#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?

[agalychnisspranneusroseus]

Imagine you're Mr. Wu and your weird gay daughter runs away in tears after destroying some unespecified object while yelling about you ruining her life. Because you told her you'd be moving to another state. This is the last time you see your daughter in half a year, and when she comes back, she comes back... wrong. She's wearing a light leather armor, a fur-lined cape, and a green flower crown. She has two long scars, one alongside her spine and the other along her chest, the tissue around them covered in burn scars. Doctors say she shouldn't have survived. Doctors say she didn't. Yet she's right here, in front of you, hospital gown clinging to her small, fragile, trembling frame. She fidgets with her hands. Getting her to stay still has always been difficult, but now it seems impossible. She won't let go of her phone. She's always texting her two friends. When you take it away, she gets anxious. You always knew those damn phones cause kids to act weird, but your kid having a panic attack seems too extreme, even for her. Then again, she's always been odd. Nowadays, she wakes up crying and screaming almost every night, and you realize she's been stealing her phone from your bedside drawer every night to text her friends, returning it before you wake up. You catch her once and decide to give her that damn phone back. It's the only thing that calms her down, as if she were a baby with a pacifier. She spends her last weeks in LA clinging to her friends, having sleepovers and playing her weird board games with them. Everytime they drop her back at her house, there's an excessive amount of hugs and tears. But the moments when they call her, or when she leaves to meet with them, or when they show up at their door to pick her up... those are the only moments in which you see her happy. One of her friends, the rude and disobedient one, came back with a big scar on her face. She's been acting a lot nicer, though. The other one too. She acts a great deal more adult now. You doesn't know what happened or where your daughter went. She won't tell you. But you can tell this friendship is the only thing keeping her afloat right now. Maybe you know, deep down, that no one else would understand.

And then you decide to move anyway because fuck her amirite

[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.

[gin-juice-tonic]

Talking about a single bill book page under here

The thing about this page is, for something that was supposedly ripped out, it doesn't really contain anything that strikes me as needing.... to have been... ripped out.

Sure, he talks about being lonely here and maybe that could be embarrassing to him, but it's not like he hasn't talked about being an outcast before, his entire about page has a section dedicated to his trials and tribulations with his peers when he was younger.

Additionally, there's many times in the journal where he seems to have written something he feels he shouldn't have. Though ripping that thing out isnt usually his method of choice. He much prefers to scratch things out.

Why couldn't the page have existed like this? Or even, if the entire thing truly is too embarrassing to have in your journal, why did you write it there in the first place?

It seems to me that the only reason this page was included with the other Bill pages was to set up the narrative of Ford's loneliness. (That within Journal 3 proper isn't really needed, because one can already ascertain that...). Doyalist reason? Sure, Alex is trying to set up his story. Watsonian reason? Naturally you turn it around and see it as Bill trying to set up his own story.

This page's existence in general isn't the only beef I have with it though. While we're meant to accept it on the basis that he ripped this out, Ford engaging with personal feelings, especially negative ones like this in such a blatant way is... unusual. I'd say he's much more prone to distracting himself away from that sort of thing with his work.

For the journal especially, this page would have to take place pretty early, as it's supposed to be pre-Bill. Which is weird, considering a later page in the original J3...

Of course, like I said, we the audience can understand Ford is lonely. And I'm not trying to say he doesn't know it himself, but he does not engage with it.

The thing about this page though, is that it's much more than just a single spot where Ford's own loneliness is mentioned. It's a turning point for the way Ford writes. Prior to Fiddlefords arrival, Stanford takes a few pages to introduce himself, then everything following is either an anomaly page or the occasional muse page. Like I said before, it's all very work-focused.

After Fiddleford comes to town, Ford is forced to feel the full extent how lonely he's truly been, and he starts to write a lot of pages of his and Fiddleford's adventures together, including his feelings during. (insert everyones favorite lines here:)

But he also starts to write about something else...

Over

and over

and over

again...

Fiddleford's renewed presence in his life really opened some mental-block floodgates in Ford's mind. From experience, sometimes you really aren't faced with how truly lonely you are until you are provided with some respite from it.

Again, I would like to say, it's not that I think he wasn't lonely before. He definitely was, and it's certainly part of why Bill was able to target him. But would he have written it out like that at that point in time? In the journal no less?

I dont really think so. I think he was doing everything in his power not to think or feel it.

And writing it down isn't really what I'd call conducive to that.

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

I'm reading Ghost in the Shell right now and Tom just mentioned the lengths the yeerks had to go to in order to keep morph-capable controllers in line during feedings. I know you went into this in more detail during the last fic in the series as well, but I wanted to ask: is there a canon reason the yeerks couldn't just have fewer hosts than yeerks, and stick a 'temp' yeerk in the host's brain while the usual one is feeding?

I can think of some plausible reasons (host's brain needs time off to recover, yeerks can't switch hosts very often without difficulty, cultural objections to sharing bodies with their fellow slugs) and also meta reasons (more angst potential, more interesting this way). But I'm curious what your take on this is. I can't remember if they ever addressed it in-series

Oooooohh. I like this idea, and I would love to see it explored. If Yeerk One inches sloooowly out of the left ear as Yeerk Two inches into the right, then you're right that there could be almost no lag time at all between yeerks. For the morpher hosts especially, that would be dead useful.

Doylist (out-of-universe) speaking, I think we don't see this in canon because we need to see the horror of what the yeerks are doing to their hosts. And if hosts have 0m0s of ability to express what's going on with them, then it runs the risk of seeming like no big deal. Or like there's no meaningful difference between the voluntary hosts and the involuntary ones.

Watsonian (in-universe) speaking, I assume it's not used because of issues of privacy and — let's be honest — corruption. If Eeek 1234 is inside Alloran for a few minutes every time Visser Three needs to feed, then suddenly some random yeerk knows every one of Visser Three's secrets that Alloran knows. Eva knowing about Edriss's human kids gives her tremendous power over Visser One, and Eva's knowledge of the Empire later proves instrumental in the Animorphs winning the war. If some other yeerk is inside of Eva, then that yeerk has that level of intel and power over Visser One too.

[gafurtle]

More thoughts on Secunit 3!

One thing Martha Wells does to distinguish Murderbot’s and Three’s narrations is to make Three’s present tense.

From a Doylist perspective, it’s surely because both narrations are first-person and the readers need to know who’s who immediately without getting confused. There’s ALREADY MB and MB 2.0 and a THIRD past-tense first-person narration would surely be confusing. This way the reader can immediately clock whether the Murderbot(s) or Three are talking.

But from a Watsonian perspective, I think there’s an in-character reason too? MB gets its emotional framework from fiction, like books and TV shows and movies, which tend to be narrated in the past tense if at all. Whereas Three didn’t watch thousands of hours of serials - it’s a person experiencing new weird things, and I feel like that’s reflected in the present-tense “oh shit I guess this is happening now” narrative voice.

I dunno. I just like it as a fun character touch.

[foone]

(Sorry if this sounds mean) If you’re ace why are you looking for mind control erotica? This isn’t a bad faith question, as someone who’s aro but not ace I’m genuinely curious. Maybe expounding on it would help your followers point you at new things?

Also have you read Human Domestication Guide? It’s very mind controlly, though it does have pet stuff if you hate that or whatever.

Short answer: it's complicated.

So to answer in reverse order: I have read some HDG stories: not enough to remember what I read, but in general I like them. And petplay doesn't bother me. So I'll probably read more in future, it's just that it never triggered that "I should read all of this!" urge in me. Which isn't an indicator of how much I like it/the quality of it, that's just a thing that sometimes happens to my brain.

As for why I'm reading mind control erotica despite being asexual... It's complicated (as you might guess).

Basically I'm asexual in the "not attracted to men or women (or anything else/between)" sense. I don't experience sexual attraction, at all.

But that's only one part of sexuality. It may be the primary part for allosexuals, but it obviously can't be for me. I'm still interested in some sexual things, and I'm interested in them for sexual reasons, but it's just that those reasons are never "this person is hot" or "this sex is hot".

Like, not to give a complete listing of my kinks or anything, consider basic rope bondage as a fetish. You could look at the fetish from multiple angles:

It's sexy getting tied up, because of the physical sensation of being tied up.

It's sexy to be tied up, because you don't have control.

It's sexy to tie someone up, because of how they look tied up.

It's sexy to have someone tied up, because you have control and they don't.

It's sexy to have sex while tied up, because you can't resist it (in the scene. This is fantasy, there are safewords)

It's sexy to fuck someone tied up, because they can't resist (in the scene, fantasy, safewords)

And then in fiction you can do the last two minus the watsonian-bdsm: it's not a scene. (I won't discuss this further because discourse)

Only 5 and 6 really need sex itself to be a part of it. You can have the eroticism of bondage and no one has sex, or needs to be attracted to anybody.

I don't have a huge amount of experience here, but from what I've heard this isn't that uncommon in the bdsm community: there's plenty of people who show up at bdsm events solely for "non-sexual" tying/getting tied.

Anyway, once you understand that you can have a kink (even one that seems sexual) for reasons other than sexual attraction/sex* itself, you can probably see why an asexual person might still want to read about it.

Also there's elements of, like, exploration of personal impossibilities? As jms said:

So I cannot forgive. Which makes the notion of writing a character who CAN forgive momentarily attractive...because it allows me to explore in great detail something of which I am utterly incapable. I cannot fly, so I would write of birds and starships and kites; I cannot play an instrument, so I would write of composers and dancers; and I cannot forgive, so I would write of priests and monks and Minbari...

It can be interesting reading stories of people doing things you can't for reasons you never experience, obeying urges you don't have.

* "sex" is also a difficult thing to define, because especially in BDSM terms it gets very fuzzy. What things count as sex? Generally when I say like "they're spending too much time on the sex" or "the mind control is just an excuse to get to the sex", I'm defining sex as something like "some kind of insertion/licking/vibrating for sexual purposes", when many allosexuals (especially, uhh... What's the word for non-bdsm people? Them) would define it more narrowly, and many BDSM kinksters would define it more widely, including a lot of the things I'm not here: I've heard people call getting tied up or impact play as sex, for example.

Anyway you'd think this sort of perspective I've got on erotic fiction, where I'm here for the non-sex sexual fetish things, would be more common? After all, I'm talking about literature here. I tend to associate the allosexual attraction urge as a visual thing: this person looks sexy, so you experience sexual attraction towards them.

I can see how that'd work if you're talking about visual mediums: movies and photos of real people, even drawn images, but this is just words. I guess maybe people without aphantasia can imagine how someone looks from their description, and can experience some attraction based on that? I don't know. I've never really experienced attraction to written characters, so I can't say how it works. Feel free to enlighten me, anyone who does.

But you can definitely tell reading erotica which stories are "this is a sexy story because it has sexy people in it doing sexy things (sometimes kinkily)" and which are "this kink is the primary focus: any sex they have is in service of the kink, or is just a momentary distraction from the kink". I prefer the latter, by far.

Anyways, I think maybe I'm giving everyone a slightly misleading impression of how much I'm into mind control. It's more that I've found a few stories that actually were interesting to me for a couple reasons (first person submissive perspective, rules-based mind control, some worldbuilding) and then I've been looking for other stories that explore the same ideas as well (or better: the particular ones I liked had a little too much bimboification focus for me, which isn't one of my kinks) and failing. Thus I complain a lot about not being able to find the sort of stories I want.

Which, you know, makes sense? I'm an asexual reading through porn. Despite my explanation in this post, this is still not a great fit for me, so of course I'm disappointed. It'd be like if I was scrolling through a football site and not liking football, complaining about how much sports focus this site has. It's a little silly, you know?

But I'm a lot silly, so I continue.

[luna-rainbow]

Hey, I don't know if you've already answered this (and this may be a weird question lol) but why did Hydra just let Bucky's hair grow long? Why didn't they just cut it? I've seen you do other metas and stuff like that (which I love, you're a great writer!) So do you have any ideas?

Aww thanks for enjoying the other metas 💕

That is a very interesting question that I’ve never thought much of 😅

From a Doylist perspective, the Winter Soldier arc was published in 2005-6. Ed Brubaker was born 1966. Men having long hair became more acceptable and even fashionable from about the 1970s (ie Brubaker’s formative years), and that style carried over to the late 1990s (or, if you’re like me who was in the JPop fandom, it was still popular for most of the 2000s). Longer hair in men was generally seen as subversive and cool, or untamed and unkempt, which were descriptors that would have fit Bucky’s reappearance in his new persona. It was also a good way of indicating that time has passed and his character has changed significantly. One other thing is, when it comes to 2D art, long hair flows, ie it’s easier to express dynamism, which is why so many superheroes wear capes. I believe (not having read the actual comics) Bucky’s role changed in The Winter Soldier run from a pure sidekick to something closer to an antagonist and partner, so the more distinctive character design reflects that too.

From a Watsonian perspective…I guess men’s short hair can be somewhat high maintenance in that you kind of have to trim it once a month at least. Who knows if the serum affects the speed of hair growth as well, because if it does then maybe he needs more frequent trims and it just gets long if they miss any. Presumably, given his history, he’s also not an easy customer to approach with a sharp implement, especially not that close to his face. And they’re always in such a hurry to pack him back in the cryo tube or to get him prepped for his mission that it just gets missed until it really gets in the way.

The other possibility is that the longer hair also changes his face shape substantially speaking as someone who didn’t recognise Bucky when the mask came off. It makes his face more angular and the shadows deeper. It probably stops his memories triggering as easily when he sees his own reflection. It serves to erase his original identity, along with his new ���name” (although we have no evidence that he knew he was called the Winter Soldier while he was still brainwashed), new uniform and the bionic arm.

The third reason is that the long unkempt hair could be used as a psychological tactic. It’s emasculating and demeaning, especially for someone born in the 1910s and normally known to be well-groomed and tidy. It’s an element of control over his bodily autonomy that he cannot change without them allowing it or at least giving him access to implements to cut it. It contrasts him with the other soldiers, including the other “Winter Soldiers” we see in CACW, who are allowed to sport typical masculine haircuts, and serves as a continual reminder that he is “other”, if not considered somewhat subhuman.

So that’s my two boring cents. I wonder if anyone else has other ideas.

[ckret2]

So, I know the Doyalistic reason is "don't think too hard about it" and/or "don't count promotional materials as canon," so I figured it's time to ask this fandom's resident Watsonian Explanation Generator.

There is some evidence that Bill doesn't actually need your permission to invade your mind, he just needs the handshake. In the actual show, we mostly see him use trickery to get people to do what he wants, but in materials like "How Not to Draw Stan" he literally crawls his way into position and forces a handshake that way.

So, in the Fearamid, with Ford chained up and completely at his mercy, why do you think he didn't just... take his hand? It wouldn't be hard.

left to my own devices I'm honestly most likely to say yeeeah, unless this somehow is built into lore later on and we get an actual canon "Bill escapes to reality" plot, the How Not to Draw Stan clip is only semi-canon and not a good representation of Bill's actual abilities.

but god, how can i resist a call on my Watsonian Explanation powers? that's like my bat signal.

so okay if we want to finagle a watsonian explanation for Bill forcing a handshake while justifying why he didn't just do that in canon:

maybe the other person doesn't need to AGREE to a handshake; BUT they need to initiate it. Bill can't just grab somebody's hand; they have to move their hand into him. In TBOB Bill says he can invade anything with neurons; maybe (at least for living beings) the neurons in someone's arm need to be actively firing—i.e., if they're moving their own arm—in order to channel Bill from their palm into their brain. Which is why he can't just seize somebody's hand to force a shake.

And notice that throughout the penthouse scene and the torture scene, Ford almost always keeps his hands balled into fists. Sure, you could say that's because he's mad as hell; but you COULD say maybe it's to prevent Bill from putting himself into the path of Ford's arm while he's gesticulating and cheating a handshake.

Now—this """theory""" is thin as hell. But I think it's as good as we're gonna get with the canon we have at hand lmao.

[utilitycaster]

Hi! Because I genuinely do love your take on things and every time I read through them, a new perspective that I had never even considered before makes itself known to me. So, I wanted to ask! Since Twitter (unsurprisingly) already got its hands on this discussion:

What are your feelings on the Mighty Nein being the ones to handle the Weave Mind over Bells Hells? Because for me, I always sort of knew that BH were going to be the ones to defeat Ludinus no matter what. It’s what they’ve been building up for.

However, some people say the M9 aren’t deserving of handling the Weave Mind because that was an antagonist made specifically for the Bells Hells. So, I was interested in seeing your thoughts about this (strange) discussion.

Hi anon, thanks!

I think it's great to have the Nein go after the Weave Mind, and I think, like most takes from the Twitter CR fandom, this is fucking stupid.

Given that Matt is the DM, and he's like "hey, I'm going to have a Trusted NPC call in the Mighty Nein to deal with the Weave Mind" I think the argument that the Weave Mind was made specifically for Bells Hells is not, in fact, true. The Weave Mind is an antagonist who was introduced with Bells Hells' campaign, rather like how Ludinus Da'leth is an antagonist who was introduced with the Mighty Nein's campaign and who has been the nemesis of Beau and Caleb in particular, and yet Bells Hells will be going after him in this scenario (and, to be clear, I think this is fine; I've expected Bells Hells to face off against Ludinus in the end).

I would be interested in understanding if the motivation here is "I wish the Nein were going after Ludinus and Bells Hells were going after the Weave Mind" which I think is far less interesting given that Ludinus has been such a consistent enemy of Bells Hells as well but at least I can puzzle out a not terribly intelligent but consistent sort of logic in it; or if this is a "I wish the past two parties weren't involved in this campaign at all" argument in which case, far too late for that; or if this is someone who specifically doesn't like the Mighty Nein throwing yet another tiresome and embarrassing temper tantrum on Twitter. But my opinion doesn't change; I think it's far more satisfying to see Bells Hells take on Ludinus than the Weave Mind, whom half of them haven't even met.

More generally, the idea of "doesn't deserve to fight the Weave Mind" is stupid on another level. I understand why people talk about which actual play character they wish to get the final blow on a particular enemy, even though dice will ultimately decide this. When it lines up - Vax with Thordak, Yasha with Obann - it's immensely satisfying. But you do not need to be the most wronged person to make meaning of a How Do You Want To Do This (FCG and Otohan being an obvious case here). Technically, the Volition deserves to fight the Weave Mind more! Half of Bells Hells hasn't even encountered the Weave Mind in any capacity! Braius and Dorian haven't been to the moon! Sometimes, you're fighting because it's part of, for example, a three-pronged plan that needs three separate simultaneous strike forces. Bells Hells can't do all three at once despite having claims to each of the targets unless they split up. Would you rather the parties split up in a mix of each? Because I'm not opposed per se but that could get pretty confusing all around. And if we're going to step out of the Watsonian argument that in-world, they can't do all three at once, see my next paragraph to address the Doylist "but Matt didn't need to set it up this way" one.

I am on the record as loathing the whole "it's their table and you can't criticize it because it's their game" bullshit. You can do so. You can do so even if there are very good reasons for their choices. You're always entitled to your own opinion and as long as you're not harassing people, it is morally neutral to say "this piece of fiction/art/whatever didn't do it for me," end of sentence. With that said. It's fine if people wish Campaign 3, like Campaigns 1 and 2, were more exclusively focused on one party's adventures rather than the all-hands-on-deck story that it is. But it is that story, and pretending this wasn't the result of a number of intentional choices by Matt and the cast and various collaborators is profoundly stupid at this point. I had my complaints as well, early on, but the time to get over this was episode 1, when Orym and Fearne and Dorian and Bertrand showed up with their ties to EXU and C1. Or it was episode 6, when Laudna revealed her connection to Delilah. Or episode 35, when that connection to Keyleth was leveraged. Or episode 50, when Beau and Caleb appeared; or Episode 51, when multiple past PCs were present at the solstice; or Episode 66, when we further met with Keyleth; or Episode 86, when Sending came back on and both Caleb and Jester spoke to the party; or Episode 92, when we cut back to the Crown Keepers; or Episode 94, when Essek showed up; or Episode 99, when Downfall began. If you're still holding on hope now in the endgame, I think it's too late. That's not the campaign this is, and it never was, and you can wish that you had something more self-contained like Campaign 1 or 2 but with Bells Hells, but that's all it is - a wish, unfulfilled.

[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.

[ennn]

Thinking back to episode 1, where Agatha/Agnes clearly remembers losing Nicky (e.g. the bedroom scene), but doesn't remember why she hates Rio - even though those two things are so intertwined. Why do you think that is?

Hi Anon, thank you for the ask, and for the interesting observation + question!

I can think of 2 possible (Watsonian) reasons why Agent Rio Vidal isn't connected to Detective Agnes' lost son within the spell — and both can be true at the same time:

Rio popping up was unexpected and the spell — already distorted and stretched as it was — simply didn't have time or the juice to adapt this new character into its current storyline and setting.

It's possible that if things dragged on the spell could have made Agent Vidal somehow responsible for spell!Nicky's demise: What a delicious plot development that'd be for our small-town murder mystery prestige crime genre show!

Agatha does't want to remember why she hates Rio, as evidenced by Rio's follow-up comment: "You're only lying to yourself."

We know that the spell is being influenced by Agatha and what she believes about herself ("Is this really how you see yourself?").

E.g. Detective Agnes reflects how Agatha sees herself as a skilled investigator but also her belief and interest in the darker sides of human nature. Agnes' sad social life also reflects Agatha's own loneliness ("a lady cop cannot be good at her job and have a healthy personal life at the same time").

But I think the spell is also influenced by what Agatha wants to believe. Agnes here, as abrasive as she is, is still part of the community. People turn to her as a trusted expert. She's not shunned or hated the same way Agatha is.

And while Agatha has accepted that Nicky's dead and gone, she's struggling with the need to assign blame or reason for it. She ends up blaming Rio and herself.

And I think on the subconscious level that the spell pulls from, Agatha simply doesn't want to blame Rio.

She still has love and all these feelings for Rio but instead of dealing with what happened with Nicky — with how sometimes death and loss just happens beyond one's control no matter how much we love or how deserved it is — she prefers to run, to lie to herself (she's such a good liar).

It's this same reason why in episode 4, despite all evidence and reason pointing out that Billy isn't Nicky, Agatha embraces Rio and tries to kiss her. Don't get me wrong, Rio's truthful campfire confession definitely played a part too, but I think Agatha's an awfully good liar.

[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.

[rei-ismyname]

Avengers Vs X-Men and the demonisation of Cyclops

Part 1

Avengers Vs X-Men, or AvX, was a Summer crossover event in 2012. The title is pretty self explanatory, but there's a lot more to it than that. It was a bookend of sorts of the Extinction era and a coda for Wanda (and her terrible characterisation) calling back to House of M, narratively undoing the Decimation and exploring Hope's role as the Mutant Messiah.

I believe plenty of the dramatis personae played idiot ball hot potato and acted out of character, especially Steve Rogers. However, I'll primarily be looking at the event through a Watsonian lens, except for discussing the setup and aftermath. Scott Summers struggled against many forces during the Phoenix crisis but I propose the narrative was the most powerful force that opposed him.

Logan is describing himself here, ironically. Scott is quite happy with Emma. He talks a good one about 'keeping the kids out of the fighting' but he's perfectly willing to kill Hope and his students fight constantly.

Wolverine and the Schism

To do a proper analysis of AvX and the central conflict, we need to examine the previous instance of the narrative defeating Scott - the Schism. The salient dynamic to carry forward from it was Logan and Scott falling out - or Logan throwing a hypocritical tantrum - depending on your point of view. Whichever you believe, it's undeniable that Logan resented Scott and managed to enlist a lot of people to follow on his campaign of 'anti-Scott.' He left Utopia and restarted the Xavier School, renaming it The Jean Grey School - both creepy and petty, in my opinion. The narrative and Cyclops' team kept all the genocidal threats away from the school, an editorial hand strengthening Logan's argument. Realistically the school should have been destroyed several times over.

My editorialising aside, Scott and Logan's relationship was not in a good place. They'd mostly kept away from each other, but Logan used his Avengers membership to escalate the Phoenix dilemma and poison the well re: the Avengers' approach to Scott. Aside from vague and fragmented warnings from Nova, Logan was The Avengers only source of information on the Phoenix - and he was heavily biased and objectively wrong. The somewhat one-sided rivalry from Schism had turned into outright animosity - telling 'everyone who'd listen ... that he was crazy.'

Phoenix Rising

The X-Men and Avengers both received confirmation of the Phoenix's arrival, though mutants in general had varying degrees of faith that it would come for Hope Summers specifically. As mentioned, Logan positioned himself as an expert despite Rachel Summers, long time Phoenix host, teaching at his school. Scott absolutely had an agenda, but it was reactive and had good reason to believe that the Phoenix had good intentions. Though even if he didn't, he didn't call the Phoenix to Earth. The bird does as it pleases. He certainly could/should have treated Hope like an adult and asked what she wanted, but at the same time she was a 16 year old in his care.

Scott's approach was to prepare Hope as best he could for the trial to come, admittedly quite harshly. He knew there was no getting away from the Phoenix, it's simply too powerful to evade or fight head on. He also should have consulted Rachel, though he corrected that mistake swiftly once things kicked off. Not only was he married to the Phoenix for quite some time but he's aware it's spent a lot of time on earth at least 6 different hosts and the Earth is doing just fine. Importantly, his time-travelling son had been to many futures where Hope was denied the Phoenix and they were ashes, the Earth a desolate wasteland. In futures where she did host the Phoenix, mutants were reignited. His extensive time travelling had yielded very reliable information in the past, his claim that Hope was the Mutant Messiah is not one Scott just took on faith. Cable is an expert in such things AND he raised Hope from birth.

He also had a personal connection to the Phoenix.

The Avengers' strategy was twofold - taking Hope into protective custody while Iron Man 'worked on a science solution' - and sending their most powerful members to go punch the Phoenix before it got to Earth. Operating off Logan's dubious intel, they packed every Avenger they could find onto a Helicarrier and headed for the mutant island proto nation of Utopia. They also didn't really share that apparently the Phoenix is just a fickle cosmic troll now, allegedly just blowing up planets on a whim. Yes, Dark Phoenix ate a star and genocided a planet, but that was after immense psychological trauma and needless escalation. Even then, it was nearly talked down (by Scott) until Charles Xavier butted in and tried to overpower it. Hopefully he's not arrogant enough to try that again (he is.) Since then, many mutants had hosted the Phoenix and they're all doing fine.

The Avengers had nothing but bad intel, whereas the X-Men had empirical evidence and decades of experience dealing with the Phoenix.

We need to take Hope

Member of the Illuminati's finest diplomacy

Neither man does a great job communicating here, but the onus is on Cap to explain why he's coming to take your granddaughter based on advice from the Stabbing Guy. He presents no plan (they don't have one) and ignores the suggestion that his expert is not an expert. Scott and co were preparing for what has historically been an internal mutant matter when an army arrives on their doorstep telling them how it's going to be. After a failure to reach any sort of middle ground (not that Cap was offering any) Scott responded to Cap's refusal to leave by blasting him non-lethally.

I wasn't asking

All other X-Men are being oddly timid here. Nice title drop, Spider-Man.

'Wants us to look like bullies' says Tony AKA the military industrial complex and founder of the Illuminati. The Avengers get their mandate from the United States and answer to the President and SHIELD, but generally act as they please. Their sense of righteousness is a constant throughout this event and they absolutely act like bullies from start to finish.

Magneto launched Colossus at the Helicarrier (that thing launching at least 12 jets with ~30 powerful superhumans on it) to deny them a force multiplier and press their initiative, though once all Avengers deployed the best they could do was hold the line while Hope was kept safe. The Avengers wanted Hope and the X-Men were determined to protect her.

Remember, dipshit? Stabbing the Phoenix isn't effective. You should know this.

Showing he'd learnt nothing from Jean Grey, any other Phoenix experiences, House of M, decades of knowing Rachel Summers, etc - and in a stunning act of hypocrisy - Logan snuck away from the fight to kill Hope. She manifested Phoenix powers (way before it reached Earth) and burnt him to a crisp. Spooked by the situation and guilty people were fighting over her, Hope fled and successfully sent everyone on a wild goose chase trying to find her.

While both teams were scrambling and pummeling each other, Hope found Logan and proposed a bipartisan plan - they'd travel to the moon and Hope would accept the Phoenix. If she could handle it, great. If not, she'd willingly let Logan kill her. The agreement was to keep the others out of it - she wanted agency over her life and didn't want brawling superhumans ruining her zen. Logan betrayed her and told the Avengers, of course.

Iron Man's genius science solution

The X-Men and Avengers arrived and really ruined the mood. Logan was straight up trying to kill Scott. Just as Hope was about to host the Phoenix, Tony fucking Stark displayed the Avengers' complete lack of Phoenix experience and his own personal arrogance by activating that Transformers-looking thing up there. Everyone held their breath while he shot it with a big gun and something unexpected happened.

Out of Hope

Unsurprisingly this unexpected happening was an utter disaster, splitting the Phoenix into five pieces that ended up in Piotr, Emma Frost, Namor, Ilyana, Scott (or P.E.N.I.S if you're puerile like me.) The Phoenix Five were born against their consent and now The Avengers had 5 problems to deal with instead of one. In terms of culpability it's important to recognise that none of the P5 planned for this or wanted it - The Avengers and especially Tony bullied their way into this situation. Unfortunately, The Phoenix is kinda like the mafia - once you're in you can't leave, so the P5 are stuck with the results of the Avengers' non-plan. In fact, everyone is stuck with the fruit of their arrogance and The Avengers especially do not like the bitter taste. As they're still making demands of them, the X-Men regroup to process what happened. They eventually reach consensus on how to proceed, and the Avengers antagonise them every step of the way. They're convinced that this means the Earth is doomed, and blame the P5 and especially Scott for being there when Tony tried to kill a cosmic fundamental force of creation.

Sure, they're talking like lunatics, kinda. Maybe like people unexpectedly possessed by a godlike being? Completely ignoring who caused this and forgetting how possession works, Cap doubles down on 'we're right and you're wrong.' The P5 are villains now, you can tell because they want to take Hope to help her 🙄.

In part 2, The Phoenix Five explore benevolent uses of cosmic power and the Avengers keep acting like paranoid control freaks. The whole world has to decide how they feel about that, and opinions are mixed.

[stoplookingup]

Umbrella Academy S4 reaction (spoilers)

I'm a little surprised how negative the reaction to S4 has been. It's flawed and a bit too loose, sure, but I think there's a thematic arc, to do with the painful but redemptive potential of selfless love, that a lot of people didn't recognize, or didn't like, possibly because it's too sentimental, or too tragic, or both.

In particular, I have a really different take on That Relationship. You know the one I mean.

But before I get to that, I just want to address the issue of unexplained plot points, of which there are certainly many.

Short version: Just let it go.

Long version: Comic-book storytelling is all about the impossible premise, the unlikely twist, the overblown threat, the arbitrary race against the clock, the catastrophic non-ending. A big part of TUA's appeal is that it takes that formula to an absurd extreme, unwinding a plot so convoluted and horrifying as to be comedic, then offering a resolution that raises more questions than it answers, and that seems final -- but is it ever? There could always be more. Even now. Because reasons.

But scratch the surface, and it's really all about the over-the-top super(anti)heroes who are surprisingly endearing, nuanced and tragic, whom the audience roots for despite a million reasons not to. Would S4 have benefitted from a few more episodes? No doubt, mostly to give each character their due (Klaus, my Klaus, you deserve more!), and to let the story breathe a bit. The plot probably wouldn't have made any more sense anyway. But c'mon, did it ever, really? So, why a subway? Why a squid? Why a diner? Does it really matter?

On to That Relationship, the much-criticized story of Lila/Five (aka Live -- can I copyright this?). This comically trope-laden ship (forbidden love, montage love, love triangle, enemies-to-lovers, pocket universe, happily-ever-after, etc) fits right into TUA sensibility. Despite being a bit underbaked, it's moving. The actors play it well, and in dropping their characters' armor, you realize how much armor they're usually wearing, how hard they're always working to cover their feelings. Out of all the characters, seeing these two having real emotions is most devastating, especially with each other. It's because this pairing is wildly unlikely that it hits.

Lila and Five have similar histories as traumatized, sensitive souls turned cold, cruel killing machines. They're smarter, more cynical, and stronger-willed than everyone around them. And they are clearly starved of love and desperate for connection. (Everyone on this show pays a price, but I find Five's terrible loneliness the most heartbreaking of all.) So then fate throws them together in a way that makes it inevitable they'll form an attachment, only to then demand of them the ultimate sacrifice. Their surprisingly quiet, life-affirming, Guinevere-and-Lancelot love is redemptive, in contrast with the meddling, selfish, and/or destructive love of others: Reginald and Abigail, Ben and Jennifer, Gene and Jean. Live aren't an unnecessary digression, they're central to the thematic development of the story. Sacrifice saves the world, but without love, there is no sacrifice.

And yes, I absolutely think Lila loves Five to the end. And while I appreciate that some might find the age difference between the actors off-putting, I don't think there was anything inappropriate on a Doylist level, and it all makes perfect sense on a Watsonian level.

Also:

Aidan Gallagher and Ritu Arya are extraordinary;

the use of Baby Shark is genius;

Diego, Luther and Allison have been the least interesting characters from the start, and S4 does nothing to change that;

Viktor needs a sense of humor;

I love that alternate universes are all the rage these days (so many great tropes started with Trek), but tbh Loki does it better;

as visual representations of the space between realities, I love both the Loki automat and the UA subway, but at some point, using recent-past retro design to signal liminal space is going to get old, which, come to think of it, will be deliciously ironic.