#but i also understand that she HAS to be wrong about this. the show subverts our expectations that caitlyn is right

[miwiheroes]

Dropping Byler evidence Every Day Until Season 5

. ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁˖ . ݁ Day 15: Will's 'Love interest' . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁˖ . ݁

Obviously, as bylers, we have all seen many many people out there constantly saying that Will deserves better, or that Will should have a different love interest, and will have a getting over Mike arc in S5. There are many reasons why these things are not true.

I could easily go on and on and on about this for ages, talking about arcs and why the narrative has not built this up at all but instead here are some simple reasons that don't need much thought on why this would make no sense:

Will is taking 'centre stage' in season 5. Creating a new love interest for this season where he's the main character is stupid, because that means if they want that relationship to be well written, they would need to have A LOT of focus on his love interest too. I understood doing this with Robin (where Vickie is a new character), because she is not one of the main characters and will not have as much impact as Will in S5. No new important characters have been spotted with Will.

Will did not get a love interest in S4. Instead of introducing a new character for Will to fall in love with, they establish that he's in love with Mike instead! In the penultimate season of a show! So that the audience can already have this view that Will may never get the thing that he wants! Just for them to be wrong in the final season after years of waiting, subverting the audience's expectations, which the writers love to do anyways.

Will being in love with Mike has been planned from the beginning. This does not suddenly get dropped after no pay-off. If he is taking centre stage and having his coming of age arc in S5, why would this mean that he gets over Mike? His whole arc is realising that he should be loved instead of settling for being alone???? And he's been planned to be in love with Mike since S1??? So,,,,

They did not have to make Will be in love with Mike. Some people may think that Will's arc only surrounds him being gay and getting acceptance for that. That would make sense! Honestly, that would be a good arc. If he wasn't in love with Mike, when that is clearly a choice that the writers have made. They did not have to make him in love with a boy for years to make it believable that he's got internalised homophobia that he needs to overcome. The writers did not give themselves the easy way out.

Will has stated that he will never stop loving Mike. Will has stated multiple times that he wants to spend the rest of his life with Mike. In the garage in S3 and in the van in S4. This is TWICE and the actors have pointed this out to the viewers to show that Will loves Mike (see Finn and David in that one interview thing pre S4). This seems like enough evidence, but there's still more! He also says he'll never join another party, which, if you don't understand subtext, means that he'll never love someone else. Will then, in the big climax of his arc in S4, states that, in a sign of resignation, he will ALWAYS need Mike no matter what. Is that the face of a man who will suddenly stop loving the guy who he has just sacrificed everything for?

Will has been set up to have his happy ending. We have been shown countless times that Will is selfless. It is an integral part of his character that affects his actions constantly, sometimes hurting himself and other characters in the process. He has also dealt with a lot of pain. Why would a character that feels like he will never fall in love with someone else, whilst still sacrificing himself at every turn, be right about feeling worthless in the end? What? Imagine the message of Will's arc, in a show about outcasts where the theme is that love overpowers hate and that cycles of abuse should be broken, become 'we all need to admit that sometimes we can't have everything we want'.

Will does not 'deserve better'. Hear me out on this one okay? I can't imagine saying that Will deserves better than to have Mike love him back. Mike has been presented as someone that Will loves because Mike is the only one that understands him, the only one that protects him, the only one that doesn't make him feel like a freak, the one who says that making friends with him was the best thing he ever did. Also, also, S5 is definitely going to make Mike seem more likeable to the GA again. It's basically been confirmed at this point, and so, I can't imagine making Mike very lovable all for Will to suddenly deserve better than him again and date someone else.

Will's happy ending is only with Mike. It has been stated many times in interviews that The Duffers are apparently weaving this thread of a storyline where everyone's arcs get completed perfectly and everyone gets their perfect ending. In what universe do people really think that after all this, after Will being selfless and self-sacrificing for years, after Will believing he's a mistake that doesn't deserve love, after Will saying he's going to be in love with Mike forever, he will get a random guy's phone number in a bar or some shit? And that will be his amazing happy ending? That lazy ending will happen to a guy where the whole season will be centred on him? l can't with people on twitter. Take a moment to think.

[silver-soul00]

It is time again to respond yeaaah....sigh

Let's start:

Wednesday does not become a “permanent presence” at Weathervane.

Wednesday goes there on very few occasions and always with a specific purpose: to investigate or get logistical help (as in the case of the escape from Nevermore).

There is no concrete hint, either in the plot or in the dialogue, that suggests frequent “off-screen” encounters.

The fact that Tyler buys her a drink is not evidence of romantic hookups, but is part of an attempt on his part to appear to be the reliable “good guy,” an intentional narrative mechanism that serves to build trust in the viewer before his true role is revealed.

In addition, it is important to understand that the scenes between them are intentionally coded as romantic at first.

But this does not mean that the series wants to build a “healthy” love story:

it is a classic narrative technique of romantic red herring-it creates the illusion of a possible love interest only to subvert it dramatically.

Tyler's betrayal is much more shocking precisely because it seemed sweet. Had he been suspicious from the start, the revelation of his Hyde identity would have had much less impact.

On the subject of gaslighting, one must be precise.

Gaslighting is not just “telling huge lies”-it is distorting the other person's perception of reality in a subtle, continuous way to confuse, manipulate, and control.

When Tyler tells Wednesday things like “I thought you liked me” while he knows full well that he is hiding the truth from her-and that he is involved in brutal murders-he is engaging in a severe form of gaslighting.

He builds a false narrative of complicity, intimacy and trust to weaken Wednesday's ability to suspect him.

This is not “romance,” it is heavy emotional manipulation.

And those who downplay this not only miss the narrative point, but also underestimate how much real damage gaslighting can do.

In real life, victims of gaslighting often:

•Begin to doubt their memory, perception and mental clarity;

•Lose confidence in themselves;

•Become easier to isolate and control;

•Take a long time to recognize the manipulation they have suffered, often feeling guilty about natural emotions.

To say that “Wednesday would have found it pleasant” to be gaslighted by Tyler, as the post claims, is deeply disrespectful both to the character and to the real victims of psychological abuse.

Wednesday Addams is not a weak or clueless girl, but she is human: she can be fooled by those who play allies well.

(Once again a stereotype is carried forward, even a rather sad one, of the “gothic” girl who has no feelings, thus seeing Wednesday as a kind of two-dimensional character or one-dimensional character.)

And the fact that, once she discovers the betrayal, she completely cuts him out of her life without any hesitation shows her strength of character-not that she “liked” being treated that way.

Regarding the “if Wednesday really was using Tyler, he was entitled to the truth” speech:

• Tyler is not entitled to anything from her, since he was the one who lied first and in an infinitely more serious way.

• Their relationship was not defined: they were not engaged, nor had Wednesday promised anything.

To ask for “honesty” when you yourself are plotting behind the other's back is the height of hypocrisy as far as I am concerned.

Finally, it should be reiterated that Wednesday is never really in love with Tyler.

There is perhaps an initial liking, a curiosity, but never emotional abandonment or blind trust.

The “kiss” they exchange is not the crowning of a love: it is a narrative test.

Soon after, Wednesday senses that something is wrong-her instincts guide her to the truth.

If Tyler had been really important to her on a sentimental level, her reaction to the betrayal would have been laden with anguish or inner conflict.

Instead, there is no hesitation: there is anger, a sense of justice, clarity. Wednesday immediately takes the situation back into her own hands.

So...?

There is no evidence that Wednesday and Tyler had an intense off-screen relationship.

The “romantic” scenes were a narrative trap for the audience, not the basis of a real ship.

Tyler was gaslighting Wednesday, and downplaying this fact is irresponsible and dangerous.

Wednesday never acted like a passive victim, nor did she find pleasure in being betrayed.

To defend W*yler ship by ignoring these elements is to disrespect neither the writing of the series nor the important themes it touches on (such as emotional manipulation).

Downplaying psychological abuse to defend a ship is deeply wrong.

But weren't you the ones who told us that we had to "feel sorry" for Tyler for what happened to him?

Wednesday is also a victim and stop treating her like a walking stereotype.

Either we analyze both or we just cherry pick

An additional critical element in the analysis of the relationship between Wednesday and Tyler concerns the phenomenon of victim blaming.

Seeing how the author of the post has reasoned, I should explain better what VB is to be sure

Victim blaming occurs when, consciously or unconsciously, the victim of abuse or manipulation is attributed some of the responsibility for the incident, reversing the correct attribution of blame. This is a well-documented dynamic in psychological and social contexts, with profoundly damaging effects on the public perception of victims and their own ability to process the trauma they have suffered.

In the case of Wednesday, part of the fandom and some commentators tend to interpret the story of Wednesday and Tyler in a distorted way, suggesting that Wednesday could not have been manipulated, or even that she would have found pleasure in the dynamic established.

This reading is based on a number of erroneous assumptions:

• That an individual's character strength, intelligence, or cynicism makes him or her invulnerable to emotional manipulation;

•That the display of trust or openness toward another is in itself a form of culpability.

In fact, as numerous studies in the field of psychology have shown, anyone can be a victim of gaslighting or other forms of emotional abuse, regardless of one's mental strength or analytical skills.

Manipulation creeps right into trust, hope for authenticity, and is often calibrated to the individual's emotional weaknesses. In this sense, Wednesday's behavior-which, while maintaining her natural distrust, allows Tyler an edge of trust-does not constitute a mistake or a fault, but an expression of her growth and her willingness to make connections.

The betrayal she suffered does not make her any less strong; on the contrary, her immediate and sharp reaction, once she realizes the truth, testifies to her resilience.

Moreover, from a methodological point of view, it is crucial to stress the importance of analytical consistency.

While one is rightly inclined to recognize in Tyler a potential victim-for example, of his own traumas, her mother, or the pressure of external forces-it is likewise necessary, for the sake of intellectual fairness, to acknowledge that Wednesday, too, was a victim of deception and affective manipulation.

Choosing to analyze Tyler's character with empathy, while denying any form of vulnerability to Wednesday, constitutes a clear example of analytical cherry picking: only data functional to a predetermined thesis are selected, ignoring those that contradict it.

This lack of rigor damages not only the critical analysis of the series, but also the understanding of the deeper themes it addresses: trust, betrayal, personal growth, and the ability to resist manipulation.

To minimize Wednesday's experience is not only to misunderstand the complexity of her character, but also to perpetuate a toxic culture in which victims are seen as guilty of their own traumas, based on stereotypes or unrealistic expectations.

To conclude all of this talk, to fully respect the narrative and maintain an honest and respectful analysis in the context of this post, it is necessary to acknowledge that Wednesday Addams, even in her strength, has also been emotionally abused and deserves the same consideration and dignity that is accorded to other characters.

To deny this is not only unfair: it is methodologically incorrect.

Just as it is fair to consider Tyler ALSO a victim, Wednesday is also to be considered a victim of deception.

Eh yes, just because I don't like the character and the ship doesn't mean I don't recognize the abuse that guy had.

In conclusion and REPEAT IT AGAIN

Tyler deceived Wednesday, he PRETENDED that the girl recognized "signs" and got angry when she did not recognize them.

This is not healthy and here Wednesday is a victim.

Thank you and goodbye.

SEE YOU SPACE

[squidthoughts]

collected thoughts on the creloise matter (Big And Detailed Spoilers Ahead):

if it’s dual character assassination, it’s dual character assassination and irredeemable and frankly uninteresting and unfortunately the show becomes unwatchable for me personally. if it’s purposeful setup? it’s bloody brilliant. i mean it could actually be bloody brilliant. there are a few lines that feel very purposeful: pen’s “did you ever truly like her?” and the moment with cress and her mother when cress protests being cruel to the btons. both of which come after the creloise breakup and, you know, the uhhhh cessation of scenes together. creloise was dead. there was no reason to continue to examine the corpse. unless it wasn’t truly dead. ok, so there is now incredible potential in the CreloiseSituation(tm).

they hate each other. perfect! cressida was suffering all season and eloise was a truly terrible friend - i mean, comically selfish and villainous - that is to say, cressida’s actions (antagonistic as they were) were explained and justified within the narrative and eloise’s were not. ok! that’s fine. in the past, cress has been the unjustifiably cruel one. if anything, they are now on equal footing in terms of illogically hurting each other. so, they hate each other. which just means their growing back together could be that much more satisfying.

eloise’s choices didn’t make sense. they just…don’t. if her arc this season was to show her growth separate from pen, and it ends with nothing mattering to her but pen, it’s just nonsensical. (dont get me wrong- i’m glad they made up! their friendship is a core pillar of the show! but taking a season of development apart and introducing new dynamics into eloise’s life only to end her precisely where she was in season ONE is just…huh??) that is, unless elosie’s decisions don’t make sense YET. unless the point of her abandonment of a friend IS the abandonment. unless this is precisely the base a following season would need to portray el from a starting position of moral inferiority- a facet of her character not yet explored.

creloise both out of mayfair now. coincidence? well…maybe! i guess! but also, outside the set and setting of society. idk, that just screams landscape of possibility to me.

they’re both on the cusp of substantial development! cressida at rrrrock bottom and eloise striving to find experience and purpose. we’ve never seen cress this low and tortured or el this alone and unsure. idk. parallels.

nothing that made us love them so much in the first place has changed. they’re still mirrors. they’re still unflinchingly honest with each other - often the only ones who are. they’re still (deliciously) (occasionally) mean. the foundations are still there. and tbh, if all of this was purposeful, there is SO much conflict and strife between them that i actually really love it. the angst! the tension! the possible banter! eloise abandoned cress at the worst possible time in her life and cress betrayed eloise (out of desperation but facts are facts) and neither of them got an explanation. and for a summer and a season they were very much alone together and enjoying each other and the betrayals sting because the friendship mattered in the first place. and that broken dynamic is just. so yummy. and the hate is there because the embarrassment is there and the embarrassment is there because….i liked you. and you burned me. and i cant believe i was stupid enough to like you. but i did like you, i did.

also, i’m sure the showrunners were understandably wary about how the audience would react to cressida this season. up until now, she’s been a glorified extra; the personality-less stereotype of the loveless, callous debutante bridgerton’s grand love stories exist to subvert. in s1 she was a joke (daphne and simon laughing about her scripted flirting) and in s2 she was the hopeless and petty mean girl. there was no reason for the audience to like her, because she was hardly a character and certainly not a person. i imagine suddenly linking her to everyone’s fan favorite eloise was seen as a huge risk— in case of a negative reaction, cress could hardly be established as a romantic prospect as well, possibly guaranteeing a large portion of screentime to someone the audiences don’t even like. creators obviously shouldn’t feel the urge to cater to an audience’s whims of how they think a story should go - this would be very bad!! - but i do think the extreme outpouring of appreciation for cress this season might enable the writers to utilize her more in the future. she’s a real character now with depth and her story has established loyalty in fans- narratively there is freedom there for some satisfying payoffs.

all this to say, this season reduced my expectations to not quite zero, but somewhere around one. the finale was crowded and unfocused and more than a few things just did not make sense and the queer rep felt very sudden and trite - for shock value, practically - and we were forced to watch creloise hacked to pieces….but, i maintain, if it was all purposeful….idk. i personally don’t think all hope is lost.

[knaveumineko]

Umineko Episode 2 Blog: Deep Blue

I'm far prouder of the title of this post than I have any right to be.

I thought Episode 1 was convoluted, but after reading all of Episode 2 I look back with fondness on those days before I watched Kanon get into a lightsaber duel with a goat.

But before we talk about how this game has jumped the shark, we're going to the aquarium to hear about some spoiled kids fumbling dates with people who are paid to hang out with them, and to meet our latest reliably unreliable narrator.

George is the most eye roll inducing character I've read in a long time. I'm ratcheting between "how are you this naive?" and "what is wrong with you?" and "you're kind of a nice guy when you get down to it" every time he opens his mouth. He genuinely buys in to the whole sappy romantic narrative he's constructed, to an extent that's almost pitiable, but it's ultimately self-serving.

The relationship isn't entirely horrible for Shannon: if nothing else it's finally motivated her to reject her "furniture" cult programming, but being George's wife is not a healthy foundation for her entire sense of personhood, and the cracks begin to show when George's inner monologue talks about how he enjoys her emotional vulnerability because it lets him feel in control, or when he accidentally admits that he didn't care much for Shannon until she became attractive enough to catch his eye. There's also something innately uncomfortable about how close Shannon's supposed virtues as a potential wife are to her values as a servant. She doesn't speak up and she does all the cooking and cleaning and she'll worship the ground George walks on for treating her with the bare minimum respect any human being would receive.

It's certainly doing a better job of subverting and commenting on this character archetype than Episode 1 did by having Battler assault her.

Ryukishi made sure to give us something to chew on in this lunch date by using their conversation to establish some important themes.

We've got their conversation about the aquarium tank being like a whole world to fish living inside of it, paralleling Rokkenjima being cut off from the rest of reality and essentially becoming its own little world, observed by the witches. It's harkening back to the advice Bernkastel gave us earlier: Rokkenjima is a game board, on which a game is played with very different rules to our ordinary reality, and understanding the rules is the key to beating Beatrice. In other words, we're doing a bit of a Danganronpa where each game deliberately follows the same formulaic beats, except Umineko actively wants us to metagame the formula to figure out what's going on. We also get George's narration reinforcing the idea by talking about the two of them being in their own little world on their date, which is the sort of elegant weaving in of theme that I like to see when I'm reading.

Shannon is also about to elaborate on a recurring line about the sea appearing blue or grey depending on your perspective but then George goes ahead and talks over her.

Thanks for that, George.

I want to skip ahead to Jessica's date with Kanon, where we see the opposite end of the spectrum for a relationship like this. Where George and Shannon's relationship is fairly well-established but can't escape from the master-servant dynamic, Jessica and Kanon never really get off the ground. I might even go so far as saying that there's something vaguely incestuous about their relationship: they live together, have a pre-established relationship with expectations that conflict with the new kind of relationship they want to have, they are mutually the only boy/girl around their age who is really available to them, and one of them is sort of coercing the other into it (it is interesting to note that the girls at Jessica's school see Kanon as a kid). It was never going to end well, and the ensuing blow-up makes day to day life more complicated for everyone.

We get a return to Shannon's thoughts about how much larger the world is beyond what she sees stuck on Rokkenjima. High school is a foreign land to Kanon, and it's marked not only by a change in scenery but by a shift in genre. We see Jessica reprimanding her friends with the use of brass knuckles, an item that it seems unlikely she could reasonably acquire, let alone get away with using to assault other students. Umineko has established expectations for how and why it breaks from reality, and this is very much not within those expectations, to say nothing of the jarring and anachronistic scene of Jessica cosplaying and performing a Touhou doujin song while Nico Nico Douga comments fly across the scene. This makes absolutely no sense in Umineko, but it makes perfect sense in a high school slice of life comedy anime. It's not just Rokkenjima: Jessica's school is also an enclosed space with its own rules which may diverge from normal reality.

The funny thing is, she still looks less stupid than Kanon does in that coat.

I don't care how many people Shannon killed. This is her worst crime.

I wonder if Ryukishi was going for an intentional commentary on classism by waiting this long to show us the perspective of one of the servants. The "furniture" thing has gone from a weird quirk with some unsettling implications to being a full-on death cult, with the whole eschatological narrative surrounding the Golden Land serving as the carrot to the stick of whatever punishment the family thinks up this week.

All of this culminates in Jessica's monologue about personas. Jessie helps Jessica by acting out the desires she doesn't get to act on normally, and she suggests that Kanon should try doing the same. This establishes an important motif for the entire Episode: alter egos. They're all over the place.

Kanon's real name and his rejection of it keeps getting flagged as important. I wonder if it's a red herring or if his name is actually going to be a huge twist in itself. It would be convenient for me if it turned out his real name was "Beatrice."

Jessica, of course, has her Jessie persona.

Shannon is furniture, but she is also a human

The Halloween motif, which I think is implied to be the result of Lambdadelta's influence somehow? That'll be interesting to examine later. The discussion of the appeal of Halloween costumes echoes Jessica's words on personas.

Maria is once again switching between her human self and her witch self. We heard George's thoughts on this back in Episode 1, where he concludes that this habit reflects a desire to project a version of herself who's strong, smart and special.

Maria describes her mother as switching between her normal self and an evil witch, which Rosa is always quick to agree to. Mother of the year. We're going to have to talk about her whole deal after that Tea Party, aren't we?

I've talked around it long enough. In-between all the romantic hijinks we got possibly the most important scene in the episode, in which we meet our narrator for Episode 2: Sayo. We see her smashing the mirror at the old torii shrine, monologuing about the need to escape from her current life, the miracle that she'll need to achieve it, and describing the mirror as the "key" to this miracle. "Key" is one of our epitaph buzzwords, so any time it gets used as a metaphor piques my interest, although I don't have all that much to say about it here and now.

We also have that whole "without love, it cannot be "seen"" thing, which will definitely be important, considering that "seen" has been placed in quotes, the same way that references to people "seeing" the witch or the witch "existing" are always written.

I called the narrator Sayo because, reflecting the alter ego motif, Sayo has this troublesome quirk where she thinks of Shannon as a different person, and describes her as such, giving the illusion of a 3rd person narrator, since Sayo very rarely breaks character. Luckily, the story is quite quick to make it clear that Sayo is still the narrator, even after her scene at the torii shrine:

I have no idea where Sayo found all the shonen manga she obviously read to come up with this Episode, but knowing that we're hearing this stuff from her will give us some leverage to avoid having to acknowledge the witch's existence.

That's all for now. I was hoping to write less posts for this episode, since I felt my interest waning a bit during the writing of the Episode 1 blog and some of those posts in hindsight didn't need to be written or could have been combined with others (especially "the lying detective?" which I'm considering just deleting). A lot of crazy stuff happens in Episode 2, but at the same time significant chunks of it are almost completely nonsensical, which is of course all part of the witch's scheme. We'll see how it goes.

Next time I'll probably either dive into the appearance of Beatrice in the flesh, or talk a bit about the Red Truth and the whole game being played between meta-Battler and meta-Beatrice. I do hope this doesn't turn into a Yu-Gi-Oh thing where I have to distinguish between 3 different versions of the same character.

[dollsanddandy]

Byler doubt has seeped into my mind and the thing about it is I see an argument for Mileven and Byler.

I will briefly mention that the fact we hardly see Will and Eleven interact onscreen kills me. These two understand the Upside Down and supernatural crap in a way the whole group does not and it kills me we don’t see them talk about it. Not only that, but they are among the most selfless of the group and they have received nothing in return.

Anyway, here’s my reasoning for both:

Originally I was like “Y’know what? Yeah, Will hasn’t got a single good thing going for him like the entire show, he deserves something good and Byler canon would be perfect.” But couldn’t the same be said for Eleven? She’s suffered just as much if not more. If anyone deserves someone romantically I’d argue it’s her over Will.

However, I am not saying Eleven needs a man. What Eleven has always needed most was a sense of belonging and an exploration into who she is. In support of Byler it would make the most sense that she needs to explore her autonomy and figure out who she is and what she wants. Her whole life has been for everyone but her. As much as Hawkins needs Eleven’s help, I hope we can spend some time for her to discover herself and gain control of her life in Season 5. Her best future would be without Mike romantically, it would be with Mike and the party platonically. She needs support and love from friends and family. She needs to know she has value beyond what she can do for others and beyond her powers. She needs to know she matters.

Eleven wants to feel like a normal teenage girl and doesn’t want to feel like she’s wrong or a mistake. Max gave her the chance to be a normal teenage girl and Eleven’s happiest memories are from time spent with Max. I’d also like to add that these moments with Max subvert the makeover trope because she wants Eleven to discover what she likes rather than Max choosing for her. Max has always wanted to give Eleven exactly what she wants: autonomy and normalcy.

Will needs romantic love. Eleven needs support and platonic love from those around her, and while Will needs support as well, him receiving romantic love would help him justify his existence. He feels like a mistake and that his love for Mike is wrong. Will gave up on Mike’s love in an attempt to save Eleven’s relationship. Will needs to feel like he matters, especially to his best friend and possible love interest Mike. Will receiving Mike’s love would complete his arc with him understanding he’s not a mistake, his love is normal and natural. He has been pushed aside for too long and the boy needs some serious love, care, affection and attention. At this point in the story Will must feel incredibly hopeless and without a future. His friends no longer have interest in his interests, he doesn’t appear to have any friends in California, he’s given up on his crush on Mike and the world is quite literally ending right before his eyes.

Mike’s love saving Will from Vecna and the end of the world and finally understanding what has really been going on between these two best friends would be a gorgeous choice narratively. “Yes we can play D&D and Nintendo in my basement for the rest of our lives, I love you.” This narrative would disprove his idea that he would never fall in love. It would be a beautiful message to all gay people, you’re not a mistake, you’re worthy of love. It would also explain to Will it was never about wanting to leave “childish” things behind, it was always about fear and internalized homophobia.

Now, let’s talk Michael Wheeler. Will and Mike have a falling out over Mike and Lucas not wanting to play D&D with him in ST3. Then Will leaves and suddenly in ST4 the remaining core four members are playing D&D again? My theory is that Mike playing D&D was his way of connecting with Will. D&D was their medium to be their true selves and when they stop playing D&D and Will leaves, Mike feels like he lost Will. I think Mike was the first to show interest in the Hellfire Club and by playing it with his friends he hoped to recreate the same feelings of happiness when he used to play D&D. However, it doesn’t work which is why Mike doesn’t appear happy in early ST4. When they beat Eddie’s campaign we don’t see him celebrating with his friends and that’s when he begins to realize what’s wrong: It doesn’t feel the same. He doesn’t miss playing D&D, he misses Will. It was never about the fantasy role playing game, it was always about how he was able to spend time playing with the boy he loves.

Anyway, here’s some honorable mentions and details I’d like to talk about:

Max and Eleven the duo you are 💗☹️ I really wish we had more moments for them as friends, I feel like Eleven would’ve really been there for Max while she was depressed following the events of ST3.

I feel like Eleven’s supernatural plot for ST5 should be focused on Max, it would make more sense that she and Lucas are trying to free someone who meant so much to them. Max was the most positive influence on Eleven next to Hopper. Beyond that, Eleven should have some time to discover her wants to some extent this season. She’s more than a weapon.

I think it’s so interesting how Will and Eleven are almost foils. In ST1-2 it’s almost like they cannot be on the same place at once (Will gets taken to the UD, Eleven has to save him, Will is saved, Eleven replaces his spot in the UD, Will is possessed, Eleven returns to help him, Will is freed and Eleven must return to hiding until the Snowball. It’s a very interesting choice), they need the opposite forms of love and Eleven is empowered to fight while Will is only able to flight.

There are a few parallels between the two, such as Mike’s “love” hurting both Will and Eleven and strangely enough the love they need from Mike is the opposite of the love they’re receiving from him. They also both feel like monsters or “othered” because of things that they aren’t in control of.

My recent obsession has been Mike Wheeler edits with “Like Him” as the song

I need Stranger Things 5 trailer now right now please please pleaseeee

This was written way better but I was outside the app too long so my progress was lost 😭🤚

[all-pacas]

9. Scene that first made me love (or hate) the character- all the characters

this is very difficult, because the first time i saw the show was technically ages and ages ago, and i really can't remember my first impressions of it? so instead i'll list establishing character moments, at least to me. the moment i think they really locked in for me as characters.

HOUSE: Pilot. House talks to Rebecca Adler and changes his mind.

For all that House is dismissive and callous and claims to only care about the puzzle, and for all that we tend to take him at his word… this was never true. This was explicitly never true. House goes to Rebecca to tell her she's being stupid and should allow herself to be treated; she tells him no. And House accepts the decision. He still thinks she's wrong, but she doesn't want treatment, and so he won't treat her, and when his team suggests ways to subvert her choice (claiming she is not mentally competent), House defends her agency and doesn't play ball. The fact is, this is why he avoids patients: he loses all his objectivity. He immediately pivots to respecting their choices against their best interests or the solution to the puzzle. And we see it as early as episode one.

WILSON: House vs. God. Wilson is sleeping with a patient and hides it.

It isn't that Wilson doesn't have great moments before this: I thought about several others before settling on this. But I think this moment crystalizes a side of Wilson's character that fandom tends to overlook, that's very easy to overlook: that in his own way he is just as manipulative and dark as House, despite the facade and ethical veneer. There's an interview RSL did where he talked about Wilson, and says something along the lines of he has a joke about Wilson, that Wilson will someday be arrested and ask House to go to his house and clean up all his porn. And the joke isn't just that Wilson has porn, but that it's "crazy German stuff," that it's dark and violent and extreme. And hidden. Wilson tries to present himself as kindly and compassionate because he wants to be, not because he necessarily is. He is a doormat who always does right because that is the person he wishes to present to the world. He is friends with House because he is much more like House than he wants to be. He breaks every ethics rule to date his patient, and then he successfully lies about it for weeks, and neither of these things bother him all that much.

CUDDY: Role Model. "Don't you hate this?"

Role Model is the peak of the Vogler arc, and Cuddy starts off being firmly on Vogler's side, but the show is careful to also portray her ambivalence. Cuddy's conflicts between being a boss and a person are so interesting to me, and this exchange is great. Vogler has demanded House make a speech at a conference and shill for his company, and Cuddy is riding Diagnostics harder than usual to make sure they manage their patient's case by the book. Most of the scene in question is your standard diagnostics "we can't do x, it's too dangerous, get consent for y" banter, but at the end, House gives his orders and turns to Cuddy as she's leaving. He asks her, "Don't you hate this?" and there's a brief pause. She considers. Her expression shifts. "Yeah," she admits, and walks away. Cuddy knows what side she'd like to be on. She completely understands House's insanity and is largely supportive of it. But she has to be the bad guy. It is her job to be the bad guy. And the show does such a good job showing it, watching her struggle with the balance, and showing that House is aware of it too.

FOREMAN: Occam's Razor. Foreman convinces the team to pull an all-nighter with him.

The show really lost its way with Foreman after S5, because before that he had such a consistent and strong character arc as House's obvious successor. He's given opportunity after opportunity to lead, to show off his knowledge, to have cases of his own: his subplots and focus episodes are second only to House's in scale. Foreman was always going to take over Diagnostics (until he wasn't), and this little scene in episode three clinches it. Foreman is sure House's theory of the case is incorrect and is determined to prove him wrong, deciding to pull an all-nighter in the lab and do more tests. Cameron and Chase don't agree with this theory: they are more used to House, and in these early episodes, often tell Foreman that he should simply get used to it, that House is always correct in the end. Foreman not only refuses, but guilts/convinces the other two to stay up doing tests with him, setting up his leadership and opposition to House for seasons to come.

CAMERON: Role Model. Cameron quits her job.

Honestly, this was a hard pick: Cameron gets a ton of great moments in S1 that define her as a person, from her difficulties with patients to her meddling over House's birthday, but I'm a sucker for Telling Character Moments, and boy is this one of them. Cameron has been crushing on House for a while now, and gotten increasingly hurt and frustrated by what she sees as his refusal to admit his feelings, so she quits Diagnostics. Except, the words she uses to explain her decision are so, so telling to her as a character and a person: I have to protect myself, she explains. There is only one thing in this scenario I can control. She is leaving not just out of heartbreak, but to reassert control of a situation she has lost handle of; her return in Kids is also framed as Cameron asserting control, forcing the situation to comply to her expectations. Cameron's need for control as a sign of her fear of vulnerability is in fact a major part of her character from S1 to S6, and she never says it better than here.

CHASE: Paternity. "Clever... but also pathetic."

Chase is a surprisingly hard one, because he is blatantly the least important and least developed member of the team in S1. But he comes out of the gate swinging in Paternity, weaponizing his two greatest assets (his lack of ego and his powers of observation) to kiss House's ass. House poses a question to the team: no one has an answer, but Chase gives the answer he supposes House wants to hear. Later, House does the same thing again, and Chase is able to successfully deduce the answer House wants and even the issue with the patient's brain, not because he saw it for himself, but because he knows House did and is able to guess. Chase's asskissing is a joke, but it's one backed up with genuine skill: he makes something of a habit of calling people out on their bullshit, and for all of Chase's surprisingly private nature, he's also unafraid to look like an idiot and be wrong.

TAUB: Ugly. Going behind House's back to treat the patient.

It's almost unfair to use Ugly as a choice, because the entire episode is really a vehicle to prove why Taub should be on the team... but it delivers. While Taub has been argumentative with House and underhand in his way before now, he has always backed down and ultimately followed orders. Here, Taub not only defies House, but is willing to risk his entire career going forward in order to advocate for the patient and do what he thinks is right. Not only that, but the episode doesn't frame it as an ego thing but as genuine care for the patient: Taub doesn't care about the puzzle or the win, but for improving this kid's life through surgery, and when push comes to shove, he's willing to fight for it.

THIRTEEN: Lucky Thirteen. Gaining, and losing interest in the patient with her diagnosis.

It feels unfair to give her an episode a season and a half after her introduction. I do like Thirteen from the start, but I think she takes a while to really click in S4: as enjoyable as her meme secrecy is, it does make it hard to connect with her. Thirteen has never more blatantly been a remix for Cameron than in this episode, but it's also a fantastic one: watching Thirteen's performative disinterest in her own life and her patient's shift abruptly when she believes Spencer is dying, watching Thirteen stubbornly insist she can convince her way back on the team after being fired, and watching her refusal to admit she is spiraling is all well done. Thirteen spends most of this episode being wrong: medically, socially, behaviorally. House was right to fire her. But watching her crawl back from a low point is always fun, and the way she gains and loses interest on her patient/maybe girlfriend depending on how much of herself Thirteen sees in her is fascinating too.

KUTNER: The Right Stuff. Turning his number upside down.

Kutner walks a fascinating line between being a joke character and being a talented, if inexperienced doctor. While his easy-going nature does cover up some incredibly dark backstory, a lot of the time with him, what you see is what you get. Kutner being fired, switching his number from a 6 to a 9, and staying right where he is is very funny. Coming up with an out of the box but clever solution to House's current diagnostic problem is even better.

AMBER: Games. "...Something!"

Games makes it clear just how performative Amber is, both as someone who uses her anger and aggression as a weapon but as someone who cares deeply about everything, who is only so aggressive and can't stand losing because of how much she cares. House asks her what her deal is, and she springs into a canned answer that is almost mocking, listing off a dozen cliches for why she is the way she is, her voice breaking and composure slipping. She runs out of steam. Her voice breaks. "Something!" she finishes, her voice strained. I love that we never really get an answer here, that there is no tidy reveal. Maybe it really is that she cares about everything and feels like she shouldn't or can't.

(from this meme)

[lilxmoo]

Little things Amie and Jay did in AC that are actually quite important and I think deserve recognition

KAL👏 NOT 👏 BEING 👏CREEPY 👏 like guys he could have been a weird Jacob from Twilight "i imprinted on you" SO EASILY. But instead, by offering to leave and by always respecting Auri as a person before all else (throughout the whole series btw, it didn't stop once they're together), they actually show that he genuinely loves her rather than just being creepily attached to her against her will. Every step in their relationship is decided by Aurora, giving her full autonomy, but she ALSO asks for consent from him so they don't just assume he's ok with whatever just because they're bonded. It could have been so weird but they dodged that bullet really well

SCARLETT IS NEVER SLUTSHAMEDDD!!! I didn't think about til recently, but having a female character who is sexually active, sexualizes herself and has many partners is never a joke in this series, which is wonderfully refreshing. In fact, it's a subtle but really helpful insight to her character, with her desire to be loved instead of just loving, how detached she feels from her dad and her general desire to experience attachment that she hasn't always received. It's also not something she does simply because "she has to", she genuinely likes it, and that's never painted as a bad thing.

Having a queer character be religious. The whole United Faith thing is never really explored (which is probably good, it could have gotten way too political way too quick), but it's clearly inspired by Christianity. With Finian being both part of what is essentially a Christian and also a bisexual man is such good subtle representation that I WISHH there was more of in media. Just a silent acknowledgement of, "hey, these things don't have to be separate, being both is ok "

No alien species is wrong, and no conflict has a clear right side. Again, kinda under explored for the sake of trying to not be super political, but there is a silent yet pretty pointed show that every conflict is pretty grey. They don't justify murder or racism, but they kinda show, "hey, terrans and Syldrathi BOTH did good and bad things in this war. Terra attacked innocent Syldrathi, but Jericho Jones was a peacemaker. The Syldrathi did not ask for war, but Caersan was still a mass murderer anyways." Just an extra tiny layer of depth which helps with it feeling more real.

Subverting the, "I can fix him/her" trope. The characters aren't "fixed" by their love interests. Their growth is inspired by their partners, but also by their friends and experiences, which is much nicer. They say, "you CAN'T fix them. But you can encourage them to grow", and I really like that, I think its much healthier.

Neurodivergency. I'm not sure if Zila is actually meant to be autistic, but as someone on the spectrum myself, I definitely see her there. And her not understanding social ques isn't painted as something she needs to learn, it's painted as something EVERYONE ELSE needs to accept. Not change themselves for, that's important, but accept. Whenever someone criticizes her for her lack of social awareness, it's not a joke or a narrative criticism of her, etc the "You understand how everything works except other people" line. If anything, they are showing us that she does have feelings, that empathy is still important for her even if that's not something that's actively shown, and that these types of statements are hurtful, not helpful.

Trauma has consequences. Amie and Jay have talked about this in interviews, but they have always said that they stop believing a story when a character dies and then everyone just moves on, because that's not realistic. And that really helps the story and characters feel believable. Cat's death isn't only shown through Tyler being kinda sad. Every single character grieves her, not because they were close but because they knew her, which is very realistic, and for Tyler specifically she quite literally haunts his narrative, just like real death does, especially of such a violent kind. His grief drives him to make decisions which end up changing the course of the story, as does Kal's trauma with his dad, and everyone's past experiences, they all matter, and drive the storyline forward. Very realistic and very well-done.

They end the story where it needs to end. I'm a big advocate for not stretching out stories beyond where they need to go, and they do it well. Like, it's a sci fi space opera, they could've made it fifteen books long if they wanted, or made sure they had enough books for every squad member to have a cover of their own (which i wouldve loved to see, but anyways), but instead they said, "this is where and how it needs to end, and we're not gonna milk it."

Representation is subtle. The best kind, in my opinion, is when it feels real, and here it does. Fin and zila aren't constantly discussing being queer, they just have a conversation about if Saedii is hot, similar to Scarlett teasing Auri about Kal. Aurora being half Chinese isn't more important than her being half Irish, they both matter but neither overshadow her as a person. They become reminders of home, not reminders of her differences.

This was WAYYY too long, I apologize, but I was tryna think on why this story doesn't feel weird where in a lot of places it normally would. So here's my ramblings :D (noone is gonna care but oh well I put it out somewhere lol) anyway amie and jay know how to write surprise surprise

[cjbolan]

Just finished watching Disney’s Percy Jackson. SOOOO much better than the movie!!!!….

1) CGI is kept to a merciful minimum, with plenty of cool practical effects and set design.

2) The few CGI scenes looks pretty realistic, one of the rare cases where barely-visible CGI actually makes the story better. Adds a layer of extra mystery. The Minotaur scene gave major Jurassic Park vibes.

3) The Camp Half Blood cabins are god-tier set design. Each one has a bold unique look , on the inside and outside. It reminded me of the different magical rooms from Encanto. You could easily tell just by looking which god each Cabin represents, without being told. 

4) There’s a much greater sense of danger when the monsters look more real (again thanks to minimal CGI) and the kids in danger are much younger than the 17 year olds in the movie.

5) Percy’s godly abilities being much more ambiguous helps strengthen the author’s intended neurodivergence allegory. Is Percy really a demigod? Or is Percy just seeing things? And unlike the movie, we see his godly powers long BEFORE finding out he’s half god. Which means just like Percy, we’re also wondering what the heck is going on.

6) HUMOR. I actually laughed out loud. Especially during Episode 2.

7) Sally Jackson is a badass with a personality !!! Unlike movie Sally who sounds like she’s just reading her lines all in one take, Sally shows so much real emotion in every little tone and action. She’s not going through the motions, nor is she overacting. When she says she understands and cares about her son, she SHOWS that. Also a major badass in how she not only stood up to Gabe, but also helped defeat the Minotaur. Movie Sally’s “sacrifice” was just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This Sally truly sacrificed herself , by deliberately putting herself in danger as it’s the only way to keep her son alive. (Seriously this is how I want Mary Penelope Windsnap to be played too).

7) None of that rushed contrived enemies-to-lovers BS between Percy and Annabeth. This show cleverly subverts the trope. While Percy dislikes Annabeth, Annabeth likes and helps Percy but only for her own selfish reasons.

8) Gabe is a much more subtle asshole. He’s still an asshole, but no immediate threat to Percy or Sally so it’s easy to see why Sally stayed married to him. In the books she married him to keep Percy safe, but that’s hard to believe in the movie version when Gabe gets physical with Percy.

Will definitely stay tuned for more episodes.

[fortuna-et-cataclysmos]

On Katara and feminism in NATLA

I grew up with ATLA. I was exactly Katara’s age when ATLA started to air in my country, and this cartoon has taught me more about life than I’d like to admit. Among them, was feminism.

I was absolutely obsessed with Katara as a kid: back then strong female characters - who were BOTH girlish and strong! – were still quite rare in mainstream media. I absolutely loved to see this girl who was raised in a patriarchal society similar to mine, who was both girly and an absolute badass even in days she didn’t know how to properly waterbend.

Back in those days, they were airing the episodes in order and I was super excited to see her FINALLY learn how to properly waterbend once they reach the North Pole. So when Paku refused to teach her for BEING A GIRL, as a preteen girl myself, I was ENRAGED.

Then Katara did something crazy. She freaking defied a waterbending master, knowing that she had no chance of winning whatsoever. And guys, I swear that fight became a core memory for me. On our crusty Windows XP’s desktop, there was a gif downloaded over several minutes of that exact fight. And I would watch it. On loop. When Katara defied Paku, I felt empowered, and that feeling never left.

Now that I am done with my lame ass backstory, back to NATLA.

You can imagine how EXCITED I was to finally see that fight in 4K. At that point, I was already pissed that they removed Sokka’s sexist flaws and subverted his dynamics with him, rather than Katara being “the parent” of the group (which was outrageous, if you ask me. One of the main character traits of Katara was her being a mother figure at an early age, which explained why she always felt like she HAD to be the responsible one, and why she had so much repressed rage).

But Katara’s struggle with the Northern Tribe over her right to learn how to use waterbending for fighting? That, in my opinion, was epic! Why?

Katara’s fight with Paku was a premediated act

In the original series, Paku says that girls can’t learn how to waterbend, and in a moment of rage, Katara whips him in the neck. I agree that it was a totally badass move, and it made especially sense given her drive to learn waterbending for fighting.

But I also really liked how NATLA approached that: in NATLA, when Katara learns that she cannot waterbend to fight, she doesn’t immediately attack Paku. No, she takes the time to think about it, talk about it with Aang, with Sokka. Then, she decides to defy Paku.

In a way, her action is a protest: she isn’t angry at Paku personally, she is angry at the sexist rules he perpetuates. In a way, this calculated way of deciding to fight shows a certain emotional maturity and dedication to the cause of feminism.

I really liked it.

The resolution of the fight

One thing that really disturbed me in the cartoon was how that fight scene was resolved. My preteen brain couldn’t make sense of why Paku suddenly decided to teach Katara how to fight after realising that her grandma was his ex-fiancé. Like, where is the connection??

My adult brain understands that Gran Gran had fled the Northern Water Tribe because of their sexist rules and hence Paku understood that him abiding to those sexist rules was wrong. But still, it feels so odd. Tell me which 60-70 year old boomer would suddenly change their mind about basically 90% of their world view because their ex happened to have fled from them because that world view? You tell me that Paku didn’t have enough time to rationalise in his wicked brain why Gran Gran left with a more nefarious motivation, or hell, just because she didn’t like him enough to get married?

Whereas in NATLA, we see that Paku’s approval doesn’t come all so easy: he does acknowledge Katara’s waterbending talents (a feat that also happens in the cartoon), but he still refuses to teach her. Because it isn’t about talent. It is about principle. And he is a dinosaur with sexist principles.

On the other hand, who is more open-minded to new ideas and social change? Who circles Katara following her defeat and admire her for her fight with Paku? It’s the youth! Social change is usually driven by the youth, and here we see that while the old rulers of the Northern Water Tribe are still sexist af, the young people are the ones who are ready to embrace a more equalitarian society.

Women in war

So then, when does Paku change his mind on letting women fight? During the attack on the Northern Water Tribe. They are outnumbered and they need more benders: lo and behold, Katara has the brilliant idea of bringing in the women. Now, I don’t say that that was actually a brilliant idea: strategically speaking, it is kinda stupid sending your HEALERS to the FRONTLINES to die while they could be much more useful saving the wounded. Nevertheless, I like the inclusion of the women into the battle in a symbolic level: in history, we see that most women’s rights were obtained during and in the aftermath of big conflicts. When men are fighting and there is a shortage of manpower, you employ women to work at the factories, or in the direst cases, you let women fight. This was a cool nod to that phenomenon happening. Also, if literally every man was already wounded or perished, it kinda makes sense that women take up the arms, so the “healers fighting isn’t strategically sound” argument doesn’t hold perfectly either.

Women of patriarchy

Lastly, one thing I really liked about NATLA is how not only Paku, but also the female healing master was sternly against women learning how to fight with waterbending. The healing master in the cartoon was softer, gentler, whereas here, she was even more vocal than Paku in grilling Katara for wanting to fight. This is such a great display of internalised sexism, but also how women in power in patriarchy may be vehement defenders of the status quo because it helps them to keep whatever power they have.

Oh, and in a final note, Katara’s reply to Zuko’s “you have found a waterbending master!” was absolutely horrendous. I may have liked how most of that arc was treated, but GOD, somebody give that girl a proper master to learn how to waterbend, because I don’t believe one second that a child with only ONE waterbending scroll can become a MASTER with self-study. The way Katara was managing to become a waterbending master in the span of weeks in the original series was already weird (and for those who weren’t fans before, it did attract quite some criticism in the fandom spheres back when it aired), but NATLA just took it and made it worse.

Nonetheless, I think that NATLA tried their best. And I appreciate that they tried to give ATLA a new twist, even though it didn’t land perfectly.

Everyone seems to be focusing on the bad of the show, so I felt compelled to share my two cents.

[raayllum]

Love that even tho ur a popular blog in the fandom u realize that u clown sometimes too and make fun of urself, very demure very mindful as the kids say

is this a safe space to say that despite being gen z myself i still don't know what very demure very mindful means

(looked it and gasp that's genuinely very sweet thank you!! i certainly Try, don't always succeed but i definitely appreciate being appreciated)

i just think it's very important in life to being able to make fun of yourself without being mean to yourself, y'know? at the end of the day basically any fandom is just not that serious and certainly not something to attach self worth / wellbeing to. i did not ask to be a 'popular' blog and sometimes i wish i wasn't, admittedly, but overall i think i do a good job at chilling in my corner and maintaining a corner to chill.

like all my metas are either written in full context (ie. talking about s5 when we have all of s5) or with the caveat that this is the context and understanding i have right now in speculating in the future. there could be curveballs or information withheld or times where my vision just doesn't match up wth the crew's vision (throwback to me thinking Leola would be a family member of Aaravos but specifically Not His Child bc of Sir Sparklepuff and Claudia), and like. that's all good and fun and okay? any time the show has done something that wasn't my preference or didn't work for me the first time (aka there were like 3 things in s6) i assume i'm wrong and go looking for reasons as to "why would they do this" and i'm always satisfied with the answers i find in some manner; either it makes me Love what they did or i'm well aware it's a fucking nitpick to begin with (what does anyone at the Starscraper eat? i need to know). i'm down to recontextualize and re-evaluate and take things as they come (aka i've started my pre-season "let go of all expectations" ritual)

i think some of that comes from 1) being very emotionally detached from analysis overall and 2) subsequently not really caring how or why certain associations/themes come back, just that they do. part of that comes from being trained to leave how a work makes me feel (besides genre aspects like the grotesque or sublime) at the door (like i hated jane eyre being 18 and her happy ending being with her shitty 40 year old employer, but those feelings literally do no matter if i'm gonna Analyze the text like 90% of the time) and/or having to teach my students to think about relatability and then also think beyond it. this also goes for queer representation; i don't like or relate to all queer representation i've seen, like double trouble in she-ra as a nonbinary person, but i don't have to for it meaningful and worthwhile for someone else, including the writers and the character successfully encompassing what they were trying to do, and i think co-existing with those aspects is worthwhile too.

like for example i hope going into s7 that either my pet theory CHET happens in some manner (like the way it did in 5x08) or i know definitively without a doubt that it's not happening in the future and that time has passed so that i can theorize and move onto other things in TDP. or like, i always thought it'd be cool if Callum had freed Aaravos and that would still probably be my preference of Callum's freedom associations, but I mostly just want those associations between him and Aaravos to go somewhere. maybe it's in a shattering world order thing, maybe they're subverted (callum is freed and he traps aaravos or something) but as long as they eventually go somewhere, it's gouda? whenever i'm right it's a lot of fun and it is rewarding, don't get me wrong; it's exciting and a confidence boost that i'm good at analyzing this specific story, but it's not why i theorize (i'm journey not destination focused) nor is it why i put time into fandom, i'm here to have fun and accept the story for what it is as it comes to me, partially because i hope people do the same with the stories i tell someday

after all, stories and fandom are here to bring us joy, fun, and catharsis. if they're not doing that, then we gotta do something different

[cupcraft]

Feel free to completely disagree w me i just want 2 share my thougjts after rewtaching bombshells last night: As much as Cuddy wants to believe that she left House because he couldnt be there for her in the way she wanted to (which is valid but its rlly not what happened imo) She ultimately broke up w him because he relapsed. Forgive my poor memory i may be recalling wrong but the end of the episode vicodin relapse reveal hinted that house had been back on vicodin since before cuddy’s cancer scare, and the moment that Cuddy found out she dropped him. The vicodin was the catalyst in a sense she saw him relapse back into drugs and she was like Nopeee. like it was the longest he’d been sober since he developed the addiction which is a good thing but its like. the expectation that you will relapse at least once. and yeah cuddy had just gotten a big death scare but she had also found out her boyfriend had fallen back into his addiction and instead of allowing them both to comfort eachother on their respective issues she left him liek broo😭😭😭youre dating a known addict and the minute he starts addict-ing you turn away. Also ntm even though cuddy told him outwardly she didnt want him to change, she definitely had inward hope that She could he the one to change him, that he’d love her so much he wiuld change for her and that didnt happen so she quit

No your 100% right and now I'm going to rant about huddy and a missed opportunity for her character's writing.

Cuddy historically has been a character who has understood House's addiction and thus in turn his chronic pain and disability almost the least. She has a repeated history of ableism in the show towards House, but I am going to focus on her lack of understanding around House's addiction and how that ties into why she dumped him and ultimately was a failing on character growth on behalf of the writers.

In season 7 it is implied House has relapsed before the surgery date, and it's implied that he relapsed because of his intense fear of losing Cuddy due to cancer and he loved her and WANTED to be there for her, and in a way this triggered a relapse. In the world of addiction relapse can happen as addiction is a lifelong chronic illness and moments of stress, loss, etc can be a common trigger for relapse. And the fact House wanted to be there for her without panicking, definitely also makes sense why he considered relapsing. Cuddy's problem here, is that she moralizes it. It's understandable she doesn't address her subconscious thoughts on "huh, I wonder if House has relapsed..." because she's actively undergoing a panic of "am I going to die", so it makes sense she doesn't address it until she's finished surgery. But her problem is she MORALIZES this action. Think about what she tells House. She does think House couldn't "be there the way she wanted" and that "he'd never change", but those are the excuses to rationalize how she feels being in a relationship with an addict. She tells House by "being high" he wasn't "REALLY there" for her when she had the surgery/medical scare. Though House might have been pretty high (which is hard to confirm it's never really stated, and House does have a high opiate tolerance to consider), but in the end it doesn't matter if he was. Cuddy thinks House being on Vicodin is in a way subverting his love/care/attention away from her. Instead of seeing the relapse as a concern, as her terminal illness scare, fear of loss of her, wanting to be there for her, she sees it as a means of NOT being there for her. That of course, in the end, House chooses "drugs" over her. Here's a few notable quotes:

Cuddy quite litereally says the pills mean something, as in his addiction is a moral choice in which House chooses to be a careless loveless asshole who is selfish and only cares about himself and in turn cares only about avoiding pain instead of "being there for Cuddy" which is an insane way to look at someone's addiction, and blatantly fucked up. She quite literally dumps him because of this, the relapse, of because he is an addict.

Because the reality is, like I stated, House wasn't afraid Cuddy would hurt him. House isn't afraid to be there for Cuddy. House has also gotten to a point in their relationship by season 7 that he isn't afraid to love Cuddy. He didn't fear experiencing pain, he feared losing her. And he knew, and he WANTED to be there for her in her potentially dying moments because he loved her. And that in turn triggered relapse. Cuddy's interpretation here is that House never changes, but in reality we should see this as Cuddy has never changed. She's never changed since season 1, not understanding how addiction operates.

Early seasons in which Cuddy has a history of the following: Making House go cold turkey and being cruel when he experiences withdrawal instead of intervening to help him, Cuddy telling House his "pain" is just made up in his head and worsened by the Vicodin (not in a medical sense, in a moralizing sense) such that she ignores his bad pain day and tricks him into getting a saline shot and then uses his brief "distraction" from the pain as confirmation it's in his head/drug seeking behavior (again not from a nuanced position of how mental health and chronic pain intersect, instead moralizing it), she doesn't at all ever understand how opiate addiction operates nor how to treat someone's addiction (ie with methadone...foreshadowing for later) and again moralizes his choice to remain on Vicodin (The entire tritter arc), she is ANTI methadone entirely a known medical treatment for opiate addiction enough that instead of recommending House go to a methadone clinic for increased safety and monitoring threatens to fire him unless he agrees to let her control everything about his methadone treatment plan, and etc.

The writer's have posited Cuddy as someone who cares about House, who loves House, but at no point takes a moment to understand his disability, chronic pain, and his addiction. She moralizes it. And when he enters a relationship with her sober just nearly avoiding relapse, she's almost ashamed to be with him. She enters this relationship, ashamed she could be with someone like House. She takes that scene intervening in his relapse as a moral commitment he will prioritize her over drugs, thus entering the relationship without ever really wanting to understand or be compassionate dating someone who has a history of addiction. This is a missed opportunity for her to develop as a character.

Instead, the writing goes as Cuddy doesn't get to change but the narrative wants us to believe it is House who never changed or cared about her enough, because drugs and addicts bad. Which is really fucked considering they took a lot of time making Wilson grow more understanding of addiction. There's that one episode he fears House has relapsed and he says "relapse is common!" ready to help him and when he relapses after the breakup he recommends House get help instead of moralizing it. He even yells at Cuddy for leaving him, not just as a partner but as a friend.

Sorry this is long but I hope...this makes sense

[emma-o-yt]

Steven Universe's Mishandling of Rose Quartz

Previous: <a href="https://www.tumblr.com/emma-o-yt/747743721544613888/the-diamond-authority-is-not-a-metaphor-for?source=share">The Diamond Authority Is Not A Metaphor For Abuse</a>

(But Rose is an asshole! - Rose is fictional)

For a long time, Rose Quartz/Pink Diamond's character never sat right with me. And I think I finally have an explanation.

I've already said that The Diamonds being genocidal tyrants aren't a metaphor for abuse. I also believe that saying that there was no choice but to redeem The Diamonds is bad because it's Thermian, but there's more than that.

Rose Quartz is victim blamed for not making it up with her abusers.

Corruption is like the nastiest version of "but your mother loves you". Said by society to not hold your abuser accountable for their behaviour. Pink's transformation into Rose is like cutting your abusive family off. In real life, nothing happens, it's a good healthy decison. But in Steven Universe, it results in the shattering of millions of gems, fusion experiments, corruption, human death and the near destruction of earth.

Abusive family is personal drama, the stakes are personal only to you. But not in Steven Universe. Rose tried for years to heal the corrupted gems but the only solution all along was making nice with her abusers. This. Is. Gross. This. Is. Wrong. It is victim blaming.

Rose gets many songs a sung and many arcs about her "mistakes" and how Steven has to muck them up.

And let's not forget the title of the episode "Change Your Mind". Not change my mind, change your mind. The onus is on Steven to change the diamonds when it should be on them. There are other reasons why Steven not forgiving The Diamonds is a bad argument (mainly being that he's not Jesus) but Steven was so dedicated to redeeming The Diamonds but it turns out no one wanted this. He hypocritically (justice for Bismuth) tries to shatter White. If no one wanted this solution, why are we doing this?

And do not tell me that it's just a kids' show. So many kids' media does it better.

Encanto

This movie actually subverts the youngest (or second youngest) having to fix a broken family. Mirabel makes it up with her (non abusive) sisters and the miracle candle burns bright for a second. But then Alma comes in and the house is destroyed. Mirabel can't fix the family because she is not the problem, Alma is. The family is only healed when Alma, on her own volition, apologizes because it is her responsibility. She seeks out Mirabel, not the other way around.

Mathilda

Mathilda leaves her abusive family at the end and chooses her new family, Miss Honey. It's kind of sad but it's the right call. This movie also introduced the "you can punish your abusive parents" to me, good stuff. I'm glad to own the dvd.

Cursed Princess Club

This webcomic is actually all age but intentionally suitable for kids to understand. The finale is a castle invasion but it's still personal stakes given that Leland is invading his best friend's castle. What ultimately defeats him is the family he abused for years standing up to him. It's like a dramatic version of no contact.

Conclusion

I wanted to vomit when Steven called The Diamonds his family. They are not. Garnet, Amethyst and Pearl and Greg are his family. I wish you understood that, Rebecca.

A very good comment, the narrative is a mess.

[0zeeraa0]

A little Fnaf Movie rant (don't kill me, I also want this movie to be good)

(this post is pretty big, i understand if you don't have the patience for it)

(if you see any typos: no, you did not.)

Am I the only one who thinks that the fnaf movie isn't gonna live up to the hype...? Like I don't think it's gonna be bad, but I doubt it's gonna be as spectacular as we hope it will be.

One of the reasons that I'm a bit worried is the little girl. Michael's sister. Like in the trailer she's shown wondering around the pizzaria, and than in a TAXI with GOLDEN FREDDY, like????? HUH???? I have a feeling that the movie is gonna make her befriend the animatronics and like prove to Mike and Vanessa that "they just misunderstood🥺" Which like... THEY ARE, but that would be a horrible way to go about that plot line. And I kinda feel like they shouldn't be intelligent enough, or self aware enough to make friends y'know?

Also Vanessa. This one's gonna be shorter. I hope to god they're not gonna have a romantic plot line between her and Michael. One thing I really like about the fnaf games (haven't read the books yet, sorry) that there's absolutely no romance. And I feel like it should stay that way.

Now the "horror". I KNOW that the original games didn't have any gore. And I'm not saying the movie has to have it. I just want it to be SCARY. Or creepy at the very least. The games didn't have gore, but they were still HORROR GAMES, y'know. They're 16+. I remember that the movie makers tweeted something like "we're not gonna hold back on the gore" or "I'm not sure if we can even show this". But... The movie is going to be 13+... So that was a fuckin lie. Because what the hell is a pg13 HORROR movie supposed to be??? Like IT 2017 is rated R, but theres a surprisingly little amount of actual gore. And despite the R rating, sooo many teens and preteens love the move. So who is the Fnaf movie's target audience with it's pg13 rating. The same kids who ONLY played/watched Security Breach? Be so FR.

I feel like (based on the trailers) that the movie is going to take a more comedic approach, wich wouldn't be a problem, but it seems that it's going to be more significant then the horror aspect.

You know how Stranger Things stared out in s1 as a mystery/horror, and by s4 it got derailed into... that. I'm just worried that the same will happen to fnaf... Like it ALMOST happened with SB, but that's a game. It's a lot harder to access, so it still mostly stayed within the fnaf community. Like, 'normal' allistic Jessica (this isn't an actual person, just an example) is a lot less likely to watch a SB gameplay, or more so, play the game. But she might watch the movie because it's popular. And I REALLY don't want Michael to get "Eddie Munson-ified", okay??? I don't want the thing that shaped my entire childhood to get the TikTok treatment.

Sorry this post got really out of hand by the end. I just had to get this out of myself, otherwise I just might explode.

If the movie turns out to be a Masterpiece of fiction, that makes all original fnaf fans weep at how absolutely perfect it is, than y'all can come back here and laugh at me in the comments all you want. I will admit that I was wrong, and I'll do so with pure happiness, for having my expectations subverted in a positive way

And if I'm right.... well.... I will not be happy about it, or proud. I will not say "I told you so". I will keep my mouth shut, and I'll wallow in my misery in silence. Mourning what it could've been.

(theres so much more that i could say about this movie that hasn't even come out yet, but i think this is more than enough)

[hotvampireadjacent]

Hey, just wanted to preface this by saying that you’re a cool dude, and obviously I’m not trying to attack you or say you’re wrong or need to agree with me or anything! I just wanted to make this ask to hear your perspective and potentially show you a new perspective on Madoka Magica.

You recently reblogged a post about how Gen Urobuchi wrote a subversion of a genre without showing respect to it, and clown me if I have made the wrong assumption, but was that post about Madoka Magica?

I won’t speak on Rebellion, but Madoka as a show seemed to me like a reinforcement of the themes of the Magical Girl genre. It uses its subversions, not to disrespect magical girls, but celebrate them and their ideals. And that’s only if you consider Madoka a subversion at all, as many people make the argument that it doesn’t actually subvert the genre.

Clearandsweet has a great series on YouTube dedicated to analyzing Madoka through this lens. (The spoiler thesis is that Madoka’s character is a Magical Girl, with all the themes that entails, in a story that’s constantly trying to prevent her, and the show itself, from being one. In the end, she overcomes this the way a Magical Girl would, ultimately celebrating magical girls and their ideals. Everything that goes wrong in this show is not an edgey indictment of magical girls, but rather an exploration of how things can go wrong without them, and therefore a reinforcement of why we need Magical Girls and their themes.)

Sorry if this ask felt out of nowhere or rude! I just wanted to make this ask because the anime-bro discourse about Madoka has seriously lost the plot on what the show is even about. To the point that Madoka ripoffs (that also fail to understand Madoka) plague the genre. I was even someone who felt similarly about Gen Urobuchi and Madoka until I did a rewatch as an adult.

It’s a really well-directed show that was mired with the stupid “deconstruction” discourse of its time, so I definitely recommend watching or rewatching the show with this in mind if you’re ever bored or need something to do. Obviously this interpretation is not objectively correct or anything, but I just wanted to open this up to you because this revelation was something I really enjoyed (and something I felt cheated out of by the stupid anime-bro culture surrounding it), and maybe you’d enjoy it too. And I’d love to hear your perspective on it, too, as I love reading different interpretations of Madoka!

I’m sorry that happened to you or happy it’s 2023 I’m not reading an essay on madoka.

Did read the end tbh I haven’t watched madoka since it aired I don’t remember enough to even give a perspective. Honestly I just hate gen urobuchi bc of fate/ zero.

Anyway it’s almost my birthday and almost midnight here

Only slightly related he said some insane shit about a minor gundam characters death

[whateverthedragonswant]

Part 2: there was a lot GA scoffing at the idea of Sansa’s political acumen but this scene really shows how clever and skilled she is and it’s not recognised as such. She sussed out Dany’s true feeling on Jon, that she’s a hypocrite and not a liberator only seeking peoples freedom, that the iron throne is her one goal. Sansa figured out in one conversation what Jon took weeks to figure out on Dragonstone and Tyrion and Varys even longer. Sansa clocked it in like a day. True Queen material there

I don't know if this was connected to the previous ask or not but I apologize if not.

The GA really didn't get Sansa's character and I blame D&D for that quite a bit. They tried to bait people to watch by promoting some huge power struggle about to take place between Sansa and Jon, now that he's been made KitN, right before season 7 aired, knowing full well that Jon was a fan favorite. They even had the actors themselves doing their dirty work for them while promoting the new season. So that already planted the seed in several minds of Sansa doesn't want Jon to be King and she's Littlefinger 2.0 and all that stupid bullshit. And they did it not only to get people to come back for the new season but also to get the audience to expect something that they could subvert, which had become their MO at that point. Even though Sansa told Jon and the audience that she's not looking to undermine him, and telling their siblings how much she can't wait for him to come back in so many words, they still spend the whole season trying to convince everyone that Littlefinger is playing her, she wants to be Queen, and she's waiting to betray Jon at any moment she can. So this way in 7x07 they could have the student surpass the teacher and go 'Ha ha' to the audience when Sansa executes Littlefinger. Subvert, subvert, subvert!

And as if that wasn't enough to prove Sansa's political acumen to the GA, to show that she actually has some smarts (in case they missed it all season, from KL as a matter of fact), they not only (purposely) missed the things you mentioned in 8x02, but that she did the exact same thing she did in 7x07 with Littlefinger when she sussed him out. His goal was the IT with her at his side (him really just wanting to use her to get the North). Dany's goal is also the IT and she doesn't intend to let the North go. So not only did Sansa see Cersei-like qualities in 8x01 but now she's seeing Littlefinger-like qualities in 8x02. Which is cemented in 8x04 when Dany pulls the Gendry move. I truly believe had Littlefinger survived, Dany would have executed him eventually because I don't believe she would have been fooled. I think she would've seen right through him. But that's a post for another day.

But yeah, it's a shame the GA discounts the brilliance and talent for political strategy that Sansa was displaying those last two seasons. It was right there in front of their faces but as usual, they purposely ignored it (well, most of them did, some people didn't genuinely see it and that's where my blaming D&D comes in because viewers shouldn't have to do a Rubik's cube to figure out a character and their true motivations, thinking process, and actions) and some brilliant moments for her character and some brilliant writing actually got missed (dismissed). Which I believe does somewhat of a disservice to Dany and Cersei too because they shared that brilliance as well despite any wrong choices they may have made. Cersei miscalculated when it came to Dany and went past a line she couldn't come back from and Dany miscalculated that everyone would want her new world and she crossed a line she couldn't come back from. They both wanted power for different reasons. As we know, Sansa didn't want power, only freedom and the ability to keep her family and herself safe. So it made sense that she was the only Queen in the end and not of the 7K

Like you said, true Queen material right there. I wish more people could gain a better understanding of her character and appreciate the brilliant woman she actually is.

[cosmics-beings]

posting twitter thoughts here - again.

You know, I really do think that Starscream deserved better idw and to have an actual, fleshed out redemption arc that gave him respect. Idw had such an amazing opportunity to expand on him because it expanded on other evil, later turned morally grey/good characters. Especially Megatron, but I just don’t understand why Starscream didn’t get that same love and depth.

Part of me thinks its because the writers, like  a lot of people were just stuck on the fact that Starscream himself is an incompetent leader that doesn’t deserve redemption because he will always be evil and unstrustworth. And that REALLY sucks because a.) other continuums have shown us otherwise and b.) in idw where so many characters got to have better written nuance and unique characterization that subverted what we believed their intentions were, how come Starscream couldn’t have that?

I think it was 100% possible, the writers didn’t want to commit to it. I am not saying that he had to be redeemed or made into this innocent, flawless person. By all means, keep him flawed, make him struggle with what is right and wrong, but actually give him growth. Make him be the leader that he imo deserved to be, but also make him prove it and show us that he can be a great leader.

And I would’ve loved for him midway to find out that prophecy was bogus – which to be fair he thought it was, but actually develop as idk a good leader and a decent person.

A lot of people say his sacrifice was his ultimate redemption and yeah—but I also think he deserved better. I think we deserved to see him be redeemed and get an actual character change where he isn’t written as an unapproachable idiot who is just determined to being evil and pushes people away. Any by change i mean someone who is just like, a better leader and a better perosn. Still make him sly, still make him have questionable thoughts, make him tricky and wicked - but like also make him have an actual narrative where he changes, where he leads, where he is good when he's supposed to be and more importably is a loved and appreciated leader because he cares.

What would've been great too is that when optimus talked shit about stascream to windblade, starscream completely subverted most of what optimus said to her and she saw that he was actually struggling and growing to be a good person and she helped him with it and they actually became really good friends and she vouched for him, same with bumblebee.

like yeah he isn't 100% goood but he changes.

Starscream’s greatest enemy in idw was the writing because from the trial (which made starscream a joke) to his ending they didn’t really know how to handle him. And I think writing him as an incompetent leader and not giving him and clear nuance outside of him being morally ambiguous but actually a shit, and not giving him the same amount of redemption care and arc as megatron got is just unfair to his character.

Its why, as much as I love IDW and what it does for other characters I think I hate what it does to him. But it sucks because idw star is my fave.

i get 'not everyone has to be redeemed' and that's true, but also when you have a character that has been through a lot and the writing is possible because it HAS happened before, and other characters who have done far worse than and to that character get redemption, then what's so wrong with that?

and it goes without being said but no im not excusing starscream's actions or acting like he's an innocent person. i just wish he got the same redemption arc quality/writing as megatron did. and i dont even dislike that megatron got a redemption arc, for all that happened to him i think he deserved one, but why not starscream?