hell, so whatever I guess.

I AM IN HELL AHHHHH.

But. The moment when Cad looks in that kid’s eyes and knows EXACTLY who the father is was almost startling. Like, he even reaches out for a second. Just a split second. It’s this razor-sharp shard surprise-cutting him inside his moment where he thought he was just wrapping up all the loose ends. All that gloating to Niro about “I’ll take care of him like you did Arin” had so little real caring behind it that I doubt it was any kind of real promise.

But it’s then that Cad sees. For one of the few times in this story, Cad looks into someone else’s eyes outside of himself, and he properly sees them.

And he reaches out.

But that’s shut down fast. The interfering mayor clearly knows who Isaac comes from, just like Cad knows now. And neither of them say anything about it, but their understanding is clear, and Cad walks away, quietly agreeing, perhaps, that it’s the right move to do so. What he’s become can’t help this kid in any meaningful way. He’s just made another abandoned orphan like he was, and who knows what kind of life is in store for that child now?

Obviously, later in canon, Cad will have a go at helping another kid’s journey, mentoring Boba Fett. I wonder if, perhaps, he did it to try and prove to himself he could, gnawing inwardly over what happened on this day with the son he’ll now never know.

After all, he's not very good at letting things go.

THE STORY IN GENERAL

I’m kind of working backwards with my thoughts, from this very specific musing regarding the important relationships to the larger story... I haven't even gotten into Niro! Did you see that moment where Cad was the one to hug him, and he couldn't quite manage to do it back? When the last time they saw each other, he was the one being abandoned? How he faced Cad in person, and so is NEVER the person running away to save himself? I am gently patting this Duros' face. Excellent. But. I am going to have to wrap this up eventually and save any other thoughts for later.

At the end of the day, there was a lot inside this short little visit into Bane’s life that really delighted me. The scores of different Duros characters (shoutout to the guy in that giant hat, hahaha. LOVE A DUROS IN A GIANT HAT <3) The love given to the modeling, texturing, and overall craft of this production... all my love to the Star Wars animation team. The small look at the culture in the area Bane lived in as a child. The way he discourages his friend from buying a little toy their hearts clearly want, in favor of that which is practical. That moment when child Bane gets a taste of what money can do, hungry, licking the box clean that held his first real, good meal in a long time. The moment when Niro tries to get him to walk away from Lazlo’s scheme, and he immediately spins around and agrees it’s not worth it unless they’re paid twice as much—the budding negotiator!

Being fast, agile, sliding over the hood of a car as he runs from the cops.

Choosing to save himself, then the instant regret, lack of surety, fear—drowned in his first handful of gold.

The visual of him as an adult seeing his childhood self in the glass before shooting that thought right through the heart… the foreshadowing. Goddamn.

Like, I do have mixed feelings on some level. It was too big a story in too small a space. The first episode was plain excellent, but the latter two suffered from the broad brushstrokes preventing us from being able to get to know some of the new faces introduced, and raised a lot of questions about other things—truly, we never get to see what Lazlo comes to mean to young Colby, why he inspired a boy to become so like him. We never see when Colby decides to leave behind his old name and why. We never see where Todo comes from, or why Cad chose Arin to spend his time with. It also doesn’t show the why’s and how’s that made Cad Bane the Legend exceptional at what he is.

But it did give us tantalizing tidbits, the smallest pieces of the before-times we can explore more on our own. It showcased that Cad Bane's greatest strength as a bounty hunter, why he's so feared, is the precise fatal flaw that made his life the way it is: the fact that once he has the scent of his goals, he’ll never let go, not ever—he'll chase them from one end of the galaxy to the other to settle accounts, inexorable, deadly.

And it hasn't brought him happiness.

[stardewvalleybut-i-draw]

Can u give me ur full thoughts on Alex? I feel like a lot of the shit he gets is unjustified. Yeah he says some sus things to the farmer (no matter what gender you are!) but that's only because he's horribly mislead. The man just doesn't know any better. I mean think about it. Abused and neglected, lacking good male role models, and he's got no friends in town except for maybe Haley and you know how she is. If she was told "you're probably not into sports" she'd say "ew no" because sports would get her all dirty.

I always saw him as just a loner-type guy who doesn't know how to talk to people. Spent too much time trying to develop his cringe ass macho man persona that he forgot to develop social skills. I don't think that makes him a bad person though. I could honestly talk for hours about how toxic masculinity is a monster that preys on young boys and eats them alive if they're not careful. But even with societal pressure being so intense, growth is possible. Alex is still a massive sweetie in my eyes. A big dumb doofus who loves his granny and wants to lift heavy things just to impress you.

I would love your thoughts though!!

#1 Alex fan anon ⚡️

Yeah. That's basically more or less my thoughts😅

It honestly depends on what you experience that can greatly color Alex's character

This might be one of my more controversial takes

(right next to being a Clint apologist💀)

but stick with me here-

If you grow up in a similar environment to most guys, you can understand why Alex is the way they are. It's not exactly easy to be soft or mindful when you have a harsh environment around you. Many guys end up coping with repressed thoughts and feelings in unique ways to soothe themselves. I think Alex's was sports. (Idk just a hunch) but it often leads to a lot of blind spots or misunderstandings of the world.

I've seen a lot of people like Alex and I've had a couple of friends in high school like that too! And I can tell you... yeah... it comes from SOMEWHERE, A lot of them ain't doing so great mentally.

Heck, I do that! Whenever I get uncomfortable with a situation or feelings I don't like, I make jokes to ease my brain. Releses a little serotonin ya know what I mean?

Not all coping mechanisms are bad tho, we kinda have our own form of bond and support that from the outside looks cold and uninviting but I promise you, we would die for our brothers. (plus the cold uninviting part is just a front)

"I know the homie told us to KYS over Roblox but he bought the group Freebirds during the gym session so it's all good!"/j

I can't say much from the other perspective but I would assume they would see Alex as a HUGE BIG RED flag and someone potentially dangerous or someone who brings back bad memories which is why he is dunked on so much. Even if they don't mean it, they have a higher chance of hurting people.

I don't think Alex is THAT type of character at all, I think he has good intentions but as you said "no social skills". I can see why others would interpret that way though.

It's funny that you mention how Alex doesn't have many female role models cuz... you have

Haley- Lazy and super not into dirt.

His mom- got sick and DIED.

Granny Evelyn- frail weak old woman who makes cookies and tends to flowers.

Those are not exactly SUPER GREAT examples of women who like sports.

Personally, I get why people say that playing a male farmer is better for Alex's story arc along with confronting George about the whole being gay thing but I think the female farmer has elements that I don't think are acknowledged much.

From my perspective anyway, I think a Fem farmer shows Alex a better example of women and what they can do VS grandma, dead mom, and Haley... along with learning boundaries and how better cope with repressed feelings and MAYBE-

-even address the fear of the farmer DYING of a sickness just like his mom or the intrusive thoughts of believing he'll end up like his father making him overprotective and paranoid about the farmers well being...

but you can ignore that...

Idk man, that's just the way I view it. You either like Alex or you don't :/

I ain't saying anyone's wrong to feel the way they do

[hbpseverus]

for all that us snape fans say how we love his character because he is flawed and complex, i find it disappointing how many of us can't extend that line of thinking towards lily, while pretending that young severus was entirely innocent. i've noticed this a lot recently and it's been bothering me quite a bit so i've felt the need to defend lily, or to be exact, analyse the downfall of their relationship without basically giving her all the blame and instead looking at both characters and especially lily more critically.

so. let's talk about the conversation between her and severus after the werewolf prank. some snape fans harshly criticise her in this scene because she insists that james saved severus and doesn't acknowledge how serious this prank was, while insisting that at least the marauders don't use dark magic.

and i agree that she should have been more on severus' side in this case. after all he could have died or gotten seriously injured, turned into a werewolf etc and she downplays the severity of the situation and generally doesn't acknowledge how the marauders bullied severus very much. so yes, she could have been a better friend here.

but at the same time, from her perspective, she was already noticing that severus was spending more time with his housemates, all of them aspiring death eaters, how he had always looked up to lucius and was slowly heading down that same path. how he didn't truly disapprove of his housemates disgusting actions towards muggleborns - her own kind. even though it's not entirely logical, since we see through the marauders that light magic can be used to do harm aswell, this also explains her dislike of dark arts, which these (aspiring) death eaters all were fond of and using to do awful things to her friends (and hogwarts also pretty much teaches that dark magic is pure evil). by this point she had most likely also experienced discrimination at hogwarts for being muggleborn. she knew the situation in the wizarding world wasn't favourable for her, and now her best friend was starting to agree with those people?

the next notable event was of course snapes worst memory (sigh, here i go talking about it for the millionth time). and i really don't like how some people on our side of the fandom talk about lily in this scene (of course, this is not all of us, but definitely too many).

first of all we saw that she initially smiled upon seeing severus be bullied, and yes, this was honestly pretty bad. we know that severus saw this and was rightfully hurt, and this very well could be part of the reason why he snapped at her. but that is her only 'crime' in this scene. because she then does quickly turn against james and this entire crowd and defends severus. only for james to insult and threaten her, and severus to call her a 'filthy little mudblood'.

now, people say she should have done more to defend severus, that her attempt was quite half-hearted. i don't know. maybe she could have done more, but she did try go get james to stop. it's not fair to say she didn't try at all. some say she should have hexed james herself or bring up her prefect role (although i'm not sure it's even confirmed she was one at this time). but say she was a prefect, her job would be to stop fighting, which she tried to do, not to get involved in fights herself. and more importantly you can tell that james is entirely dismissive of her and clearly won't let her stop him no matter what, even threatening her in the process. lily also genuinely seems to still hate him at this point in time, she is described to have been disgusted with him to the point where even harry questions his parents marriage. so i don't believe it's fair at all to say she was just 'flirting' with james here and i find that interpretation just, really misogynistic.

furthermore, people believe she should have forgiven severus for being called a mudblood. i used to kind of agree that it wasn't that serious, but i feel differently now. because it wasn't just a word, it wasn't a one time mistake or a slip up or even the first time she noticed that he was slowly turning into a future death eater. that's why i brought up their conversation after the prank. lily knows that severus' descend into the death eaters arms had been going on for months, years even. being called - not even just mudblood, but hearing the words "i don't need help from a filthy little mudblood like her" out of the mouth of her former best friend was just the final nail in the coffin. it was her confirmation that severus was finally too far down that road, and she, as a muggleborn, could no longer justify surrounding herself with him. so she abandons him at the scene, and i can't blame her one bit.

of course this post is not meant to be severus bashing, he is and always will be my favorite character, but i don't enjoy pretending he was completely innocent, even his younger self. this is also not to excuse the marauders, as their bullying never had anything to do with severus possibly being a death eater and was really just for fun and, well, because they could, and because he was an easy victim. but i truly believe that lily deserves more grace here and also just to be analysed as a complex character like severus, rather than painting her as one-dimensional.

severus becoming a death eater is the tragic result of his background and surroundings, and when we analyse him we factor all of this in. lily was wealthier than him (not rich, but likely middle class), had a good relationship with her parents, was pretty, smart and popular and had a good support system in and out of hogwarts. she couldn't possibly understand why severus made the choices he did, and it's ridiculous to expect that from her. maybe as an adult she would have looked back and understood it a little better - not in the sense that she would then forgive severus, just understanding the factors that lead to him becoming a DE better. but as it was, she was just a teenage girl watching her best friend turn against people like her and not knowing what to do about that. and what's most important to me to point out is that it was not her job to try and stop this, to try and fix him or save him or whatever. it was first and foremost the adults in severus' life who failed him over and over again, never lily.

finally a lot of us can't understand how lily ended up marrying her former friends abuser and use this as an argument against her, but i honestly don't want to go too deep into this topic.. i personally strongly dislike this relationship, because james treated lily herself like shit too. we have to believe that he truly did change, even if there is not much... well, nothing really to prove this. and even if he did, i personally wouldn't have been able to forgive him. but i also don't believe that marrying james makes lily a bad person by extension or anything like that. ultimately, i believe she deserved to find happiness in this dark time and it seems she did, even if it was brief. i won't judge her for that.

[kittenintheden]

headcanon, subjectivity, and convincing the reader

hi! I got a wild hair to write a little essay today. here's that little essay. it's about fic writing and how our subjectivity about the source material becomes a conversation with the reader. LEZGO.

quick primer on common terms:

canon: objective, indisputable truth about the property based on what is portrayed on the page/screen. it is canon in BG3 that Astarion is a vampire spawn, it is canon that Wyll is the only son of Grand Duke Ravengard, it is canon that Lae'zel is a githyanki originating from Creché Ki'liir, etc.

headcanon: an individual's subjective interpretation of events and characters in the property based on context clues, hints, personal experience, vibes, etc.

fanon: a more widely accepted community headcanon that is not objectively supported by the property but is generally accepted as a popular interpretation of the source material.

word of god: interpretations considered truth by the creators of the property that may or may not be included in the source material itself. this includes devnotes, responses to fan questions, behind the scenes material, etc. there's much argument to be had about whether or not this is considered canon if it's not also represented in the source material itself.

okay? okay! now let's talk about transformative works (fanfiction and fanwork).

the first rule of transformative work is that there are no rules. okay? okay! to get that out of the way. which is why this is a post about subjective interpretation.

(obligatory blah blah blah obviously having basic writing skill and knowledge is helpful for communicating your ideas to the reader, we all know this)

but what makes a transformative work GOOD? what makes a reader pick up a fic, devour it, and then go "holy shit I can absolutely see how these characters in this scenario make sense. I BELIEVE in this story and this author's interpretation."?

that's where things get complicated. let's do a cut bc this is about to get lengthy!

when we become fans of a property, it's because we are the readers/viewers having a conversation with the source material. something about it caught us and spoke to us, then drove us to create more art based on it and using it as a framework. that's important.

as readers/viewers, we will always have our own subjective interpretation of the work. that interpretation is informed by the work's canon, but it's also informed by our personal experiences, feelings, and knowledge. that's where headcanons and subjectivity come in. it's why some people feel a character is "annoying" while others find them sympathetic.

(there is a MUCH BROADER conversation to be had about how social pressures and oppression also factor into this subject, but that's not my intended goal with THIS essay, so I will acknowledge the fact that a person's internalized biases also inform their perception of the material and move on).

so, we all develop our own personal headcanons about a work. it's inevitable. sometimes those headcanons are based in canon, sometimes they're based on our own experience. where they come from doesn't matter -- they are yours and they belong to you, and they will inform whatever work you create.

now comes the part where we begin a conversation with the reader.

when you're writing fic, one of your many jobs is helping the reader to understand your perspective. this is very challenging! you're essentially creating a written argument for why the characters and elements in your story are unfolding the way that they do, but you're doing so via the vehicle of creative writing. you're depending on narrative structure, dialogue, characterization, setting, plot, tropes, themes, metaphors, etc. to make your "argument."

if you've ever heard people say a character "felt flat" or that an action didn't make sense or that a fic subject is OOC (out of character), that comes from the writer failing to provide a convincing enough argument for the story they're trying to tell. (note: I use the word "fail," but I don't mean it in the sense that the project was a failure. art is never time wasted. but as with most things, it may take time to get to a place where we have the skills to tell the story we want to tell.)

so: how the hell do we work on an issue like that?

a few ways.

first and foremost, at its core, a transformative work should be in conversation with the canon of its source material. that DOES NOT MEAN that canon should be treated as a Bible and ultimate authority (people rewrite canon well all the time), but it does mean a writer needs to consider what worked about the canon to be able to apply it to their own interpretation.

if you found a character compelling in the original property, you need to understand what exactly it was about that character that made them so compelling. it isn't just how they physically look or their signature catchphrase. what about the source material drew you to them, made you empathize, turned you on, etc.?

if a particular relationship made you absolutely feral, WHAT IS IT about that dynamic that caught and kept your attention? what makes them WORK?

THAT is what the conversation with the source material is about. it's about understanding why you were moved in the first place. it's distilling the subjects down to their essence so you can put them in a different scenario without losing the core of who they are.

now you need to understand where your HEADCANON comes from.

(you will notice a running theme here that in order to properly tell a story, you have to understand the story yourself!)

our own subjective interpretation of a work is informed by the knowledge we have (I have a degree in reading and analyzing and writing creatively, it's something I literally went to school for), our personal experiences (Astarion speaks to people with a history of sexual abuse and trauma, imagine that), and emotions that rise organically when we interact with the source material, either unexpectedly (whoa I did NOT expect that to turn me on) or with understanding (animal death always makes me cry because it's upsetting to see something that doesn't understand what's happening go through that and/or I remember when I lost my own animal companion).

so! you have a headcanon that Shadowheart and Nocturne were lovers. this isn't something verified by canon, but it is a scenario that makes sense given the information we have -- they were very close, they have a secret place together surrounded by the flowers Shadowheart calls her favorite, they know intimate details about one another's lives, and their history of standing up for one another and caring about each other is clear.

how do you convince a reader that this is a viable scenario?

first, converse with the canon. all the framework is there for a potential romantic relationship. their respective personalities work together. now, determine why you enjoy this headcanon. is it the intimacy, the loyalty, the kindness? is it the hints from canon that they were important to one another? is it that they have chemistry you find interesting and appealing?

this is the argument you must make to the reader. this scenario is plausible because of canon, character, and context. now you need to build on it and add your own perspective in order to convince the reader to see it as you do.

this particular example is a pretty easy thoroughline, but the same principle can be applied to more varied scenarios. modern AU? okay, how would that change the way these characters interact with the world without losing what makes them, them? pirate AU? okay, which characters would make the most sense to fit certain roles in that scenario given their existing personalities?

there's a common refrain in my writing circles that goes: "do what you want forever." we tend to use it in a flip way to mean that this is play and creativity and you can literally do whatever you want, but the deeper message is, "you can make anything believable with the right approach."

and the "right" approach is about maintaining a conversation between yourself, the source material, your headcanons, and the story you're trying to tell. it's about bringing all those things together in a way that will convince a reader to believe it.

it's a balance, and it's one that isn't universal. no matter what we do, subjectivity means that some people will not agree with our interpretation. that's okay. not every story is for every person. what matters is that you're writing YOUR story for the readers who want to engage with it.

so, at the end of the day: do what you want forever, and do it well :)

[okayidontcare]

The Issue of Consent and Severance Discourse as a Whole

Spoilers for S2E4

So, I never post on Tumblr (and barely on other platforms for that matter). I am a lurker, and, as such, I see a variety of different takes about different things on a daily basis. I am prone to hyperfixations in media as a whole and, right now, I am obsessed with Severance.

So, I watched the new episode as soon as it was out and as soon as I watched the Mark/Helena sex scene and the reveal that it was in fact Helena all along, I knew it would create a discourse that would be unbearable, not because of the discussion itself but by the way people engage with this show (more on that later),  and I feel the need to express my feelings and my view on the subject.

Was SA or Wasn’t?

It… I don’t know. No one does. That’s the point. 

The show wants us to ponder about the autonomy of the innies and the outies, it raises this question not only in relation to the narrative of the show but in a sort of philosophical conundrum. And I think the way to discuss this has to be done with two things in mind: (a) with respect for other opinions and interpretations and (b) that we will never get a clearcut answer.

We can’t affirm Helena is a rapist, we can’t affirm she isn’t. What we can do is debate about it. Engaging with it with logic, as in, thinking that there is a logical explanation for something that is emotional in nature is counter productive. Let me demonstrate:

If Helena and Helly are different people then it’s SA. Then innie Mark didn’t cheat on Gemma and Irving saying that to him was wrong.

But, if Helena and Helly are the same person, it isn’t SA. So Mark cheated on Gemma and Irving was justified in what he said.

Do any of these sentences feel true to the show? 

Frankly, I don’t think so, because it doesn’t feel true to the emotional truth of the show. Because it is weird that Mark slept with someone else, but it is because this version of him doesn’t really know Gemma. But he also has a connection with Ms. Casey, because of the outie life. He also has a connection with Helena, because he knows Helly, but it’s weird because Helena is different from Helly. It’s a bit hypocritical of Irving to imply that Mark and Helly’s relationship is wrong when he was ready to blow up Burt’s marriage in the season 1 finale, but he is also right to point out it’s off putting to see them flirting. It is all these things at the same time. 

Because, from my point of view, they are different people and the same person at the same time. And I don’t think any of us can wrap our minds around this concept, it’s like Schrödinger’s Cat but about human nature instead of quantum physics. That’s what makes it fun, because not even the characters know what to make of it, so we see the emotional fallout of Severance rather than the ethical/moral one. And, to me, that is more interesting.

So we should discuss it, but also know that we’ll never reach a conclusion, because that would be oversimplifying the show and I think it just makes our conversation around Severance shallow. It’s a detriment to the show and to us. 

Let’s hear each other out, give different opinions, have productive debates about the show and what is saying about identity and humanity, about how it reflects on us. Don’t say to someone that has a different opinion than you that they are “watching the show wrong”, that they are “media illiterate”, like your interpretation is the only right one. If you do that, I’m sorry, but I don’t think you are actually engaging with the text, I think you are using Severance as a way to feel smarter than other people.

Let’s not treat our fellow internet users as the outies treat the innies. It’s easy to dehumanize people that we only perceive by their words on a screen, but behind each MDR profile picture is a real person with their own perspective that may not always align with yours and that’s okay, they are worthy of the same amount of respect as everyone else.

So I’ll say, at last, you are free to disagree with me. You are free to say that there is a definitive answer, that it was SA or wasn’t SA, that the innies and outies are the same person or they aren’t. I actually want to hear your take, I just ask that, when you type it, be respectful and understand that I have the right to disagree with you just as you have the right to disagree with me.

[serpenlupus]

T-Cogs and the ending of TFONE

(Let it be said that all this theorizing is in the name of fun, not imposing this perspective on anyone else or invalidate someone else's interpretation).

So, Transformers One and the "magical" restitution of every cogless bot's T-cog at the end of the movie, what does it represent, what does it truly mean?

I've come across a few different takes on this, and recently found some criticisms of the movie remarking how everything is fixed way too easily at the end. The energon drought is no longer a problem, and all the cogless miners have a brand new T-cog by the will of Primus himself, which is a step too far for some. Our protagonists got their T-cogs by taking the ones from four dead Primes, but brand new ones materializing out of nothing for all the cogless miners? Nu-uh, too much.

I want to argue that it's not that unrealistic if the T-cogs stand for something that the character were always meant to have, not just in a physical sense.

To be fair, I myself didn't give this too much thought the first couple of times that I saw the movie, it seemed to me like a logical step towards a happy fulfilling ending. After the emotional devastation that was the disintegration of the friendship between Orion and D-16 on the last half of the movie, I think it was much needed tbh xD (And also, probably the studio had to have the movie end with a neat little bow because they didn't know if there could be a sequel and there coulnd't be any loose ends, so there's that as well). But on a couple more whatches and reading some other opinions, I started to think on it more.

There's a point I've seen made a few times, about how a cogless cybertronian can be equivalent to a disability, since transforming is so integral to transformers. Which, I want to make clear, I'm not disagreeing with that, I think it's a pretty fair assesment of the context of that universe and its rules, but I also think it has inadvertedly contributed to thinking about the T-cogs in a very literal, physical sense, and not in a more metaphoric/abstract one. And it can be both!

Other comparisons I've seen for the T-cogs are the capacity for growth, as in, becoming adults per cybertronian standars; unlocking their full latent potential (that's a bit of the same as the first, tbh); or their original role in society/privilege, think warframe/civilian frame like in Animated canon.

However I don't feel like those explanations are quite right. The detail of the T-cog scene with Alpha Trion is often looked at separately from the scene at the end of the movie, because cogs from deceased bots are being used as oposed to "brand new ones", when in truth I feel like the same thing is happening. That these bots have been told the truth, have witnessed it, and with that truth comes something else.

The sentence that Alpha Trion says, " They were one. You are one. All are one" is used often in the universe of Transformers, the meaning behing it being "All are equal"

Perhaps it's because visually the characters are being given something, that is confusing the metaphor? but that something is not a new thing, rather, it was something that they had originally. Something that they should have always had, had not someone else taken it from them, something that, without it, takes away their right of choice and they can only do the one thing they're obligated to do. Something that was taken from them before they were even aware of it being a part of them.

Something that Sentinel convinced an entire society that the Miners didn't have, could have never had, even though he and his own knew it was a lie because they had taken it.

Try to imagine instead, chains being broken.

And remember who's origin story are we watching.

That's right, say it with me now:

And truly, What else could it be?

When Alpha Trion has that conversation with Orion and co. on the cave, revealing that "No child of Cybertron is born without a T-cog", he is giving this freedom back to the protagonists, which is physically and metaphorically represented by the T-Cogs of the fallen primes. The knowledge that he is giving them is that they were always meant to be free, intead of being relegated to the one thing, and with that they can choose their purpose. Be it stop Sentinel or just kill him, that's up to them. It's in part why I think he doesn't try to disuade D-16 of his course of action; he should have the freedom to choose that path, wherever it takes him.

(Trion also probably wanted to see Sentinel getting the shit beaten out of him, but we're gonna sidestep that for now)

When Optimus gives T-cogs to all those miners, he is giving them freedom they were always meant to have. I mean he says it, outloud, at that ending scene: freedom and autonomy to be whomever they want.

Man, to have that panel of IDW Optimus saying "Autbots stans for autonomous robots" right now. I can't find it xD

I guess a counterargument could be that Orion in particular was always trying to choose something other than mining, and was constanly breaking protocol, so he didn't need to physically have a T-cog to have his own autonomy, right? But, 1. yeah that's kind of the point, even if they take it away, freedom is inherent to all of us, and also 2. if you're punished for trying to step out of a role that you've been forced into, you're not exactly free, are you? The simbolism was there reflect the change from wanting that freedom to actually having it.

And the whole thing with the T-cog of Megatronus Prime... I'd say stands appart, mostly because it feels more like a mcguffin or a reperesentation of power, but I think I can try and tackle that on another post.

So, yeah, that's whay I think the writers were aiming at with the metaphor of the T-cogs, although multiple interpretations can always be taken from the same text, these are simply my two cents added to the conversation. Thanks for reading and feel free to add your own thoughts!

[loredrinker]

My little sister loves antagonizing me (lovingly) and she'll send me Dragon Age questions or comments to get me worked up. She will read shit on Tumblr and then text me, provoking me and then I'm compelled to write about it! So this post is regarding complaints she teased me about, about romance in DA or that some romances should never exist (cough cough - Solas).

Dragon Age is known for its romances, and I’ve always felt they add depth and individuality to every character, revealing something you might never see through a friendship or rival path. 

So, my own opinion is that romance in these games adds more context. Why wouldn’t we want to understand the characters from as many angles as possible?

I’ve never viewed different world states, endings or choices as isolated possibilities, but as different reflections of the same character - like parallel universes simultaneously happening. Just because something doesn't happen in one world state doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it still reveals who the character can be, and that potential is part of the whole.

Take Cassandra, one of my favorite characters in Inquisition. I’ve romanced her once to experience the journey and I’ve watched her romance arc in many videos because I want to understand more about her. I start with an open mind, I watch animation, listen to dialogue, try to understand what the story is telling me, connecting past games and lore and history.  Her romance opens up an entirely different layer of her character that isn’t fully visible through platonic interactions alone. For many characters, it’s through a romance that we see the full arc of who they are. 

I think it’s essential to explore Solas through multiple lenses of the story - through the Inquisitor, both high-approval and low-approval, a romanced Lavellan, through Rook, through Mythal. I’m only just beginning to look at Solas through Elgar’nan’s eyes, and that perspective alone is already revealing entirely new ways to understand him. But it means paying attention to everything the games provide – they all paint a picture of a character or moment in the story. When I see opinions on Solas or Inquisition from players who have yet to play Inquisition, I feel a bit...I don't know what the word is. By not playing Inquisition a player misses out on so much texture.

And yes, I know there are some players who prefer to engage with Solas solely through his romance and some of these takes can definitely be ... interesting... especially when they haven’t explored other world states.

So what does the romance add? 

It doesn’t change what happens when it comes to Solas' choices from world state to world state but it changes how players might understand events and understand Solas. 

Solas comes across as emotionally guarded, cold and distant in every world state. He starts off as seeing an Inquisitor as nothing but a pawn for him to use across them all, but here is where the branching off gets interesting – rival, friend, lover. They just have such different contexts to explore!  Each path gives us access to Solas’ emotional interior – the low-approval one brings out the rigid, arrogant Solas, but in the romance we’re granted access to the tension between love and ideology in Solas - that is delicious for some, annoying for others.  

Is it canon for every player? No. But it reveals more of him - adds layers, contradictions, and emotional weight that aren’t always visible elsewhere. It gives us something to wrestle with.   

I don’t believe that Solas’s writers created entirely separate versions of him for each world state. The banter, codexes, letters, dialogue, reactions – the story is telling us who these characters are – and our individual lenses will determine how we interpret something. 

As Trick Weekes says: 

“Solas is someone who experiences sadness. This is someone who falls in love, even if he doesn’t do it with that Inquisitor on that playthrough, this is always someone who can be like that.”  

This isn’t saying if Solas falls in love. It’s saying he is capable of love and that love is a part of his character - not an out-of-character detour in the romance path. So even if your Inquisitor didn’t romance Solas, or you fucking hate Solas’ guts, that emotional trait is always a written part of him - the romance doesn’t create that, it reveals it.  

I love exploring Solas through both a romance and non-romance lens. The friendship and rival Inquisitor paths are equally fascinating. And really - how many people stop to recognize how important a rival Inquisitor is to Solas’s arc? It’s part of why the Inquisitor, regardless of relationship type, is such an important character in understanding him - and why that narrative thread can continue through Rook.  

Honestly, I don’t understand why some players wouldn’t want to use (and play themselves) the romance paths to better understand a character. You don’t have to like the romance to acknowledge that it reveals a different facet of who they are. 

In fact, it’s fascinating how even the kinds of questions you ask about a romance shift depending on your lens. Whether you approach it with hostility or positivity, it still offers insight. A critical reading might focus on manipulation, contradiction, or hypocrisy, while a more empathetic one might reveal internal conflict, suffering, or emotional vulnerability. Either way, the romance gives you something to interrogate that isn’t visible in the same way through other paths. 

The fight ending, where Solas proclaims himself a god, is just as important a psychological portrait as the atonement ending. One shows a man consumed by purpose and hubris, slipping into the very tyranny he once opposed. The other shows someone brought to a breaking point through connection, regret, and the possibility of redemption. Neither cancels the other out. Together, they form a fuller, messier, more human whole. 

I encourage full exploration of Solas through all world states and to try and interpret him through the full range of narrative possibilities. Each world reveals something essential.

(Side Note: Given how little content there is in Veilguard for a friend Inquisitor and how players who chose to oppose Solas in Trespasser weren’t given a meaningful opportunity to follow through on that path with their Inquisitor, it’s understandable that some players felt frustrated or perceive the Inquisitor as lacking importance. Based on comments from developers and writers, it seems clear that parts of the Inquisitor’s role were lost/cut in Veilguard’s development process. In that context, I can understand why some people view the romance with annoyance, or even refuse to acknowledge it, it feels like the only emotional arc that received the most attention. But hey, it exists and I will probably never shut up about it.)

[lesbianfakir]

Thinking about this post and can we talk about how important it is that fakir was okay with Duck not loving him back?

I think it’s fair to say it’s pretty heavily implied that he’s in love with her, and it’s explicitly confirmed in the guidebook.

While Duck’s feelings for him are more nebulous and hard to pin down, from his perspective she’s in love with Mytho. We as the audience know she doesn’t actually feel that way about Mytho but from Fakir’s perspective everything she’s done so far has been for Mytho. She admitted to him in episode 12 that she had feelings for mytho and there has been nothing to dissuade him from this line of thinking. In fact, he finds her crying because mytho chose rue.

There’s this little moment I like. When Duck tells him mytho has chosen rue as his princess his eyes narrow ever so slightly.

[ID: two screenshots of Fakir from episode 25. In the first he is looking at Duck (off camera) with a serious expression. In the second he narrows his eyes slightly. End ID]

He REACTS to this news, even if it’s subtle. And he doesnt look happy about it. Fakir is upset that Mytho rejected Duck. And this seems so antithetical from what we come to expect from a romantic subplot.

So the girl he loves loves someone else… and he’s okay with that. He never tries to pressure or guilt Duck into being with him. Hell he never even mentions his feelings. She likes someone else so what’s the point. But this never dissuades him from his devotion to her. He doesn’t give her an ultimatum or make her choose. He doesn’t even seem get upset that she loves someone else. Even when she goes back to being a duck destroying his last hope of being with her romantically, even then he never wavers. He wants to spend the rest of his life with her. Whether that’s as friends or as partners or as just a simple boy and a duck, he wants to be with her. How she feels for him doesn’t matter so much as getting to share his life with her.

And I find this such a refreshing spin on tired romance tropes. “Just friends” looms large in our media so it’s lovely to see a boy in the so called “friendzone” who’s okay with it. Beyond okay he treasures the time he spends with Duck. His affection for her doesn’t hinge on reciprocation.

It’s so common for characters in fakir’s archetype to grow angry or sad that they’re not “the one,” often lashing out at the girl who doesn’t return their feelings. But instead we have Fakir who’s perfectly content to stay Duck’s friend. After all, being her friend is a gift in itself.

I just love to see a platonic relationship not treated as a lesser stepping stone to a romantic relationship. Sure, Fakir has feelings for Duck. But that in no way undermines the friendship they already have. It’s treated with all the gravity usually reserved for romantic relationships. They’re going to spend their lives together and whether that’s as friends or as lovers—that part isn’t important.

I’m tired of media treating friendships like they’ve suddenly become worthless when one party develops feelings and the other doesn’t return them. With fakiru, the lovely part is that their relationship is built on such a strong foundation it can stand on its own. We the audience are free to interpret it as romantic, platonic, or something in between, but with any reading their close friendship forms the centerpiece.

[leporellian]

How are we meant to look at operas, anyway? (and what are they?)

Operas are my favorite art form of them all. This is because I think they are "just really neato" and "the most interesting to study". However, if you were to go around and ask what Defines an opera? Nobody would have a concrete and true answer to the question. They aren’t ‘sung through stage works’ because many operas aren’t sung through and non-operas that are. They have no specific orchestra or singing requirements. Even determining them on a cultural basis doesn’t entirely fit. I actually think ‘art’ is too loose and philosophical a term for what they are either. (I mean, yes, they are art. But how are they so?)  

I think that while there’s no concrete definition for what an opera actually is, there ARE certain sets of… rules (for lack of a better word) that dictate how operas Are and what we should do when Seeing them. Funnily enough, the most complete rules I’ve seen for operas I found in an essay that has nothing to do with operas at all- “Monster Culture: Seven Theses” by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. My rules for How To Look At Operas are heavily derived from that essay, interpreted in ways to best fit the art form. 

My Rules of Opera (with apologies to Mr. Cohen):

1. The Opera’s Body is a Cultural Body.

Operas are sociological and anthropological records that entail a gap in time between their composition and their performance. They contain as many perspectives as there are people aware of them. Every time you watch an opera, you are negotiating with something or someone else. And these records are always being added onto- no opera is ever truly ‘complete’. 

Operas cannot truly be escapist entertainment because they directly reflect societal problems in both the composer’s time and ours. La Traviata’s main conflict- the way sex workers are demonized and unsupported among ‘polite society’ and how societal expectations and the pressure to conform destroys lives- is something that existed in Verdi’s time, and our own. La Traviata is about the sex workers of today who can’t find work anywhere. It is also about how Giuseppe Verdi’s wife was poorly-treated by the people around her for having been sexually active before their marriage. It is also about the gap between these two events, and how one thing became (or still is) another. 

An opera production is not a recreation. No matter how ‘original production accurate’ they claim to be, they are always a negotiation. There is no such thing as accuracy, as civic law. Once one is freed of the expectation of ‘canon’ or ‘what ought to be’ in an opera, one can deal with these creatures more handily. 

2. The Opera Always Escapes.

No matter how many times Don Giovanni is dragged off to hell at the end of Mozart’s opera of the same name, he always reappears again in a fresh new staging. He never stays down there. Maybe the gates to Hell are looser than we imagine- or, more likely, this is because he represents something that cannot be defeated. What does the character represent? Abuse, sexual violence, power (with class, with gender, with religion); grief, loss, death. None of these things will go away in our lifetimes or the next, and so Don Giovanni as an opera remains relevant. 

In fact, there are no ‘irrelevant’ operas in the standard canon as we know them. Any irrelevant operas that did exist are long gone because there would be no reason to revive them. Even operas that have ‘aged poorly’, like Turandot, confront us with why they’ve poorly aged and force us to reckon with some part of our current world. We react to them in some way and therefore they are worth further looking into.

I call this the “All Dogs go to Heaven” theorem because it doesn’t argue that all operas adhere to the same standard of quality, or are even written with good intentions in mind- but it does argue that they all are worth studying and experiencing. And any opera, as long as a copy of its score and libretto exists, can come back from the dead. So just like the movie, not all of them stay there.

3. The Opera is the Harbinger of Category Crisis.

One of the most common ways to explain away what an opera is, against a musical or a straight play, is to claim that operas are sung through while musicals feature spoken dialogue. Respectfully, this is wrong and insane. Two of the most famous operas of all- Carmen and The Magic Flute- feature extensive spoken dialogue, while Hamilton and Cats (both sung through) are musicals. The notion of operas having specific orchestral or voice requirements isn’t quite true, either- each era of opera, and each opera, is a separate animal.

Is Porgy and Bess an opera, or is it a musical? It features many musical qualities with the latter, and was written by musical-writers - yet it is referred to as an opera. Sometimes it is both. Maybe at some point it could also be neither. Operas do not participate in the general categorization of their Western theatrical siblings. Musical, straight play, ballet- these art forms are immediately distinguishable as themselves. (Note that musicals, despite having a lot of variety, do not have as wild a diversity as operas do owing to their relative youth as an artform.) But an opera can be all three of these and still be an opera. Not only that but there’s so many ways for operas to be- chamber opera, verismo, singspiel, music drama, opera-in-jazz. The opera may borrow from any art, at any time. Its incorporeal form grants it the ability to shift. This is both opera’s great weakness and its greatest boon of all, maybe its most defining operative feature of them all- it can be anything you want it to be.

4. The Opera Dwells at the Gates of Difference.

With their characteristic exaggeration and other oddities, operas are immediately recognized as depicting a world that isn’t quite our own. It’s a world rooted in our own (see point 1) but it isn’t our world. We don’t sing, or gesticulate to that degree, or stab people at the drop of a hat to solve a problem. As much as opera tries to be ‘like us’, it never is entirely so, in a sort of Frankenstein way. 

In this way it is no wonder that all operas focus around difference- from each other, from society, from ourselves. Sometimes this difference is explicit- the ‘othered’, shunned main characters characteristic of the Verdi operas, as in Rigoletto and La Forza del Destino- and sometimes it is more implicit (Tamino and Calaf being strangers to the people around them, Figaro’s position of a lowly barber among Counts and Dons, even Orpheus out of place in the Underworld). The opera seeks to represent the Other. Oftentimes the opera itself is the other. We are all made to learn a new set of social rules when we come to the opera- this equalizes us as an audience, and paradoxically renders us the Other. Opera is about othering and being othered. This is not necessarily good, or bad- it is just a neutral feature. 

5. The Opera Polices the Borders of the Possible.

Every opera begins with- and then revolves around- some kind of transgression. Moral (Don Giovanni slays the Commendatore), cultural (Pinkerton marries Cio-Cio San), societal (Alfredo falls for the courtesan Violetta). The way the opera’s narrative body reacts to this transgression is what will come to define that opera’s theme and what it stands for. Even in the most comic operas, the inciting incident is always a transgression; it is up to the interpreter to detect what the transgression actually is, and from this point the opera emerges all at once like a cracked egg.

Die Meistersinger Von Nurnberg is an interesting case study in transgression. The initial transgression may be seen as Walther joining the Meistersinger contest to win the hand of Eva- he is, after all, not initially a singer, and an intruder on the world of the (educated, cliquey) Meistersingers. But this is not true. Walther initially disrupts status quo when he boldly joins them but he doesn’t stay that way- he is a literal knight in shining armor; masculine and chivalrous, the exact image of how men ‘ought’ to be. Beckmesser, the clerk of the Meistersingers, is consistently depicted as an Other, the nitwit among geniuses; he is effeminate and overconfident, we laugh at his attempts at music making. It is Beckmesser entering the contest himself as a competitor to Walther that is the true transgression in the opera, and the opera surmises this as a bad thing that must be punished through public humiliation and further exclusion. While there is no proof that Wagner wrote Beckmesser to be explicitly antisemitic, the character appears to subconsciously reflect many of Wagner’s antisemitic talking points, adding a particularly cruel underbelly to the way the opera sees the transgression of Beckmesser’s inclusion.

6. Fear of the Opera is Really a Kind of Desire.

Operas are marked by multiple features: Their otherness, their transgressions, their propensity to shift. These all give operas a certain other quality: They are a vehicle for catharsis. The fact that opera is so physically demanding adds to this- an opera is a workout in which emotions about a certain endless topic can be expressed. Salome is terrifying, but through her we can express rage and pure obsession that otherwise would have no place in society. This is also where the falsehood of opera as escapism takes root: When the opera is not given the space to threaten, its catharsis is cauterized into fantasy.

Opera is a space where we can play- already something rare in adulthood- and through the opera we are allowed to play with terror (something even rarer). It is an abstract liminal location only maybe rivaled by a rollercoaster, a playroom, or a shrink’s couch. This sheer radical expression of emotion makes it also easily-mocked by a popular culture unfamiliar with it. I suspect this is because, really deep down, operas are envied. They are so upfront, so passionate, so heartbreakingly sincere that they make those who laugh at art seem small, laughable. But the art form carries on, being unapologetically itself because it cannot be anything else. 

7. The Opera Stands At The Threshold… of Becoming.

What Cohen writes here in the original essay is maybe my favorite paragraph about literary analysis ever written so I’m just going to leave it here in its entirety:

Why do we love opera? What are we meant to do with them, and why are they the way they are? We come to the opera to find ourselves. The rest is just postscript.

[transfemme-shelterdog]

Just. Need to vent, kinda rambling sorry,

I hate how much transandrophobia discourse has made me afraid to just...have normal conversations and share perspectives with the rest of my community, for fear that it'll be interpreted as speaking over transfems (doesn't help that I'm autistic and super socially inept so I don't fully trust myself not to ACTUALLY speak over transfems by accident 😭)

Like, for example I saw a post about transfem subtext/coding in media, and I wanted to add something in the tags about how sometimes the subtext can be interpreted as both transfem and transmasc coding and it works either way, but I ended up just scrolling past because I was afraid of overstepping. And maybe in this case it actually would have been overstepping and it actually is one of those "valid point but make your own post" moments (I mean there were a couple people in the tags who felt transandrophobic because they were like, rebutting characters who are sometimes read as transmasc, but I'm not familiar enough with those characters to know if they were right or not, and that wasn't on the version of the post that I was going to reblog anyway), but this is just the most recent example of something that I've felt on several occasions at this point. And I feel like maybe it...shouldn't be like this? Like we should be able to all talk about our differing perspectives and go "oh I hadn't thought of it that way" and learn from each other and just, you know, be a fucking community

In a similar vein, I get nervous about discussing these sorts of things with my friends because my main friend group has a lot of transfems, and it's stupid because I absolutely trust these friends to not be transandrophobic, but I'm still scared for some reason :( like, I would have talked about this in the discord server with them if I didn't feel so anxious about messing things up somehow

idk. Maybe I need to step back from transandrophobia discourse for a while, I don't know if that will help though because I was noticing and being bothered by it since before I realised there was a word for it and actual discussions happening around it so discovering that the discourse was happening was kinda just a "holy shit I'm not just going insane!" moment, so idk if stepping back would even help really. Maybe I should just take the leap and be direct with my friends so that I don't have to deal with that slight lingering doubt (which is almost definitely irrational but like, I have trust issues 😔) but I can't think of a way to do that that wouldn't be rude or something. I just hate being so on-edge whenever I see discussions about transmisogyny

I just. need to say this somewhere, idk if there's any advice or reassurance anybody has I'm just too scared to vent about it without anonymity right now :( thanks for listening

( - 🐈‍⬛♠️I think this was the emoji combo I used last time I signed one of these?)

Well, I am a trans woman, and I don't see that or talking about your perspective as "talking over" me. I've had a lot of conversations irl and online with trans guys and I've always seen it as an educational/learning experience. I love hearing about the views and experiences of those not like me.

That's not talking over, that's just conversation. If you are told that this is "talking over" transfems, then that person wasn't worth your time anyways.

If they're not open to hearing you talk, and only want to talk themselves, that's a red flag and worth avoiding.

[cross-d-a]

I wonder if one of the major purposes of The Acolyte is to show that the dark side is everywhere and it is in everything and it is in everyone. It is a constant battle, a constant fight. A consistent echo of “choose the right thing choose the right thing choose the right thing this time.” Bc it feels like the show is leading up to the big Reveal of whatever Sol has done. Sol, who is kind and gentle and fatherly. Sol who seems to encompass the epitome of the Jedi. We’ve really only seen him through the eyes of his friends/comrades and the eyes of a lonely, traumatized child.

The overarching “unreliable narrative” of the show is Fascinating. As the audience, we view the story through so many opposing viewpoints and are forced to work mostly with both the characters’ and our own interpretations of events. We have multiple Jedi viewpoints of course, who largely view themselves as a benevolent entity. And then of course we have the Sith who view the Jedi as oppressive but also perhaps naive as they force themselves to work within their own self-governed rules. And we have the people, who so far have seen the Jedi as friends, strange neighbors, hands of the Senate and nuisances. And then. THEN we have Osha and Mae who have inside perspectives of these opposing viewpoints but are also Other, both by nature of their existence and their experiences.

We can choose to make the wrong decision, or the right one. But who determines what’s wrong or right? And how do you navigate that choice when you don’t have the full story? How can you trust that your decision is the right one, when it may be right for you but wrong for someone else?

There are so many layers to it and it really feels like The Acolyte is trying to explore that. Because the Dark Side is wrong to the Jedi, but it’s right to the Sith. And what do you do when you think you’re a good person but make the wrong noice? How do you navigate that? How do you recover? How do you right your wrongs? And should you even do so?

This got away from me a bit but I think The Acolyte boils down to this. Nobody is inherently Good or Bad. There are decisions and how you deal with the consequences. Not to say you can’t consistently purposefully make choices that hurt others, but I think The Acolyte is trying to show that the Jedi are just- people. They’re people who have this amazing power and live within a complicated religious organization with a complicated relationship with the rest of the Galaxy. And the Jedi may have power but they’re just people, too. And they have good in them, and they have bad in them. And what makes a Jedi a Jedi is that they’re constantly fighting against the dark in them, and maybe sometimes, they make mistakes, because after all they’re just people, too. And sometimes, they just give in, for any number of reasons, but maybe most of all because they think they’re doing what’s right. (But who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?)

[golvio]

I think the metanarrative reason for the Princess being put into an antagonistic role in the “intended story structure” instead of being the protagonist is a big hint to her true nature.

While the protagonist gets to have the POV and make the major decisions that determine the story’s resolution, the antagonist is the one who actually makes things happen. Even when she’s not an antagonist and you’re working together, she’s still making things happen solely by being the only visible character present. Her mere presence changes things.

It’s very, very difficult to have a story without some external force or another character acting upon your protagonist and pressuring them to make a move. Even stories told primarily in flashbacks have the main character interacting with something, even if only in the past tense. A story where the main character just sat there, never interacting with anyone or anything, never having any experiences to learn from, would be incredibly boring. Simply having someone else there to talk to and play off of is enough to get things to move again.

Contrast this with The Narrator’s ideal story, which is a Wholesome™️ story where the main character does what they’re told and then never has anything bad happen to them ever because, as the only character left in the story, they’re safe from conflict, change, or heartbreak. Sure, it might not be a controversial story that would upset someone, but it’s also incredibly dull and unfulfilling. The credits roll and that’s it? That’s all we get?

It’s absolutely hilarious to me that, while The Narrator inserted his echo into the Construct under the conceit of being the literary device that’s the vehicle delivering the story to the reader, he really sucks at storytelling. He can’t build rapport with his audience (us) because he doesn’t understand what we want or how to persuade us beyond vague moral arguments with no emotional hooks whatsoever. He’s so inflexible and refuses to allow alternate interpretations that he can’t handle when things go off script, and can’t get the story back on track when we start going off the rails short of pulling a deus ex machina (which only works when the audience still has enough faith in him to take him seriously as storyteller instead of doing their own thing). Things only get interesting when the Princess gets involved. Things only move forward when she forces the issue, particularly in the Nightmare route, where you refuse to commit to a choice out of fear of potential consequences.

A friend of mine who recently did their first playthrough commented on how the underlying quest to collect perspectives for the Shifting Mound was basically an improv session. I think they’re right on the money. Each chapter is like a game of “Yes, And” between you and the Princess that continues until neither of you can think of anything else. The developers mentioned in an interview that Shifty M. only arrives to take the vessel home when the story “ends.” That is, when there’s nothing left to do. Improv is one of the genres of performance that best encapsulates Change in its demand for adapting to circumstances and new information, so of course The Narrator would be against it, preferring simple, linear narratives.

People tend to become fascinated with antagonists because they’re the ones who make things happen. Adding an antagonist who’s also a person is one of the easiest ways to start building a story. By making the Shifting Mound and her fragments our enemy and requiring us to get within talking distance in order to slay her, The Narrator shot himself in the foot by making Her the most compelling and interesting character by default.

[mysteryanimator]

SENSES - Animatic breakdown :D

Breaking down my panels because I am silly and I know some people wanted me to break down my thoughts for this. THOUGH, I still leave a lot up for interpretation!

You can watch it here :D

(Also I ended up adding subtitles to this, so you can see what panels get timed to each lyric)

(I won't go through every single panel since 30 image limit BUT please know that 99.9% of the panels have been beamed with a lot of symbolism. I'm very passionate about this subject, esp with drama scenes LOL)

Also here proving to myself I don't use ten billion close up shots HAHAHAH, ty for three days ago me for thumbnailing everything

SECTION 1- MIZRAK'S POV

yes, the first verse and first chorus is from Mizrak's perspective/second verse is from Olrox's perspective.

OK, not only is the establishing shot, but it kinda establishes the major symbolism stuff I play into- hands and windows! Connection and dividers! Please keep in mind eyes are the window to the soul :D

It very much informs the entire animatic LOL.

From here on out (till a certain point :3) the window acts as a divider. This shot will be important for later btw :))) Also I have a feeling Olrox would say something like "Destiny always seemed make believe."

Fun fact, I ended up dropping a wip section 01 to a few people and they were all eviscerated by the part of Mizrak reaching for Olrox. This acted like a screen test for me and later informed me to focus on Mizrak's hand for a few more shots.

WHICH, BY WAY THE CHORUS BREAKUP SECTION FROM MIZRAK'S POV:

I won't delve too much into here, BUT mentally i decided that when interpreting the chorus, it was as if they were speaking to each other. It also happens again for the bridge part :DDD

SECTION 2- OLROX'S POV

What was important to me was getting Olrox's POV on Mizrak, since in Nocturne we explored Mizrak getting insight into Olrox's past I went "omg, let's do the reverse!" and get Olrox to gather insight on Mizrak's past.

I've perceived Mizrak to be a lot more snappier with his co-workers and friends (take for insistence him yelling at the other monks, and being a lot more direct without fanfare with Richter and Maria in the first ep)

PARALLELS !!! Which, the abbey is intentionally overlayed over Olrox, hahaha Mizrak needs to choose between duty and desire :))))) Also this is the sole reason why the placements are skewed heavily to one side, so they can literal mirrored version of each other and be put side by side.

I actually debated myself a lot for this part, because the plan was going to go in a very different direction, however I thought having them not facing the camera, much like how they both can't seem to face themselves (or each other directly for this matter). Which I noticed was a huge thing with the character acting between those two characters.

ANOTHER CALL BACK LOL. Also I personally interpret Mizrak saying "we make our own destiny".

Mizrak reaching out !!! Also, while there is no window, the wood panels are there to substitute for the division theme. Olrox is standing on that divide and Mizrak has to decide if he wants to "break" through that divider.

SECTION 3 - omg they do it

OK, the scenes where they do the deed!!! By this point I feel like you guys are already getting very used to all the call-back scenes, so instead of doing a mirrored version of the first chorus scene, I decided to make all of the lyrics a contradiction to what was happening on screen. This helps for the hard cut to their argument hit sooo much harder (well i would hope sooooo LOL)

also if this shot feels familar, It's from an animation wip I'm working on that's been shelved for now because of uni HAHAH

A fight? No no, you're getting them fuc-

HAND, this will be the only time they will touch hands. The only time they connect. Also I like the contradiction with the "leave me alone with all of my questions", while they literally hold hands as they do it LOL.

SECTION 4- The argument

OK SO, me explaining these frame isn't super important, its more so a fun fact BUT going back to them using parts of the song as their "dialogue", I thought it would be fun to have them jab at each other. SO when Olrox is paired with:

"Know you fell for the person that tried to be someone they're not." Olrox is taking a jab at Mizrak for not being himself.

"You long for a feeling you'll never get back and I'm scared that you'll finally give up." Mizrak is taking a jab at Olrox for being a 'coward'.

HA, so remember eyes are window to the soul? Well so I decided that for this argument section, I wanted to give off that the argument here was literally going to dig DEEP, so I just ended up reusing the exact same lighting/posing for them. Which is the reason why they're both dead center (and it helps make this section slightly disorientating).

Which by the way, I noticed in Nocturne, these characters don't face each other directly when being vulnerable- they're always like behind or off to their side. The only times where they've been face to face properly are these:

"You're an animal whose soul died centuries ago." "Oh, has the world abandoned you Mizrak?"

They're jabbing into each other's inner psyche, so I wanted to do that here :D

Yes, that is right. Briefly you see Olrox's lover and Olrox's amercia fit. I thought it would be SO angsty for the earring piece to come from Olrox's previous lover. Also the past versions only start appearing during the "but the one you'll never love." :))))))

Btw I'm not 100% solid on Olrox's prev lover design, but I'd love to develop him more someday (if he doesn't get further developed season 2)

SECTION 5- Aftermath

From here on out, I make the references so much more obvious! For Olrox waking up I ended up going backward of the introduction! Which as a final note, the abbey and Olrox are on opposite sides of the divide :)))

Also, around this time I had realised "oh I have 30 seconds left and I want this done now or else it'll fester and rot in my brain, making me unable to do anything else until I finish it." So instead of completely making new assets from scratch, a much more straightforward parallel was in order (and it makes it super angsty too, which double points)

The ending I wanted to leave very open ended! However, I will make it known that he crosses over that divider when he balls his hands into fists, unlike how he was unable to when I first showed this exact shot.

Also these are the three shots I reference back to for this final scene. Mizrak ends up crossing over that divide, much like he did when the animatic started. WHICH AGAIN, you are super free to infer and make up your own thoughts as to why these scenes were crucial for referencing.

By the way, every time we have seen Mizrak from the chest down, it starts from the back, then the side, and now the front :))))

As a side note, every time I cut off a character's head (specifically eyes too) in a shot, it is very purposeful to force the audience to infer what these characters are feeling and base it off their body language alone. It is also in a way, an attempt to conceal as much as I can about what the character is feeling, playing into the theme that eyes are the window to the soul, and we, as the audience, are not allowed into their private thoughts.

anddd done :D hope y'all enjoy this info-dumping soup. I'd love to try my hand at some action boards and see how my analytical brain puts drama beats there, since at this point applying emotional connections to compositions and camera angles is second nature. So that for action hrmmmmmm we'll see AFTER UNI THO (ANNETTE IT'S YOUR TURN)

I have one assignment left for this semester, wish my uni wouldn't adamantly put down 2d focused students (or wish they'd even teach us, though honestly teaching myself is very fun and rewarding) BUT I digress!

I had a lot of fun doing this! Ty for reading this far LOLOLOL

[nordicfiord]

Do you have any other dynamics between the voices that you like,besides Cold and Contrarian?

Love your art,by the way,especially Contrarian!I love how soft and puffy he looks!

Ohhh, thanks for the question! And thanks for the kind words!! Have another Contrarian – he is pretty sure his friendship with anyone would be good!

it also would consist of bullying half the time but if everyone is content that it can lead to some of the best friendships out there!

And now… IT’S RUMBLING TIME!!

tldr: I am semi-interested in most dynamics, but am currently obsessed with just one. Crossovers and AUs make dynamics more fun for me to think about because of backgrounds.

So! Voices, huh? What a wild bunch.

I love those little guys. I love that mostly here at the stp fandom we are just interpreting them through our own lenses of understanding – through our own perspectives. It is very fitting, and it allows all of us to view these dynamics in many, many different situations.

Honestly, my brain is a mess. It is a giant cauldron, where everything at once is boiling and twisting and turning. That’s why everything is mixing up into lots of crossovers and weird ideas. 

Can I say that I like voices dynamics in canon? Sure! I like that one Adv-Fury route with Stubborn and Contrarian having the “I may not have a brain, gentlemen, but I have an idea” moment. I like that Hero tried to stand up for us in Cage and Paranoid helped Skeptic to insist on his solution by “physically” restraining him?? What a power move. Pretty much every interaction between voices is something interesting to think about, honestly.

But, uhh…

My brain just chose two random clowns and said “Them. I wanna rotate them.”

Honestly I don’t even know why he (my brain) did it. Maybe he just projected my favourite dynamic (clown and clown enabler). But I like other dynamics too??? Why not them???

Genuinely don’t know.

BUT!

Remember I talked about AUs, crossovers and stuff? Those are bigger dollhouses for my brain. There he can assign some dynamics to characters and watch them unfold.

Examples? Sure!

Skeptic being “the mom friend”. Originally it went from the need to have anyone that could control ContraColdChaos. But when I thought about putting voices in my old Steven Universe AU (I will talk about it here I swear it is just too much to unpack….), it all just made so much more sense. Because there Skeptic was the one responsible for revolution and leaving their home world, ended up on an unknown planet with some very troubled teammates (traumatised disabled leader, “I-died-so-many-times-I-can’t-be-stable” general, repeated killer of said general, army refugee and a high-quality spy) and he HAD to take responsibility and make sure nobody dies. Also that created a very interesting dynamic with Hero, because Hero is basically a young abused ruler who doesn’t believe he has any autonomy… and here Skeptic is, his subordinate, who literally is making all the decisions. Like, it’s clear that Skeptic cares and wants the best for Hero… but he is pretty much adding to a family emotional neglect.

And there’s more. Opportunist feeling like he owes Smitten for saving his life. Cold and Skeptic trying to process that they’ve killed and revived the very same person. Smitten being this person and trying to live a normal life with his murderer and resurrector in the same home.

I guess I just… Can’t operate inside of the canon universe with the little outside influence there is?

Maybe in my head-universe, when TLQ left, he left the voices a big fun playground, where they can put various masks and play many, many different stories. They need something to occupy their “forever” too, after all.

Anyway thanks if you’ve read this far!! I appreciate it, really. Sorry if it’s not uhh… organized? Like I said, my mind really is a mess, haha.

Have a nice day everyday!~