#but calling it the best or even among the best.... no imo

[gizkalord]

my friend once said j/j/k was the most overhyped mid manga/anime she's seen and she's so right tbh

[kelpeigh]

A common complaint among sitcom viewers is how nothing ever changes/develops long-term. The function of the unchanging plot/characters is of course is for ease of casual viewing and so re-runs can air out of order without confusion. WWDITS has always loved playing with that problem, pointing out that there's a canon reason for their characters to remain stagnant: they are literally immortal and unchanging. They've said it explicitly multiple times, most notably imo in the s4 finale "nothing ever changes around here".

So I think it was a little spicy for tptb to give that nod to fans with the hypnosis moment. They said, okay, here's the “best possible ending”, see how out of place the idea of happiness and contentment is here? Canon is not the best possible universe, this isn't even the best possible narrative, these characters are circlejerking idiot disasters and they’ll never be good, well-adjusted people, even after the show is over. They even showed us that this very documentary is a reboot and everything is more of the same.

In the series finale, they cranked the "nothing ever changes" to 11 and had Guillermo, the only character capable of real change, freak out about it, only to show us that he won't change in the end either. This whole season he seemed to be over Nandor, the other vampires, and vampirism in general. But now he's brushing Nandor's hair again. He's calling him "Master". He's acting hopeful when Nandor says there’s reasons he’s happy they won’t have cameras on them all the time… Then his final speech about moving on is a fake-out. By doing that fake-out he joined the vampires by accepting that he'll be a silly little guy forever.

You could argue that the only real change on the whole show is that Nandor really truly considers Guillermo an equal now-- and I like how that leaves Nandermos an open door to write further development post-canon. Cool.

Otherwise, characters are dynamic enough to be interesting, but any development gets folded into the multitudes contained within each vampire without disturbing their Set of Most Salient Attributes. Nadja learned human psychology but still can't empathize. Colin Robinson was literally reborn and he's slightly more chummy with Laszlo for it, but doesn't remember being raised by him. Laszlo's new-to-us passion for science is a re-invigoration of an old pursuit (Cravensworth's monster). We've also seen him make the mistake of thinking Nadja needs protection no less than three times this season.

Tl;Dr It’s frustrating that WWDITS wants to have its cake and eat it too, but it’s meant to be frustrating like that. It’s not new. It’s not exclusive to a ship. I get being more than frustrated about it because it feels like the same ship treatment we’ve gotten from a million other shows, but it really does fit here, on the “even when something changes, no it doesn’t” show

what IS objectively horrible that I will complain about to no end is there was no Simon the Devious this season

[charmac]

Which episodes have the best Dennis and Mac ship moments?

I wouldn't necessarily say Mac and Dennis have "ship moments" that you can pick and label as the "best" (other than what would make sense as scenes for compilations/edits?) and I'll defer to @psymachine's answer to a question similar to this: don't watch this show for Macdennis moments/episodes.

I can pretty confidently say that Mac and Dennis (and the show) will be lost on whomever decides to go at it through the lens of "best ship moments". Because what is considered a good "ship moment" for something as fucked as their relationship?

Mac is canonically admittedly in love with Dennis, so it's not hard to pull a ton of "ship moments" from his relentless pursuit: you have attempted kissing, erotic dreams, baby trapping, sex doll Dennis, room trapping...all stellar attempts on Mac's side and all important aspects for their relationship (Gets Romantic being one of my favourite episodes), but those moments are almost all, in the most blatant way to put it, sexual harassment. Sexual harassment of Dennis that was essentially born and grown from Dennis' conditioning of Mac's sex life in the seasons before: making and recording sex tapes for him, teaching him the best way to get sex is through carefully orchestrated systems and schemes made up of lies and deceit, that getting off has very little to do with a second (willing) participant.

Barring their individual personalities and mental illnesses, what ends up coming from Mac heavily relies on what comes from Dennis years before, and what is eventually ongoing between both of them (reaching batshit levels of sex chicken) exists among and within that all. IMO, placing any specific "best" on a moment for them as a ship is almost impossible without reference to everything before it (and an actual understanding of it all).

That being all said, what I would call the best ship moments for the two of them are what's hidden between and underneath the hard punches of their back and forth, the subtleties that are continually ongoing (mostly the ones that lead you to understand that Dennis is in it, even when Mac is on the offensive), this shit that's impossible to pin out of context:

The way Dennis gets even stupider when he's wrapped up in an idea with Mac (Timeshare, for example) and the way he attempts to cut off his outbursts when dealing with Mac's own stupidity (see Frank Retires) (and Recession is great for both of these). The fact that Dennis will push past his own grievances for little reason other than to make Mac happy (Suburbs) and the fact that at the end of it all, he's always going to end up going home with Mac (Divorced.. mm). (For all of this in one shot: Inflates)

And for Mac, in more recent events with Dennis on the offensive, when his ever desperate vie for Dennis' attention and affection is pushed back on in favour of being the Mac Dennis truly wants. The Mac Dennis fell in love with decades ago.

[moss-ridden-owl-creature]

Dude gangggg can y’all help

I think I’ve got some fucked up toxic ass friendship going on rn and I don’t know what to do about it. (it’s super long sorry)

Now let’s call this friend Q (he/they) Now Q and I have been friends for about 4 years now. And for the first 2 1/2, 3 years or so. It was a chill friendship. Pretty close, Yada yada, all that. But in the last year and a half or so, Q has gotten drastically meaner. I mean like genuinely shitty behavior. He’s copied things I do, insults me, and on a few occasions, actually physically hurt me. Usually it was semi-harmless stuff, like on my birthday telling me that I can’t carry a tune in a bucket, and another occasion “[deadname], I love you, but you CAN NOT sing.” Both of these instances were about a year ago. Keep in mind, one of my greatest passions, is THEATER. More specifically MUSICAL THEATER. Like dude! That fuckin hurts! BAD. And keep in mind, both those comments were UNSOLICITED ADVICE. I didn’t ask, want or need them, but the moment I ask “Hey, can I offer you some advice on how to adjust your art you made?” (Anthro art, which I am WELL VERSED IN.) his immediate response was “No. and don’t you dare.” OH? SO I GET IT. YOURE ALLOWED TO OFFER UNSOLICITED MUSICAL ADVICE, SOMETHING YOU AT THE TIME KNEW JACK SHIT ABOUT WITHOUT ASKING ME FIRST. BUT THE MOMENT I TRY AND DO THE SAME, AND I ASK YOU FIRST, ITS A BAD THING? You goddamned fucking hypocrite. Just pick a fucking side dude! I’m so TIRED of it. Or recently, a couple weeks ago, me and my friends were talking about this stupid ass like what character you’d be if you were in this show we all watched and I said who I’d be -a character I really liked- and this bitch really responded with “You’re not cool enough to be around to be them.” Like dude, wtf?? Why would you say that shit?? Or the other time when they said “You’re not my best friend” among other things. But the most recent, and imo, the most serious development, is that Q has begun to actually hurt me. Not in a joking way, in a purposeful way. Now, usually as a joke, if you put your hand in front of my face or if I see you do something that I think is pushing the boundaries of one of my friends, I’ll “bite” you (it’s literally just your hand in my mouth dude. I don’t even bite hard enough to indent or bruise the skin.) and Q has begun to respond by slapping me. Keep in mind, I’ve done this for YEARS, this is not a new thing I’ve done, but him slapping me in response is new, But today was a different story. Today when I did it, because I noticed that my friend he was bothering seemed visibly uncomfortable, I “bit” Q. Q decided to respond by sticking his fingers in the bottom of my mouth, taking his thumb and pinching the skin between the fingers inside of my mouth and his thumb on the bottom of my chin (the area on your jaw where it’s only skin) and pulling. Really fuckin hard. And if you haven’t had that experience. It’s fucking painful. Especially for me, who, for a long time has had dental issues in regards to my bottom jaw and teeth. So not only did this hurt, it could have genuine affects on my physical health. Now, about a week ago. I informed a close friend on mine that I wanted to try and distance myself from Q for these exact reasons. He’s gotten meaner. unnecessarily mean, to point where it HAS ME PHYSICALLY FUCKING HURT. and gods I don’t know what to do about it, because my friend was like “oh it’s probably just a misunderstanding” THIS ISNT A FUCKING MISUNDERSTANDING OR A COMMUNICATION ISSUE AT THIS POINT. Because what I am putting into our friendship is NOT reciprocated. Worst part is, he doesn’t apologize for ANY OF IT. he doesn’t even MENTION IT. And I just don’t know what to do about it. I’m so, so tired of this shit.

[highdio]

DIO and the Plan for Heaven

I've received a lot of asks for my take on how the "plan for Heaven" in Part 6 relates back to Dio as a character. Some of these included theories and asked whether I agreed with their points. The best way to for me reply is to walk through some misconceptions I've seen repeated about the Heaven plan and at the same time give my own views on how the Stand ability that Pucci enacts in Part 6 can be reconciled with what we know about Dio in canon. Spoiler: IMO the form that the Heaven ability ultimately takes - a universal reset that grants all of humanity knowledge of their preordained fate in advance and down to the micro-level of individual occurances - is not necessarily the outcome that Dio predicted or even desired.

1) The "Heaven" that Pucci enacted in Part 6 is not derived from a subconscious psychological need for security or safety on Dio's part.

This seems basic but I've seen this in comments: the belief that the Stand ability Pucci unlocks through Dio's "heaven" formula relates back to Dio's own need for security and peace of mind. This panel specifically gets talked about, in both discussions regarding Heaven and of Dio's larger worldview:

Of course here Dio is describing "human" needs. Dio doesn't consider himself human and doesn't include himself among those seeking these comforts. Importantly, neither does Araki:

"From perspective of the world in which living creatures naturally prey upon the weak, what DIO is doing is the correct thing. It's out of line with society's norms though, which were created to make it easier for humans to survive. Considered from the worldview of the "Law of the Jungle" [弱肉強食], DIO is acting normally. …People might say I'm anti-social when I say this, but, in a sense, DIO is someone I admire (lol)." (Jump Remix Vol.11 (March 2002), my translation).

Asked to describe his feelings on Dio, Araki heads straight into setting up a direct opposition between "society" - which provides the security, comfort and safety for its participants that Dio describes in the above panel - and Dio, who lives by what Araki calls an "anti-social" code unconcerned with these comforts. It's central enough of a character trait for Araki to say all this unprompted in response to a general ask about DIO.

So anyone claiming that Dio's Heaven plan came out of a need, conscious or not, to allay his own insecurities and for his own peace of mind ignores the fact that Araki wrote Dio with an entirely contrary mindset.

It's also worth considering the context of the panel, since it will relate to a discussion of whether Dio even wants a world where people know outcomes in advance. Dio is describing humankind's need for comfort and security in an attempt to convince Polnareff to submit and to continue to serve him. Araki ties all of this to fear: Polnareff must either give into his fear and resign himself to a comfortable life of submission or he must overcome his fear and reject those comforts.

ofc Dio is playing a game with Polnareff at the same time, using time-stop assisted sleight-of-hand to convince Polnareff that his own body is physically submitting, unconsciously descending the same two stairs. This game, where fear and submission are directly tied to the promise of comfort and security, presents choosing the comforts of society as the weaker, non-heroic path. tl;dr, accepting the security that Dio describes in that panel is a bad thing. Keep this fact in the back of your mind.

If Dio isn't motivated by a need for security, and instead lives according to rules of the natural world, maybe Dio wanted a universe where all of humanity knows its fate in advance for practical reasons, i.e., it would make humans resigned to their fates and simple to rule over?

Again, we need to consider what, exactly, this would mean for Dio.

2) Dio did not intend to create a world where all of humanity became resigned to its fate as a means of ruling over mankind, because this would remove all the pleasure of accumulating and exerting power.

I've discussed this before: Dio actually likes people who take the most arduous path, seemingly rebelling against their own security and comfort. While it is possible that Dio wanted humans to be more docile, this would definitely take away one of Dio's favorite hobbies: subjecting humans to extreme psychological pressure to see how they react, something Dio indulges in regularly. The Heaven achieved by Pucci (a universe where everything is known in advance by its participants) would mean that everything - from that lady sacrificing herself so her baby could be spared in Part 1 to Hol Horse trying to shoot Dio in the back - would be robbed of all dramatic tension. A knowable universe is a boring one. Dio as an immortal would be highly aware of this. And we know that Dio loves a good fight (Araki draws Dio at his most alive and expressive during direct physical confrontation) and loves an opponent who fights back (it's the reason he moves from disdain to respect for Jonathan over the course of Part 1 and the reason he "realizes he likes" Hol after Hol's rebellion). A known universe changes the very nature of "fighting back." When opponents know the outcome of a fight before it starts, combat is reduced to simply going through the motions.

In short, Pucci's universe makes it too easy for a guy who is all about the drama of testing and transcending limits. It would take all the pleasure out of being Dio.

This is where the value judgment I discussed earlier comes in, the one where the comfortable path is also the easy one, and where choosing security means choosing resignation and cowardace. How is it possible then to assert that Dio wants a universe, an eternity, where everything is resignation? It isn't, and he doesn't.

(Here I should point out the obvious fact that the Dio and Pucci flashbacks in Part 6 take place, from a timeline perspective, concurrent with Part 3. While it's surprisingly often that people attribute what they perceive as a difference in Dio between Parts 3 and Part 6 as an easing or maturing in Dio's outlook over time and reflection, there can be no evolution or softening in Dio's thinking between Parts 3 and 6 because there is no time gap. Dio's words in Part 3, if we take them at face value (since sometimes he lies), reflect what he's thinking at the same time he's devising his plan for "Heaven.")

Instead, there's a telling scene early in Part 3 where Dio discusses that "standing at the top of the World" means overcoming fear:

Now consider the Heaven ability that Pucci unlocks at the end of Stone Ocean within the context of this monologue as well as the Polnareff stairway scene. Knowing your fate - the ultimate goal of the universal reset - isn't overcoming fear, it's having the hardship of fear removed. "Fear" in the above passage results from the experience of failure and the reflexive bodily reaction during future struggles to the possibility that one will fail again. When all is known in advance, this fear is removed. The possibility for "conquering" fear that Dio describes to Enya is likewise removed altogether.

Additionally, in Part 6 and while discussing "Heaven" with Pucci, Dio directly states that "true happiness cannot be attained… by being the ruler of the human race," contrasting this with the true victory of "getting to see Heaven." This dialog yet again gives the lie to an assertion that Dio wants universal precognition as a practical means to easily dominate all of humanity.

3) IMO Dio did not know what form the "Heaven" ability would take, just that it would be an OP, transcendent power.

I've talked about this before too but one of the coolest elements to the Heaven formula is how gnostic it is. Some people just ignore this fact, but it's critically important to look at how Araki chose to characterize the "formula for Heaven." 14 cryptic words, the "souls of 36 sinners," a specific latitude and longitude, the phases of the moon. This is esoteric, occult-type stuff. Add to this Dio's own description of how the destruction of his stand will "give birth to something entirely new":

This language is extremely important. It seems the critical detail that's missing from the formula of heaven is what shape exactly the "heaven" ability will take. The outcome of Dio's heaven plan is missing from the formula because that outcome - "whatever is born" - will be revealed through the process. This is precisely why "courage" is needed: this is a leap of faith into the unknown.

It stands to reason that Dio himself would be uncertain what power would be unlocked through the formula. After all, this theme is a throughline throughout Dio's life: Dio constantly does stuff where the outcome is both unknown and radical. Using the stone mask, taking and assimilating Jonathan's body, powering up on Joseph's blood: Dio's pursuit of power consistently leads him to make "leaps" where the outcome is knowable only as "something new" and something transcendent. So it's not just plausible that Dio didn't know what new ability would emerge with the destruction of his Stand, it's in character. And of course, unknowability and the need for "courage" in the face of an unforeseen outcome directly mirrors Dio's assertion in Part 3 that "the one to stand at the top of the World" is the one who "conquers Fear."

4) Pucci has as much a role as Dio in shaping the form that the "Heaven" ability ultimately takes.

If you ignore all of the above and instead assert that Dio had his plan fully mapped out and specifically envisioned a future where he and all of humanity were disavowed of the illusion of free will - comforted by going through the motions of a fate they had already lived through - then Pucci himself becomes unimportant. The character gets reduced to a simple cog or a lackey, carrying out the gruntwork of an absent master architect.

Instead, imo the specific backstory and worldview that Pucci brings to his and Dio's relationship is the key element that shapes the form that "Heaven" eventually takes. After all - this point is not debatable - it's Pucci himself, not Dio, who seems most in need of the comfort, the certainty and security, that a universe in which all know their fate would provide. Pucci's entire backstory is built around the trauma of unforeseen consequence. The reset universe really is, then, the realization of Pucci's own personal "Heaven."

Please keep in mind that Dio did not expect to die and fully expected to be the one to enact the Heaven formula himself. Of course Jotaro had something to say about this, so instead we get Dio's disciple and "trusted friend" executing the formula.

(Add to that the obvious, meta fact that Araki developed the "plan for Heaven" specifically for Part 6. The plan (or even the notion of "getting to Heaven") isn't mentioned in any prior part, and isn't part of Dio's story anywhere prior. In the true "meta" sense (e.g., the real-life production conditions surrounding the fictional work), the Heaven plan is written by Araki for Part 6 and as the major driver of Pucci's story, inseparable from the character. Araki tightly tailored Pucci's backstory around the idea that bad twists of fate sow profound misery and that knowledge of what fate has in store can allay inevitable suffering, the premise of the universal reset. Even Pucci being a priest has obvious synergy with the concept of "Heaven." Without Part 6, without Pucci, the heaven storyline never gets written. And within the story itself, without Pucci the formula to get to "Heaven" is never enacted.)

All of this is to say that discussions that try to link the reset universe and resultant universal precognition too closely to Dio's own personality, his backstory and his philosophies ignore the fact that Heaven was enacted by the gravitational convergence of two individuals who each brought something to the formula. Dio strongly shaped the course that Pucci's life took and Pucci in turn shaped the form that "Heaven" took.

[fathercharlesoffdensen]

My instinct regarding accusations of 'queerbaiting' is if a piece of media ultimately ends with the queer characters in question in an established relationship, it is not queerbaiting.

"The Finale" of What We Do in the Shadows, in its OG or 'sacred timeline' if you will, ends with Nandor not only assuring Guillermo that he has a place with the vampires (with him) regardless of his mortal status which is in line with Nandor's established love languages; and then, he invites Guillermo to sit in his coffin with him the way a couple might occupy a two-seater sweetheart sofa, and surprises him with the secret superhero lair that nobody thought he was serious about (one of the most delightful recurring tropes of the show imo). Even more obvious is the alternate universe ending supplied helpfully by Nadja's vampire hypnosis wherein a human Guillermo and Nandor are incontrovertibly gay married and in bed together. By all accounts, Nandermo is canon and married and a couple, et cetera, ad nauseum.

Still, for all of the quiet, soft moments between them across the past six seasons + all of their homoerotic fighting and such, it surprised me that the show sort of failed to "stick the landing," as Colin Robinson offers. I doubt anyone expected the flagrant homosexual dance between Blackbeard and Steed in Our Flag Means Death to be so romantically and exquisitely realized, and perhaps this set an impossible standard, but I can't help but wonder what ultimately accounted for the decision to soft shoe Nandermo into "The Finale" vs. allowing them to finally kiss and be married and co-plan the next Staten Island vampire orgy (because somehow they'd figure out how to make it work for Guillermo to be a vampire); essentially all of the 'boring' hallmarks that the final episode intentionally catalogued through meta fourth wall-breaking and that whose absence makes the cheeky nature of said cataloging kind of feel like whomever made the call to end the show as such is laughing at vs. with the fans.

Alas, "The Finale" feels a tad mean compared to the way similar OTP ships are dealt with in Taika media, and maybe it's simply that he wasn't directly involved and Paul Simms was feeling hounded and peckish. Given how antagonistic much of fandom's one-sided parasocial relationship with media makers can be - and unfortunately, be it borne from immaturity or malice or desperation to see a much-loved concept be realized, this is a huge issue among some Shadows fen - I wouldn't blame the writer(s) for going into "The Finale" at least somewhat embittered. Even so, I can't help but read some compromise and disappointment between the lines of a recent interview with Harvey Guillen regarding how Nandermo ends up:

I think that, for the longest time, when I started playing Guillermo, that was the idea behind the character was like, "Are they, will they, does he?" And I think, because they have a little bit of Stockholm Syndrome, you start feeling a little bit of a way, because the only thing you see in front of you becomes like this person you idolize. He really does idolize Nandor, and he really does want to be a great vampire like him one day. And I think, sometimes, those lines can get blurry. So, the way that Guillermo is, I always say, I walk him on a tightrope, and it's like if he falls one way, he could be in love, and if he falls the other way, it was admiration, it was just admiration for this person. And that's a nice tight rope, because it's such a balance that people are always asking, "Will they, won't they?" I think sometimes we have to normalize two male friends being really close and not making it sexual. I think that we don't do that in society. If we saw two best friends who are female holding hands on the playground, we'd be like, "Oh, my God, they're best friends." But if we see two boys holding hands on the playground, all of a sudden, "What are you guys doing? What are you guys doing? Separate them." Because that's not normal in society, that's not "normal," but it is, and it should be normalized, that we can have close friends and not be sexual, it doesn't have to be. We could have close, same-sex friends and do everything like in a relationship, go to movies, talk about your personal beliefs, your struggles, your life, crying on each other's shoulders, and not have to make it sexual. Because I think once we cross that line, people are like, "Well, you might as well be married, why don't you marry them?" And it's like, you don't have to marry them, you could be in love and have love for someone and not have to make it sexual. I think with these characters, we've done a really great job of keeping the audience on their toes of that. Now, will something happen this season that questions that even more, or makes them one way or the other? I guess you'll have to find out.

TL;DR: Optimistically, my 'ideal' ending that I've had lodged in my head for at least three seasons was not, in fact, realized on the small screen, and thus, I shall see you all over at AO3 and/or lurking in the show's Tumblr tags!

[bestofthegreeks]

what is achillis? is it like greek gods stuff?

warning : yap ahead!

OH MY GOSH SCREAMS!! SONEONE IS FINALLT ASKING ME ABOJT ACHILLES I THOUGHT THIS DAY WOULD NEVER COME

okay so to answer your question he is kinda greek god stuff, he’s a demigod

some stuff more about him before i get into his full story!

- he is the best of the greek warriors

- central character of the iliad, tbe epic poem detailing the trojan war by homer

- described as having a “mane” (he is fair haired, the word describing his hair is translated multiple ways), being tall and being incomparable in terms of strength, visibly so.

- he is known for his stubbornness, being full of pride, being noble, and his rage.

_ ^ the first line of the iliad is actually about his rage! i’ll get into that!

i’m about to yap a LOT so i’m going to put a cut

achilles was made as a result of two possible tales -

1: zeus and poseidon were fighting over her hand in marriage until the fore-thinker, prometheus, says to zeus thay there is a prophecy, that thetis will give birth to a son greater than his father. becuase of this, they both withdraw from teying to marry thetis and force her ( brutally ) to marry peleus.

2: zeus is making advances on thetis, and thetis (having being raised by hera) rejected him. zeus was not happy and said that she would never marry an immortal.

so that’s how achilles came to be!! and when he was born, thetis dunked him in the river styx to make him immortal, but he was vulnerable in the spot where she held him (his left heel)(which is where the term “achilles’ heel” comes from!!)

^ about this! in sources prior to the achilleid, written in first century CE/AD, none of this is mentioned. in fact, in the iliad he is described as facing vulnerabilities other than his heel and in some paintings depicting his death he is also shot in the torso!

but even if the river styx thing isn’t true, she covered him in ambrosia (in greek terms, the drink of the gods), and was about to set him on fire to burn away the mortal parts of his body and make him a god! however peleus came and was like erm what are you doing! and thetis was super mad and abandoned both of them, retuning to the sea

peleus then (and i literally can’t find any sources telling me when in his life, but probably around right before the war because after this he goes to war) sends achilles fo mount pelion to be taught by chiron, a centaur, supposedly one of the greatest of them. after or on pelion, thetis told him of a prophecy, that he was either going to die young but have a lot of glory OR live long, but no one would remember his name.

he chose to get glory! BUT… before he could go to the trojan war… thetis decides to hide him on skyros (a small island), and he is disguised as a woman! he lives among the women as one, and he began a relationship with one of the women (deidamia) and she gives birth to two sons, neoptolemus (soemtimes called pyrrhus) and oneiros. but then odysseus comes to get him for the war and sees through his disguise, there are two different ways this could’ve happened:

1- odysseus comes to skyros and pretends to be selling stuff, and among the goods he is selling there is a spear! achilles grabs the spear (remember, he is the best of the greeks in terms of fighting) and odysseus knows it’s him

2- odysseus is still coming to sell stuff and there is still a spear among the goods, but instead there is trumpet alarm thingy that goes off, and while all the women flee achilles gets ready to defend and his disguise is revealed

okay so now he is going to the trojan war! he is the commander of the myrmidons, the army of phthia!

in the cypria (an epic from the epic cycle, which tells us of the events of the trojan war before the iliad), achilles restrains the greeks from returning home and sacks a bunch of cities that neighbor troy and they get briseis!!

okay now… we are on the events of the iliad! which imo is the best source of sfuff about achilles! the central theme of the iliad, dare i say the iliad is the story of, achilles’ wrath/rage. the epic starts off with the line “sing, o muse, of the rage of achilles” (depending on translation it says something different but the first line says something about his rage everytime)

it starts off with achilles withdrawing from the war, due to a conflict with agamemnon (king of the greek army), the very quick summary of the conflict is that agamemnon had to give up his slave girl and took achilles’, briseis. achilles is SO upset that he stops fighting in the war, prays to his mother that the trojans will begin to win so agamemnon will need him back and they do begin to win! so hard they are literally in the greek camp on the beach! and when odysseus, ajax and pheonix come liferslly begging him to come back and offer him a bunch of stuff AND BRISEIS BACK he still says no and prepares to leave troy! what a little diva!

but then… patroclus… patroclus was achilles closest companion (gay lover /hj) and they grew up on phthia together. achilles taught him everything he learnt on mount pelion and they were really close!!! and patroclus is very upset about what achilles is doing and is like.. “if you aren’t gonna fight can i go fight in your armor so they think i’m you and we push the trojans back” and achilles allows it and while patroclus pushes back the trojans, hector (prince of troy, probably the best warrior in the trojan army) kills patroclus and steals achilles’ armor that patroclus was wearing.

and achilles starts TWEAKING TBE FREAK OUT! he refuses to eat, he sobs and sobs and irs acruallt really sad! and thetis tries to comfort him and she gets him new armor, made by hephaestus! and the next day achilles finally goes back into battle…

he kills a lot of men in rage but what he’s really looking for is hector. the river god scamander is upset however that achilles is staining his river with the blood of the men he kills, and achilles litersllt starts trying to fight the river god 😭 but oviosuly he would’ve died so hera and hephaestus restrain scamander and achilles goes to kill hector…

achilles chases hector around the walls of troy 3 times, until athena is like hey guys! and disguises herself as hectors dearest brother (not paris i think his name is dephobus something like that) and tells him to stop running and fight! and when hector realizes the trick he’s like well i gotta fight now! and after missing achilles with his onyl weapon he’s like “please give my body back to my family for my funeral and treat my body with respect) and achilles is liek nope! (he actually says soemtjing very profound imo and it’s very interesting but it’s a long line and i don’t have it memorized)

achilles then kills hector and drags his body around on the back of his chariot. they then hold a funeral and funeral games in honor of patroclus, due to patroclus coming to achilles in a dream and asking for the proper funeral stuff.

then priam (king of troy) comes and asks for hectors body and achilles lets him take it! the iliad then ends with the description of hectors funeral. it does not describe achilles’ death or the fall of troy.

achilles ends up being killed by paris, the person who took (possibly? she could’ve went on her own [very unlikely imo] or with influence of the gods as well) helen, which led to the whole war. paris kills achilles because achilles falls in love with a trojan princess (polyxena) and if achilles and polyxena got married paris would’ve had to give up helen. paris shoots achilles with a divine arrow, in the heel or in the torso.

so that is a summarized story of achilles! he’s my goat my king my eberything!

[thats-the-teen-spirit]

Linkin Park - From Zero - Album Review

Well, a few months ago I didn't think that I would write such a review but here we go. So Linkin Park announced their return in September followed by a tour and an album, to everyone's surprise. The new singer after the great Chester Bennington's passing was announced to be the former Dead Sara vocalist, Emily Armstrong. The announcement was followed by many controversies which I'm not gonna touch on in this review, I'm just here, purely for the music, so take all my opinions with a grain of salt.

From Zero (Intro)

A very short, barely even 20 seconds intro is a Queen-like gang vocal/choir harmony followed by Emily asking about the name of the album. It sounds like they recorded her first reaction to Mike's idea for the album name, which is - as Mike mentioned many times throughout the promotion of the album - a double entendre. From Zero means from the ground up, a new beginning which is definitely true for the band after losing a beloved former member and a friend, but also From Xero which was the first name of the predecessor band of Linkin Park. It's genius if you think about it, and by the short and cut end of the intro Emily realizes this as well.

2. The Emptiness Machine

The first single and the song that started the return. The video and the song are both great, though it left a sour taste in some fans' mouth, expecting either a Chester-imitation or someone completely different (rumors were Amy Lee and Deryck Whibley). The Emptiness Machine opens up with a modern beat and Mike's rapping, he even sings the first chorus hinting at something new to come. The second verse starts with Emily singing and while at first I thought she lacks the power Chester had, by the end of the second chorus she proves her place is right among the boys. The lyrics are about an abusive relationship to someone or something which left people thinking about Emily's past (imo the lyrics definitely fit into Linkin Park's past catalogue as well). The passion of the last chorus and the "I only wanted to be part of something" bridge will leave you wondering though: how would this song sound with Chester?

3. Cut the Bridge

Already a non-single with a choppy hard rock riff and octaves, Mike starts rapping and you realize this is definitely a Linkin Park song. In my personal opinion this sound would have fit into The Hunting Party as well as this album. I'm not the biggest fan of the chorus but it's a fun song that might get a few headbangs at concerts. Emily definitely carries this song, the bridge melody by Mike is... not the best, a little jarring and does not fit his vocal style and range. We'll hear a few moments like that in the coming songs.

4. Heavy Is The Crown

Heavy Is The Crown was the second single and the anthem of this year's League of Legends championship which gave to already one of the biggest bands of the planet some extra boost of publicity. If I had to describe this song with old Linkin Park songs I would say this is a renewed version of Faint with the breakdown of Given Up. The beat and the melody throughout the song is very Meteora-era and the "THIS IS WHAT YOU ASKED FOR" breakdown pretty much calls out the fans who wanted a nu-metal banger. It's like they knew their return was controversial and they have to do the maximum nostalgia factor to appeal to the same audience that once loved them. Emily shows her real power in this one, letting out the beast and hinting at what's coming.

5. Over Each Other

A pure Emily song and the third single. Mike is not singing nor rapping in this one, and in the video we see Emily being in a relationship, breaking up and fighting with her girlfriend until the story takes a dark turn when she fakes her own death to get away from her now ex-girlfriend. It's a very honest and upbeat song that really arrives by the second half. The lyrics show a burnt-out relationship that seems to be over soon. This one I cannot even imagine with Chester's vocals, which is the first and the last time this happened during this album. The instrumentals in the second half are (in my personal opinion) very much Minutes to Midnight-like, almost as if Rick Rubin produced this one as well.

6. Casualty

Undoubtedly the heaviest one on the record, there's barely any clean vocals, (even Mike is shouting for most of the song) and there's even a hardcore punk beat in it. This is basically like their song Victimized was on The Hunting Party instead of Living Things. The guitars and drums are filled with rage and in the bridge we hear a new sound from Emily which is very In This Moment/Maria Brink. I didn't expect a hardcore song by Linkin Park but in 2024 even that could happen.

7. Overflow

After a very lengthy intro the song arrives to a space-y, flowy verse which is reminiscent of Deftones and I.O.U, the song Mike recorded with Chino Moreno off his solo record, Post Traumatic. The chorus keeps up the same slow pace and by the bridge I figured that this song would be very fitting to A Thousand Suns. Which is possibly the only song on this record that I can say this about. Like a more modern version of a medley of that album, strange sound and it's not gonna be my most listened song but I think it will find its audience.

8. Two-Faced

Ever wanted to hear a Meteora/Hybrid Theory song sung by a female singer? Well, here you go. Imagine if Figure.09, A Place for My Head and One Step Closer got together on a drunk night and had a lovechild. The verses are also very much like Nobody's Listening, another song from Meteora. The breakdown is so much fanservice to the HT fans that it's almost exactly the One Step Closer riff (even the turntables are there). This will be one of my favorites for sure, it gives me that Cure for The Itch for a old-new HT sound. The fans who can get over to be ready for the new era of the band and only love the first album will be happy to hear this one.

9. Stained

Another song that is hard carried by Emily's vocals, I swear it's like they're doing this on purpose. Mike is one of my favorite songwriters and musicians but man, is he boring in this song. This is the first song where I felt like it's a filler. Chorus melody is alright especially in the last one where it's much more epic, but the verses, the instrumental and the overall vibe of this song is very forgettable. If I wanted to be really harsh I would say, this one is a more pop-ish song of One More Light got rerecorded with a different vocalist and distorted guitars.

10. IGYEIH

IGYEIH or I Gave You Everything I Had is another heavy banger. The riff is very nu metal, reminding me of Burn by Three Days Grace. It's another one that Emily is carrying on her back, her performance is 110% again. Mike's "the clock keeps tickiiiiing" call-ins are very much forced, and in my opinion lack chemistry with the rest of the song. The yea-yea-yea-s by Emily are also somewhat forced before the chorus, the buildup and the breakdown are great though. It's not as mid as Stained but I honestly expected better from the riff.

11. Good Things Go

Probably my favorite song of the album, straight up. The modern rap beat and Mike's work on the rapping and the wonderful vocals by Emily make this composition a pleasure to listen to. Some people I saw online compared it to Leave Out All The Rest, I don't think that is true. While this is a ballad of some sort having very emotional lyrics, it's an unfair comparison to LOATR. The delivery by both Mike and Emily is amazing though and the buildup is one of my favorites of this year, it's both relieving and cathartic. This is this album's take on Good Goodbye and this one undoubtedly wins both the message and the delivery battle.

Overall I'm not gonna lie, I expected more. Upon the second listen I realized that I lost recency bias already. Some moments turned out to be probably the worst in their catalogue while others were highlights of this year's musical journey for me. The singles are definitely the stand-out songs, though Good Things Go and Two-Faced are up among them. Emily carried most of the songs as I mentioned many times before and it's clear that the band's intention was to make the audience love her as much as they loved working with her, even if this effort cast a dark shadow on the rest of the bands' performance.

7/10

[rainsoftenings]

pls give us ur analysis on transfem nonbinary tenma 🤲

hello ken!! of coarse... preemptive disclaimer before anything else that i myself am not transfem nor do i claim to speak for them. i have just simply observed that a lot of the problems tenma seems to face are also rlly common transfem-specific issues. you can make a fairly strong argument for a transfem tenma reading imo. putting this under a cut bc it got kind of Long

ok in order to talk abt this. we have to talk abt eva. i am not naive enough to write off eva as all bad bc she DOES have redeeming qualities and is not to blame for everything that happened to them. but i do think eva was uniquely bad for their already poor self-esteem and that they likely latched onto eva as hard as they did in order to feel Normal. from the information we are given abt their childhood both in the main story and in Another Monster, as well as lunge's observations that they don't even fit in among other japanese people, it's clear tenma has felt marginalized and/or stripped of agency for a very, very long time. their family dynamic (cold mother who openly favored their half-siblings over them, father who pressured them to become a doctor for his own personal gain. their only sibling who still talks to them only does so bc he wants them to take his job) as well as their willingness to bond with people who hurt them (it is specifically mentioned that they made friends with their childhood bullies, who called them a sissy and left them alone in the woods. this only happened bc they were impressed with tenma's bravery in staying out overnight) seems to have led them to minimize their own desires and become extremely meek. arguably them fleeing to germany in order to escape their father's desire to have them work at his hospital was their best attempt at fighting this, but it backfired bc the heinemanns immediately picked up on their vulnerabilities and exploited them.

back to eva. where udo preying on tenma's insecurities and desire for approval was certainly intentional, the worst part abt their relationship with eva is that i dont even think eva was consciously aware of what she was doing to them/their feelings in general. she is very much a person whose life was meticulously laid out for her in advance and when it diverged from this plan she ended up at a complete loss. her insistence that they did "everything she asked" (with the sexual implication being extremely obvious) as well as them acquiescing to doing things they don't like in order to feel worthy of her love (to the point of even letting her pick out their outfits!)... well, it reads a LOT like comptop to me. it seems very similar to the relationship between trianon and oenone from serious weakness at times; though they differ in several key aspects, it's clear that when they got together both tenma and eva were looking at each other more symbolically than holistically. to tenma, eva was the normalcy and love they so desperately craved; to eva, tenma was supposed to not only be subservient to her (bc she cant imagine not being doted on), they were also supposed to be the Husband and rake in lots of money for the hospital, in essence putting them to the same end as their father initially wanted for them without consideration if that's what they actually want. losing eva causes tenma to get a fuller picture of who she rlly is very quickly, but it takes eva So much longer to do the same for them. and the heartbreaking thing abt this is that even though eva backstabs them several times and makes attempts on their life, whenever she's in danger they instantly go to great lengths to save her. it's second nature to them

this damaging selflessness doesnt extend to just eva, either- it's arguably the entire basis of their character. i think it's very interesting (read: sad) that in addition to their kindness simply biting them in the ass multiple times/tenma deliberately disallowing themself anger and smoothing over relations with ppl who have betrayed them in the past bc theyre so desperate for anyone to be their friend or ally, this is nearly always paired with bodily neglect. we literally see tenma struggle to eat consistently over the course of the manga, from smth as simple as a waitress deliberately offering them extra soup when she sees that theyve not eaten anything, to stuff as dramatic as them collapsing in prison from lack of food and sleep and needing hospitalization. im tempted to highlight the contrast between grimmer having a picnic with them out of nowhere and eva deliberately ruining the picnic they tried to have with her too but i feel like that's fairly well trodden ground analytically, but it still deserves a mention here. they are notably more gaunt by the end of the series than they were when they started out, i think it's most obvious when you see they've cut their hair back to its original length and it serves to emphasize that they'll never be the same person again. i think it's also noteworthy (though certainly unintentional) that urasawa uses them growing out their stubble as a marker that their mental health is yet again at its lowest. i am reminded of the time i took a dissociation test and it gave me a result that ppl with eating disorders typically score. i don't think i have one, just dysphoria, but with tenma it seems a lot like both at once.

put all together, and given the themes of the manga? i dont think transition would save tenma. not even close. but they should do it anyway if only because it would be an easy way for them to start being kinder to themself again, a skill they badly need to learn. if they could just take that first step toward giving themself a little mercy i think they would be a lot happier with themself. they already have two kids who love them completely unconditionally, i think having that extra support would be great for them! and also i think they're hot and i'd like to see ppl draw (NORMAL, NON RACIST) art of them in dresses and with sweaty small boobs and so on. Sue me ngl the nonbinary part is simply bc i think theyd feel some distance from womanhood after having been excluded from society in multiple ways for so long, that little extra bit of dehumanization tends to manifest in weird ways wrt ppl's internal perception of gender. and imo theyd be so tired by the end of everything that i highly doubt theyd enjoy being thrust into an entirely new set of gendered pressures and just want to skip the whole business. but i am open to any and all permutations of transfem tenma. i want them to be happy!! in conclusion:

[rainbowberriesandcookies]

The Beauty of Rukia & Orihime's friendship and how one removal changed it all (Part 1)

Anyways I'm back on my bullshit and I'm going to try to keep my gushing about Rukia and Orihime's friendship from being RukiHime ship propaganda no promises tho.

But I firmly believe these two have one of the best friendships in a shounen manga. I absolutely hate that the OG anime gutted Orihime's relationship with Ichigo, but in doing so, it also gutted her friendship with Rukia. Even though they met through Ichigo, even with him removed from the situation, their friendship is sincere and genuine.

They've known each other for probably a month? And already have a fast and sincere friendship. Sadly, this depth is missing from the anime because they removed Orihime's scene/line of declaring that Rukia was her friend as well in a moment that established the proper basis of their friendship going forward.

Without that moment, everything else that follows loses the emotional investment behind it because their friendship is no longer between the two of them, but revolves around having Ichigo as a mutual friend.

This is going to become RukiHime ship propaganda I have no idea why I even tried to entertain it not being.

Apparently, I have so much to say on the topic it will be continued in part 2 because I refuse to use fewer manga panels to prove my agenda.

Anyways to get started

Even though there was no real reason for Orihime to remember Rukia's name when she joined Ichigo's class, she still does while Rukia doesn't even know who she is.

Even though Rukia is putting on something of an act or character, Orihime goes along with it despite the fact that the two barely even know each other.

But who knew that a bit of an awkward first meeting would have bloomed into a very wonderful and precious friendship? Sadly, we don't get too many more interactions with them beyond this point up until the point where Rukia is taken back to the Soul Society.

That said - Orihime is among one of the people who actually remember that Rukia was part of their class before everyone else suddenly forgot her.

And it would be safe to assume that the two had actually become decently good friends considering...

When Ichigo is doubting whether or not to save her, one of the things Orihime tells him is that she doesn't want her friend Rukia to die either.

Now, when Renji speaks with Rukia while she's awaiting execution, Rukia mentions having been in the human world for two months.

This establishes that within two months, Orihime was at least comfortable enough with Rukia to call her a friend and be aware that she's in a dangerous situation and needs to be helped.

And this is the pivotal moment IMO for their friendship, without it, every other scene involving them loses so much emotional weight and value because it loses a simple but foundational building block.

Now, to jump back to the cover art of Chapter 58 real quick

Rukia is drawn with the other girls in class but as a blank, missing space. It looks like Tatsuki is interacting with Chizuru, with Michiru behind Orihime and another girl with long hair (likely Ryo, but she never had a huge role - but she's the only character I could find with long hair that is part of the Karakura HS) facing away from the group.

Orihime is the only one who looks to be facing Rukia, which also matches with her also being the one who asks Ichigo what happened to her or why she had disappeared so suddenly with everyone else forgetting her.

All of this to say - despite not having a lot of panels of them interacting, it is safe to say that during Rukia's two months, she got the closest to Orihime.

And it also matches with the idea that Orihime is Rukia's first female friend.

Now, someone else has already done a pretty good write-up but I want to do more too with more focus on some of the manga panels.

The only other female character that Rukia seemed to have a close relationship with was Miyako, but even then Rukia describes Miyako as her idol rather than someone who was a friend.

The only other friends Rukia was shown to have were the street rats in Rukongai and they were all boys. However, after just 10 years the other three had passed away and it was just her and Renji left.

So it's safe to assume that up until she met Kaien, after being separated from Renji she didn't really have friends.

And even then, it's less her becoming friends with Kaien and more like an introvert being adopted by an extrovert. That said, regardless it's safe to assume that they had become close.

Kaien's words to Rukia about being her friend for life so long as she's within the 13th division, also mirror how Orihime was the first to establish a sense of friendship between the two of them - something that is lost without that initial scene.

As I mentioned earlier, it seems like all of Rukia's friendships have been with male characters. After all, it makes sense considering that she "grew up" around boys.

But things like that only make her friendship with Orihime more beautiful because she's the first girl that Rukia has actually let her guard down around. Now that I've laid down some of the basis for Rukia's past friendships, let's circle back a bit

Once again, even though they've only known each other for roughly two months at this point, Orihime Is thinking about how much Rukia is going to love the dress that Uryu made after Rukia's execution had been stopped.

When Ichigo had been avoiding Orihime because she was injured by Yammy, the person who drags him to Orihime is Rukia. Even though Chad had also been injured, IMO the reason she drags him to Orihime - outside of the fact that Kubo wanted a scene of Ichigo promising to get stronger to Orihime - is because out of the Karakura gang, Orihime is the one that she is the closest to.

WIthout Orihime having established that she and Rukia are friends, this moment and the gentle looks that they give one another don't have the same emotional weight to them because such a simple, foundational piece removed the bond that they had with one another.

Like - just look at the look that Rukia gives her and for me, this is where their friendship truly starts to get deeper than just knowing each other because of Ichigo.

And because of how Rukia interacts with Ichigo and Renji, without the establishing moment where Orihime considers Rukia a friend, the way that Rukia is so gentle with Orihime gets lost because it can come off like Rukia simply not being "close enough" or "not good friends enough" with Orihime to be that level of rough as opposed to Orihime being a friend that Rukia simply is gentle and vulnerable with.

Fast forward a little bit and a thing I noticed about Orihime when she's talking to Rangiku

The way that she describes Rukia, despite admitting to being jealous, is similar to the way that Rukia had described Miyako. At this point, Orihime's risked her life trying to save someone she had only really known for a couple of months, yet says not a single bad thing about her even when consumed with her own jealousy and insecurity.

Even though Orihime describes Rukia in a way similar to how Rukia describes Miyako, the reason she breaks down in tears is because she feels jealousy and envy towards someone she considers a friend.

Also, how pained she feels also ties back to how the one time she expressed a negative feeling or emotion towards or about someone (Sora), she ended up losing them permanently. Orihime outright says that Rukia is beautiful, and kind and that she loves her for helping to cheer up Ichigo and beats her own self up for how she feels.

Yet, without the establishment that Orihime and Rukia are friends, this scene comes off as if she's jealous of someone that is more like a total stranger who happens to be closer to Ichigo than she is - even though Rangiku states that both of them are important and valuable to Ichigo.

And after Urahara says that Orihime should call it quits because she can't fight and would only hold the others back, the person that she runs into and confines in is Rukia.

Another thing I want to note is that in all the times we've seen Rukia, she's always been fairly rough when it comes to how she handles people. After all, she's been friends with primary boys her entire life and there's only one time when she's "rough" with Orihime.

And it's when she's trying to help cheer up Orihime. But Orihime doesn't "work" the same way that Renji and Ichigo do where you can hit them like they're broken TVs. In this instance, she tries to do what she normally does with Ichigo and Renji but sees that it doesn't work - and not to mention - she's pissed off on Orihime's behalf that Urahara pretty much dismissed her after Orihime had already - from Rukia's perspective - shown that she was willing to fight and protect her friends no matter what.

After all, Orihime had only known Rukia for a couple of months at best but was still willing to risk her life not just going to help protect Ichigo, but to save Rukia as well.

When she sees that Orihime is genuine in her feelings that she'd rather be sad than a burden, this is when Rukia switches to being more gentle - and Orihime is the only person that Rukia is really this gentle with.

I said it earlier but I'm going to emphasize it again - without the establishing moment that Orihime considers Rukia a friend, the level of vulnerability that Rukia shows when she's with Orihime is lost.

Even though she has a close friendship with Ichigo and Renji, Orihime is the only one that she's been shown to express emotional vulnerability with.

And for me, this scene is so important to the value of their friendship. Sadly, because the anime removed the scene where Orihime calls Rukia her friend as well, the emotional weight behind this scene is a lot less than in the manga even though it was a minor change.

Much like how Kaien established that he and Rukia were friends for as long as she was in the division, Orihime is the one who establishes that she's friends with Rukia. While she doesn't directly say it to Rukia, her actions show that she does genuinely care for Rukia as a friend even outside of Ichigo.

This is also one of the few times we see emotional vulnerability from Rukia as well because it was the only way for the two to properly connect with one another.

In the OG anime, this scene comes off as Rukia simply offering advice to someone who is in need as opposed to her being pissed off that someone like Urahara would dismiss her friend and Rukia expressing an emotional vulnerability to someone she considers a friend.

And they resolve to train together.

While watching them train, Ukitake even mentions that Rukia was never particularly good at making friends and that she rarely opens up.

And he even mentions being glad that she's found herself a friend. It's positioned against Hisagi's doubts of "even if that friend is a human?" is it truly a good thing? Because since Orihime is a normal human girl and Rukia is a soul reaper, they'll live very different lives.

Ukitake could have said this about Ichigo, but there's a reason it's positioned with Orihime - because her kindness and compassion is what allow her to properly reach the hearts of others.

Despite the friendship they have, it implies that Rukia hasn't truly opened her heart to Ichigo the same way that she had to Orihime. Yet without the establishment that the two are friends, the friendship between the two comes off as lessened even as Ukitake comments on it.

Even when Orihime can't immediately follow, both girls are confident that they'll see each other on the other side. After all, Rukia already knew of Orihime's insecurities when it came to being left behind or unable to follow her friends, yet here there's neither insecurity or doubt for either of them.

When it is suspected that Orihime is a traitor, Ichigo is ready to call bullshit and throw hands but has to be stopped by Renji - who suggests that they'll go after her.

Here, it's Rukia who questions Yamamoto's decision to abandon Orihime after Ichigo said that there was no way Orihime would have been killed. I think choosing Rukia to question the decision to abandon Rukia as well as having her be the one to say that she can't obey that order is important. Outside of Ichigo, she's also the only one outside of Ichigo who is close to Orihime.

Even though she apologizes to Ichigo as she's taken away, she is also the only one who knows what it is like to be taken away against your will and to have those around you powerless to save you. She's the one who apologizes to Ichigo because she can't do anything to save their friend.

I fully believe that if Yamamoto hadn't taken precautions, Rukia, Renji, and Ichigo would have said to hell with orders and not just because she's Ichigo's friend and wants to help him, but because she's Orihime's friend as well.

All of those shortly after establishing that Orihime is the first friend Orihime's actually made - or at least made in a while and this is further supported by Rukia's fight with Aaroneiro.

Even as he guilts Rukia using Kaien's body, she resolves that no matter how badly he makes her feel, she won't let him kill her until she knows that Orihime is safe. As she laid impaled by Aaroneiro, she recalls a conversation she had with Kaien.

One of the things the Hueco Mundo arc has revolved around was the idea of "The heart" and what it actually means. I'd have to do a separate post on how Orihime specifically represents that, but I'm going to focus on the "heart" between Rukia and Orihime.

Kaien tells her that "The heart" exists outside of the body and that it's the bond forged between friends. All of this going on affirming that Rukia and Orihime have a "heart" AKA a bond between them.

And simply put - what does all of this mean without the establishing moment that Orihime considers Rukia a friend? It makes the care between the two come off as one-sided on Rukia's part even though in the manga, much like how Kaien did - Orihime is the one who adopted our little introvert Rukia.

Just like how Orihime didn't go to the SS just to protect Ichigo, but to save her friend. Rukia didn't come to Hueco Mundo just to support Ichigo, but because she wanted to save her friend. Yet without such a simple, but pivotal moment, it comes off as if she's not truly there for Orihime.

To be continued in part 2 because TIL Tumblr only allows 30 images per post.

[ranahan]

i've been pondering how mando'a-as-first-language speakers might tend to parse [θ] and [ð]... we know <x> = <sh> thanks to ryan kaufmann (which i'd say must be canon enough since traviss didn't contradict it) and [f ~ p] and [z ~ s] from Traviss, (and maybe <vh> = [f] at least dialectally a la Vhett -> Fett, but I'd prefer to think that's more a matter of Basic speakers parsing [ɸ] as [f] than [ɸ ~ f] being widespread in mando'a) but I don't think we have any data on how they'd tend to parse [θ] and [ð]. I like the idea of th-fronting where [θ] becomes [ɸ] and [ð] becomes [v ~ ʋ] (Kiwi English is allegedly developing this phenomenon), but since mando'a phonotactics don't seem to allow [ɸ] outside of a syllable-initial position (of course since vhe- words are the only example we have of <vh> the data is a biiit limited, but if we assume it's true) I do wonder how likely mando'ade would be to parse, for example, the [θ] in "cloth" as [ɸ], or if they'd be more likely to parse it as [t] or [s]. Tho I do also like the th-fronting bc I wanna distance <vh> from <f> as much as possible :') Not a cipher! 🗞️

On the other hand I'm a bit charmed by [θ] -> [s] as well, mostly bc I associate it with the Askie pronunciation of ת‎, historically [θ] which has in different regions either remained as such or become [t] (Modern Israeli) or [s] (Askenazi). But then the lack of [z] for [ð] (since [s] and [z] are not readily differentiated among mando'ade) makes it less ideal imo. I mean ofc they could be mismatchy, it's not like [ð] and [θ:] were replaced with other sounds neatly and evenly in Finnish (and there's that variation across dialects, which of course would be a thing among mando'ade as well--) But yeah, [ð] could be, if not [v ~ ʋ], then [d] or even [ɾ] or [l]... for obvious reasons I find the idea of the [ɾ] realisation pretty charming :')

anyway, uh, thoughts?

(yes i am thinking abt this bc loan words mostly)

(also. while generally i prefer [f] -> [p], ~kevhe [or whatever final vowel would be best...] for caf is much nicer than kep, lol...)

I’m afraid your ask is going to be better thought out than my answer!

I did think about the same thing, then thought about the option of ð being loaned as dh in Mando’a, and then got hung up in determining what the heck Mando’a phonology even is, and what do the dh etc. spellings stand for. And then never really got back to loanwords.

But now that I’ve found an answer that satisfies me, I do have a whole bunch of things I’d like to loan to Mando’a actually, because I for one don’t buy that a language of an empire, itself a creole (if you subscribe to that headcanon), does not have many loanwords. You know that joke about English mugging other languages and riffling through their pockets for loose vocabulary? I think it would be more realistic for people to make similar jokes about Mando’a, and how Mandalorians plundered half of the galaxy and half of the dictionaries too. (Yes, this is the hill someone else will die on.)

Anyways, yes I do have thoughts. Sorry this is going to be very long and rambling because these are more of immediate thoughts rather than something I’ve formed a considered opinion on.

Like you, I’ve also noted that vh only occurs in syllable initial position in the Mando’a dictionary. But! There’s a Mandalorian world called Ceravh, which as far as I can tell comes from Traviss. I’d give that even odds of being Mando’a or being (perhaps a Mandalorianised version of) a native name of the colonised world, which could indicate that Mando’a could use syllable-final vh in loanwords at least.

But anyways, another option I have thought about is that a word-final φ could get loaned as v. Even if Mando’a doesn’t allow a syllable final φ, the voiced counterpart v is very common in that position. So e.g. caf > kav. Or heck, how about h? > kah. Idk how sensible h would be, it just popped into my mind as something that could sound similar and is allowed in the coda.

Another option of course is that Mando’a could insert extra vowels into loanwords, like e.g. te reo Māori which basically keeps all of the original sounds and adds vowels until the word conforms to te reo phonotactics. So e.g. caf > kavha or kevhe or whatever the vowels would be. There’s this quote, which has a different context, but be used as a precedent if you wanted? “Pronouncing terminal consonants varies in songs. They often become extra syllables. For examples, tor becomes to-rah and tang becomes tan-gah to maintain rhythm and meter.”

On the other hand, loanwords, especially old ones, could also be subject to Mando’a’s habit of contraction. Which tbh seems as much fanon as canon to me in that canon shows some contraction and elision (especially in compound words), but fanon has observed that pattern and taken it as a licence to go an extra mile. I kind of love that kind of an emergency and it’s what got me interested in Mando’a in the first place. I digress, but I’m trying to say faithfully borrowing every single sound is not necessarily the way I’d go for Mando’a. Maybe borrowing syllables as the closest equivalents would feel better? Idk, maybe I’ll try a couple of different approaches with some test sets of loanwords and see what happens.

I do generally like f > p, but… Idk, the results don’t always compel me? They don’t sound unlike Mando’a, but also not exactly like Mando’a either? I mean kav feels more like Mando’a than kap to me. Same for vhervhek vs perpek (although for obvious reasons, perpek does appeal as a curse). But on the other hand, fan > pan vs van vs vhan? Not much of a difference. And Fi > Pai, Felucia > Pelucya/Pelusha, even Falleen > Palin/Paliin do sound good to me. This is probably because while there are words that end in p (like kotep, taap), they are pretty rare. While words ending in v or beginning with a p are a dime in a dozen.

I agree that Vhett being spelled as Fett is a transliteration from Mando’a to Basic, and not necessarily indicative of how Mando’a L1 speakers would adapt loanwords from Basic to Mando’a.

Re: θ/ð, I’ve previously considered t/dʰ, but I like both s and th-fronting better! Those would be the closest fricatives, wouldn’t they.

Mando’a doesn’t seem to have /z/, which seems to be an allophone of /ts/ rather than /s/, if you go by Traviss’s recordings. Or maybe it’s an allophone of /s/, if you go by some comments. Heck, maybe it depends on the dialect. So perhaps you could go with s/ts, or level them both as s? I guess it would depend on whether z gets loaned as ts or s?

Or go with th-fronting (θ > ɸ, ð > v) in syllable initial positions, and for the coda, either voice the θ > v, or add an extra vowel after it, or allow φ in the coda for loanwords. I think that at least for dialects that realise <v> as [β], th-fronting sounds really close. I like it!

And since some Mando’a dialects seem to have [b ~ v] (or perhaps more likely [v ~ β], or maybe some dialect has /β/ which is heard as /b/ in some others…), after making the rounds in Mando’a dialects, a loan word might even end up with ð > v > b.

Full disclosure, I also like how either would make loanwords a little less immediately recognisable. But on the other hand, loanword phonology is also affected by the speakers’ understanding of the donor language, which might bias e.g. /t/ over /s/. Idk though how much we need to nitpick realism in an artlang though. Enough to ground it, not so much the art goes out.

And then we of course have the loan words Traviss picked from English:

besom /ˈbiː.zəm/ > besom /ˈbɛ.sɔm/

Bergen /ˈbəɹɡn/ > birgaan /bɪɾ.ɡaːn/

TAB /tæb/ > taab /taːb/

hyem /jɛm/> yaim /ʝaɪ̯m/

charva /ˈt͡ʃɑːvə/ > chaav’la /ˈt͡ʃɑːv.la/

chebs /tʃɛbs/ > shebs /ʃɛbs/

scran /skɹan/ > skraan /skɾaːn/

scunner /ˈska.nɐ/ > skanah /ska.nah/

(Geordie) way aye /ˈwaɪ.eɪ/ or (Pompey) weee /wiː/ > wayii /wa.jiː/

dinny /ˈdɪ.nɪ/> dinii /dɪ.niː/

jack /d͡ʒæk/ > jag /d͡ʒaɡ/ ?

(I’m not counting mhi and kando from that linked post, since they—or at least kandosii—are pre-Traviss Mando’a.)

Bit of a guess at the pronunciations because I’m not a Geordie and Traviss doesn’t do IPA, but I’m getting the feeling that the vowel qualities don’t match up that well. I might have loaned Bergen as *bargen or *begen instead. Besom i > ɛ I can excuse as levelling the vowels to the same height, which seems like something Mando’a is prone to. ɛ > aɪ̯ is interesting. But generally, I’m not sure what I’m looking at here? Maybe just artistic licence?

Of course if actual historical loans, we’d have to consider that those words might’ve been loaned from a dialect or at a time when the pronunciation differed from modern/RP pronunciation. Plus I at least like to think that Mando’a itself has many different dialects, so I’d be willing to excuse a degree of artistic licence and inconsistency, especially when it comes to vowels which are more fluid to begin with. Afaik it’s also not weird for natural languages to exhibit even considerable variation in loan word adaptation.

Ch is loaned both as ch and sh. Syllable-final r seems infrequently loaned (birgaan) or not (chaav’la) or loaned as h (skanah)—perhaps this reflects the (non)rhoticity of the dialect from which the loans came from, because Mando’a does have syllable-final r’s. Otherwise the consonants in these words seem unremarkable.

Talking about r though, I think there are some words in Mando’a where n > r in certain environments (or at least that could explain some etymologies). I guess it wouldn’t be too much a stretch to extend that to d and maybe ð. You can hear [kote], [kode] and [koɾe] or the Republic Commando OST. Imo this is simply the effect of singing on pronunciation (I was a trained singer once upon a time, I could go on about this), but Traviss seems to have taken it as t and d being interchangeable, or /kode/ being the archaic pronunciation and /kote/ modern.

Also as an aside, I kinda want to work out the phonetics of Huttese, because clearly Huttese (or trade/pidgin/creole Huttese, whatever they speak as a lingua franca in the Outer Rim) has lots of Basic loanwords, and I think that many Basic loanwords would probably arrive to Mando’a via Huttese rather than directly from Basic.

tldr: You have seem to have thought more about this than me. Do you have more thoughts? I’m not sure how much sense my reply made; it was bit of a brain vomit. I’ll probably go read some things and come back to this later with hopefully more sense, but I wanted to reply now because I’m not sure how busy I’ll be in the near future.

P.s. you wouldn’t happen to remember where you read about <x> = <sh>, [f ~ p] and [s ~ z]? I mean I remember reading some of those same things, but it was at least a year ago and I don’t seem to have saved the source (whoops). I can probably look up the source myself if you remember where it was. Might it have been this forum thread? “So, Xaga might have been "Shaga" (incorporating that "sh" sound the Mando like) and Zuka could've been Suka.”

[txttletale]

this is a question that on other blogs would likely get me exploded with hammers but you seem nice and i swear im just genuinely just trying to understand, but do you have any thoughts on why marxist-leninists are so dismissive of anarchists?

first of all i'd like to preface that i think that marxist-leninists being dismissive of anarchists (and conversely anarchists hollering about evil tankies) is something that is much more common among Posters Online than among people of either political persuasion who are actually meaningfully involved in communist organization -- if 'anarchist' or 'Marxist-Leninist' is primarily an online identity to you, then you're likely to want to signal that identity by loudly and pointlessly disdaining a designated out-group -- if anarchist or marxist-leninst praxis is something you actually do, you will quickly realize, however much you disagree or even dislike the other tendency, that for most practical purposes you will be much served working together when it comes to any anticapitalist or antifascist action.

secondly i'd also like to add that i, personally, am much more tolerant of anarchists than most marxist-leninists even by the standards of actual organizing. i have mutuals, friends, and comrades who are anarchists -- while i believe that the differences between marxism-leninism and anarchism are irreconcilable in a revolutionary situation, i believe that in the vast majority of the world the situation is so far from revolutionary that there is no material or practical conflicts between marxist-leninists and what lenin called "the best of the anarchists". many anarchists have made incisive and useful critiques of capitalism and even of socialist projects (even though i think those critiques are weakened by the anarchist inability to provide a viable alternative).

all that out of the way, here are some problems that i (and other marxist-leninists) have with anarchists:

#1: class-blind & idealistic theoretical frameworks. a lot of anarchists tend to view political systems and articulate criticisms in terms of extremely abstract ideas about 'power', 'authority', and 'hierarchy'. this flattens a lot of substantially different class relationships into broad and inexact categories such as 'domination' -- the result of this is that anarchists lose sight of class relations and the material basis from which power emerges and is maintained. often they will psychologize these elements, explaining systems and the way they function by projecting a psychoanalytical framework onto the holders of power. i find these analyses usually produce incoherent and politically useless truisms. being based purely on ideals and not on materialism leads a lot of these anarchist suppositions to tie themselves into knots -- as engels said, "a revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is", yet many anarchists are revolutionary (supporting the violent seizure of power from the bourgeoisie) but viciously opposed to the DoTP (the violent maintenance of power over the bourgeoisie), with the imo totally incoherent rationale that the latter is 'authoritarian' while the former is not.

#2: individualism. anarchists are generally very concerned with 'individual freedoms' and the importance of the individual as a political unit -- as i often say on this blog, i deny the individual as a meaningful political unit. to me 'liberation' means the working class as a whole being able to live comfortably without the threat of death hanging over their heads if they fail to sell their labour -- 'freedom' is only meaningfully possible when there is a liberation of the working class in totality. in its worst manifestation, this leads a lot of anarchists to totally reject the concept of socially necessary labour or the need for labour to be organised at all (cf. this meme)

#3: the cult of spontaneity. anarchists (obviously) do not believe in centralised organisations. i think, frankly, this is silly, because centralised organisations are the only body capable of mobilizing the working class to mass action. without centralisation, it's impossible to coordinate and act in unison -- that is, to do the very things that make any revolutionary action feasible at all. the revolutionary strategy of simply waiting for the people to 'spontaneously' rise up and install communism because they have all separately decided to is one that's, quite simply, fantastical and has no basis in reality. this holds true for action that falls short of 'armed revolution' too -- to be effective and replicable, direct action needs to be planned, deliberate, and coordinated, and this just isn't possible without an organizing body.

#4: repeating imperialist talking points. now this is not true of all anarchists -- there are lots of principled anti-imperialist anarchists in the world. however, there are also a lot of anarchists who will engage in borderline apologia for US imperialism, who will parrot lines about 'dictators' and 'totalitarian regimes', who refuse to oppose US imperialism because 'all states are the same'. this ultimately (in the most charitable interpretation) stems from #1, where the choice of whether or not to oppose US imperialism is seen mostly as a personal idealistic moral choice (decide What Is Good and What Is Bad) rather than a material choice about what political action can be taken. and of course there are many valuable critiques to be made of the USSR's many failures, and some of these critiques have been made by anarchists -- but some anarchists will descend to Black Book of Communism levels in an attempt to get one in on a strawman of 'Stalinism'

if you want a more detailed in-depth criticism of anarchism from a marxist-leninist perspective that i mostly agree with, this medium article is fantastic. but these four reasons are the main ones i -- while not dismissive of anarchists -- am not an anarchist and generally disagree with anarchist theory.

[dhmis-autism]

what’s the biggest mischaracterisation of each character that you feel like you ‘suffer’ from the most? obviously no disrespect to ppl who do characterise them in certain ways! :] this is just out of curiosity…your thoughts are so intriguing:]

I am so sorry I am about to get so unbelievably bitchy and prissy and fussy. I have thought SO much about this question and I have also SEEN so many interpretations of my boys that I completely disagreed with.  Like you said though, clearly, no disrespect to people who characterize them this way! I know I am a very picky, persnickety bitch.

Anyways. Best boy up first.

 Duck mischaracterizations that I hate:

- him being super effeminate and given like an hourglass figure and human woman legs. like what.

- him being feminine being like, his whole personality. I loathe when people just start writing him like a super twinky, aave spitting gay. It’s really fucking weird can you all be normal about him wearing a dress ONE time please. LIKE HES JUST A NORMAL GUY. OK. GOD

- written as a bitchy or abusive mother/parental figure ( specifically towards YG. why.)

- him being super loud and just constantly spouting verbal/physical abuse at the other two (girl he is much quieter than you remember and he insults them like. twice. in 6 episodes. get real.)

- I hate hate hate when people act like RG is his whole world and have him ignore YG/act like he doesnt exist

- him being written as deliberately manipulating the other two, sometimes even like. physically self-harming in order to do so?? like oh my god. he would NOT fucking do that.

- him being written as totally HATING yellow guy and just constantly acting like hes a burden (I’ll actually kill over this one. how dare you. biting)

- weird thing I’ve noticed where people will make him refer to himself as 'the smart/intelligent one' of the group (something he's never done) but then like. the narrative/author will legitimately treat him like he IS very smart. like. no he is not.

- having him take YGs batteries out of sheer malice / ( ABLEISM(??)) and like. hate.  and somehow forgetting how hard he was freaking out that his friend was different earlier in the episode???????

- him being in a nuclear family situation with red with YG as their "son" . like 1. he is NOT a good dad and would not be a good one. 2. he SAID how he feels about that boy if you cant accept dad dog duo as a dad dog duo you do not deserve them

- writing him as CONSTANTLY ANGRY/PISSED OFF oh it makes me wanna shake people by the shoulders and SCREAM like!! Rewatch the show!! Baker Terry did not give us that bizarre and soft and joyous performance for you to write him like Squidward in a yaoi!!!! I’ll KILL YOU!!!!!!! HE IS AN UPBEAT PESSIMIST!!! A CHEERY DEFEATIST!!!!! I’LL GNAW YOUR BONES TO DUST!!!!

- when people make him skinny. How dare you. How DARE YOU. HOW DARE Y

- when people make him taller than YG. I would be less upset if “the smallest one” wasn’t literally something he was called IN THE SHOW

YG mischaracterizations I hate:

-Him being portrayed as GENUINELY stupid. Yes I know the crew call him that, yes I know other characters call him that, I think it’s obvious they’re exaggerating a bit.

-Him being the only one of the three that’s written as incredibly childish (imo, all three of them are a bit childish- but if you write just YG that way, I roll my eyes)

-Him being incredibly passive and soft and nice and conflict avoidant and a huge big pushover crybaby who never fights back or says anything mean.

-When people make it out like he’s really bad at art/draws like a child- really ticks me off because we are EXPLICITLY SHOWN IN EPISODE 1 OF THE WEBSERIES THAT HE’S GOOD AT ART

-I actually hate when people discount a lot of his talents, ppl acting like he wouldn’t be good at music or art when we KNOW HE IS!!!! WE KNOW HE IS!! WHAteever

-Him being socially inept/inadequate ! He is imo the most socially adept out of the 3 of them and the one most likely to thrive among a new friend group

-When people act like. YG with fresh batteries and YG without them are two separate people/have separate personalities??? They are literally the same dude (my good friend Am has a great post on this actually. Here. Read.learn.)

RG mischaracterizations I hate:

-The idea that he is nice. LOL I’m almost joking, but not really. Verbally, he’s very barby and I WISH more people would remember that genuinely.

-When he’s written as the ONLY voice of reason/ smartest guy in the room. He is not. God help him he is so fucking stupid and goofy and canonically loves Smash Mouth and thinks MAGIC is real.

-Super Hyper Sexy Man with vacuum-sealed abs and a COMPLETELY new personality

I have nothing else for him I don’t think of him often.

[ionlybleedbubbles]

Writing tips deep in my heaps of cringe, that are actually good (imo) :

When writing in third person, don't say what a character cannot do while talking from their perspective. Frame the idea by telling us what they can do, or through the opinion of other characters. For eg. Instead of saying "Mattie was bad at flying planes", say "Mattie preferred cars to planes, and would much rather his brother do the plane-flying." See? Now you've even managed to drop in a nod about his brother. You could also say, "Kevin felt safer when Mattie's brother flew the plane than when Mattie did." Put the blame on Kevin - don't judge Mattie yourself. As a narrator you must pretend to always be on your MCs' side. Ofc, this would vary with different styles of narration, but this is a general rule.

Show how important a character is by how much time you take to talk about them. You would describe your MCs well, and bring up their hobbies and interests. You wouldn't describe a background character as much. You can use this to humanize or dehumanize characters. You may initially talk very little about the main villain yourself, and rely on dialogue among the other characters. This makes the villain feel like a force rather than a person. As the story progresses though, and you decide you want to drop in a *hairflips dramatically* sad back story, you can humanize the villain, and make them more understandable as a person.

Learn from art. Try describing different sceneries or portraits as practice. Also practice writing comic books or manga as stories. Visualizing your story as comic or manga panels can really help you understand pacing and paragraphs. Take note of their vibrance and positioning.

Learn from people's mannerisms and how they are received by other people. For eg, when we ask my dad a question, he pauses to gather his thoughts before speaking. Out of respect, we wait silently during this pause. This shows how confident and charismatic my dad is. A friend of mine only verbally roasts people within our friend group, and apologizes profusely after. This shows she is both empathetic and extremely quick-witted. I could create well rounded characters based on just examples as simple as these.

This tip is what I like to call 'the fake solution' and is employed by many famous authors. For this, you force readers to make assumptions. Maybe about how the magic system works, or about who the villain is. Make it seem like the characters have come to a conclusion and that conclusion is the final solution to conflict. Then tear down those assumptions and create a whole other ending. Similar to the red herring, except this time it's all in the characters' heads and dialogue. Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy is a good example of playing with assumptions forced upon readers by the writer.

In your first chapter, focus on creating potential. You don't have to jump into the heart of the action right away, but you have to make sure your readers understand the potential for this action. For example the opening chapter of Maggie Stiefvater's Raven Boys is relatively low paced, but it leaves you with questions. It makes you wonder who the boy who talked to Blue is, and how Blue will deal with life after such a strange prophecy. This makes you need to continue reading, to find answers.

For good worldbuilding, study at least a little bit of history. Wars and military tricks make for good free prompts. If your world contains vibrant races, make sure you research and incorporate the history and implications of racism, social hierarchy and trade. Understand how this will impact travellers and mercenaries (audiences love those). Make up your own old wives' tales and coping mechanisms.

Understand that the best stories are written around an idea rather than a character. Your protagonist is simply the face of your story. The weather of the world reflects on the protagonist's choices and health. Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games focuses on the dark side of media and politics and how they are used to control a people. Notice that by the third book, Katniss, our protagonist, is doing very little herself, though her few moments are loud and powerful. Katniss could achieve nothing alone. It takes a whole bunch of people to fuel the revolution. Note that it is completely okay to write a character based story, if that's what you like. But there are tons of those. If you really want to make an impact, make an idea-based story.

Respect all your characters equally. You may love some characters more than others, but remember all your characters are representatives of people. Make sure each of them has a voice and a chance to prove themselves.

Use prose to your advantage. Let the length of your sentence define whether the sequence is fast paced or slow. For example, if your want to show surprise, your sentences must be short. Instead of saying "She snatched the last dagger and stared at it, observing each engraving", say " She snatched up the last dagger. Each engraving was sick, gnarled. "

That was a heck of a long post, but that's all from me. Feel free to add your own or contradict anything I've written.

[topnotchquark]

I am new to motogp, but what the fuck is the deal with Uccio and the rosquez drama in 2015.

My brother in Christ are u stupid? Why don't you tell Vale to put all his stamina and mental games on f.ing Lorenze, the actual threat to the 10th? You could scheme the divorce in 2016 or sth you stupid Ipad stand!

Oh my god! An opportunity to analyse Uccio! Persona non grata and public enemy number 1 on motogpblr (btw, are there any Uccio shooters on Tumblr? My inbox is a safe space, I wanna hear your side of the story).

There is no way for me to know for a fact why Uccio ended up being the first domino to fall that led to Sepang 2015 but I did look around to see if I could find a bit more about the relationship between Vale and Uccio.

These two go all the way back to the crib, literally. Uccio mentioned in an interview that Tavullia is a small town and they were only a few months apart in age so they ended up at the only day care in the town together.

Uccio has been called a bumbling fool and a freeloader and what not (look at this post openly roasting him for being Vale's Lackey) and despite my dislike of him I won't do the same (for once lol). Vale shot to stardom at a young age doing the death sport that required him to travel extensively. What better way to feel grounded than to have your childhood friend near you at all times (the fact that Vale didn't leave Tavullia for flashier places like Monaco or wtv has been reiterated in so much writing about him, and Uccio has said the same). There is definitely an element of familiarity and comfort that both Vale and Uccio seek from each other. Uccio mentioned that they would come back from a weekend of racing, put down their suitcases and immediately get on the phone with each other, which, teenage bestie-ism is such a force lol it could power cities if harnessed.

Anyway, back to racing. The consensus is that Vale didn't have the best rivals in Biaggi and Gibernau, they were inconsistent and susceptible to mind games. Vale enjoyed the initial years of his career as an untouchable, peerless talent. And then..... the winds changed direction :)

Vale was 36 in 2015, most pro athletes are considered done and dusted at that age. He had been putting his body through years of premier class motorcycle racing. Add to that how bad the Ducati years had been and just, so much life had happened. I don't want to talk about Sic's death, but that too and while racing at that. Vale had already started working on the academy (Franky was signed in 2013 afaik). Vale had moved on from the glittering, ebullient, darling of every circuit personality. Imo choosing to be a mentor and doing that well is among the most impressive things Vale has done but when you mentally cross the rubicon to accept your youth is decidedly over, it changes things. For starters, it's a real question of whether you've already chosen to hang your boots. What I'm trying to say is, a lot was at stake in 2015 for Vale. The kind of, calm and bemused, quietly malicious as and when required public persona that Vale has honed over the years needs the solid bedrock of consistent winning to seem graceful. It wasn't just a championship at this point, it was a question of pride and cementing your legacy and being the architect of how the world perceives you when the odds have been stacked against you for a while.

Back to Uccio. He simply didn't trust or like Marc. Or anyone who was on the racetrack at the same time as Vale (he didn't even spare sweet nothings for Viñales). I have no concrete theory for said distrust short of just saying Uccio is a bit of a slimy character (this interview of Uccio when he's doing his best impersonation of henchman from an old Hollywood western). Uccio wasn't even happy when Marc made the infamous visit to the ranch in winter of 2014. Guess the whole "Marc is helping Jorge win" thing was Uccio's attempt at reminding Vale of his ruthless nature that he thought Vale was finding hard to tap into (Vale did say Marc was an updated model of him). A friend once said that a lot of time public facing figures aren't as cruel or rancid in their interpretation of the world as much as the followers of said people. So Uccio started talking shit and given the circumstances of 2015, it made an impact.

Ultimately the odds were stacked high and Vale made a mistake. I suppose Vale knows a thing or two about how pressure can make someone succumb to errors :)

So that's my take on the whole deal. Uccio, croney par excellence, used Vale's desperate title bid in 2015 to purge some of his misplaced blood lust. He made Marc his target because according to him the young ones on the grid were nothing but a nuisance. Vale fucked up and let it drive his paranoia and made a big fucking mistake.

[cattailbouquet]

TWF 4 Thoughts + Theories

TW: Suicide mention

This is quite long. I had a lot of thoughts.

I loved it! A huge part of what drew me to TWF in the first place was the bigger focus on the human characters, something that stuff like FNAF didn't have as much of at the time. And episode four DELIVERS. Imo, the best horror stories make you care about the victims and/or delight in the villain's terrible antics, and TWF does both super well.

Spoilers Below:

We finally met Charles! Him and Susan are fun to listen to. 

Banny continues to be a ladyfailure and smashes into a table. 

So apparently the facial recognition has always had an issue w/ Sophie? Huh.

The employee’s seeming disinterest in what's going on is a bit concerning? "I don't want anything to do with it." Charles I've got bad news.

Susan's death/undeath had been depicted several times already, which doesn't take away from what we see here. The Snap? The Breathing?? Those vile squelching noises??? The rabbit may be starving but I’m put off the next several meals.

"bon" was just as spooky as I'd hoped. I, among others, was under the impression that he was a representation of Bon's facial recognition system or A.I., but that doesn't seem to be the case, since we see him approach the robot? You horrible ghost man what is your deal. The happy little hand clasp Bon did after brutally murdering a woman was morbid enough to be hilarious. The scene of him talking to Susan in Wonderland was so eerie and sad.

Felix becomes a bigger slimeball by the second. He's so terrible in such a real way. The fact that he dug a grave for himself and then proceeded to back away from the cliff sums him up perfectly. He's too scared to take that kind of action on his own, but he'll dig a hole and wait to drop dead. Even in this, he will always choose inaction. Everything he does is to try to avoid consequences. He barely spares a second thought for the two little kids who loved him enough to call him "Uncle."

Edd and Molly are super cool. I was kind of expecting them to just hang around being scary and/or sad, but it looks like these two are going to be major players here. Bunnyfarm makes it seem like they're on board w/ the idea of Sophie joining them, but that might've been a misdirection. E+M might be opposed to the idea of becoming "beautiful"? Hydrogen bon vs. coughing babies.

Speculation/Ideas:

Does "bon" purposefully mangle the bodies in an attempt to push them into accepting becoming “beautiful”? Or is it a flaw in the Bon animatronic that “bon” is exploiting? Or both? Their faces don’t fit what the system says, so “bon” spurs the robot into trying to make them fit.

Edd seems weirdly ok with Susan wandering around the purgatory and needs to be nudged into action by Molly. I could see that causing problems later.

I had a feeling that Bon wasn’t Just Possessed By Jack. If it were that simple, Bunnyfarm would’ve been the perfect time to reveal it. If Jack is dead and connected to Bon, then he’s not the one at the wheel. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wasn’t dead at all. I have no clue why he would up and leave his family, though.

I could see E+M trying to stall “bon” by playing keep-away with the other victim’s souls, at least initially? They probably wouldn’t be successful with this until later down the line with Brian? Maybe? He’s the only victim who isn’t confirmed to be in an animatronic, nor does he talk about being “beautiful” like the others. We haven’t heard from him since episode one so this could easily change.

What oh what is that under the tarp? The little bedsheet ghost looking thing. A new friend, I hope.

All in all, a beautiful episode. Worth the wait! Can’t wait for 5+6!