#believe me I have much more in common with someone who like. writes a no-nuance fic with a sexualized power imbalance that's

[dixieconley]

Some comments based on my own fic:

Unreliable narrator is a thing. I.e., when someone is completely honest with their emotions -- and their reality is completely kriffed up. Not all of it makes it out of their head, but what does is also kriffed up. I suspect that many of us are unreliable narrators.

Despite how much therapy we may get or how much emotional intelligence or honesty we write into our characters, our own personal issues get written into stories whether we like it or not. I went back and reread one of my fics and found that, instead of the heroic tale of a girl figuring out how to save everyone I thought I wrote, it turned out to be a tale of a selfish, immature girl who screwed everyone over. Unconscious bias is a thing.

Readers don't always understand nuance. I wrote a flawed character into my latest story -- someone who's lying to himself about his own motives which causes him to make some poor choices. He's got noble motives; he thinks he's doing the right thing. But the readers have told me that the way I'm writing him is character bashing and that I'm making him into a villain. I personally believe that I'm giving him an understandable and common character flaw. People don't seem to like it when their heroes have feet of clay.

Perhaps writers need to write more realistically. But readers expect certain things which are not realistic, and to be honest, that's the point of fiction. A place where things can be simplified to good versus evil and good can win. Why not model good emotional health? That's also a part of fiction -- showing the world as it could be, not as it is.

That post that's like "stop writing characters who talk like they're trying to get a good grade in therapy" really blew the door wide open for me about how common it's become for a character's emotional intelligence to not be taken into consideration when writing conflict. I remember the first time I went to therapy I had such a hard time even identifying what I was feeling, let alone had the language to explain it to someone else. Of course there are plenty of people who've never been to therapy a day in their life who are in tune to their emotions. But even they would have some trouble expressing themselves sometimes. You have to take into account there are plenty of people who are uncomfortable expressing themselves and people who think they're not allowed to feel certain ways. It also makes for more interesting conflict to have characters with different levels of understanding.

[musical-chick-13]

Also (and trust me, I know this isn't the point, this is why I am making a separate post and not tagging it as anything, the focus should 100000% be on the victims), as someone who is currently writing A Complicated Story about a really thorny topic where two characters navigate that topic in a way that is. Probably not going to make sense to people and also gross a lot of people out...

Not a fan of this idea that that is inherently suspect and makes me a predator/abuser! I already see this shit based on the way people act toward bisexual women and how more people on the more extreme end of human behavior misunderstand OCD! And while I am (thankfully) at the point where I can shrug those things off now, there are plenty of other people who can't.

Like, yes, this is incredibly annoying, and I would very much love to not be assumed to be the worst kind of person alive based on literally nothing, but it's really not...out of concern for me, even. It's for the 19-year old with OCD who doesn't have anyone they can talk to and thinks they're a monster. It's for the struggling trans woman (especially trans WOC) who is told at every turn by her conservative or exclusionary community that she is inherently unsafe by virtue of existing. It's for the black person who is assumed to be dangerous based on nothing but their identity. It's for the CSA victim who doesn't have the vocabulary to describe what's happening to them and sees writing it out as the only way to make sense of it. I'm not going to tell those people they have to police themselves in regard to the art they make so they can prove they're "not a stereotype" and "one of the good ones," what the fuck kind of right would I have to do that?????

[sheepwavehdg]

I am generally disappointed with the place the HDG Foundational Works have ended up in among the broader readership and fandom of the setting.

Despite the fact that the foundational works page literally says it is not intended to be the definitive introduction to the setting, it is common in spaces devoted to the fandom for it to be presented that you absolutely must read all of them to understand HDG enough to read other stories.

And like... No???

It's meant to be stories that should be read before writing and to answer questions about the setting. That is literally what the page says. I have, however, seen readers lament that because abscisson is too dark for them or divaricated is too long, they feel they cannot read anything else in the setting. I have seen people genuinely believe there are exactly seven stories in all of HDG (because of the unintended misleading design on the website that implies that)

Every story an author makes should stand on its own to some degree. Certainly, mine are all written assuming the reader is brand new to the setting(though I dont think any of them is an ideal introduction, I make sure a reader wont be completely clueless). If someone is looking to get into HDG, I vastly prefer to ask them the question "what kind of tone do you think you would enjoy" to just linking the foundational works page. A linear entry to the setting- even though I consider every story on it to be very important and noteworthy- flattens nuance and minimizes the importance of later growth and development in a way I really don't like.

The foundational stories reflect a specific period of time, when the setting was much smaller and existed on Read Only Mind. It is no longer on ROM, it is on AO3, and many of the most influential authors currently writing are all new voices who were never even here for ROM. I do not think that the broader fringes of fandom appreciates the nuance of this fact, and it irks me that so much discussion now centers on these stories to the point it drowns out all else unless you actively force it to be otherwise.

If I absolutely had to reccomend an introduction to the setting that composed of a list external to the foundational works, I would personally point to Irregular Orbits by rocketmermaid, Through The Looking Glass by PyxxieStyxx and mothcourt, and particularly The Place Where We Can Stop Running by Dame Harmony as my set of introductions to the setting as it exists in a living body of ongoing works today.

I don't think, aside from fixing the stories tab on the website not mentioning the existence of stories outside of the foundationals(and this is already kind of a waste of time since the entire website is being replaced soon) and perhaps moving them to the writing tab instead of the stories tab, there is anything that the settings managing team can or even should do about this, as it is unfortunately just a reality of the broadening fandom drawing more mid to low engagement voices into the mix, but it still really irritates me.

[bimbolita]

I’m so glad everyone is having the same visceral reaction to episode 4 like I did. I thought I was being too sensitive but fucking no. It is painful. It is horrid. Knowing that this type of abuse actively happens to sex workers and those who are trafficked. It’s jarring because I didn’t expect to see this dark and explicit depiction in a cartoon that jokes about penises every 2 minutes. It’s like when light hearted coco melon shows start talking about death, it was just unexpected because I never took this show serious. I’m going to share more of my thoughts below! Trigger Warning: Mentions of SA ⚠️

I don’t think it’s my place to deny or confirm if the ‘poison’ scenes were fetishized, I personally believe it’s subjective. I know how I feel but I think no matter where you stand, you are right in your own way. Many things can be true at once. What we can all agree on, is that it was harsh. In a way, I hope the audience is able to understand how exploiting and non glamorous sex work is. There is nothing fun about having your body used multiple times a day by people you do not know and having said scenes recorded then plastered all over the media. Of course all forms of engaging in or creating adult content are different, I am specifically talking about sex workers who have no say or control over their bodies and finances. Like Angel. Let us put emphasis on WORK in sex work.

It is demanding. It is laborious It is scaring. Remember that and remember the unheard voices who must do this to simply survive.

There is a lot of criticism about angel’s personality and yes I agree it is annoying but you have to understand, it is a trauma response. Hypersexuality is a common trait among those who are sexually abused. Angel just outwardly expresses it all the time because it is all he knows. This thought process is the only way to tolerate his behavior. I say thought process because it is only an interpretation. It’s very obvious viv just adores writing sexed up characters with zero nuance or depth but let’s just pretend she can actually write male characters that think beyond their cock and balls. Let’s pretend that Angel Dust is a two dimensional character and not (grits teeth) fetish bait.

Now, let’s talk about Charlie. Alright great, she saw her friend being mistreated and was about to stand up to his abuser, ok good good. The victim (Angel) gets upset and wants her to leave because he was beaten. Yes, average response of someone who is an abusive relationship, he is afraid and wants to avoid more conflict between him and Val. The situation at hand couldn’t be more than obvious. How does Charlie respond? She cries. And not because she is frustratedly concerned for the safety of her friend. It is because he yelled and rejected all her poor attempts at helping. Charlie is weak as shit and I think that interaction was weirdly written. I wish she had the mental fortitude to understand how much danger Angel’s life was in at that moment. I cannot enjoy her ‘aggressive kindness’ cutie do no wrong baby girl type of character in a moment like that.

And I feel the same about Husk’s song. Out of all the responses you could’ve made, this is what made it to the final cut? Do better. I don’t care if I lack the mEdIa LiTeRaCy twitter keeps yapping about. It’s bad. You just showed a sexual assault montage and the rebuttal was basically “my uncle broke his neck tap dancing once :/“ lol we’re both losers and that’s ok, suck it up buttercup, I like you regardless. This was the best response to an SA victim? No degree in media literacy would ever help me think that was an acceptable response. I dunno about ya’ll but I major in common sense at the university of using my eyes and fucking ears. Now imagine, if that entire segment, when Husk and Angel are at the bar plus the musical number; imagine if all of that was placed BEFORE we see Angel and Val interact and then poison plays as the final song. It would be 10x more impactful because then the audience sees how deep and stuck Angel actually is. Trauma olympics is never acceptable but neither is trauma participation trophies. It is not right to make Husk’s issues be seen as the same as Angel’s issues. They are not the same and it is ok to acknowledge that Angel has it worst than Husk. It’d be more genuine if Husk were to just hug him in complete silence after dragging him out of the bar and have Angel tearfully embrace him back. The first non sexual and benevolent interaction between them. The first physical act of care with no ulterior motives of lust.

I grind my teeth at the wasted potential.

[go-learn-esperanto]

Watchers - Evo, ATUS and Fandom

It's very common to see people blame ATUS for the way the fandom sees the watchers now but... How much did it actually come from there?

Wings (and statues):

Although the depiction of Watchers specifically having wings does exist in ATUS it's very clearly originated from Evo itself as Grian was once left a statue of what Grian called at the time "an angel lady" who had wings Grian was tasked with burning down (they represented his greed)

You can see the EVO symbol in glass above the statue.

Even though the statue isn't exactly stated as representing a Watcher it's not really stretch, specially since the statue appears to have a obsidian staff, the same obsidian the Watchers used to cover Grian's chests.

Puzzles and riddles

Evo originated. All it's presence in ATUS comes directly from Evo. The only change might be the inclusion of stained glass windows depicting Watchers. Although I wouldn't jump to conclusions if someone right now decided to draw Watcher Grian stained glass art as it's a very common trope in general with God-like beings. Very much brought by Catholic representations if angels, saints, Jesus and the likes.

Masks

This one is one I can safely say, if you see fanart like this with a mask that isn't see through with the Evo symbol it almost certainly came from ATUS. Variants with a blindfold instead of mask might be inspired by this too. Even if the artist isn't exactly aware.

Eyes

Very nuanced topic. For startersthe name Watchers automatically inspires the idea of eyes. Of being watched too. But there's more options.

Evo never explicitly represents the Watchers with eyes.

ATUS does it a little bit. At one time when one of the masks is taken from a Watcher (that isn't Grian) they're face is shown to have a lot of eyes. However this isn't the full "wings and whole body are full of wings". Not even "Void with eyes" you now see a lot too in fandom.

I have multiple theories. The most obvious is Biblical accurate angels. Lots of wings, circles, eyes in the whole body, these are almost certainly angel originated.

Now the idea of being able to watch everything could've come from a lot of places. Even some Magnus Archives influence can be here (even if some minimal)

I will say the Watcher in ATUS are a bit disappointing in the "all seeing" department. They can sense some things but they aren't that powerful or at least scary with that.

Controlling worlds

Evo originated as the Watchers gave clues to the players so they find portals to the next updates + the puzzles + gifts and punishments. They were very much in control

Purple

Evo. From the literal Minecraft portals to the Evo icon it was very much present the whole time.

Powers

ATUS makes use of some powers like telekinesis and the like. There is even some mention to being able to use blocks that aren't allowed/present.

The telekinesis part is very much an ATUS thing even though again - if someone is going to give powers the ability to magically move objects would be the first choice.

The part of bloks that aren't accessable to a normal player are more nuanced. In Evo the Watcher did build structures with obsidian and bedrock which are either extremely tasking to get or impossible so the grounds for that are very much there.

The ability to show up in dreams is present in ATUS but considering Taurtis' lore in Evo I'm not surprised it was inspired by that. It's not the same as the Watchers never appeared in Taurtis' dreams but Taurtis did miss going through the portal because he was sleeping and woke up to seeing everything purple with a portal animationor even more likely: the ATUS part came from the angels showing in people's dreams in the bible so again - might be in ATUS but it doesn't mean the people who write / draw stuff with it took it from there.

The Watchers destroyed Evo

Surprisingly, Evo based. As someone reminded me well, after Grian left the Watchers threw a meteor at the Property Police I believe. This leads to

Watchers are Evil

Depends of who you watch. Grian's playthings gives room for doubt. They give gifts and punish. They seem neutral at least. You could argue though that a lot of Grian's punishments were deserved. They were because Grian basically liked to prak and blow up other people's stuff.

They can be about platful as I saw someone describe them once.

Also the modification of the end poem, the one that reveals Grian turns into a Watcher himself, is quite fond.

Martyn and Jimmy on the other hand play the Watchers as more evil even in Evo. As they are more connected with the Listeners and the Listeners oppose the Watchers.

In ATUS they are shown as feigning compassion and being very manipulative.

But if you follow Last Life canon they are also shown as manipulators.

+ In Grian's lore specifically they are canonically a representation of the viwers (you and me) but this has seemed to change in Jimmy and Martyn's lore.

So I'd say ATUS made popular the "Grian was taken by the Watchers and they were awful" but the truth is that there was some ground to that already.

Watchers came from the void

Not specific stated in either Evo or ATUS actually. I don't think we ever really know where the Watchers exist in Evo but in ATUS they are from (a special kind of) the End... But there's also a logical reason for it.

Elytras and all the obsidian. And in Evo Grian got turned into a Watcher after he fought the ender dragon and used the end portal.

The idea of the void most likely comes from the void that surrounds the End.

Watchers are eldritch abominations:

Well, the Watchers in Evo don't have a canon physical appearance and in ATUS they are quite tame. A bit taller than maybe the average human, have wings, use robes... But nothing too monstrous. They use staffs and magic weapons to fight.

The idea if cryptic abomination comes from somewhere else. Probably a mixture of Biblical accurate angels and maybe some other pop culture monsters.

Bird features

100% neither Evo nor ATUS. Recent development that came from the wings and Grian's association with birds in Hermitcraft.

Grian's Watcher name is Xelqua

Surprisingly not ATUS! And not Evo either! The name is from Grian's old YouTube name but I don't know where the idea was first introduced. It wasn't in ATUS though.

Conclusion:

Except maybe the masks almost all stuff, even if more elaborated in ATUS, all the stuff as either came from Evo itself or even been inspired from something else (most likely biblical accurate angels). In fact I believe the stiff in ATUS mostly came from biical accurate angels too or just normal angels (long robes, stained glass windows)

So I think accusing all fandom depictions of the Watchers as all coming from ATUS is very silly. ATUS might have popularised the appearance of Watchers in Hermitcraft and in a way to have some Grian angst but it definitely isn't all there is to Watcher depictions. Besides that other fics have come and did things differently.

For exemple I have already read two fivs where Grian (a watcher) is a monster in the boaten hole. Yes. The idea he was like transformed into whatever he is by the Watchers might be very loosely be based on ATUS (although Watcher Grian in ATUS was never an eldritch being. He was just like a person with wings and a mask and he was still himself and capable of communicating) which in turn came from Evo but it's already very far removed from it.

Fandom changes. You might want people to watch Evo to take their own conclusions and you might ask for more variety but saying ATUS is the sole responsible for the state of fanon Watcher Grian is just false.

[ellipse-society]

This post has been a long time coming and will be pretty long, so let's get into it.

Nuance in Syscourse

And cw we will be talking about a lot of common syscourse arguments as examples, so if that is not something you are comfortable reading, this is not the post for you. This includes mentions of fakeclaiming.

We see a lot of "all in this group believe/do this." If you use the word all in any arguments like this, what follows is likely untrue as(and this is an exception lol) all people are unique. Also, it is important to be aware of the flaws that exist on your side of syscourse instead of just focusing on the flaws of the other side. And we won't be talking about neutral's beliefs because they are even more complex and varied, but this post can be used as justification for why neutrals exist.

So firstly, "all anti-endos believe endos don't/can't exist" very much false. I know of anti-endos who believe endogenics exist, and I know of pro-endos who don't believe endos exist. That has never been where the line is, and it never will be. There are enough other factors present that people can make their decisions on other than that alone.

Common arguments of this might be from a pro-endo I don't think endos exist, but they deserve to be respected and allowed to discover more about themselves at their own pace. And for anti-endos I believe endos exist I just simply don't think they belong in CDD spaces, and I don't feel their experience is close enough to mine that I feel comfortable interacting. They don't have to fit your definition of a pro or anti endo to identify as such. They choose the syscourse label they think fits them best.

Of course, there are other more harmful beliefs, such as the anti-endo belief that endos are plural they just don't remember their trauma. This does happen in some cases, so it isn't completely out of left field, but it is another case where anti-endos aren't falling into the immediate their faking mentality. It is also fair to say that some traumagenics who believe themself to be endogenic may have a harder time recognizing their trauma/trauma responses when they start becoming more prominent due to the label. This by no means is an excuse not to take the label if it is what you feel best represents you but simply a possible consequence of it. You're identity us what feels right to you, and it can change as you discover more about yourself.

Both sides of syscourse can also justify that some on the opposing side are abelist. Both sides do abelist nonsense all the time. Anti-endos won't stop throwing other disorders under the bus, and both sides won't stop spreading misinformation about CDDs. Endogenics don't need to be validated by the DSM or ICD to exist. The writers of diagnostic manuals for disorders do not care about including non-disordered experiences. Endos weren't even slightly on their radar when they were writing it. Stop making the diagnostic manuals about something they simply aren't about, please.

Another thing that complicates things is that everyone has a different definition of what trauma is, and everyone's threshold for trauma is different. It's easy for those other than the person in question to look at their experiences and think well that would have traumatized me even if they don't find it traumatizing they must have been traumatized by it. It's also easy for those who have experienced trauma to dismiss their experiences as "not that bad" when they really were. There is no solid line to go off of for what really does qualify, which can lead to confusion. Two systems could have the exact same experiences, and one would be/identify as traumagenic and the other endogenic. It's all a matter of perspective.

There is also the problem that many of those with CDDs first introduction to endos is that they are claiming to have CDDs. That can be very scary for someone discovering their disorder/the community and struggling to find the resources they need for their disorder. It is not surprising that those with CDDs who think that's what endos are would want to keep their distance and may take on a label based on what their friends are labeling themselves. That doesn't make them a bad person, just misinformed.

There are also pro and anti harassment people on all sides of syscourse. There are pro-endos who go out of their way to harass and retraumatize anti-endos and there are anti-endos who go out of their way to try to stop (pro)endos from being harassed. You can't tell how aggressive someone will be based on their syscourse stance. This also happens between people on the same side of syscourse. Pro-harassment anti and pro endos harass anti-harassment people on their same side all the time.

If you aren't willing to talk to people you disagree with you, you should not speak on what they believe with any sort of authority. This doesn't need to be some all-out us vs. them brawl. People are allowed to learn and grow and change over time, but treating them terribly will never help them do so and can actively stop them from doing so. If someone harasses you, you can block them. But that is a problem with that person, not every person who labels themselves the same way. No one in syscourse is a monolith and should not be treated as such. Block the ones you don't like or who don't like you, but you don't need to use their actions against their entire community.

[austinslounge]

You'll not have me sympathizing with that ugly ass bitch who is holding Austin's dog hostage all these years. Not that bitch who made shady comments when he was getting dragged for his voice. Not that bitch who was abusive to him! I don't like Kaia either but y'all don't bring Vanessa here to justify your hate towards her.

I love it when complete strangers on the internet who weren't even in a relationship try to re-write history or think that they know a couple's entire relationship based on rumors they've heard on the internet. 🙄

Listen, I go by an entire picture and things that I've seen with my own eyes in order to make up my judgment about someone, because people are usually multifaceted, and typically are not all angel or all devil. Most people are very nuanced and have many different levels to their personality.

Take a seat, because I have lots to say.

1) First of all, Vanessa isn't "ugly". If anything, she's probably more naturally beautiful 👀

2) You know that Vanessa is holding Austin's dog "hostage" how exactly? 🥴 Were you actually there when she and Austin had a conversation about the dog? 🤔 Let's just use common sense here for a second. If anything, she probably kept the dog after the breakup because she knew that Austin would be busy filming "Elvis" for months, and didn't want the dog to be jumping from home to home. No doubt, the dog grew very attached to Vanessa while Austin was busy working. Darla was living with Austin and Vanessa for years after his mother died, and it would have probably been more stable (and healthy!) for the dog to not be left for months without its owner. You do realize that Austin got sick right after "Elvis" filming ended, and then he also went right into MOTA filming right after right? If anything, Vanessa has provided a stable, loving home for the dog, especially since Austin doesn't have any immediate family members who could have watched the dog for him while he's busy filming on location. It's actually probably helped Austin that he doesn't have a dog to worry about or take care of as his sole responsibility while he's busy working and building his adult career in Hollywood.

3) Wrt to the shady comments.... I personally don't think that Vanessa should have been doing that. So I definitely agree with you there. I feel that when a breakup occurs in the public eye, it's best for both parties to take the high road and keep things civil. I don't condone Vanessa's shady remarks towards Austin or her petty behavior after the breakup. To me, it was dumb, unnecessary, and wasn't a classy way to handle a breakup at all. At the same time, I do recognize that people are only human, and that most of the "shade" she was throwing was coming out two years after they broke up, around the time that she was having to see him everywhere due to "Elvis" prep. Having to see an ex all the time after a breakup isn't always easy. To me, the fact that she was still triggered by Austin two years after a breakup reveals to me just how much she must have loved that man. You're not behaving that way unless you are HURT. The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. While I don't think Vanessa behaved her best during this time, I still recognize as a woman how it feels to go through a breakup. This was a man that she loved for nearly 9 years. Perhaps the breakup came suddenly? We weren't there. We don't know what transpired or what things were said when they broke up. I'm not making any excuses for her behavior, I'm just sharing a different pov. I still don't think she should have behaved that way -- especially towards a man that she dated and supposedly loved for so long. It was petty, it was immature, it was uncalled for, but at the same time, can we really say that we've never been hurt by a breakup before and behaved in ways that probably weren't our finest moments? 🤔

4) "Abusive"? So, you're choosing to believe one or two random reports on the internet which may (or may not) be true, over a span of a nearly 9-year relationship? 🤔 Do you really think Austin (a man who has plenty of options) would have been with Vanessa for nearly 9 years if she had really been an abusive girlfriend? Are we talking about the same Vanessa who helped Austin with his sick and dying mother? The same Vanessa who was always so super supportive of Austin so publicly, was over the moon for him when he got the Elvis role, and who always posted sweet msgs about him publicly on social media? The same Vanessa who threw Austin birthday parties? Do we also REALLY think that Austin's older sister Ashley would have been so close with Vanessa (even had her in her freaking wedding!!) if Vanessa had really had a history of being abusive and a jerk towards Austin? 🤔 Think about that for a second. Do you really think Ashley would still be following Vanessa on social media to this day if Vanessa had really done something so utterly bad to Austin during (and after!) their relationship? Do you think Austin's mother would have loved Vanessa if that were the case? Are we talking about the same Vanessa who seemed to love Austin to pieces and couldn't keep her hands off of him? The same Vanessa who was there for Austin through his depression, through his mom's death, who supported him with love throughout his career? The same Vanessa that Austin looked deeply in love with and actually seemed happy around? That one?

5) Nobody is bringing in Vanessa to justify their "hate" for Kaia. (I don't "hate" Kaia btw -- I just don't think she's the right match for Austin) Some people just notice the stark difference in how Austin looked with Vanessa for 9 years, vs how he looks with Kaia in his "less abusive" relationship. 🙄

Look, you don't have to like Vanessa -- in fact I completely understand why some fellow Austin fans might even dislike her (she's done a few side-eye worthy things over the years imo). But to paint Vanessa with a huge wide negative brush like she's some character villain in a movie is just weird to me.

People have ups and downs. Sometimes, people say and do things they don't mean. At times, couples have fights. It happens. We weren't in the Aunessa relationship. We don't know every single little thing that happened.

All I know is what I see with my own eyes, and to me (to me), Austin looked far happier with Vanessa for years (and even Lily Rose Depp) than he has looked with Kaia. JMHO

I know some fans want to villain-ize Vanessa in order to make themselves feel better about the breakup or about his current relationship, but I'm just going by the photo and video evidence, and there is nothing that I've seen that gives me the impression that Vanessa was "Abusive" towards him. And unless Austin himself comes out and says that about her, all we're relying on is hearsay over the internet, especially when we've never seen any photo or video evidence of the sort, nor seen anything in Austin's body language to imply that in all the years that they were together.

[sir-yeehaw-paws]

If you don't mind I'm going to be horribly demanding and request more delicious thoughts on Kaz and his female coded story. Sorry but I'm eating this all up!!

No sweat Anon! I will say it's a thought I kinda had offhandedly once and left alone for a long time, so I'm having to think way back a bit as I consider it.

As an obvious quick note too, it's sort of a random interpretation I had. It doesn't have any real bearing on canon anymore than my other random thoughts do. It was kind of like, at some point, I noticed that Kaz had a storyline and writing style I've gotten used to seeing but with women.

The jilted ex hellbent on revenge. Someone who is more well known in story for his emotional issues vs how physically imposing or strong he is or isn't. I don't know about everyone else, but when I first think of Kaz, the most memorable thing that comes to mind is his emotions. Being unable to manage ones anger is very 'masculine' a trait, but being beholden to those emotions is a 'feminine' quality.

I'll say too, revenge as a motivator is a common story theme. And its very present in films and the like. This is certainly not a 'female only' thing, and there's SO much nuance that has to be applied. And to be perfectly blunt, I can't fully articulate 100% why I especially have this feeling with him, but at some point in one of my nightly Kaz spirals, I had the thought of "Kaz is written the way I'm used to women being written", and, after mentioning it, I sat on it, never gave it really much expansion, and haven't given myself the chance to really put into words why I feel this way.

It's sort of like..

Kaz gets dismissed a lot. Kaz isn't taken seriously a lot because he lets his emotions get the better of him. (Which is largely his fault, if he could calm down for five seconds and take a breather, he'd be able to put his very honest, very intelligent thoughts into words). But he doesn't give himself that chance. He screams, shouts and acts impulsive instead.

Meaning he gets written off as being 'too hysterical' to take seriously. Which is something we see a lot in female characters. Who often get pushed aside in narratives despite being smart, or having a point, because "She's too hysterical right now don't listen to her."

Kaz is known for being jealous. Manipulative and 100% ruled by emotions and impulses. He makes extreme decisions at the drop of a hat, but places fall apart without him managing the books and the records. He tries to overcompensate, and get taken seriously, but it leaves him getting underestimated and written off. Because for every serious thing he says, for every legitimate point he makes, its either screamed or shouted.

Or, full of biting sarcasm and snide remarks. He's a 'playboy' in Peace Walker. The man with a full hair care routine in a jungle. He's been 'caught' and brought in by a man more powerful and more respected than himself, and while he tries again and again to be on equal footing with him-and fully believes he ought to be, it falls short.

(This isn't excusing Kaz either, his entrance into the MSF is a rabbit hole I've gone down before, because it's very hard to put into black and white territory and victim/abuser territory. It requires deeper thought and more critical thinking).

Anyway.

I think another way to look at it, is that if I imagine Kaz as a woman, his story..really does not change that much to me? It's got all the elements of the supporting/leading lady role. And as a retroactive character (as in, a character that was originally very much a one note they build backwards by making him more meaningful in the prequels) he gained importance in the narrative, but backwards.

(I'm aware this doesn't make much sense, it's so hard for me to articulate this one properly sorry).

To be a tad crueler about it, think of the stereotype 'nagging wife'. Its not hard to imagine Kaz like that. At all. In my head. At the end of the day, it's something I'd probably have to think about more, but it kinda sits in the back of my mind occasionally.

[tedlyanderson]

Reading posts from someone I follow on why image generators are a legitimate form of art and their use should be normalized, and it's refreshing to encounter some pro-generative-AI arguments more nuanced than "I don't want to pay artists." I still think they're fundamentally wrong, but it's been extremely helpful, because it's forced me to examine my own thoughts on the matter and determine why, exactly, I believe what I do. Something something mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone, idk, I didn't watch Thame of Groans.

(Of course I'm not going to mention the person by name or tag them or anything, and for that matter I'd appreciate it if people didn't reblog this. I'm not writing this to get into an argument; I'm mostly just consolidating my own thoughts into a semi-coherent form.)

There are a number of arguments that have been leveled against generative AI, some of which I find more persuasive than others. The energy usage and financial waste, for instance, are significant, but not relevant in the case of one person using a locally hosted image generator and not selling the results. The question of the quality of the work is similarly unimportant to the bigger question; AI-generated images are going to continue to get better-looking as the technology improves, and "good" versus "bad" art is impossible to define in a meaningful way for the purposes of this argument.

The copyright argument is much more important, particularly to me as a creator. Another user pointed out that copyright cases against LLMs (on behalf of creators whose works were included in the learning sets) could have a potentially deleterious effect on fair use and transformative artworks. I'm not hooked into the legal scholarship on this, so I can't respond to that point. I do think it's somewhat short-sighted of that user to say "AI is a tool like any other, its use can be good or evil, our true enemy is capitalism," and then turn around and attack copyright as some kind of uniquely evil legal technology, rather than a technology that can also be used for good (making sure artists are recognized and paid for their work) or evil (large corporations shutting down parodies). And yeah, the revolution would fix all this, but how long do we have to wait for that? And what can we do in the meantime?

Anyway, the one argument that made me genuinely examine my own beliefs was "what is art anyway, and can you define it in a way that does not disqualify large swaths of what is widely recognized as human creative work and also excludes generative AI?" Because that's the meat of all this—not whether image generators suck up too much energy (because it's not about the specifics of the technology, which will change and improve over time, just as new types of paint do not fundamentally alter the nature of painting) nor copyright (which is a whole other legal mess), but whether we can call this "art" at all. For that, you need a definition, and that's the sticking point.

The original poster named a couple common ways of defining art/not-art (the "smell test," i.e. I Know It When I See It, and the "quality test," i.e. Can You Hang It In A Museum, which are largely the same but from different perspectives), and points out that they and other definitions would exclude quite a lot of human endeavors that most people would describe as art (graffiti, calligraphy) as well as fields that are more difficult to define but could constitute art (mathematics, programming).

(They also ascribed to anyone who attempted to make such a definition the motivation of not just gatekeeping but unadulterated fascism, which is an argument I think holds no water and wins them no friends, but. Let's just leave the paranoia aside and concentrate on the argument itself.)

So what is art? How do we define it, and why do I fundamentally disagree that anything that comes out of an image generator can be considered "art"?

I don't think this is sufficient for a full definition, but after talking it over with friends, I think, in part, art requires a perspective, which is to say that it must be the result of individual human decisions about non-trivial components. Another way to state this would be that the artist (if indeed they are an artist) must be able to make conscious choices about the work that are beyond what is strictly necessary for its completion.

Should the background be blue or green? Would this sentence be improved by an adjective? How large of a flourish should this letter have? What if I carve the gargoyle's snarl more deeply? What color should the hair of my halfling rogue be? These choices are indicative of a product that would be widely recognized as belonging to the category of "art."

Obviously, there are still gray areas. Certain fields have both a creator and a performer; can we say that one is "more of" an artist than the other? What about commissioned works? What if the artist is creating something within a strict limit or form—for instance, the 14-line sonnet, or a novel without the letter 'e'? What about Duchamp's Fountain, or John Cage's "4'33""? What about works with a large number of creators, such as films or collaborative writings? What about works where there is a level of interactivity with the audience, such as video games or certain theater pieces? Those and other questions are certainly open to debate, and should be debated! But to my mind, they do not challenge the fundamental principle, which is that the artist is an artist because they exercise choice in the process of creation.

Thus, by my (admittedly partial and underdeveloped) definition, I don't regard AI-generated images as art. The algorithm does not choose in a meaningful way; it merely calculates the most statistically likely next word/pixel/frame/etc. based on the database and the prompt with which is has been provided. (If you want to claim that this constitutes a choice, please submit a 5,000-word essay on whether free will exists and how we could possibly know if it does.) The remixer samples a specific beat; the collage artist cuts a particular image out of a magazine; the parodist deliberately draws in a specific way. The computer computes. It uses a mathematical operation—which, by definition, is repeatable and will produce the exact same outputs, given the same inputs. (Yes, the results have elements of randomization. We all know that true randomness is impossible for a computer, so they produce quasi-random numbers using things like the system time and so forth. I don't want to split hairs on this specific point. You get what I'm gesturing to. Don't look at the finger, look at the moon.) A prompt limits the database to certain specific sets, which the algorithm assembles according to its internal logic. The input is disconnected from the outputs; anyone could input the same prompt and receive the same art. (Even The Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed required an editor.) Generative AI is no more "creating" a piece of visual art than turning a radio dial to a specific station is "composing" the music that plays. The purely mathematical nature of its generative process makes it no qualitatively different from assembling a Lego set according to the directions.

The first obvious challenge to my partial definition is to say that it just restates the premise and shifts the goalposts: art is something that must be made by a person, and thus cannot be made by a computer. Which is fair! This is a verbalization of a belief I've always held about art, and which caused me to immediately (instinctively, unthinkingly) reject the idea that an AI-generated image could be "art." That's how I got into this discursive mess! It's why my brain recoiled when I heard someone call these images "art"!

But it also helps me understand why I instinctively categorize other acts and works as either "art" or "not art." A photograph was taken by a person at a specific time and a specific place, its elements arranged and its moment chosen according to the photographer's visual logic; it is therefore art. A hamburger put together by an underpaid worker at McDonald's is not art; a recipe by a chef that combines existing ingredients in a new way or using a new method is; a meal created by a person who tweaked a recipe might be. (That one might actually run counter to current copyright law, I'm not sure.) A mechanism assembled by a worker on an assembly line, identical in every way to another mechanism made by a different worker, is not art, because there was no choice on the part of the worker. (Could it be art because the designer of the mechanism exercised choice? Depends on the nature of the mechanism and the industry! Venmo me $20 for a debate.) A dance choreographed to produce a specific visual effect is art; an exercise designed to stretch certain muscles in the most efficient and painless way is not art. And so forth.

AI-generated images are not art. (They are also not a medium, which I saw several other commentators claim; an image is an image, regardless of where it comes from. I'm already knee-deep in linguistic debate, let's not cloud the matter any further.) Generative AI is a tool, and there are and can be creative and ethical uses for it! But to claim that it is capable of making art is giving agency to a thing that cannot have it, and claiming that someone who writes "sexy anime girl" in a prompt field is an artist is to expand the meaning of that word to the point of nonsense.

More than one person has brought up Jorge Luis Borges' "The Library of Babel" when talking about the potential of AI-generated works. It's got some bearing on the question, sure, but I feel like the more apropos point of comparison is his story "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote." In that work, Pierre Menard is a friend of the author's who is attempting to become the author of Don Quixote—not in the sense that he is trying to plagiarize the work, or time-travel and replace Cervantes in history, but that he is trying to make himself into a version of himself that could have independently written Don Quixote. It's partly a critique of elements of literary criticism, in that Quixote would become a far more interesting book (according to the narrator) if it had been written by a 20th-century Frenchman rather than a 17th-century Spaniard (it was written some 28 years before Barthes' "The Death of the Author," for context). But in the context of the current argument of generative AI, and specifically to my fumbling attempts to defining what is and is not art, it's an illustrative example of what I think it all boils down to: any work of art is the work of an artist, who inevitably brings to the work perspective/knowledge/experience/an individual understanding of the world. Ascribing any such perspective to an algorithm is just fetishism. (And not the kind that generative AI is most often used for.)

Or, to put this way more succinctly and directly:

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

Huh. Okay so going by your recent post idealizing Judaism to an unhealthy degree is such a common problem there’s a name for it. How does someone unpack whether that’s what they’re doing?

Hi there,

That's a great question! I think it can be a little tricky, because there's some nuances that may tip behavior from "okay" to "not okay" or vice versa that are not immediately obvious to an outsider. There are also plenty of gray areas, where some Jews are delighted by the person's expression of interest, and others have concerns.

I think for me, the thing I see most from genuinely well-meaning gentiles who are otherwise good allies is a fixation on certain parts of Judaism or Jewish identity that neatly fit into existing leftist ideals, but that either aren't as universal as they are claiming or are very niche in the scheme of Judaism as a religion. Oftentimes, what will happen is that lefty Jews (i.e., most American Jews, and certainly a large majority of jumblr) will be talking about this exceptionally progressive stance from ancient Jewish texts, or some niche thing that is meaningful to us, which will then get picked up and distorted rapidly to: This Is What The Jews Think About ____. Efforts to add nuance or complications after the fact are then treated like conservative talking points or party poopers who don't want the Good Jews to Have Nice Things. Eventually, even the "Good Jews" will typically get sick of the lack of nuance, but by that point it's way too late and people are no longer listening. It's much less likely to blow up than the original post, and so you end up with misinformation and discourse being passed around *about* us that no longer *includes* us and our petty insistence on nuance or countering facts.

People also struggle to shut down some of these misconceptions because hey - at least they like us right now and we're being considered (finally) to be Appropriately Leftist. (Something that is often difficult for Jews to find inclusion in, despite being overwhelmingly left-leaning.)

I've seen this happen around so many things: abortion, women's sexuality, queerness, transness, the so-called "6 Talmudic genders," Jewish atheism, Jews wrestling with G-d, Hell, Yiddish language, etc.

I guess what I'd say to avoid it is this: before you hop on a new idea to you from a post that goes something like "holy Frick did you know that Jews believe in [idk, e.g.] women's right to orgasms!" Maybe look up sources first before reblogging and spreading that information as legitimate. It's probably more complicated than that, and the misinformation can cause real harm. See: the harm caused to intersex Jews re: the 6 Talmudic genders.

Here is an article about other issues with philosemitism by someone who I know and respect:

Here is another article to add nuance to this discussion as well:

[uta-makura]

The other day I was rewatching Chishiya's last scene at the hospital, and being the translation nerd that I am, I started focusing on the dialogue choices the Netflix subtitles took. I was a little baffled because some decisions felt a little out of place to me. Now, I only studied Japanese for about three or four years (which is very little when you've got an ideogram-built language in your hands), but I still felt like taking a look at the entire original dialogue. and boy was it interesting.

So I ended up writing an analysis on Chishiya and Niragi's last conversation, comparing the source text (in Japanese) and the Netflix subtitles' target text (in English). I watched using the subtitles without closed captions, so those are what I'm going to be referencing. I then ended up writing my own personal translation of their conversation. Please take note that I'm not an English native and that while fluent in English I might've lost some nuances.

If you're interested in some details of Chishiya's (and/or Niragi's) psychology that I believe got a little lost in the target text, bear with me and let's have a look at their conversation! In the first part I'm going write down both the source text and Netflix's target text (without cc), and in the second part I'm going to examine what those word choices mean and suggest my own personal translation when I feel it necessary. So - here we go!

韮木 / Niragi: 何か / Can I help you? (1)

苣屋 / Chishiya: あなたも心肺停止を体験されたらしいですね / Apparently, your heart stopped as well. (2)

韮木 / Niragi: よく知ってますね / How do you know that? (3)

苣屋 / Chishiya: 俺もだ / It happened to me too. (4)

韮木 / Niragi: 奇遇だな / What a coincidence. (5)

苣屋 / Chishiya: 死にかけたことで、何か変わりました? / Since you almost died, did anything change with you? (6)

韮木 / Niragi: どうかな。まあ、見た目が派手になったくれえだな。そっちは? / I don't know. Well, I guess I look flashier than before. What about you? (7)

苣屋 / Chishiya: 随分と��メな生き方をしてきたから、これからはもう少しマジな生き方ができそうな気がする。そんなところかな / Since I've wasted my life until now, I think I'll be able to live a more useful life from now on. That's about all. (8)

韮木 / Niragi: ろくでもねえ野郎だったのか、お前も / So you were a good-for-nothing jerk too, huh? (9)

苣屋 / Chishiya: まあね / Yeah. (10)

(1) [Lit. Something?] Here we see Niragi initiating a conversation with a stranger using directly the informal speech (known as ため口 tameguchi). It is very uncommon in japanese culture to approach an unknown person without using formal speech, thus this immediately frames his real-world character as someone who's direct and on the defensive. In my opinion, it is better translated with "Need something?", because I'd say it's a bit more aggressive and fits the character portrayal better.

(2) [Lit. Apparently, you happened to experience a cardiopulmonar arrest as well.] The first line coming from real-world Chishiya tells us two very important things about him. The first thing we notice is that he uses very technical, surgical words that definitely come from his medical knowledge: 心肺停止 shinpaiteishi is a complex word, not very much used in informal conversations. I believe that using a simple "your heart stopped" in the target text undermines Chishiya's portrayal as someone who's pretty knowledgeable about medical terms. So what I would do is write directly in the target text "cardiopulmonar arrest". The second thing we notice is the fact that, unlike Niragi, he approaches him using formal speech (known as 丁寧語 teineigo). This kind of talk is the most common and polite way to speak with an unknown person. He even uses the most respectful second-person pronoun, あなた anata, which comes out as quite detached as well.

(3) [Lit. You know that well?] Niragi's line is a direct response to Chishiya's display of medical knowledge. The most curious thing about this line, though, is the fact that Niragi appears to correct himself and use teineigo as well!This seems to be pretty unprecedented for his character, who's previously always been showed as aggressive and as direct as possible. Instead, here he falls in line with his interlocutor's formal speech use and acts polite as well. He's baffled by his vocabulary, sure, but he also replies in an equally respectful way.

(4) [Lit. Me, too.] It's funny, because what we see is a back-and-forth between tameguchi and teineigo: here Chishiya is the one using informal speech. Unfortunately European languages make this type of transition almost impossible to convey, but I think it is curious that after Niragi has adapted to the polite form common between strangers, Chishiya feels that no, perhaps informal speech is what feels more right. It's almost like he seems to acknowledge an unconscious feeling of already knowing that other person in some way.

(5) [Lit. What a fortuitous meeting.] Chishiya's switch seems to have made Niragi subtly more comfortable because he goes back to using tameguchi. Also, while I think "coincidence" is a pretty good translation, it fails to 100% convey the fact that 奇遇 kigū points at the coincidence of meeting someone. It's not simply "what a coincidence we both had a cardiac arrest"; its meaning is more along the lines of "what a coincidence that we both ended up sharing this hospital room". So once again the dialogue implicitly suggests that the two characters have some sort of connection.

(6) [Lit. Since you came close to death, did anything change?] The back-and-forth continues because Chishiya now returns to teineigo. He seems to keep the stranger at arm's length and to feel confused about whether he knows this person or not. Also, Chishiya doesn't ask whether anything changed with Niragi, because what he says is "did anything change at all?". His question is broad, referencing what could a personality trait, a new worldview, or something else entirely.

(7) [Lit. Who knows. Well, my appeareance has probably become more flamboyant. And you?] Some things to notice here as well. First of all, Niragi keeps using tameguchi; his speech pattern is pretty brash, considering the other person is officially a complete stranger who's settled on teineigo. He even uses そっち socchi as a second-person pronoun, which is not aggressive, but definitely feels colloquial. Another word choice I wanted to look at was the term 派手 hade. Now, this made me raise my eyebrows, because according to Weblio's Japanese-to-English dictionary, some of the meanings of this word are "flamboyant", "gay", "showy", "gaudy", "loud". Niragi is essentially comparing himself at the flashy way queer people are known to dress in (especially in Japan, where gay men in particular are still subject to stereotyping as funny and colorful people).

(8) [Lit. Since my way of living has been without purpose until now, I have a feeling that my way of living will be able to be a little more useful from now on. That's about it.] I'll give you three seconds to guess what Chishiya does in this line. Ready? 3, 2, 1... yes, of course he switches to tameguchi again. Once again his instinct must be telling he's got some sort of previous knowledge of this other person, and so he drops teineigo definitely. Moving on, a change that I think is important to apply to the target text is the translation of 気がする ki ga suru. It does not mean "I think" (which is a conscious action we make) and instead conveys the idea of "I have a feeling that", "I feel like" (which portrays a subconscious feeling we can't always explain). Borderland Chishiya had experiences that brought him to a conscious change of heart, but of course Real-life Chishiya doesn't know that, so what he references is a simple sensation he gets.

(9) [Lit. So you too were a worthless asshole.] Tameguchi remains the speech manner through which the conversation is carried. Niragi makes it even more personal because he uses the second-person pronoun お前 omae, which is specifically masculine in use and extremely forward, often used to directly confront the interlocutor. The word 野郎 yarō is one of the few Japanese strong insults and covers a variety of English epithets like "bastard", "son of a bitch", "asshole". Now the nuance may very but I think "jerk" is a little too mild for both the term used and Niragi's usual speech. We also see the use of the adjective ろくでもない rokudemonai, which can mean "good-for-nothing", but also "worthless", "insignificant", "up to no good", "without purpose". Once again, the nuance used here may vary.

(10) [Lit. Well.] Chishiya concludes their conversation with one of the colloquial expressions we see him using during the series, which is non-committal and generic. You could also translate it as "I suppose", "Yeah", "You could say so".

It was very interesting for me to observe how in the space of a few lines the two characters went from using polite speech and respectful pronouns to a way more informal and direct way of speaking, in just a matter of minutes. I also enjoyed seeing Chishiya's medical background making an appeareance in the source text, and his hesitance towards using an informal speech pattern with someone he doesn't remember meeting, but feels like knowing. I think there's a lot here that gets expressed in an implicit manner and in the source text only!

I definitely had a lot of fun writing this analysis, so since I'm kind of in an Alice in Borderland brainrot I may in the future consider observing the translation process of other (more important) scenes. But this was a fun approach to begin with. Thank you for reading if you've come this far!

[katyspersonal]

What are your opinions on our Lord and Savior Gywn?

He didn't save SHIT!! He took the perfectly (?) functioning humanity and ruined it! Look at it, it got Hollowing!!

Okay, I am making the 'Marika is a MILF Gwyn' jokes here and there, but 1) Marika is a bit more of a straight up cold and mean person, all things considered 2) Yet she still has enough nuance, and a lot of her actions might be written on reasonable fears and 3) Gwyn is even MORE nuanced than Marika, from what I have concluded so far! Laurence is a similar kind of sinner too. Comparison of the characters that share a trope is helpful for my thought process, so bear with me a little! With Marika I see a more direct disdain and fear before the very nature of life, cyclic and treacherous, uncontrollable, being meant to perish one day but with new life sprouting from it, and thus doing lovely things like shunning Crucible-related lifeforms. With Laurence, we have enough evidence so far that beasthood was not created by Healing Church but something already lingering in the human code after Pthumerians and Loran, so ambition to seize and control it it was risky but understandable!

But with Gwyn, we are confirmed that human nature itself is dark, undesirable an terrifying, as well as how he sorta had the chance to see it 'in action' during uniting with humans to take war on dragons. And also in Dark Souls the cyclic nature of Ages is just a fact, and it would make sense that should Age of Dark come, he and his family would be the first to go as beings of Light. It is a combination of things: his kind being in true danger and not just "risking to lose power", the treacherourness of how political allyship simply works (your today's ally country against the common enemy could tomorrow ally with someone else to start the war on YOU) and simply the not-so-metaphorical horrors of the Dark itself! is not a speculation, the dangers are RIGHT here!

Gwyn messed the natural order of humanity in a way that I personally dislike and express it on multiple occasions: trying to get rid of what's barbaric and dangerous yet natural and not accepting that there is no light without shadow, or life without death. But I also feel sympathetic because he had a legit reason to fear the darkness within men. In is not as much philosophical but a literal concept in Dark Souls lore. He acted out of fear, backed up with a precedent, and it brought the ruin to himself and everyone else. Writing this I'd say he sorta falls for the type of a person I can only like in fiction but resent in reality. I guess I don't need to explain what kind of people this is, paranoid "but for a valid reason", being "preventive" with their drastic measures.. Good intentions path to hell self-fulfilling prophesy blablabla. His specieism doesn't help his case in the slighest. Ironically, all extremely human behavior of him!

(LOL thank you based Goldmask as usual xddd) At the same time, he is not entirely corrupt with the power he seized and used to strip humanity of what was natural for them; he, in the end, committed to what he believed was better for everyone and sacrificed HIMSELF too. I can respect the cunning and machiavellian person who, in the end, is above the vanity of a 'savior' and can give themselves too, not only others. He also did share his power with some humans, showing that he can take kinda benevolent choices even with those he fears. Yeah, part of calculated risk could be there; dude gave the city and his daughter to the Pygmy to, again, preemptively avoid some animosity. But in the case with the four kings, did he HAVE to? Or Seath for that matter, who is a dragon, another species he doesn't like?

I find it hard to detect 'truly' corrupt people in Soulsborne setting in general, and yeah we can fiddle with 'nuanced character' and 'everyone is morally grey' forever and never discover THE big bad we'd love to hate. But, out of those big bads, I think he deserves the benefit of being seen as a way more nuanced character than the corrupt leader the most! It is the case where he should not have done anything, but also should not have NOT done anything.. Soulsborne is eager with placing characters in a position and knowledge where every choice is wrong and they just pick a poison for themselves (and everyone else xd). Jokes about "haha people in power moment" are still mostly jokes for me. He is sympathetic in a way not like I think I'd have done the same (let's be real, I revel in darkness gfjjghk) but in a way where I understand too much to feel negative 🤔

[oddygaul]

Piranesi

I write this post under the watchful Gaze of the Statue of the Gorilla in the Fifth Northern Hall. May his Strength and Resolution give me courage!

art by upongoblinhill - link to prints

I can’t remember the last time I finished a book this quickly. Piranesi’s biggest strength, I think, is in its writing and pacing. The world and setup are compelling enough on their own, don’t get me wrong, but it’s the transportative nature of the prose that refused to let me go.

It’s easy for me to imagine a version of this story written from another, more common angle: perhaps seeing the proceedings from Raphael’s point of view as she slowly unravels the mystery, or having us follow someone who has only recently entered and is still exploring the House, or even just following Piranesi’s journey from a detached perspective that treats his worldview more dispassionately. That we instead get a window right into the inner thoughts of someone who’s been inside the House for years is what makes this story tick. From little flourishes, like the capitalization and proper noun-ifying of seemingly insignificant details, to full-on religious practices, like Piranesi’s divining of the hidden messages that nearby birds give him via landing on different statues, we get insight into the House not only as it is, but the House as it is perceived. Because we get to see everything through the lens of Piranesi’s obsessive care and attention to detail, it becomes easier both to become immersed in the house as a fictional setting, and to start believing diegetically in the beneficence and grace he characterizes it with.

It also feels (as Clarke clearly intended since she references it multiple times) like getting a peek into the head of an outsider artist. The same day I started this book, I actually walked by a museum with an entire section dedicated to Henry Darger. I then immediately made the connection reading Piranesi’s categorical, dizzying knowledge of all the House’s statues and their (invented) inherent meanings - this incredibly niche, almost absurd knowledge, from an outsider perspective - to a body of work like Darger’s. I was stoked to see the idea of outsider art / academics brought up in Matthew’s notes later.

—

From a conceptual perspective, it was also very cool reading about a crackpot cult leader whose off-the-wall beliefs were actually right. I don’t spend a ton of time reading / listening to stories about cult leaders, serial killers, or conspiracy theorists (it bums me out), but one element of those stories that always fascinates are the ridiculous ideas they manage to convince their followers to believe. In those contexts, it’s bleak, because no matter how much they spark the imagination, I know they’re just snares and falsehoods used as means to an end - so it was satisfying to read the excerpts from Arne-Sayles’ theories, which surely sound like nonsense to everyone in-universe, from the perspective of someone that’s living proof that all of those ravings are unambiguously true.

And we only saw one of the dozens of worlds!

—

One of Piranesi’s most prominent themes is examining what aspects of our past selves we carry with us as we grow and mature. The story focuses clearly on this with Matthew Rose Sorenson’s / Piranesi’s huge personality changes, obviously, but there was a lot of nuance to it I liked. One of my favorite bits was how drastically different Piranesi’s temperament was compared to what we know of Matthew’s. It’s difficult to truly compare, of course, because most of what we learn of him is through unreliable narrators Ketterley and Arne-Sayles - how much does someone calling you arrogant really mean if they themselves are the height of arrogance? Still, by most accounts Matthew Rose Sorenson was haughty and self-important, while Piranesi approaches the world with kindness, understanding, and optimism.

Is this simply what Matthew’s mind would be if freed from all the baggage and minutiae brought about from a clout-chasing academic life, and getting a fresh start enabled him to become this more empathetic self? Is the House itself truly a font of knowledge and peace, whose benign influence, if allowed in, can soften even the most calcified personality? Was it just random chance that Piranesi developed the way he did after his mental break? All seem like equally viable possibilities. 

The things we see Piranesi carry on from his past life as Matthew are scattershot. There’s the obvious ones, like his love of journaling, or the scientific curiosity that drives him to chart out and record the things around him. A trait I found curious, though, was the strong belief in animism he seems to have developed in the House. We see from reading Matthew’s old journals that he’s done plenty of research into Arne-Sayles’ work, including his theories regarding the power of ancient man and their ability to communicate with the world around them. However, despite not believing in it at the time, the idea clearly stuck subconsciously and resurfaced, as Piranesi has a real gift for communing with the World of the House, from the tides to the birds. Who could say if these abilities are still possible in the regular world, but in the House, at least, it seems that this communication is possible, and Piranesi has become quite skilled in it.

Meanwhile, despite not being trapped in the House and ostensibly being able to retain his faculties, we watch the Other try again and again at his inane rituals, thinking of increasingly far-fetched adjustments to his experiments with no results to show for it. In this way, despite not ‘losing his mind’, as he says Sorenson and James Ritter have, he is stuck in his ways to the point of self-defeat - it is his lack of reinvention and self-growth that is his biggest weakness. Our protagonist, on the other hand, despite having seemingly lost everything from two separate lives by the end of the book, is able to make his way back to the ‘real’ world as something more than the sum of his parts. Rather than either extreme of falling back into routine or totally forgetting what used to be important to him, he’s able to forge the best parts of his past selves together into something new, and continue moving forward yet again.

The Beauty of the House is immeasurable; its Kindness infinite.

[opyre]

I finally beat the game for myself ! I had watched @otlaw stream it for me when it first came out , but playing it myself definitely brought about so much more wonder and intrigue to the world and characters for me . I have a lot of thoughts about how I'd like to run this blog and general canon divergences that I wish to piece together for the sake of ease of access for all of my writing partners ! this certainly is not all of them , but they are the ones i've given greater thought to thus far . this is a long post , by the way . . . oops .

triggers mentioned as follows :

parental abuse ( mother , specifically ) , religion , suic*de alluded to but not specifically mentioned , possession

first , i'd like to touch on joshua's relationship with his parents .

his relationship with elwin was a bit more strained than the game let on , or how i imagine the relationship between elwin and clive . i think elwin put a lot of pressure on joshua ( intentionally , or nonintentionally ) and forced him to live in a bubble of burdensome expectation . i think he dearly loved his father , but the yearning for his approval oft made their connections rocky . i don't think they had many heart - to - hearts , but i do think joshua admired him . he loved him , of course , but i don't think he felt safe or appreciated around him , and i don't think they knew much about each other beyond the surface level and their inherited family dynamics . his ' inner voice ' section states : ' i don't want to disappoint him . . . '

his relationship with anabella was complicated . anabella made him feel protected , like he had someone who should ( not 'would' , necessarily ) care for him , and he relied on her heavily . she was the parent he looked to most to care for his needs , but unbeknownst to him , she did not care for many . her interests were always self - serving , but as a child , joshua was blind to it , and when he wasn't , he'd simply deny it in the favor of giving her the benefit of the doubt . because he loves her . as his ' inner voice ' section states : ' she can be scary , but it's only because she loves me . ' we can see in the scene that causes her death how joshua just wanted to save her . he wanted to help her . he believed there was still a chance that things might turn around , while jill and clive simply look pained that he gave her the chance and she betrayed it . again . i believe it was a common theme for them growing up . joshua being anabella's defender . not necessarily speaking up on her behalf , but making excuses to make sense of her behavior . i believe he often read between the lines with everyone , and everything . and still does . and there is certainly more to their relationship and the things she does and what he learns that i think about during his time with the undying , but that's for another post and another time .

on the subjects of his relationships with others , i wanted to point out specific variations that i will be adopting into my portrayal with my affiliates ( of these characters listed ) exclusively and a lot of this is stuff we have plotted out together and discussed .

CLIVE ( @otlaw ) : joshua and clive's relationship has so much nuance to it . they were brothers who were raised in a toxic family environment with very different experiences between their parents , the realm , and their expectations . they love each other so wholeheartedly and dearly , but it also does not undo the tragedy of their pasts , nor the tragedy of the night of flames . they are brotherly in the way that they are so aware of each other's flaws , but so aware of each other's strengths as well . certain jealousies plague them , and their guilt in regards to each other seems unending . they are full of love , but they are so riddled by the bitterness and blight ( figurative and nonfigurative ) of this world and the ways their lives have affected not only themselves , but each other . their paths are so closely interwoven . if i can recall , clive is the only person on their side that we see joshua get explicitly angry with .

JILL ( @glacierites ) : screw what square enix did to jill and joshua for real . first amenity : when joshua first awakens with jill at his side after the 5 year skip , he does not simply brush her aside . he blinks awake in a steady realization of who he is with and why he is where he is , but does not presently realize that it is jill who is kneeled beside him . he is transfixed on helping clive , as he gets up to try to save him , but when jill calls his name , he recognizes her immediately . his eyes tear up and he tells her he will return , before priming and flying forth . joshua and jill have a lot of nuance as well , but get along better than clive in joshua in terms of their similar personalities . they spent a lot of time together as clive trained and sparred and share many sacred memories , secrets , and inside jokes with each other . also . he hugs her before they leave for origin . he gives her the moment with clive of course , but i'll be damned if he will hug dion and mid and not jill . he loves jill . that is his family . that is his sister .

JOTE ( @tutelaris ) : jote and joshua are so much deeper and more complex than canon lets on for me ( and prince , but let me not put words in his mouth , haha ) . jote became a trusted companion of joshua's as she was one of the few among his age group and helped to nurse him to health during his five year coma . after awaking , jote as beside him most every step of the way . she helped him with physical therapy and comforted him ( when he had no choice but to let her ) through regaining tragic memories and the nightmares of his past . they shared many deep moments together as he learned to reconstruct who he is as a person , and she learns that she is indeed a person ( as this is how joshua treats her , not just a subject to the phoenix ) . they are comfortable in silence with each other , but they also share secrets with one another , sacred moments and memories , and exclusive behavior and remarks . i like to think that when clive and jill around the two of them they're like 🤨🤨 also note that while i do ship with prince's jote romantically , joshua and jote do not act on romantic feelings for each other until joshua returns from origin in his joshua lives au verse ( which i will expand upon in a future post ) .

*** i also want to note that i am COMPLETELY open to writing with duplicates of these characters and developing separate plots aside ! i am not exclusive to anyone and would love to explore more potential dynamics !

and now for something completely canon divergent that i just think would make things much more interesting : joshua can commune , at times , with the phoenixes of eld , his forefathers . he has always been in touch with his powers , but truly awakened to the phoenix at age seven , two years before the remembrance ceremony . during the awakening to the fullness of his power , he entered a vision - like , dream - like state where he was held in a center room within his mind ( reminiscent of the ruins at phoenix gate ) as his forefathers granted him advice and gave him warnings of the future and what the power of the phoenix truly entails . they spoke much on the healing , and protector aspects of things , solidifying his resolve to one day become a person who can protect the people he holds most dear . but really , to protect everyone he is able . i like to think that they can speak to him , but he cannot speak back , and they only speak through his mind in these visions , when the calling becomes extremely important . it does , however , take a physical toll on his body , oft knocking him from his feet and sending him to his knees in confusion and slight agony and pain .

on the subject of communing with spirits and perhaps , gods : i'd like to think that joshua housing ultima inside of his body did things not just to his body but to his psyche as well . i don't think ultima ever possessed him by any means , like , joshua was always in control of his body and his actions ( illness(es) aside ) , but i think he'd see pieces and fragments of the fallen , memories of ultima's in his dreams , and random glimpses of the fallen and origin .

and while we're talking about 'religion' : i think " the founder " or the man who founded the twins , became someone idolized and almost worshipped over time . he became a legend that was voiced into a god by centuries of cult - like religion that eventually became regionalized as a mass understanding of his sanctity and their gratitude toward him . i think this is why they often use him name in exclamations similar to ' by the [gods]* ' , ' thank the [heavens]* ' , or simply , ' founder ' in a sigh of relief . ** could be substituted with the way they use ' founder ' .

[has-gilgamesh-doneanythingwrong]

Gilgamesh for ask meme!

Hi!!! Thank you for messaging me ☺ I really appreciate it! It's been a long time since I did askmeme on gilgablog so thank you for requesting him (i keep most fate thoughts private)! Sorry I will probably write a whole massive paragraph about him XD

My Gilgamesh opinions are very subjective here so they may not all be accurate, which is why I enjoy this ask a lot ^^

Sexuality Headcanon: I headcanon him as bi/pan, like yeah there's no denying he is also attracted to women, but his devotional relationship with Enkidu and kinky pleasure yuetsu time with Kirei is every bit as canon in my opinion!!!

Even his creepy obsession with Saber really hints to me personally that Gilgamesh may not discern his initial sense of attraction primarily by gender- I believe he may be attracted to people based off intangible traits that link to his personal sense of values as well; which cannot be as simply measured as gender.

So in my opinion GILGAMESH IS RATED E FOR EVERYONE!

Gender Headcanon: Though he is masc, man he/him I also feel as if Gilgamesh's gender is also just 'GILGAMESH'. Sometimes I wonder if Gilgamesh would see himself as beyond the convention of gender.

Also I heard from someone that gender can be very diverse in Ancient Mesopotamia so it would be really cool to see where Gilgamesh would slot his gender identity there... also can his pronouns be king of heroes/ king as well! I feel like he really defines himself by his role more than gender per se, and in one fate hanafuda game he says gender doesn't matter ☺👍

An OTP: ohh I love Gilgamesh ships so much 😊😊 Gilkidu is just so amazing in many ways I cannot even describe, Kotogil is incredible in their twisted dynamic .. and GilHaku is just so beautiful! And I love Gilgamesh x Merlin for the shenanigans... to be honest most Gilgamesh ships are my otp. I even really like Gilgamesh x reader/ oc fics and Ritsuka/ Guda ones depending on what the ocs are like! Oh I also like Gilgamesh x Cu as they can clash head on and go wild, as well as Gilgamesh x Ozymandias!

And a mutual introduced me to Achilles x Gilgamesh. I think it is a beautiful pairing as they have so much grief, love, power and arrogance in common.

A NOTP: I'm sorry Gilgamesh x Saber fans. I respect those who ship it but Gilgamesh is such a creep to Saber in my opinion, I like it when she doms him to smithereens and stomps on his pride though ☺🥳🥳🥳

BROTP: This is a hard one as I feel like his otps can be good otps, but seeing him hang out with Iskandar is always hilarious. Love how he actually listens to Taiga in the spin off games as well, so they could maybe enjoy a few drinks together. And Gilgamesh/Solomon/Merlin makes for great chaos.

Gilgamesh/Siduri/Enkidu is a powerful alliance and err what else... I feel like as long as they can entertain one another then Gilgamesh has the potential for many BROTPS.

Random Headcanon: He has golden nipple tassels that he unleashes whenever he has an urge to go full sexy, also I feel like though yes he does love pleasure and decadent desires the way he so tightly constrains and punishes himself sometimes makes me wonder if some of his hedonism is also used as a way to appear as an overwhelming figure to others.

I feel like Gilgamesh is definitely tyrannical and extremely powerful and charismatic... yet also has a side to him that is insecure as hell, his larger than life and genuine powerful and wise sides overcompensating for a side of him that is plagued with all sorts of self loathing and grief.

General opinion: I love this asshole!!!!!!!! Endless joy can be created from researching his character and reading, watching his materials, he is entertaining in such a wide variety of ways, and every side of him is a marvel to witness (though i wanna punch him sometimes too cuz holy crap is he horrendous at times).

He's a very complex and nuanced character that can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways so I am really irritated by how some people try to gatekeep Gilgamesh's character and throw him into a box, when Gilgamesh is such a versatile character! I hope that there will continue to be a space where people can enjoy Gilgamesh in as many different ways as possible, without there having to be some sort of 'fandom consensus' on which Gilgamesh opinions are most valid.

[pinkpruneclodwolf]

For the Malleus thing: it's overexposure on my answer. Malleus is a main staple character that has a lot of fans compared to say: Cater or Kalim. Of course, Octavinelle matches in turn for numbers with Malleus but Malleus also has a dedicated shipping fandom that are so attached to him that they cause... problems.

Shipping is fine in moderation but when I see enough people start fighting that this fictional character is "their" man and not someone else's OC, I know Malleus has had too much time in their head or something warped him. I like shopping and run a sort famous /Reader blog for all genders, and that gives me insight into who people kinda want on that side and Malleus is very famous. Shipping aside, Malleus also has such diehard fans that... they forget his CHARACTER!

Malleus' fandom is the same as Octavinelle (woobifying/creeps flooding in) and now bleeding in Savanaclaw (creeps flooding in/racism against dark skinned OC's): the story is revealing that Malleus isn't gap moe and is an actual character that can do wrong, and hurt people... and they HATE that. I've seen four people drop Malleus like a hat because he was didn't understand what he was doing wrong in the Dorm Uniform. Malleus has had a rigid set of understanding of creatures and it's very straightforward instead of nuanced, and even Malleus admits that he wants to try and projects that his advancement on human understanding will only take 100 years. That's fair considering he's been in the human world for 3 FREAKING YEARS, guys. I believe if we were given how long it took Lilia to understand a human customs outside of Silver experience, it'd not do anything to people's opinions. Because to them, it's not about him learning. He doesn't know so he's obviously a BAD CHARACTER, that must be it! "He's a jerk and now I'm going to do a 180° on my own Malleus opinion that is all over my blog and gave my followers whiplash, starting a bashing war by actually not doing a proper review of his character!" No. That's unfair. Why?

Malleus is an interesting character and I'm so sad that he's gone so far into the fandom that he's been woobified and there is no self warn anything: no disclaimer that this is a more romantic Malleus compared to the canon one, or people admitting that Malleus might be OOC as his character reads so incomplete because they write him so... wrong? I think my real problem is the tail end of fandoms that radicalize and throw Malleus around as something he isn't, and that's okay to a certain degree (my /Reader blog acknowledged that Malleus is a canon as I can do without just being Readers buddy, which he's more likely to be in canon). It's just... people are too radical, I think.

I fear the wars this man will create when Chapter 7, Part 3 shows he's got more flaws then he does. I can see a Rook Chapter 5 happening. :(

But I'm not all pessimistic, I know the right fandom should be encouraged and the minority should be ignored, so I know whatever Yana/Aniplex gives us: I support. I know common artists, writer's, editors are all doing fine and I interact normally, but I hate the "drop him" culture these games have in the EN side.

Oh no I get you.

Malleus by himself is an interesting character in his own right, without needing to be steeped in fanon.

I do think that because he was left to stew on his own with pieces of content to hold Mallelikers over, people ended up turning him into their own character to fit their own needs.

And in some ways it's kinda meta because that was something he was trying to escape his whole life so that he could be welcomed by those around him.

I'm usually not as steeped in the fandom as I used to be what w college and stuff creeping up but I'm genuinely sorry that everyone has experienced some form of harassment from both sides of the fence bc one hc didn't fit the other's or the argument of whether his character is good enough or not.

It's disheartening to see others get jumped because of how strongly they feel towards a character and its horrible that you have to endure that on your page anon.

I'm honestly praying Malleus doesn't go through what Rook went thru because that moment is still be felt to this day due to how decisive it was 😭😭😭.

And it's funny bc Rook not choosing Vil was supposed to give Vil growth, who was so hard pressed on winning to the point that he'd contemplated killing his opponent and subsequently Overblotted. The point was that Vil wasn't supposed to win because it'd feed into him. It was a lesson.

With Malleus' Dorm Vignette, I'd argue that him summoning the other dorm leaders was a long time coming considering they weren't doing any affirmative actions to ensure that Malleus could attend. He brought them to him because it was the only thing he could think of; he's not good with technology, time is a construct to him, and no student is willing to approach him for the fun of it unless it's to get smth out of it. It was mostly an act of burning the village to feel its warmth tho it wasn't out of malicious intent.

In the end I can reason he was still partially wrong, he only considered brainstorming with Lilia [and Lilia, a jokester that he is, encouraged him.] Instead of talking to Crowley.

But I do think that Malleus being the poster boy has led to him being so oversaturated in the fandom that a lot of his personality is lost in translation once more.

I liken it to Ace Trappola. Fanon!Ace played up his worst traits to the max without allowing the nuance of his character growth to shine thru. Luckily, Ace is in the recovery period but the same cannot be said for Floyd 😭😭😭.

My most basic observation is that popularity takes the nuance out of characters and I'm hoping against hope that Chapter 7 shows a new side of Malleus that sets the record straight bc as someone who loves character studies watching Malleus get chopped and screwed is 🥶🥶🥶.