#but i need a watsonian reason too

[always-a-joyful-note]

I am....so curious about the backstory behind some of the MVs. But Nanatsuiro REALiZE's one has me even more curious because essentially the mv is them all meeting in university(?) and Riku's character suddenly leaving but the parting being a joyful one as they remember they're under one same sky. And like.....is this supposed to be Riku's goodbye MV for the future or what does it MEAN?

[sneezypeasy]

The Lightning Scene, How Azula Targeted Katara (of All People), and the Doylist Reason Why That Matters

Mention Zuko's sacrifice for Katara in Sozin's Comet Part 3 as part of a pro-Zutara talking point, and invariably you'll get a Pavlovian response of:

"But Zuko would have taken the lightning for anyone."

(Not to be confused with the similar-sounding Pavlovan response, which is "Zuko's sacrifice ain't shit compared to a mouth-watering, strawberry-topped meringue dessert"*, which is actually the only valid counter-argument to how the lightning scene is a bona fide Zutara treasure, but I digress.)

Now, I've talked in depth about how the lightning scene is framed far more romantically than it had any right to be, regardless of how you might interpret the subject on paper; this is an argument which I still stand by 100%. That Zuko would have gotten barbecued for anyone, and that he was at the stage of his arc where his royal kebab-ness represented his final act of redemption, doesn't change the fact that the animators/soundtrack artists decided to pull out all the stops with making this scene hit romantic film tropes bingo by the time it played out on screen.

(I mean, we stan.)

There's also a deeper level to this conundrum, a layer which creeps up on you when you're standing in your kitchen at night, the fridge door open in front of you, your hungry, sleep-deprived brain trying to decide on what to grab for a midnight snack, and quite inexcusably you're struck with the question: Okay, Zuko may indeed have taken the lightning for just anyone, but would Azula have shot the lightning at just anyone?

But there's yet a deeper layer to this question, that I don't recall ever seeing anyone discuss (though if somebody has, mea culpa). And that is: would you have written Zuko taking the lightning for anyone else?

Or in other words, who Zuko would have taken the lightning for is the wrong question to be asking; the question we ought to be asking is who Zuko should have taken the lightning for, instead.

Get your pens out, your Doylist hats on, and turn to page 394. It's time to think like an author for a hot minute.

(If you don't know what I mean by Watsonian vs. Doylist analyses, and/or if you need a refresher course, go have a skim of the first section of this 'ere post and then scoot your ass back to this one.)

So. You're the author. You've written almost the entirety of an animated series (look at you!!) and now you're at the climax, which you've decided is going to be an epic, hero-villain showdown. Classic. Unlike previous battles between these two characters, your hero is going to have a significant advantage in this fight - partly due to his own development as a hero at the height of his strength and moral conviction, and partly because your villain has gone through a bit of a Britney Spears 2007 fiasco, and isn't quite at the top of her game here. If things keep going at this pace, your hero is going to win the fight fairly easily - actually, maybe even too easily. That's okay though, you're a talented writer and you know just what will raise the stakes and give the audience a well-timed "oh shit" moment: you're going to have the villain suddenly switch targets and aim for somebody else. The hero will be thrown off his groove, the villain will gain the upper hand, the turns will have indubitably tabled. Villains playing dirty is the number 1 rule in every villain handbook after all, and each of the last two times your hero's braved this sort of fight he's faced an opponent who ended up fighting dishonourably, so you've got a lovely Rule of Three perfectly lined up for the taking. Impeccable. The warm glow of triumph shines upon you, cherubs sing, your English teachers clap and shed tears of pride. (Except for that one teacher you had in year 8 who hated everybody, but she's a right bitch and we're not talking about her today.)

Now here's the thing: your hero is a hero. Maybe he wasn't always a hero, but he certainly is one now. If the villain goes after an innocent third party, there's basically no-one your hero wouldn't sacrifice himself for. He's a hero! Heroes do be like that, it's kind of their thing. The villain could shoot a bolt of lightning at Bildad the Shuhite, and the only thing that'd stop our boy Redeemed Paladin Bravesoul McGee from shielding his foxy ass is the fact that Bildad the Shuhite has the audacity to exist in a totally different show (disgusten.)

But. You're holding the writer's pen. Minus crossover shenanigans you don't have the licensing or time-travel technology to achieve, you have full control over how this scene plays out. You get to decide which character to target to deliver the greatest emotional impact, the juiciest angst, the most powerful cinematic suspense. You get to decide whose life you'll put at risk, to make this scene the most intense spine-chilling heart-stopper it can possibly be.

This is the climax we're talking about, after all - now is not the time to go easy on the drama.

So.

Do you make the villain target just anyone?

Or do you make the villain target someone the hero cares about?

Perhaps, someone he cares about... a lot?

Maybe even, someone he cares about... more than anybody else?

You are the author. You are the God of this universe. You get to choose.

What would deliver the strongest punch?

If you happen to make the inadvisable decision of browsing through these tropes on TV tropes, aside from wasting the rest of your afternoon (you're welcome), you'll find that the examples listed are littered with threatened and dead love interests, and, well, there's a reason for that. For better or worse, romantic love is often portrayed by authors, and perceived by audiences, as a "true" form of love (often even, "the" true form of love). Which is responsible for the other is a chicken/egg situation, one I'm not going to go into for this post - and while I'm certainly not here to defend this perspective as objectively good, I do think it's worth acknowledging that it not only exists but is culturally rather ubiquitous. (If you're playing the love interest in a story with a hero v. a villain, you might wanna watch your back, is what I'm saying.)

Regardless of whether the vibe you're aiming for is romantic or platonic however, one thing is for certain: if you want maximum oomph, the way to achieve that is by making the villain go after the player whose death would hit the hero the hardest.

And like I said, this doesn't have to be played romantically (although it so often is). There are platonic examples in those trope pages, though it's also important to note that many of the platonic ones do show up in stories where a love interest isn't depicted/available/there's a strong "bromance" element/the hero is low-key ace - and keep in mind too that going that route sometimes runs a related risk of falling into queer-bait territory *coughJohnLockcough*

That said, if there is a canon love-interest available, one who's confessed her love for the hero, one who has since been imprisoned by the villain, one who can easily be written as being at the villain's disposal, and who could quite conveniently be whipped out for a mid-battle surprise round - you might find you have some explaining to do if you choose to wield your authorly powers to have the villain go after... idk, some other sheila instead.

(The fact that this ends up taking the hero out of the fight, and the person he sacrifices himself for subsequently throws herself into the arena risking life and limb to defeat the villain and rescue her saviour, also means the most satisfying way this plays out, narratively speaking, is if both of these characters happen to be the most important person in each other's lives - at least, as of that moment, anyway - but I think this post has gone on long enough, lol)

This is, by and large, a rebuttal post more than anything else, but the tl;dr here is - regardless of whether you want to read the scene as shippy or not, to downplay Zuko's sacrifice for Katara specifically as "not that deep™" because "Zuko would have taken the lightning for anyone anyway", suggests either that a) nobody should be reading into the implications of Katara being chosen as the person nearest and dearest to Zuko, so that putting her life in jeopardy can deliver the most powerful impact possible for an audience you'd bloody well hope are on the edge of their seats during the climax of your story or b) the writers made the inexplicable decision of having the villain threaten the life of... literally who the fuck ever, and ultimately landed on someone who's actually not all that important to the hero in the grand scheme of things - which is a cardinal writing sin if I ever saw one (even disregarding the Choice to then season it with mood lighting and sad violin music, on top of it all), and altogether something I'd be legitimately pissed about if my Zuko-OTP ship paired him with Mai, Sokka, or just about anybody else 😂

Most importantly c) I'm hungry, and I want snacks.

*The Aussies in the fandom will get this one. Everyone else can suffer in united confusion.

[cobragardens]

The Colors of Crowley

Black is the color Crowley uses to cover himself, red is the color that represents Crowley to himself, and yellow is the color that represents Crowley to Aziraphale. What each color symbolizes and how it's used give us important information about Crowley (and to some degree Aziraphale) and about the ineffable relationship.

I feel kind of dumb writing this post because I'm sure it's glaringly obvious to everyone else, but there's this Metro UK article of all things (the Metro is owned by the hardcore rightwing Daily Mail, btw, so please don't link to it) that mentions the red stitching on Crowley's gloves in 1867, and it made conscious some details I had only subconsciously noted, so fwiw to anybody else, here are my notes on the colors associated with Crowley in Good Omens and their significance in the context of the way each one is used.

I don't think we need to cover black-as-evil in Western color symbology. [And yet here's a long-ass paragraph about it anyway! --Ed.] Light:dark::good:evil has been a thing with Christianity since before Christianity was even Judaism. The Israelites picked it up from the Zoroastrians way back before YHWH had subsumed El as 'God,' which may have been before they were Israelites as well; I mean it was a LONG time ago. Good Omens has been using black and white to represent Hell and Heaven, respectively, long before the show. In the UK, the book was published in paperback with a choice of black or white cover with an illustration of the contrasting character in the contrasting color: Crowley illustrated in black, Aziraphale in white. The current hardcover is grey.

Crowley wears black, and the Bentley is black. At the metanarrative or authorial level this is obviously for the purposes of the black/white demon/angel contrast, but on the intra-narrative level, the Watsonian level, it's interesting to note that Crowley doesn't have to wear black. He's obviously not free to choose from the full color palette, but Furfur's shirt and sash are is dark emerald green, Dagon is in ultramarine (as befits a marine Elder God), and Shax has only been on Earth for four years before she's wearing head-to-toe oxblood. When she shows up later in battle dress she's got a lot of oxblood there, too. And yet Crowley wears black.

Authorial reasons aside, black suits Crowley for a couple intra-narrative reasons. For much of history, black was the most expensive color to dye and maintain in clothing, and as a result it has always been fashionable. And for several centuries in Christendom, wearing black was also a sign that you were in mourning, which was a social and religious obligation when someone close to you died. Whether you could wear other colors with it depended on how long ago that death had occurred.

Again: black is what Crowley chooses to cover himself, and as there is a sharp distinction between how Crowley presents himself to fulfill his obligations and who he thinks of himself as being, there is likewise a distinction between the colors that represent those two quantities as well.

Red is the color the show uses to represent Crowley to Crowley. The most obvious reason is his hair. This is another change from Book Omens, where Crowley is described as having hair that is "dark." A lot of fans in the UK hated the change when S1 came out because fans hate change and the British have a thing against gingers, but Crowley's red hair suits him better than dark imo because the Mother of Demons in Jewish religious literature, Lilith, is traditionally depicted with red hair. Red hair has been associated for more than a millenium in the Middle East and England and Wales with sorcery, witchcraft, demonic influence/possession, and satan-worship.

Crowley wishes his mom was this cool with snakes.

A good case can be made that Crowley genuinely likes the color red in addition to considering it demonically appropriate. I say this for three reasons. Firstly, because when he has a (limited) choice of (again, demonically appropriate) colors, he always chooses red. The marble of the desk in his apartment is not green or grey. He can have any color stitching on his gloves or lining of his jacket collar he wants, but it's always red. Secondly, it's not only red he chooses, it's almost always bright red.

We know Crowley's red isn't supposed to represent blood or violence, because we have another demon character whose use of red represents just that, and it's not the same red:

Compare Shax' oxblood and burgundy to

and

and

and

Crowley's red isn't just red, it's lipstick, cherry, crimson red. And in case we weren't sure that we should read this red as symbolizing passionate, romantic love:

Romantic symbolism aside, bright red is also the color of passion (romantic or otherwise), optimism, heat, vitality, life, (hell)fire, and warning.

Red and black says don't fuck with Jack.

The third reason I think we can safely say that Crowley actually likes the color red is that he hides it. It's always tiny little touches, some of which you have to look for to see. (I still don't know where they snuck in the red on his Elizabethan habit, e.g.) And we know this color is a risk for him, and that he is right to hide it, because Ligur, who doesn't approve of any of Crowley's less-than-fully-demonic embellishments and may share Hastur's opinion that Crowley has gone native, comments on one of Crowley's more noticeably colorful items.

And I think the red tells us one more thing about Crowley, too.

Bright red is the colorest of colors, you know? When we can choose only one color to represent all colors, to represent colorfulness itself, we choose bright red (even in cultures where red symbolizes other meanings than it does in Western art).

Remember how Aziraphale gives Crowley's jacket a tartan collar when he swaps bodies with Crowley and impersonates him in Hell because Aziraphale feels the need to maintain some small secret token of his identity, some tiny unremarked sign of something he loves and thinks is beautiful, when he is down there alone in the gloom among enemies?

Crowley is down there alone among enemies every second of every day and night, whether he's in Hell or on Earth. And he's already had his identity stripped from him once. If you were someone who said

about this

and then you got recruited by the fash downstairs bc the fash upstairs threw you out for not being fashy enough and you had to start wearing nothing but dark colors and more importantly had to hide everything that made you feel warmth or softness or joy, and that was it, that was the deal for eternity, but you could add one (1) little touch to everything you wore to remind yourself that there is some beautiful part of you left, something you loved once, that no one has yet been able to steal or brutalize out of you...what color would the stitching on your gloves be?

Lastly, Yellow represents Crowley to Aziraphale. I'm going to skip the chain of evidence for this bc I think it's obvious, but the way it's used also lends itself to some inferences supported in other areas in the show.

Here's where I think changing Crowley's hair to red from Book Omens' dark is a good decision in another way. Crowley always has red hair, and if he has any color in his clothes it's going to be red. Red is eye-catching; it always stands out, but it doesn't stand out as demonic. And yet the color Aziraphale associates with Crowley and calls "pretty" isn't red.

I suspect that when Aziraphale says he can make Crowley an angel again, Crowley hears "You're not good enough for me to accept you as you are, let me fix you" because these are words Aziraphale has said to him many times, and has meant some of those times. But

tells the audience differently. The color Aziraphale associates with Crowley, the color he calls "pretty," is the color of Crowley's only overtly demonic feature. Aziraphale doesn't love the angel he knew who isn't Crowley, he loves Crowley, the demon, the person he is now, his yellow demon irises.

Yellow appears in three other places in S2, and they're all symbolically significant, and in fact serve to establish another symbolic significance to the color yellow in addition to that of Yellow Is the Color of My True Love's Eyes.

One of them is a feather duster:

Crowley reacts to a feather duster like a cat confronted by an unfamiliar object

The other three are private conversations between Aziraphale and Crowley:

The walls that surround Crowley and Aziraphale when they speak openly about their situation and how they will handle it are drenched in yellow, and that is super interesting, because in Western color symbolism yellow is the color of fear. The archangel of whom Crowley and Aziraphale are both (rightly) terrified wields a tool the color of fear. The color of fear saturates the backdrop of conversations between Aziraphale and Crowley when they have to discuss their situation and their actions openly.

Remember how Aziraphale's voice shakes here?

Crowley realizes the crows have just handed an angel evidence the angel can take to Hell and use to have Crowley killed

Even the Bentley, that clear sign of Aziraphale's love for Crowley, is also a yellow coffin enclosing him. For Aziraphale, thoughts of Crowley are always entangled with fear, because Crowley is not just Crowley, he is also Crowley's Fall.

And I think fear is what Crowley's eyes themselves represent. For Crowley, fear is now a fundamental part of his perception, his nature, his identity.

The angel Aziraphale once knew is not Crowley, and yet from what we've seen, the chiefest difference in character between this sweetheart and this mischief-maker--

--is that the Starmaker does not know yet that he should be afraid, and the Serpent does. That knowledge and its fear has, shall we say, colored his view of the world.

Aziraphale learns that fear early by observing others rather than Falling himself, and knows enough that by the first time we meet him in the Before, he is already afraid.

Pink was once symbolically equivalent to red; in modern Western color symbology it is a color of innocence, youth, beauty, and first love. Hashtag just sayin'.

The cruellest thing this suggests to me is that, rather than rebellion or his propensity to ask questions, rather than the knowledge of good and evil, the Starmaker's Fall was caused by his innocence. it wasn't the questions that were the problem: it was that he didn't know any better than to speak them out loud.

Y'all, Crowley and Aziraphale do not suffer from communication problems. Despite both being male-coded and British, they don't even seem to lack emotional intelligence. What they do have is a universe of silence and fear they have to communicate within and around. What they lack is the safety to speak and love freely. The true color of Crowley is crimson, but someone gave him those eyes, and Aziraphale either watched that happen or knew about it, and now Crowley covers himself in black--which btw is also the symbolic color for mystery and secrets--and only lets Aziraphale see him as he really is now, because Aziraphale won't judge him for his yellow eyes (or punish and forsake him for his questions). Because Aziraphale carries that fear with him too.

[thewertsearch]

GG: ok, so what is the plan? […] CG: OK WELL THE MOST IMMEDIATE POINT OF BUSINESS IS CG: YOU SEE THAT GLOWING BLUE SCREEN BEHIND YOU? […] CG: YOU NEED TO TURN THAT FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT OFF.

The Fourth Wall again?

So far, it's really only been relevant to the non-canonical Hussie interludes, but maybe it’s dangerous for Watsonian reasons, too. Gamzee certainly seems interested in it...

It did belong to Jack originally. Maybe Derse can still make use of it, so it needs to be disabled before someone like DD gets any clever ideas.

CG: I'M NOT GOING TO SAY MUCH ABOUT IT. CG: BUT SUFFICE TO SAY THERE ARE JUST SOME THINGS YOU DON'T WANT TO SCREW WITH. […] CG: THEY ARE FORCES WHICH IF HANDLED RECKLESSLY WILL NULLIFY THE BASIC ABILITY OF INTELLIGENT BEINGS IN ALL REAL AND HYPOTHETICAL PLANES OF EXISTENCE TO GIVE A SHIT.

Oh, I get it. Karkat’s taking a little break from canon himself, and explaining to the audience that too many meta shenanigans would eventually ruin the story.

I’m absolutely in agreement with this. A fourth-wall break in the wrong place could completely ruin the comic’s dramatic stakes. This is a goofy comic, and we have fun here, but going full Deadpool would tear the plot to shreds.

CG: […] MY ROLE AT THE MOMENT IS TO ACT AS A SORT OF GO BETWEEN FOR YOU AND YOUR FUTURE SELF CG: TO HELP ALONG THE PROCESS OF MAKING THESE PLANS CG: WHILE YOUR FUTURE SELF IS DELIBERATELY VAGUE ABOUT SOME STUFF SO AS NOT TO "JINX" THE CONCEPTION OF THE IDEAS IN THE FIRST PLACE I GUESS?

I like this idea. It allows Future Jade to guide her past self’s actions, but filters her guidance through a layer of indirection. Present Jade will be getting some help, but she'll still be able to come up with her own original ideas.

Jade really doesn’t want her plans to be stable-looped into existence, and I can get behind that sentiment, too.

CG: MEANWHILE TIME IS KIND OF RUNNING OUT HERE, WHERE I AM CG: WE'RE COUNTING DOWN TO SOMETHING CG: SOMETHING LOOMING ON THE TROLLIAN TIMELINE AND NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IT IS CG: AND MY TEAM IS KIND OF FALLING APART CG: I'M COMPLETELY LOSING TRACK OF EVERYONE AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

It's been a while since we've done a Veil roll call, actually. Let's give it a whirl.

Karkat is coordinating with Jade on what may or may not become the Scratch plan, and trying to keep tabs on his deteriorating team.

Vriska and Terezi are fighting a proxy war using John and Dave respectively.

Aradia has exploded, and the status of her ghost is currently unknown.

Kanaya is trying in vain to dissuade Rose from the trajectory that Scratch and the Gods have set her on.

Gamzee has recently developed a hatecrush on Dave. He also has some huge hidden importance to the comic, and he’s going to be attacked close to the end of the countdown.

Eridan is planning to confront Jack with his 'awesome' new Science Wand.

Tavros is on his way to confront Vriska and there's like a 98% chance she's going to paralyze him again.

Feferi is consorting with monsters in her dreams. She's also destined to be killed, but her assailant is currently unknown.

The only trolls who (as far as we're aware) aren't up to something are Equius, Nepeta and Sollux.

[y-rhywbeth2]

so uh, why didn't orin just kill durge? she had the opportunity, and it would've absolutely been the correct thing to do to a competitor spawn, given her ambitions. why give them the chance to live and go on killing and perhaps earn their father's favor once more, while risking to fall out of favor herself for leaving a victim *alive*?

obviously a plot hole, if you ask me, but maybe you can come up with a watsonian explanation

Bhaal wants ritual combat and during a Durge playthrough Sceleritas may flat out tell you that you are being tested. He wants Durge alive and to undergo these trials.

Orin also doesn't just want them dead, she wants the religious combat trial so that she can prove herself more worthy of Bhaal than them in view of the entire church the "proper way" (for lack of a better word), but Durge kept refusing her. So she bashes in their brain aiming to scramble it and tadpoles them, expecting them to crawl their way back, disgraced and forced to fight to regain their place (Bhaal will guide them back to their destiny, and as a godspawn they should be perfectly capable of surviving anything between them and her even with their brain stitching itself back together)

I would hazard a guess that Orin prayed for the chance to prove herself - consciously or subconsciously - and Bhaal came to her (presumably in vision form) and gave her these instructions to follow with the promise of giving her her chance.

Durge was crafted directly by Bhaal as his self-insert to destroy the world. Orin - "the other one" as Bhaal likes to call her (more reasons to stab him) - was born to be sacrificed to him by Durge when they claim their place as Bhaal's Chosen and proxy upon Toril. Durge isn't allowed to lose, Orin was born to. Bhaal doesn't want a "mere grandchild" with "diluted blood" like Orin. If Durge loses once then Bhaal resurrects them (he doesn't do this for Orin) if they lose again then Bhaal will let the party kill her and resurrect Durge and subject them to the worst ending (where he puppets them directly sort of like he did his mortal avatars in the Time of Troubles.) If Durge is dead then whoever takes their place will kill Orin and that's the end of it. Bhaal can resurrect her too, but he's not going to.

This is his plan to test whether he did a good enough job crafting and shaping the Dark Urge or if he needs to scrap Plan B and move onto Plan C; Orin is his puppet facilitating it.

I would assume in a non-Durge playthrough that they don't survive either her or Kressa, and she shrugs and drags their corpse back as a trophy. I have no idea whether her diary talking about the tadpole plan is still there if you're doing a non-Durge run. The question of why Bhaal doesn't resurrect Durge in this case I am going to consign to the plot hole called "we wanted eight potential protagonists". Trying to make sense of that one is a losing battle, I think.

[sixth-light]

Two new WoT theories about Galad, one Watsonian and one Doylistic.

Doylistic: People super underestimate what a minor character Galad actually is, probably because Sanderson promotes him in ToM/AMoL. His first PoV in the RJ books is the KoD prologue, and otherwise he only appears on-page 1) when Rand visits Caemlyn, 2) when Egwene and Nynaeve go to the White Tower, 3) the infamous quarterstaff duel, and 4) when Elayne and Nynaeve run into him in Samara and he's become a Surprise Whitecloak. Everything else is people talking about him! Given the repeated hints he's romantically interested in Egwene and/or Nynaeve that go absolutely nowhere, plus at least one prophecy/viewing that does the same, I think that RJ may have rejigged his role in the story around TFoH.

He's a goldmine of interesting connections to main characters (Rand, Elayne, Egwene) that don't pay off, and when he does take centre stage in ToM it's about his relationship with Morgase (established, significant to him, but SHE is quite a minor character) and a new enemies-to-allies arc with Perrin which...comes out of absolutely nowhere if we're being honest. Perrin already had a Whitecloak to have an enemies-to-allies arc with! He didn't need another one. Justice for Dain Bornhald. RJ kinda moved away from the Arthuriana stuff by mid-series and I think Galad, Walking Arthurian Archetype, suffered from that.

Watsonian: I will make it super-clear that I think everything that follows is because RJ simply wasn't thinking about Galad that hard outside of his role as the Galahad archetype. NEVERTHELESS.

As @butterflydm noted elsewhere, there's not a lot of reason for Galad to be at the White Tower (much less to argue to stay there when Elayne leaves, as he does) and the more I think about it...for someone who is nearly 30, he's extremely adrift from all the normal markers of adulthood and status in his culture. Morgase doesn't appear to have given him any significant responsibilities within Andor, even though he's treated otherwise as her son. He doesn't seem to have inherited estates from Tigraine or Taringail that he could be administering (a la Gareth Bryne in retirement in TFoH). He's arguably in line to be High Seat of either Mantear or Damodred, or even a candidate for the throne of Cairhien, but he's not apparently considered for any of those. Readers are often surprised at how old he is because he's presented as equivalent to Elayne and Gawyn, literal teenagers not yet old enough when the books start to take up their future responsibilities outside of the emergency situations that later occur. Notably, although Galad expresses clear romantic interest in multiple women through the series he's not married or a parent, though again he's more than old enough. (That last is definitely a Galahad-archetype thing.)

So my "canon doesn't support it but canon leaves room for it" new theory is that this is actually on purpose, because like spare sons of royalty before him he's an incredibly tempting target for conspiracies, especially out of Cairhien. He has a close and loving bond with Morgase but she is very politically pragmatic and likely wouldn't want to put him in a situation where he could become the focus of plotting like that. And also...he would righteously report every plot to her unless and until someone managed to convince him that Doing The Thing, whatever it was, was actually the morally correct course of action. Valda achieves this pretty quickly, so it's clearly a possibility!

So, to sum up: Galad is unmarried, uncommitted, and available to be sent to the Tower in TGH because he's too much of a political hot potato to do anything else with. If he was bonded by an Aes Sedai that would probably be a perfect long-term career for him from a political perspective. Ironically puts him in a position, after all these years of Morgase protecting him, to be radicalised by Valda.

[br-uwu-cewayne]

I know most canon and common consensus is Bruce is all "hnnggh... i must... tough it out... i have to keep my mind clear... painkillers would make me foggy. it's too dangerous. I know have responsibilities as Bruce Wayne, but if something were to happen during the day... no, i will begrudgingly take a Tylenol but nothing stronger" but like...

...i just think it would be so fucking great if we had like... a Bruce who was so constantly in pain (because you know he is, even if there were no recent injuries that long term wear and tear, you know he's got wildly high levels of just. chronic pain) that he stays on meds. Like, all the time. Because sure a foggy mind is risky, but you what ELSE can cause brain fog and inattention other than painkillers? CONSTANT PAIN.

I want this for two reasons:

Doylist - It would just be nice to see some rep where unmedicated pain isn't even entertained as being tough or powering through it or treated like medicating it would be in any way shape or form a bad thing. Give me a superhero that says "actually you know what this shit fucking hurts and it's all the time and in order to be at my best I have got to manage this properly." Bonus points for addressing the issue of society looking at people with chronic pain who stay on meds as addicts, like say with people trying to talk Bruce off the meds and him putting his foot down like. "You don't understand, I need these." "I know you think so, I know it seems like you can't ween off of it, but you can Bruce, you don't need-" "I am physically getting bones broken almost on the daily, tearing a new muscle every night, and you're going to try and tell me that i don't actually genuinely physically need relief for that pain????"

Watsonian - In that same vein... taking advantage of that stigma WOULD be a fantastic and honestly probably funny (if treated with care and respect) additional layer of subterfuge for Brucie Wayne. Brucie? Be the Bat? Himbo Billionaire Party Boy Brucie, who's always visibly strung out on something or another? Who's pupils are just blown the fuck out and dialated in every single photo? The poster boy for "high" society? Pffffftttttt

OH OH ALSO

We can't forget just the sheer comedic effect of:

Bane, a full 10 minutes into a fight that should've been over in the first 10 seconds, out of breath as he wails on the Batman: WHY! WONT! YOU! STAY! DOWN!

Batman, struggling to his feet once more on a broken leg he can't feel, spitting blood onto the floor as he make a fist with the sprained wrist supported by his glove-brace: Codeine. [KAPOW!]

[saintsenara]

What I really struggle with in HP is JKR's shallow neoliberal world-building, and how it forces characters to navigate it quite awkwardly. As a big fan of the werewolf lore, I hate what she did there. I want to accept some of the self hatred and oversimplification of the society as complexities of the characters, but some of it also just feels like bad writing. Of course I am a bit of a Lupin stan and I'll do some gymnastics to try to make him a better man/werewolf than he'd ever be (I like to picture him as kind of a Union rep), but I don't know, I just really feel like canon is lacking. Am I just not a great reader?

no, i don't think you're a bad reader, anon.

when it comes to worldbuilding, jkr is certainly no tolkien - a lot of the inconsistencies in canon [i.e. why dumbledore flies to the ministry in philosopher's stone] come from her not having the world fully mapped out prior to writing, and, while this isn't as much of an issue as the fandom makes out [lots of authors adapt their worldbuilding as they go along!], it's definitely exacerbated by the fact that she has a tendency to claim certain inconsistencies were intentional.

the series' politics are also clearly incredibly neoliberal. and part of this [such as the fact that the order is defending the "sensible" status quo] is obviously a bleed-through from jkr's worldview, and i think it's legitimate to acknowledge and criticise that and how it manifests itself in the doylist text.

nonetheless, i think it is worth saying that the fandom has a tendency to criticise aspects of the text which ought instead to be understood as intentional spaces we can devote our energy to filling in. the genre conventions of the series require it to become an uncomplicated good-versus-evil trajectory which ends with all being well - and i do think that, when we're criticising jkr's writing, it's important to acknowledge that the ending of the series feels unsatisfactory because it does these conventions properly, rather than in spite of that fact. similarly, the reason that apparently key aspects of wizarding society [law, politics, etc.] don't get discussed in detail is because they're not the series' focus - i've mentioned elsewhere that i'm obsessed with the concept of wizarding medicine, and that i find the way this is presented in the series really shallow, but i recognise that this is because medicine isn't something the series wants to focus on. order of the phoenix is too long as it is - we don't need 200 more pages of detailed descriptions of how healers learn their craft...

and so i think it's fun for us to work in our own writing to make the worldbuilding feel a bit more cohesive.

the easiest way i've found to square this circle with the watsonian text is to recognise that harry is a partial narrator. he's someone with an incredibly self-serving, black-and-white moral code; he's incredibly privileged within wizarding society and comparatively privileged within muggle society [by which i don't mean that he isn't neglected by the dursleys, but he's also canonically white, able-bodied, cisgender, a native english speaker, well-educated, raised in a middle-class household and so on] and, therefore, never has to actually think about the politics and structure of wizarding society; and he's also a teenage boy, which explains him not being particularly observant or politically aware.

[the best example of this is, of course, that he doesn't give a shit about sirius' treatment of kreacher - because he likes sirius - and he doesn't consider his own mastery over kreacher to be a moral abomination - because he's shown to not really understand the broader social impact of slavery - but he detests the malfoys' treatment of dobby entirely and only because he dislikes the malfoys.]

his attitude towards lupin - and his attitude towards werewolves more generally - can be made sense of through this, i think. harry doesn't care about the broader state-sanctioned oppression of werewolves because it doesn't impact him, he cares about lupin's experience because it does; harry doesn't notice the imperialist overtones to lupin's self-presentation [that is, that he bears "the unmistakable signs of having tried to live among wizards"] and considers lupin's embrace of "civilisation" to be a good thing [in comparison to werewolves like greyback, who reject it] because it's what he personally considers legitimate; harry focuses on specific aspects of lupin's character because he's not a omniscient perspective - he's a [canonically short-sighted] teenage boy.

[kylermalloy]

Attack on Titan is a layered, multifaceted story that deals with many, many ideas—prejudice, propaganda, power, love, truth…I could go on. But more than anything, it’s about war. Attack on Titan is a war story. In that sense, it’s no surprise at the number of scenes that utilize fight, either as a concept, action, or just the word itself. It’s a story about fighting.

Or is it?

(It is. But it’s not about the fight. I’ll get there.)

The pivotal moment of the story occurs in season 3, when our characters go from fighting a war they don’t understand to fighting a war they do. The war itself hasn’t changed, nor the world, but now they know what they’re up against. But I’m not here to talk about that pivot—I’m here to talk about the narrative choice that was made a few episodes before that, and the thematic importance of that choice.

I’m here to talk about Midnight Sun.

The choice between Armin and Erwin has long since been a topic of debate amongst AOT fans. Whether it was the right choice, how happy or unhappy it made viewers, why exactly the choice was made, and so on and so forth. I’ve always found it to be a very simple yet effective piece of storytelling—one that walks a very fine line of displaying a core story theme and honoring the characters involved.

Interestingly, Levi, who’s historically a follower and not a leader, is the one to make this very important narrative choice. It was carefully designed, too—everything he’s witnessed so far in this season has led to this moment, and this very important decision he’ll make.

Now of course, as with everything, there’s a Watsonian and a Doylist reason for this decision to bring Armin back and not Erwin. Levi’s role in the choice is primarily a Watsonian one—he was one of the closest characters to Erwin, and he was the one to see Erwin struggle in his last moments before the charge.

Levi outright tells us his thought process after he makes the choice. After Erwin had let go of his dream, his struggle, which was as much a burden to him as a drive to continue forward, Levi thought it cruel to being him back into the world just because humanity needed a devil. It’s a human decision, and Levi made it for someone he cared deeply for.

But from a Doylist perspective, there’s a thematic reason as to why Armin was chosen and not Erwin. Obviously Levi, as a character in the story, is not thinking of what Erwin’s and Armin’s respective dreams are narratively representative of. Levi, in making his choice, didn’t so much as pick Armin as he didn’t pick Erwin. He was letting Erwin go, and he wasn’t thinking about what that would do to the story.

But I am!

Levi has been witness to both Erwin’s and Armin’s dreams, and he’s smart enough to place those dreams within the context of the war they’re fighting.

He asked Erwin explicitly what he would do when his dream was fulfilled—once they got to the basement in Shiganshina and learned the truth of the world. Erwin said he didn’t know.

Conversely, when Armin talked with his friends about after the war, he spoke of the sea. Of exploration beyond the walls, of seeing the wonders he’d only been able to read about. Unlike Erwin, he knew exactly what he would do when the fighting ended.

Now, does this mean to imply Erwin would’ve been useless after reaching the basement? Of course not. Had he survived, he would have continued to lead. But thematically, his purpose in the narrative was to drive the fight forward at any cost. We see this over and over—from the first expedition outside Wall Rose to his last charge against the Beast Titan. That’s what he represents, and that’s what his dream led to.

Armin’s dream, though, extends beyond the fight. He only cares about winning the war in that it will allow him the chance to explore and experience the wonders of the world.

Choosing Armin over Erwin, thematically, represents AOT’s fundamental view on war and fighting. The drive to win is not nearly as important as hope for the future. For after the fight is over.

Armin has always found solace and hope in things other than the war that has defined his and his friends’ lives. He dreams of the ocean. He worships his friends. He lives, as he tells Zeke in the final final final season, for the small moments with them. “Maybe I was born to race Eren and Mikasa up that hill.” That would be enough for him, even without his grand dream of the sea.

I genuinely think this choice is the closest thing AOT has to a thesis statement. This story shows us a plethora of messy situations to which there is no clear-cut solution. It displays a huge range of perspectives and philosophies without telling us what is good and what is bad. (Although it does, very specifically, tell us that genocide is bad, Eren!)

This choice in Midnight Sun, though, is more than a choice between two characters for survival. It speaks to what is most valuable in a world that seems to always be trying to kill you.

What good is winning the war if you don’t have something to hope for beyond that?

In other words, there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for.

[asha-mage]

As someone who has been reading fanfiction for a really really long time I think one of the things I've realized is that what separates a solid time travel Fix it Fic from an excellent one is the author's ability to work through the extended consequences of their changes to canon.

Most Fix-It Fics are ultimately a power fantasy: allowing the characters the fore knowledge and insight to solve either many, or most of, their problems without needing to go through the suffering and agony they do in their canon stories. But like all power fantasy it's enhanced when you work through the cause and effect from the Watsonian point of view, rather then the Doylist point of view. This is because the Doylist point of view- that the author is writing this in order to have a version of canon where a great deal of tragedy and pain for Our Heroes is averted- is assumed. The audience knows what they signed up. It's there on the label: a Fix it Fic.

This means that as long as the author doesn't break that fundamental promise, as long as the audience remains reasonably assured that things will in fact, be fixed, the author can take the story in whatever direction they would like, and the best version of that is to follow the changes out to their logical conclusions from the question 'what would this mean in universe'? That's the Watsonian point of view- what do these changes mean for these characters who are not aware they are in a story- and how does that alter the story their living in?

The villains keep suffering crucial and early defeats where in the original story they had either partial or complete victories? Eventually they are going to change tactics or figure out that something more is going on. Character death that served as a Huge Deal to other characters is averted? Well, how do they proceed in absence of that death impacting their characters? If it taught Our Heroes not to be arrogant or assumed victory, or about he power of the bad guys, or in just some facts about how dangerous the world they live is- well eventually they are going to need to learn those lessons anyways, and how does that come about now?

And then you have our erstwhile Time Traveler- who by chance or choice has taken it upon themselves to fix everything. What does that do their sense of self? It's an objectively immense burden to taken on their shoulders, likely on top of whatever burden their already carrying. Are they going to become arrogant and overconfident after a few early victories and thus be caught off guard when things start to go off the rails again? Are they going to develop even More of a Savior Complex since they clearly have all the answers, it is their duty to fix everything, and anything that goes wrong is their failure right? Or are they going to become frustrated that no one knows how much blood sweat and tears their putting in to giving everyone a happy ending- even though no one asked them too? If they where brought back by some future calamity or bad/end, are they going to have attachment issues? Problems seeing their friends in danger? Letting others do things for themselves?

And the things the answers to these question don't have to be tragedy and angst fuel (and they probably shouldn't be, again that fundamental promise to the audience of a fix it fic)- but they are worth asking if you want to take your story from 'solid' to 'excellent'.

[scifirice]

The game Doomed in danny phantom has insane implications.

Before you go typing stuff, I am aware it's the result of needing a video game to have stakes and the writers needing a plot. I understand watsonian and doylist reasoning, im a writer myself. this is purely for the in-universe implications which I believe are crazy.

In episode 12: Teacher of the Year, danny and his friends are playing some kind of online game where the grand prize for beating it is full access to the World Wide Web. I re watched this episode prior to writing this, though it has been a hot minute since ive seen the other episodes, so i don't know exactly if they've actually used the internet prior to that episode. But i do remember technus escaping because Danny deleted his old save of Doomed so i guess that does imply he beat it at some point after episode 12.

The mere fact they can even play an online game in the first place would imply they have some access but not as much as they could. Kind of like how when you have a learners permit you can only drive in the daytime with an adult in the passenger seat. Can you imagine getting online and only being able to access wikipedia and facebook? Thats what I'm seeing from this.

So as far as we know, anyone who wants to get full access to the internet has to play and beat this game. We see danny and tucker make it to the final level multiple times, it takes them all night but that assumes even an average player can make it far if they keep at it. So the game itself couldn't be too difficult.

But what bewilders me the most is what Sam's doing. Why does this game have PVP? Sam hasn't beat the game either, she was likely doing it just to fuck with danny and tucker but she also blasts some random dude at the beginning. The trio seemed to all be able to win the game together at the very end, meaning there isn't any actual reason for pvp since there's no need to claim the prize solely for yourself.

Then there's Lancer. He's already beating the goddamn game! Yet he comes back just to beat it again and fight people! Is he gaining anything from this? Probably not. But why would this be an option for returning players? It's like someone who gets a doctorate degree and then goes around a middle school with a baseball bat bashing any student they see trying to learn and the school staff do nothing about it.

Why is the world set up like this? Did the government decide full internet access is something someone should have to take a test for? Did everyone have to take the test or were they grandfathered into keeping full access? I dunno how old Lancer is but unless we assume he was only playing the game for fun, he had to have beat Doomed when he was younger. so that implies his generation and the one after were all subject to this rule.

Is Doomed the only game like this? are there other games for other kinds of people since not everyone is good at FPS games? Could there be other things like make a character on the sims live for a whole year on max difficulty and then you win? Beat halo on legendary with all skulls on? speedrun mario 64 below the allowed time limit? Whose idea was this!? Not everyone is going to want full access when they're teens like danny, but what about when you get a job? Do you need to put "I beat Doomed" on your resume? this whole this is just fucking bizzare,

It's a minor detail never really brought up again, but the wider implications of it are immense. Anyway, im using this episode as inspiration to write a story because I cannot let this idea just get swept under the ecto-rug.

[sneezypeasy]

Watsonian vs Doylist Analyses - A Couple Points of Clarification

I just want to clear up a couple of misunderstandings I may have unintentionally contributed to in my previous references on the subject:

1. There can be multiple explanations (multiple Watsonian explanations, multiple Doylist explanations, multiple of each etc) of a given scene or character portrayal or plot point, and people can accept more than one explanation at the same time. It's just uncommon for people to accept or present multiple explanations at once because that's kind of how people people.

2. Doylist takes aren't inherently "better" than Watsonian takes, and vice versa. People use both to engage with the text in different ways and for different purposes. Watsonian logic is fun for roleplay or immersing yourself into the story, and I imagine a lot of fanfic writers often start from a prompt like "I wonder what would happen next if I took x character and then put them in y scenario". Doylist logic is fun if you like examining the text from a more "meta" standpoint, trying to see what purpose various narrative choices serve (or undermine). Neither angle is intrinsically a more valid way to engage with fiction, and you might enjoy doing one thing one day and another thing the next - with different texts or even with the same text.

In litcrit, because I like to pick my brain on the subject of "what would have made for the best story here", I tend to be more interested in analyzing theme, character arcs, setup and payoff etc, which are Doylist interpretations. Some people focus a lot on authorial intent, which is also a Doylist perspective (just a different one). Some people like to try to get into the heads of the characters they're analyzing and discuss ideas like "what choice would make the most sense for x character given who they are as a person". That's a Watsonian take. There are contextual and individual reasons why some explanations may resonate with you more than others some of the time or even most of the time, but they're really apples and oranges. Which one you prefer will likely vary depending on the type of question being posed and what scope seems to be the most appropriate for it - and people are always going to have different opinions about that too... because that's how people people.

Of course, the opinions I personally care enough about to splash all over the internet are going to be opinions I hold with very strong convictions, which is why I can come off quite aggressive about them, but they're still just opinions and there's no such thing as "one true explanation", whether that's Watsonian or Doylist. If I make a Doylist argument and I dismiss someone else's rebuttal on the basis of it being Watsonian, that's not because Watsonian takes are intrinsically weaker, it's just because you generally can't use a Watsonian take to rebut a Doylist one or vice versa. You need to engage with someone's point in order to counter it, and you can't generally do that when you completely change the scope of the question, which is what tends to happen when a Watsonian perspective and a Doylist perspective comes into conflict.

(Of course, you can argue that a Doylist scope is situationally stronger than a Watsonian one or vice versa, but that's a different argument and usually context-dependent lol - point is just because a Doylist answer might fit one particular prompt much better this time, doesn't mean all Doylist answers will always trump all Watsonian answers in every single context all of the time, and that's not even accounting for the fact that you're never going to reach unanimous agreement about these sorts of things anyway.)

I hope that clears things up 😊

[therealvinelle]

In the recent chapter of Amulett d'Amour it's revealed that Dumbledore invited all those women to see who was missing or acting off. What would have happened if one of them had declined his invitation to come (either because of prior commitments, illness or just not being interested)? Would he have become convinced it must be her who is playing Lucy (even with Lucy not being present)? Would he start stalking collecting evidence a la his "Tom is Evil McEvil and you must kill yourself to stop him, Harry" memory collection? Would he try to confound her until she is "fixed"?

(Anon is referring to Amulette d'amour by @theoriginalcarnivorousmuffin and myself)

I had to think about this one for a bit.

See, the thing about Albus Dumbledore per canon is that he doesn't actually require any evidence to determine Tom Riddle is responsible for something. It is enough for something suspicious to have occurred in the general vicinity of Tom Riddle, for Tom Riddle to have visited a household a fortnight before a death occurred, and Dumbledore will suspect him.

Cases in point being when Dumbledore suspected Tom Riddle was responsible for various things that happened at Hogwarts while Tom attended, without ever being able to prove anything. What these things were, why he thought Tom was involved, is never expanded upon. The Chamber of Secrets is opened, Tom was actually behind that but Dumbledore had no proof nor reason for suspecting as much. Hepzibah Smith is poisoned a few days after Tom visited, two heirlooms Tom had been shown were found to be stolen, Tom did it (@rankheresy episode on that subject here, or this post will get far too long. I will say here, though, that Dumbledore never actually received confirmation Tom had the stolen heirlooms in his possession. It could just as easily have been an heir (Hepzibah mentioned having heirs salivating over her things) pocketing these things so they wouldn't have to share. He still decides, without evidence, that Tom murdered Hepzibah and thinks he now knows what two of the horcruxes are. Because he found a memory of Tom being shown two heirlooms and the woman shortly after died).

(JKR is not among the authors who realize that no, you can't have you character instinctively know things. Dumbledore consistently guesses, speculates, and suspects wild things he has little to no foundation for, and while in the real world this would make him a lunatic and a rather stubborn, unintelligent man who refuses to look past his own biases, in the world of Harry Potter he is reciting the Word of God and actually right about everything. The result being that trying to do Watsonian analysis leaves you with a lunatic.)

My point with all this is that Dumbledore doesn't actually require such petty things as proof, or confirmation of his hypotheses. The things he does consider to be confirmation, such as a sixteen-year-old Tom Riddle asking his professor about splitting his soul into a nifty number and receiving a vague "I guess??" answer, or Morfin Gaunt being visited by his nephew (episode!), are so weak that it's only Dumbledore's massive confirmation bias making him consider such things reliable.

With that...

I'm not sure a guest being absent from the party would change a thing. Dumbledore has all the proof he needs, it exists in his own mind and is formed of his own wild but naturally correct speculations. He knows he's right, so he doesn't need outside support from such things as reality.

The absent woman would be visited, and he might decide for himself, "Ah yes. This is the one" and never change his mind on the matter, or he would decide "No, Tom wouldn't want this one. My search continues". I personally would expect the latter as uh no one is special or good enough for Tom.

[racefortheironthrone]

Speaking of Magento and his identities, wasn’t there some to do about him supposed to be Xorn originally too?

With all the best will in the world, I am not going to explain Xorneto or the post-Morrison retcon in detail, because it simply does not make sense on any kind of Watsonian level and it makes my head hurt trying to hold the whole thing in my mind at the same time.

All you need to understand is that for their own sui generis reasons having to do with their love of Silver Age comics over Bronze Age comics and their family background in the non-violent anti-nuclear movement, Morrison infamously despised Magneto. And so they set out to write the last Magneto story that could ever be told, which culminates with a drug-addled master of magnetism enacting a human genocide in Manhattan.

While Grant Morrison's New X-Men is rightfully considered to have been one of the greatest runs post-Claremont, this particular plotline and character arc (in a run that was not exactly lacking for shocking twists and unusually adult themes) proved to be the most controversial aspect of the run - to the point where Marvel editorial immediately retconned it as having been actually the work of Xorn who had pretended to be Magneto pretending to be Xorn. (And let's not even get into Zorn, and no that's not a typo.)

For a fuller explanation, I would point you towards the excellent Cerebrocast episode featuring Spencer Ackerman, which features a respectful but passionate debate between Connor Goldsmith and Spencer over the merits of Morrison's story and the ensuing retcon. For what it's worth, I side with Spencer; I think that as powerful as the story at the time was, it was ultimately a mistake by a gifted creator who never resonated with why Claremont's original retcon was so essential to making the character one that people cared about.

[stupidsexpotflanders]

Dr. Chase,the physician from The Land Down Under

In the Season 8 episode "Dead and Buried",Chase appeared in a TV show playing a stereotypically Australian doctor on some skit(there was no Watsonian explanation given for this,I love how bonkers House MD can be). Despite the embarassment when House and Taub found the video,Chase's "first and big role" was massively beneficial to him.

It started on early clinic duty,due to a mistake. Chase was approached by some random teenager who saw him online. She was wondering why the actor was dressed like a doctor in a hospital waiting room;

In response,Chase claimed to be an aspiring actor wanting to make it in show business. He donned a fake but convincing American accent and a beautiful smile. The girl,now smitten by the not-so-fake doctor,asked to take a selfie with him;

The other professional at the scene were fuming and confused at the same time. Chase was hidden in plain sight,there was no way to convince the other patients the guy was an actual doctor;

The way out of clinic duty was discovered,and Chase was over the moon. He looked up the girl's social media,lo and behold,she not only posted the pic with him but also said she wanted to see more of him;

Chase created social media profiles for his character,totally separated from his professional/personal ones(that were very low-key and private,especially after the nude pic fiasco. As for professional fame,Chase didn't need more than he had - Princeton-Plainsboro was cozy and high-stakes enough). The character was named Robert Chase as well. Between the fact that his name was already common and the fact that "Doc from Down Under" had way more fame than "Head of Diagnostics/House's Successor",it would make him being hard to found out with search mechanisms(this particular tactic made Robert love the fact that the surname Červený was far too complicated for the immigration officers that recieved his father in Australia. Robert Chase vs Robert Červený says it all). To top it all,the real "Dr. Robert Chase" might look like an elaborate goof;

Now,onto how Dr. Chase would be able to keep the facade and his medical career. His main method of testing the candidates to Diagnostics Fellows is to have them pretend to be R. Chase - regardless of gender,race or any characteristics. Of course,he's keeping tabs on both the new doctors and patients - same doctors see the same patients. It has a double usefulness - the candidates have to be skilled with deceit and quick on their feet while able to be coordinated by Chase himself;

When it comes to the cases themselves,Chase goes see the patients sometimes,but always in a disguise(glasses,a thick beard,make up to look 10 years older and a British accent(canon have him an American accent for no reason,so let me make Chase a fake Brit!);

Oftentimes,Chase is seen making videos of the Doctor. After a while,his videos had extremely simplified explanations of complicated diseases. The simplifications were done by someone who deeply understood the pathologies,anyone with medical knowledge would see it. The cherry of the cake was when American Accent Chase played the dumb person who needed said explanations(but still struggled to understand them). His underlings found it annoying but overlooked it,because Chase was generally competent and nice overall;

Last but not least - Chase got away with all that BS because competence levels and he was fucking his boss. Foreman is just as batshit,he's classy about it tho.

Just gimme Chase being just as chaotic as House,but in different ways,please!

[horizon-verizon]

Lucerys went to Storm’s End to deliver Rhaenyra’s message, he insisted he would bring Borros’ reply to the QUEEN, Lucerys basically died for his mother’s claim and she repays him by trying to make up with his murderers ? That’s sociopathic.

Rhaenyra agreed to send her son as an envoy for the sake of her throne which she apparently doesn’t want and then she begs his murderers for peace ? Why did she let him go then ? Did she sacrifice him ? For what exactly ? She spat into her dead son’s face, she worries about her PR but not her son's sacrifice.

This ask accusing Rhaenrya as being sociopathic is part of why I simply don't emotionally/morally engage at face value (as in these are "real" or well realized character) with this show as much as a lot of other people in the asoiaf fandom do. I do engage as critically (analytically) as I can AND use some scenes as evidence against fandom sexism. The clear misunderstanding and trying to fix characters into roles that don't make sense for their arcs in this story of the Dance undermines too much of the HotD story for me to remain Watsonian about it.

Bec it is not "Rhaenyra" that is sociopathic. It is the sexist writing breeding inconsistency after inconsistency for the character as well as the entire list of circumstances--how kinslaying seems no big deal and how it seems no big deal that Aemond commits this taboo and thus removing a critical layer to why the blacks go to war to answer such a tragedy (this layer that is already on top of how they usurped her).

Though she'd be a valid character if she had been adapted/created for some other appropriate story , FOR THIS ONE and for the relationship she has w/Daemon, she simply doesn't make any sense and is horribly, sexistly written so that they can get as many people--who are not really weighing what the point of her character was in the Dance story or truly care to understand the very basics of misogyny--to like her character. Which itself tells us something abt our world--women over male characters of fiction and perhaps real life need to be morally upright in order for the sexist violence to matter or even be defined as sexist. (Catelyn Stark of ASoIaF is a character who has her flaws but also her valid reasons for how she acts. Margarey of GoT is not sincere to smallfolk, but we can't count her as evil for it. ETC.)

That the motive behind her usurpation and eventual murder was greedy sexism. Then entire reason why Viserys is king is bc of sexism and the Targs succeaaion rules not having been solofoed in terms of which royal has a superseding claim than the other since Aenys and Maegor. Many Targ men actively blocked their female counterparts or children or others' children to strengthen their own claim in the eyes of the Andal-Westerosi descents they were ruling and assimilating into for the ease of said rule.

Therefore yes, the Dance happened bc of misogyny/you can never remain that misogyny played a small role in it happening.

Part of the reason--but not the only reason--she fights for the throne is bc she wants payback for her sons' deaths/punish the greens/not have Luke-Jace die from nothing at all.

This is the same woman who marries Daemon Targaryen bc she is like him in the ferocity, prideful way as well as wanted him for his loyalty and willingness to go that far for her, their family/kids, and her crown. It was actually rather cheap for HotD to portray a Rhaenyra who is conflicted over: some sort of payback for Luke's death thru Blood & Cheese vs the horror of Helaena's grief and pain as a mother herself. A sort of reckoning that she may or may not accept and how far does she actually "accept"? THIS, I argue, would have been far more interesting bc of the layers to it all that reminds me of ebing close to any other Gothic narrative...and this is more of a Gothic couple than they aren't.

This also goes into how the focus of her distrust of him is somehow whether he's trying to rule through her instead of self control. It appears a fine line--bc some might think if she actually cared to follow directions or lead, he wouldn't fly off the handle or go behind their backs or do stuff like "heir for a day", so it has to be him wanting the throne for himself sincerely, and that is all...no love. Again, that is what she was arguing he was trying to do in the actual S2 E2 episode, when she says that he is just trying to use her name to do what he wanted against the Hightowers/Otto/his enemies.

When we have already hashed this bit out AND Rhaenyra (if we say she is very careful and deliberate when it comes to her kids' safety) would not have endangered her 3 boys if it were obviously true Daemon was gunning for them for himself...also, his daughters were marrying those boys so he does have stake in the line even with Jacaerys ruling bc he'd have ruling grandkids through him. So no, it didn't make sense, her concerns.

Not unless we reason that:

this Rhaenyra is simply not the same Rhaenyra as the book canon, and thus her relationship with Daemon simply makes no sense on screen as the writers wrote her/them

we recognize that the writers contradict epi 2, epi 7, epi 8 (all where she obviously understands him and puts trusts him not try to get the throne from/through her or harm her again NOT abt his emotional control) while remembering Daemon suddenly choke her out in epi 10 (which didn't make sense itself bc of those episodes I listed)

So yeah, even though I liked the acting and energy of the fight, I didn't care for Rhaenyra's argument w/Daemon. and it isn't actually Rhaenyra nor does their Rhaenyra make any sense, so I don't care to actually engage with this show that much or take it as a serious project. It's their cluster fuck of a character they made to draw in people who can't handle dark or morally questionable female character OR genuinely don't grasp what an unreliable narrator is: