#but there's no cohesive context that makes sense

[jackiefour]

Y'all ever read a post on here and seriously wonder if the op doesn't speak your language as a first language or if you're having a stroke?

[shreddeddescent]

grumbling cuz i drafted the next chapter but hate the one after and then realized i think i need to write a new one for after that because i got bored and did a time jump for myself but im obviously missing something HHHHHHHHHH this was cool when it was for me but now im showing YOU idiots........... sighs.

[postmakerkiwi]

🌈 Zephyr's Forest Floor - Huts Under Siege 💣

Look out!!! Sorry, but Zephyr's a bit busy right now, what with all these... birds. Just stay put for now; once that little dragon clears out the village, you can start heading out to the portal to Autumn Plains.

photos by CatbatQuartet

[dirkxcaliborn]

ough I quite liked Motomi's route actually

[bitchthefuck1]

Have you not considered that if they do the impact of it has already been completely shattered by the fact that they've already established that they see each other as brothers and also Kaz and Jesper's relationship is completely different in the show so including this scene would feel really unnatural??

Okay but do you see how Jesper saying they're like brothers and Kaz saying yes doesn't have nearly the same level of drama as Kaz accidentally calling him his dead brother's name in an argument that ends with them trying to beat the shit out of each other

[thewatcher727]

Writing Tip - Portraying Characters Out Of Character

More writing tips

One of the most common criticisms in writing is when an established character is portrayed in a way that seems inconsistent with their usual traits or undergoes a sudden change in personality. The question is, is it wrong to want to write an established character in a different way?

My answer is that it’s fine if there is a plausible reason for it. For example, if John, who was previously a badass military guy, suddenly becomes a soft, joking character in a sequel, it’s going to make people wonder why his personality did a 180. The key to making a different portrayal plausible is through story and context. To explain this, I will use the video game Batman: Arkham Origins as an example.

We were first introduced to Arkham Batman in Batman: Arkham Asylum, which takes place during Bruce Wayne’s 11th year as Batman. In that game, Batman is portrayed as an experienced, highly skilled vigilante who is in complete control of his emotions. He never acts out when a situation goes wrong; instead, he calculates and plans his next move. Even though we see a few instances where he still carries the trauma of his childhood, his willpower is shown to be incredible. There are even rare moments when he makes jokes with Oracle. All in all, you get the sense this is a guy who knows what he’s doing.

Now let’s cut to Batman: Arkham Origins. This game is a prequel that takes place during Bruce’s second year as Batman. In this game, his personality is quite different, out of character so to speak. He is younger, angrier, and inexperienced. The game does an excellent job portraying how flawed Batman is through the small details. His fighting style is more raw and less polished compared to his later years. His suit looks bulkier and more thrown together rather than a single, cohesive design. We see him make mistakes when dealing with criminals. For example, in one cutscene, Batman is interrogating a guy named Loose Lips. As he holds Loose Lips up by the throat with one hand, he adjusts his footing and then chokes Loose Lips too hard, knocking him out. Batman acknowledges this by muttering, “Damn.” He is also very arrogant, underestimating the assassins that are out to get him and frequently telling Alfred he doesn’t need allies, determined to be a one-man army.

So, why do I consider this different portrayal good? The reason is that it fits the story they are trying to tell. Given the significant time gap between Origins and Asylum, it stands to reason that Batman would undergo some personality changes. The game provides an opportunity to show how Batman evolved from a young, reckless individual to the seasoned warrior we know later.

One of the best scenes is when, after nearly losing Alfred to Bane, Batman begins to doubt himself and considers giving up. Alfred, who finally understands why Bruce does what he does as Batman, encourages him to continue and let allies help him. Near the end, we see him working with James Gordon, hinting at how their relationship began to improve by the time of Asylum. We also see Batman working with Barbara to destroy Penguin’s weapons. This not only adds depth to Batman’s character, showing his capacity for growth and change, but it also sets up his future collaborations with characters like Oracle, Robin, and Nightwing. This development makes his later, more balanced and cooperative approach in Asylum and subsequent games feel earned and believable.

All in all, portraying a character out of character can be compelling if it aligns with the story and provides a logical progression. Batman’s arc in Arkham Origins shows he was flawed and needed to accept that he was not alone in his mission. Proper context and development are crucial in making these changes believable.

So, if you’re considering writing someone in a different way, keep this in mind and you’ll be good to go!

[dunmeshistash]

G'day, I hope you are doing well.

Ever since I finished the story of Dungeon Meshi (all supplementary material included) I've been writing down bullet points on characters in addition to in-depth synopses as a way to tidy up my rather busy mind. To this end I've also greatly enjoyed reading other folks' interpretations of particular characters, as it gives me further insight into aspects of that character I may have glossed over.

However, there's one character I'm struggling to write a cohesive synopsis about, that being none other than 'miss enigma' herself, Falin Touden. I get that her whole shtick is that she's kind of a mystery, but I find myself drawing a lot of blanks when it comes to her as a character, and while I have nailed down some important bullet points, there are a lot of different interpretations on her, all of which starkly contrast one another. Though perhaps it's just the wording. Hard to say.

It could very well be that I'm being too dense i.e. perceiving "Falin is willing to risk killing others to save her friends." and "Falin, in the heat of the moment, when faced with certain death, was willing to face the prospect of harming potential passersby in a final Hail Mary to get her friends to safety." as entirely different observations. I have a hard time with those kinds of things.

With this being a hub for all sorts of observations, interpretations and cool trivia, I was wondering if you'd perhaps be willing to share how you yourself perceive Falin as a character, so I can compare notes and perhaps gain a more proper understanding of her as a character as a result. I know this question is very broad and kind of vague, but if you could spare the time I'd be most grateful.

Other than that, I wish you an excellent day.

Hello!!! I love Falin!!!!!

She *is* a mystery, we mostly know Falin through the perception other characters have of her instead of a direct deep look onto who she is, which I find very interesting. I think the best post I've seen about her (which as usual I can't remember where edit: someone linked it thank uu) I think called her perceived altruism/love "selfish" and I've been thinking about that ever since.

In that sense the way she cares so much about the comfort of people around her might be a way to keep *her own* comfort because she doesn't want to see other people suffer.

This girly died and came back to life from bones and the first thoughts she has is that she caused trouble for her loved ones

She probably has felt this way since she was a child, "because of her" that her family was torn apart "because of her" that Laios left, her mom was sick, her father had to send her away. (wasn't actually her fault but she might think it is)

I imagine ever since then Falin has done her best to not cause trouble and to make the people she loves happy, everything we know about her and the things she was doing was always for the people she loved, that's why I enjoy the post canon comic where Toshiro asks her hand in marriage again so much. The first time she considers accepting just because "might as well" while for the second time she finally wants to live for herself.

I think Falin herself has lost who she "really is" by trying to accommodate everyone around her and that's probably part of why we ourselves don't really know her, so much so that the most cynical character is uncomfortable around her (probably cause he notices Falin is "hiding" something)

I think Falin is quite the melancholic character to be honest, someone who has lost herself in self sacrifice and who is only now learning how to live for herself doing what she wants.

Both the teleportation scene and the bit about healing show "cracks" in the selfless front she puts out tbh. By context I don't think what she did was only due to "desperation of the moment" she says out loud "Even if I end up hurting others I want you and my brother to live on". She weighted out how much suffering she might cause and decided she wanted to save them anyway, and I'm sure in that calculation she knew that they would suffer because of her sacrifice too.

Falin is saving them for herself, I'm not great with words so this is all over the place and maybe sounds a little negative about Falin but the thing is, you cannot live your life for other people, you can't sacrifice yourself for other people's happiness, you shouldn't erase your own presence so others are happier and I think Falin is starting to learn that by the end.

I'd probably keep rambling without getting anywhere and missing a lot of more meaningful moments but I'll stop here, if anyone has recs for Falin analysis please share!

[literaryvein-reblogs]

What are your thoughts on names in general? Be it names of a place, a character, a thing, etc....

How would you name a character?

How to Name Your Characters

Some authors have an easy time concocting a new character for their stories, but they have a harder time generating new names to give such a character. Here are some writing tips to get your creative juices flowing, help you source different names, and make sure each name fits with the character you’ve created:

Consult the phone book. Grab a random name from the phone book to get yourself started. Then feel free to tweak the real name you find to make it better match your character’s personality. Did you pull up the name Vickie Malone? If you’re developing a character proud of her social status, why not change the name to Vivien Malone?

Grab a baby name book. Baby name books can be found in bookstores, libraries, and online. If they’re good enough for naming a real-life family member, surely they can be good enough for fiction writers seeking the perfect male or female names.

Use a random name generator. The internet is full of character name generator websites. A simple search will bring up a slew of these and get you on your way to choosing a useful list of names to pick from. You can even use a specialized name generator, like a fantasy name generator, to help you pick a genre-appropriate unusual name.

Pay homage to famous names from a book or movie. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, so if you want to pay your respect to a bestselling author or screenwriter, find a way to incorporate part of one of their best character names into your own work. This particularly works if you’re writing in the same genre—such as science fiction or superhero comics—as the author to whom you’re paying homage. You can even name a character after an author.

Make use of root meanings. A name meaning can derive from its cultural roots—including Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, or any cultural background. If you research the ancient meanings of certain names, you might be able to seed ideas about your characters in readers’ heads. For instance, the Welsh god of the sea is named Dylan, so this might be a good character name for a mariner. The word linda means “beautiful” in Spanish, so it may be apt to name a gorgeous female character Linda.

Don’t get hung up on finding the perfect name. Ultimately, audiences care far more about a character’s arc and three-dimensionality than their specific name. If you audition different names but find you’re unable to find one you truly like, insert a placeholder and keep writing. You can come back later and brainstorm similar names, or you can just let the placeholder become the final name for your character. At the end of the day, that name choice will not save or sink your manuscript; it will be a small part of a cohesive whole product.

Characteristics of a Good Character Name

There is no fixed formula for giving your characters a great name, but a memorable and interesting name will tend to have the following qualities:

It makes sense in context. A good character name is appropriate for the location and time period of your novel, short story, play, movie, or TV show.

It fits with the genre of your piece. For instance, the name Darth Vader might be the perfect name for a sci-fi villain, but would not fit a real-life drama set in rural Nebraska.

It is unique. Try to avoid evoking popular names from other works of fiction. Note, however, that some authors select similar names for effect, the way that George R.R. Martin’s Samwell Tarley seems to intentionally evoke the fantasy name Samwise Gamgee from J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. Even Martin’s own name, with its double initials, seems to pay homage to Tolkien.

It is appropriate for a character’s role in the narrative. The audience may be able to surmise a certain type of character by simply reading or hearing their name. Shakespeare was a master of this, assigning whimsical sounding names to jesters (i.e. Sir Toby Belch in Twelfth Night), unique singular names for a main character (i.e. Hamlet, Othello, and Prospero), and common names to common characters (i.e. John Bottom and Francis Flute in A Midsummer Night’s Dream).

It’s memorable without being distracting. Readers of Vladimir Nabakov’s Lolita could behold the unusual name of Humbert Humbert and know that they were dealing with a less-than-trustworthy character, yet Mr. Humbert’s odd name does not provide such distraction that a reader cannot focus on plot, backstory, and character development.

The Importance of Character Names

Character name meaning varies from text to text.

Some novelists imbue a name with symbolic meaning that indicates a particular type of character.

The 19th century American writer Nathaniel Hawthorne was known to use names to foreshadow character traits.

Examples: the foolish, hypocritical Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale in The Scarlet Letter and the titular character from the short story Young Goodman Brown, who represents a Puritanical mindset emblematic of a particular time period.

Other authors give less heed to symbolism when selecting the right name, but they nonetheless use names to offer clues about a character’s social status, nationality, and family heritage.

In his epic novel War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy used character naming to differentiate between different classes of people within Russia’s complicated semi-caste system, from simple peasants to the aristocracy to military leaders.

Source ⚜ More: Writing Notes & References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

Found this article that put it into words better than I can. Choosing the right names of places, characters, and even things in your story serve so many important purposes for worldbuilding, development of plot & characters... Ideally, we want something that would stick with the readers, and fits well with the story as a whole. You could look back on classic literature/films, or your favourite pieces of media, and you'll likely find that names of characters and places are well chosen, and usually are memorable or even "catchy". We could always learn a lot from the classics and our favourite authors. Also, some writers find using templates helpful, here's one you could try: Naming your Character Worksheet

[shadelorde]

random dragon prince post but the posts saying that Aaravos made up the whole story about Leola is really aggravating to me - not just from a character standpoint, but a cinematic and writing technique standpoint too.

First - from a cinematic standpoint, shows generally do not show detailed flashbacks to support a story if a character is lying. There might be certain pieces missing that another character would fill in later, but the entire story is not a lie. There would not be another cinematic scene to support it.

Second - the writers would not take most of an episode to explain this story if it were a complete lie. It would be a total waste of production time and run time just to throw it away later on. They could spend that time developing another plot line or character arc but they chose to dedicate it to Aaravos. They chose to dedicate it to the context behind his actions.

Third - this episode is meant to explain much of Aaravos’s motivations. This is something that the previous seasons have all built up to, and it makes complete sense to place it at the end of the sixth season “stars” before the seventh season “dark”. This sets up a huge chunk of the premise of the next season and the final conflict. It also is cohesive and coherent with the theme of the show as it talks about cycles of trauma and violence and how institutional violence is extremely harmful and causes so many of these cycles.

There is just no reason, on a writing craftsmanship level, for Aaravos to be flat-out lying.

[magiturge]

I'm now curious what and/or who has the most cool factor in Hank's opinion (aside from itself, of course)

-💻🌌

it's.. kind of varied. i got tired of writing by hand so please look under the cut for context, i talked about in a previous post a headcanon that hank feels no physical attraction to anyone in the sense of thinking someone is "hot" "pretty" "sexy" but views appearance in a lens of how cool it is / cool factor. it does not vocalize this unless there's nothing else to talk about while also not super focused on something else.

for deimos : deimos's style isn't exactly something hank would wear but it can respect the craftsmanship that was put into the outfit. ( i.e. drawings on shoes, keychains on backpack ) he does think his outfit is kind of cool but just wouldn't wear it. the cigarette is cool.. aesthetically / visually but in practice with how much deimos hacks and coughs, it gets a bit lame and displeasing.

for doc : thinks that whatever doc is wearing is fitting for him, he would wear the style as casual wear but not as full on / main outfit. it fits for the purpose of doc being someone who lays low and doesnt get involved in missions as much as hank does. hank thinks doc does look a bit cool with the mohawk but thinks doc being bald is kind of funny. not really cool, but funny and fitting.

for sanford : overwhelmingly neutral. hank thinks it's a pretty plain outfit, that sanford could do more with it but it's fitting nonetheless. sanford doesn't need to change but it would be nice if he could add a little something to it. he thinks sanford's back tattoo is cool though.

for jeb : very.. very tacky. leaning into savior image way too much. to hank it's like a mish mash of elements that could work together but jeb is not wearing it properly. he thinks it fits jeb but because it fits doesnt mean it thinks its cool. thinks his sunglasses are stupid.

for tricky : thinks her style is kind of weird but it is consistent and fitting. it's weird but kind of cool, it's sort of like jeb in the sense that it is a mish mash of elements but they seem more cohesive and lean into each other more.

for phobos : looks stupid. very stupid. his opinion is offset by how much it saw of phobos's statues in nexus city, already got the feeling that this guy was full of himself. he thinks the red cape is tacky and stupid, similar to jeb in theres elements that could work but it's executed poorly. low on the cool.

for auditor : thinks they have potential but are wasting it. likes the black and red color combination.. for obvious reasons. they have a lot of potential being someone who shapeshifts and can look like they have flames coming off of them but thinks that auditor is wasting their potential / putting presentation in the wrong areas. makes themselves look lame. summoning swords out of nowhere is COOL but they carry themselves poorly.

for sheriff : doing too much in the sense of wearing way too much. opinion is offset because fighting with him is really annoying so it dislikes the outfit for different reasons but in a vaccuum, it's too much. likes his leather chaps, would wear them if he found a pair that fit.

[lurkingshan]

My mind has been spinning and spinning around episodes 3 and 4, and I have so many feelings about them that I have been struggling to decide what I want to write about. One of @bengiyo's questions is about the different feel of this part of the story in the transition from page to screen, including the overall kdramafication effect, and I felt that most keenly where Hyung was concerned.

Let's start with the obvious: Hyung is not supposed to be this young and hot. But then, Young is not supposed to look like Nam Yoon Su, so I guess we can let that one go. More than that, though, I think episode 3 went out of its way to make Yeong Su a more appealing love interest than he ever seemed to be in the novel, and that had a clear purpose: to make the comedown in episode 4 so much worse.

Episode 3 used the familiar trappings of romance dramas to help us understand why Go Yeong was so drawn to this man despite some of his rough edges. They had interesting dates with good conversations. They shared an umbrella in the rain. They kissed sexily outside. They danced together in Yeong Su's (much nicer than described in the book) apartment. I may or may not have actually said OH MY GOD out loud when they were moving together to that old song; it was intoxicating in exactly the way early attraction is. Instead of viewing Hyung through the bitter recollections of Young's memory already knowing he's a bastard, we experienced him the way Go Yeong did when he was first catching his interest, and it was easy to see why he would latch onto this man as a balm and a distraction while he was going through a very hard time with his mother's illness.

Which means it hurt so much worse when Go Yeong emerged from that initial haze in episode 4 and realized who Yeong Su really was. He got a hard look at the deep internalized homophobia Yeong Su was carrying and projecting onto him, and it was not pleasant, nor was the way it echoed across his experiences with his mother.

Another interesting change made in the adaptation was to increase the severity of Hyung's crime; where in the novel he only searched and read articles on the evils of homosexuality, in the show he wrote the damn article while Go Yeong slept in his bed. A much larger betrayal and blow for Young. And this makes sense for the screen version, IMO; the romance is deeper and therefore so must be the fracture. Everything is just a bit bigger and more dramatic to amplify the themes of the story and to help the audience understand why this might drive Go Yeong to such a low moment without the benefit of his internal monologue to connect all the dots.

I was reflecting on these changes and how they affected the tone when I read @solitaryandwandering's thoughts, because I was intrigued by her reception of these episodes as darker, where for me, with the (much) more depressing novel version in my head, they felt lighter than expected. Which is kind of a wild thing to say about a section of the story that includes Young's suicide attempt, but context is everything! The T-aras, of course, also contribute to how different this section feels. In the book, Young is presented as so isolated and alone with this relationship, but in the show he has friends who know and care and try to help and show up for him in his low moment to make sure he is not alone. It makes such a difference to the bleakness of it all, and also makes the story feel more cohesive across the different parts in a way the book intentionally does not.

I think ultimately the adaptation choices made here were smart, and I continue to be impressed with how thoughtful Sang Young Park has been with his different visions for his story in each medium.

[vidavalor]

Hi! I'm not 100% sure if this has already been asked or not, I quickly checked your masterlist but I didn't read everything but I was just thinking about Crowley's "We've been talking for millions of years!" When Nina and Maggie told him they should properly talk. And how it doesn't seem to fit with his "How long have we been friends? 6000 years!" To Azi in season 1.

I know you-know-who said that time was different Before The Beginning but in that scene, Aziraphale also mentions "All this will be shut down in about 6000 years." And that moment genuinely seems to be their first time of meeting each other. And if it wasn't, had they been talking to each other without knowing each other's name?

So I wanted to know your opinion on it (and I hope this makes sense).

Hi there, @flerken-is-not-a-cat! 💕 Hope you're having a good week so far. Oh, yeah, I have ideas that can make sense of the interesting contradictions about which you're asking. 😉 Flattered you asked & happy to share an opinion. There's chocolate cake, if you'd like some? *gets the plates and puts on the coffee*

How have Crowley & Aziraphale been talking for "millions of years"... and also only been "friends" for "six thousand years"?

As usual, we're taking a slightly scenic route to get there so if you're also in the mood for related stuff about Crowley's complicated relationship with being a snake-- and if you can pull your eyes past the hypnotic wriggles of the above gif-- you'll probably extra enjoy this one. 🐍

TWs: brief, non-descriptive mentions of abuse (Crowley & Nina as abuse survivors) & suicide ideation (Aziraphale's worry for Crowley in 1862).

There are really two questions we'd have to answer in order to be able to make sense of the topics in your ask:

Why are we shown in several scenes that Crowley and Aziraphale both consider Eden when they first met when we know from 2.01's Before the Beginning scene that they actually met prior to Crowley's fall, and...

If every other scene-- including the "How long have we been friends? Six thousand years!" in The Bandstand Scene-- show them acting as if they've been only talking for just over six millennia, then what does Crowley mean in 2.06 when he tells Maggie and Nina that he and Aziraphale have been talking for "millions of years"?

As you pointed out in your ask, we know that Crowley and Aziraphale met prior to Crowley's fall and started the universe together but we also know that Crowley and Aziraphale both refer to the start of their relationship as if they first met as S1 initially led us to believe that they did-- in The Garden of Eden, just over six thousand years ago.

Why?

Likely, for three, interconnected reasons...

One is that, while they both know that they met prior to Eden, it's unclear if Crowley remembers that first meeting.

Based on how he was empathizing with Gabriel's fragmented flashes of memory in S2, Crowley's memory is also like this. That is what he's telling Gabriel when he talks about how he knows what it is to look "where the furniture isn't."

If you use Gabriel's memories and how they're presented to the audience in S2 as an example of this, it's easy to see how scary and frustrating this would be for not only Gabriel and Crowley but for the other angels and demons who have had their memories messed with.

That moment when Gabriel gets his memories back and we see them with him gives both the character of Gabriel and the audience all the needed context to understand what he had been saying to Crowley in the scene in the gif above earlier. Between the Ineffable Bureaucracy flashback and what Crowley sees in Heaven of Gabriel's trial, the disconnected, context-less snippets that Gabriel could remember-- the matchbox, the "institutional problem", etc..-- come together into a cohesive narrative that makes total sense to us and, thankfully, also Gabriel, who can be more at peace since getting his memories back.

Crowley really hasn't had this experience with his memories in this way. His memory from prior to his fall is still very fragmented and he is shown in his interactions with Beez about The Book of Life to not really trust himself on his own memories when he goes from being sure he remembered it correctly to defaulting to Beez on the topic. The reason why he's so unsure about his memories is because he has so many holes in his memory that he cannot feel like he can fully trust it because, for all he knows, he could remember one thing but then still be forgetting another thing which would completely change the context of the first thing.

It might be that Crowley does remember Before the Beginning but it also might be that he can only remember a snippet or two of it. He also might not remember any of it at all. We don't know.

It's also possible that he didn't initially remember any of it and then has since been able to recall maybe at least some of it. His interactions with Gabriel and Beez in S2 are basically saying that Crowley has been able to recall some things from prior to his fall but the implication of these scenes is also that attempting to recall pre-fall memories has been a very painful, very difficult process for Crowley.

It's not a process that honestly seems like it's been wildly successful for him. He has had some recall but nowhere near the instant zap of his memory back like Gabriel had with The Fly. I think we all can agree that Crowley has probably tortured himself half to death trying to remember Before the Beginning but whether or not he's been fully or partially successful so far is unknown.

So, the point is that Crowley's fall impacted his ability to recall Before the Beginning and it's not totally clear what, if any of it, he remembers. It likely isn't a full, shared memory between Crowley and Aziraphale, which would relate it to sadness and to Crowley's fall more than really make Before the Beginning be about the two of them. In this way, if they say they met beginning from when they both can remember doing so in Eden, then they have the memory of that as part of the shared history between them.

Additionally, there is the other way that Crowley's fall makes Before the Beginning a potentially complicated time to consider their first meeting and that's because of what we learn in S2 through the stories of Muriel and Gabriel about the memory threat to angels.

In S2, it becomes apparent that Heaven will also take the memory of angels that they don't necessarily then cast to Hell. This tells us that not only is there the problem of Crowley's ability to recall Before the Beginning but that, hanging over Crowley and Aziraphale, there has always been the possibility of Aziraphale's memories being taken by Heaven.

Right now, the implication in the story is that Aziraphale is carrying the full memory of Before the Beginning for both of them. We've seen evidence that Crowley and Aziraphale are doing things to try to circumvent what they can of the effect of memory loss for Aziraphale, in the event that it should ever happen, but the threat of it has been something they've had to consider all along.

If Crowley indeed cannot remember anything or much of anything about Before the Beginning and if Aziraphale were then to lose his memories, their first meeting in the stars would be lost to them entirely.

It could be that one of the reasons why they decided to make Eden when they consider they met is that it's after Crowley's fall and he would remember it so, in the event that Aziraphale's memories were ever taken from him, Crowley would be still able to tell him how they met. It's a way of trying to be in control of their own story together and make it so that they can still have a memory of a first meeting between them, even if it's not technically the very first time they met.

These reasons, while important, are likely not the top reason why they choose to recognize Eden as the first time they met, though-- at least not from Aziraphale's point of view. There's one more reason why that I can think of...

While it's abundantly obvious that Aziraphale had a massive crush on Angel!Crowley, it's even far more abundantly obvious that the person Aziraphale is in love with is the one who has been his best friend for the last six thousand years.

It's the demon that he met in The Garden of Eden.

It is very important to Aziraphale to stress that he feels that way to Crowley and one of the ways that he does is to say that their love story began when they met after Crowley's fall.

Yes, Aziraphale found Crowley attractive as an angel, too, but the eyes that angel looked into and fell in love with are Crowley's pair of vavoomy, yellow, serpentine ones. Aziraphale liked Angel!Crowley but he's fallen in love with the demon Crowley. Yes, it's all the same person... but it's also not all the same person. Aziraphale recognizing that is a way of making Crowley feel seen and loved.

By never missing an opportunity to show or tell Crowley how much he loves aspects of him that are related to Crowley being a demon-- like how frequently he likes to show and tell Crowley how much those eyes of his undo him-- Aziraphale is emphasizing that he loves Crowley as Crowley is.

We are shown that Crowley has a complicated relationship with being a snake that is metaphorical for a lot of the abuse he's suffered as a result of his fall and Satan. People can heal from trauma but they cannot reverse the fact that they've suffered it. Surviving it is something that never ends and it involves a lot of reclamation of the self. Some of this is shown a lot in Crowley's story through his struggles with his identity, such as in his forming new ones to counteract different aspects of being Crawley and a snake, which he associates with forced subjugation.

Since becoming a snake was forced upon him, it's symbolic of understandable struggle to adjust to becoming the survivor he never asked to have to become.

He rejects the name that came with it, eventually throwing over the "bit too squirming at your feet-ish" Crawly for Crowley, inspired by hiding himself in plain sight a la he did with Job's goats and being not a snake but a crow who flies free and serves no master. It's a name only Aziraphale really understands, showing how Aziraphale has been there and supportive throughout Crowley's on-going process.

Rejecting the old sense of self that is associated with abuse and weakness can be an empowering thing but even more so is getting to a state of acceptance that involves finding a sense of strength in what you've survived and incorporating that as part of your self-definition.

That's why Crowley and Aziraphale both frame it with the truth that is that Crowley isn't just a snake... Crowley is the damn snake.

He's The Serpent of Eden.

Being The Serpent is kind of the ultimate reclamation of self for Crowley because it's taking this thing of being a snake that was forced upon him that changed him, inside and out, forever, and that is tied up with-- and metaphorical for-- all the other abuse that did the same, and owning the hell out of it.

They made him a snake and his fuck you is to own the fact that he then became the most powerful, legendary, and impactful snake of all fucking time. The Serpent does not squirm at anyone's feet. He freed mankind. He is unbreakable, and made stronger for having survived.

So, Aziraphale is all about supporting that and it helps that he's genuinely into it to a rather obviously high degree. 😂 Our angel has a *tries to count* idk, like, ten different scenes canonical kink for The Serpent's eyes-- and it's hardly the only serpentine thing they've got going on...

The point is that they didn't meet Before the Beginning because Angel!Crowley isn't Aziraphale's partner-- that black-clad survivor known as the demon Crowley is.

They're all the same person but they're also not. There is still plenty of Angel!Crowley that lives in Demon!Crowley but Demon!Crowley is also someone who has seen a great deal of pain and loving him means acknowledging that. Aziraphale is loving him well, and in a very trauma-informed way, by having their story begin with when he truly met that Crowley in Eden.

Ok, great, you're probably saying-- makes sense that they see it as having been the last six thousand years since Eden, but... then what about Crowley saying "millions of years" to Maggie and Nina?

So, the funny part here, imho, is that it's only really because of Crowley and Aziraphale being quasi-immortal beings who existed prior to the creation of Earth that we're even debating the possibility that Crowley meant "millions of years" literally. There are two layers to what Crowley is saying in that scene but the surface layer of it, imho, is just that he's simply exaggerating.

He's using "millions of years" in the same way that I said to my friend the other day that I was pretty sure I had read a book by the author we were discussing "a million years ago" but I couldn't remember exactly when. Although I have long been suspected of being a supernatural being, I can assure you that I am not millions of years old and so meant that figuratively. I'm sure that Crowley did, too, and that's also how Maggie and Nina took it-- as was Crowley's intention.

But, since Crowley and Aziraphale are quasi-immortal supernatural beings... let's look at whether or not Crowley saying "millions of years" is a possible thing, based on what we currently know.

Like you mentioned in your ask, Aziraphale mentions the concept of years in Before the Beginning when he says that the plan is to shut Earth down again "in about six thousand years." Crowley also mentioned years when he said how long his stars would need to bake. The concept of a year wasn't unfamiliar to either of them in Before the Beginning. Time seems to have been measured by Heaven in years at this point.

There is a joke about the concept of time, though-- Crowley saying he's been waiting to start his stars "since, well, always"-- but that might actually just be saying that Crowley's literally done not much else since he came into existence but work on these stars. We don't know how long that took. Part of that is because we don't actually know when or how it all began-- and neither, it would appear, do the angels. We have no idea how long any of the angels were around before the Before the Beginning scene.

Like you mentioned, Before the Beginning does seem like the first time they met. I think it's meant to satisfy the itch for a glimpse of Angel!Crowley and also to bookend a season that ends with Aziraphale falling. Between the opening scene leading to Crowley's fall and the final one that is doing the same with Aziraphale's are stories related to both. In each one, Hell orbits closer-- Aziraphale's first pass with feeling like he would fall in the Job minisode; Hell stalking and nearly capturing them in 1941; Crowley being dragged to Hell practically out of Aziraphale's arms in 1827.

Do I think there's some aspects of Before the Beginning that, if you wanted to squint a bit, you could theorize that it's maybe not really the very first time they've met? I mean... yeah but only because once they established in the show that angels' memories can be zapped by Heaven whenever, they made it theoretically possible that Before the Beginning wasn't the first time Crowley and Aziraphale met.

Is Aziraphale re-introducing himself to a memory-wiped Crowley? Was Aziraphale actually like Muriel and had a whole other identity that Crowley had met before but then showed up like it was the first time and said "I'm Aziraphale"? All would make fun fanfic and are theoretically possible but I'm not sure it's entirely what we're supposed to take away from the scene.

I'm fairly sure we're meant to see Before the Beginning as the very first time Crowley and Aziraphale ever met. Even if they had considered maybe playing with that canonically in S3-- and I don't think that was something that was going to happen-- it's so incredibly unimportant to the story right now. We have an hour and a half left so I think it's very safe to say that we will get to the end of Good Omens with Before the Beginning as the first chronological meeting still intact.

One of the most relevant lines to a sense of time in Before the Beginning is the one you mentioned in your ask-- Aziraphale telling Crowley that the plan was to shut "all this down again in about six thousand years." This says that Before the Beginning is taking place relatively closely in time to Eden, as Armageddon: Round One began in Year 6,004 of Earth. It would seem that Before the Beginning is meant to have been their first meeting and that it occurred within a handful of years prior to Eden.

That would make it difficult to think that they'd actually been talking for millions of years prior to that and that they somehow managed to elude memory-wipes enough to know that. Fun fic idea but I don't think it's what the show is saying.

One of the strongest reasons why I think it's their real, first meeting is actually how the story has built Maggie and Nina's first interactions to parallel it. I think that most of us have a general feeling from Before the Beginning that Aziraphale and Crowley had seen each other in passing and had maybe exchanged the odd word before-- which is akin to Maggie and Nina, who worked across the street from one another and who had spoken prior to their "first meeting" scenes.

Between Aziraphale zipping over, clearly thrilled to bits at the opportunity to have an excuse to talk to Crowley, and Crowley acting like he's familiar with who this angel is in a "I know who you are-- you're the skinny latte" sort of way, Before the Beginning isn't really the first time they ever laid eyes on one another, exactly, so much as it's the first time they've spoken privately and more extensively.

One of my favorite visual parallels in the show is one reinforcing Before the Beginning and Maggie & Nina, which is what David Tennant and Nina Sosanya do with mirroring one another's movements in these scenes below. See how they help reinforce the scenes as paralleling ones by both looking away because they're unable to stop smiling at the sparkly-eyed angel who is pretty obviously hitting on them?

Both of them are as attracted to the angel in their midst as Maggie and Aziraphale are attracted to them. We know the motivation behind Nina's hesitation and that's reiterated in the subsequent scenes between her and Maggie when Nina starts mentioning her partner. Maggie and Nina are each both paralleling aspects of Crowley and Aziraphale-- sometimes at once, sometimes in different ways in different scenes. Just as Nina's relationship with Lindsay is echoing Aziraphale's feeling of abandonment at the hands of Heaven/God in different scenes, she's also a Crowley parallel and her abusive relationship with Lindsay is a variant of Crowley and then-Lucifer/Satan.

One potential reason for Crowley not giving Aziraphale his name in Before the Beginning is that, like Nina, there is likely the controlling partner that the sweet, interested angel doesn't know about. There is a sense of being trapped and feeling afraid of being hurt or of getting the angel hurt should the partner learn of this interaction that is making them close off a little.

So, anyway, we just said there's no literal "millions of years" but before we look at that other layer to "millions of years" that isn't just exaggeration here? Just look for a moment at a couple of other times in the series when time-related figures of speech have been used to make the sense of time a bit less literal...

One time figure of speech is in one of the very scenes we've been discussing here: the one on the wall in Eden. God's narration says how many days have passed since Earth was created?

"Rather more than seven." It looks to be a bit of a joke on Genesis and the idea of God creating the Earth in seven days and seven as a perfect number. [Michael in the Job minisode: "You know God and sevens."] The way this is phrased indicates that a significant number of days greater than seven had transpired before the scene we watched of Crowley and Aziraphale on the wall watching Adam & Eve leave The Garden. How many? We don't know. "Rather more" means "more than a few" but it's intentionally vague and interpretable. It's not an excessively huge number but it's not a small number, either.

It is, really, an enormously funny way to suggest to the reader/viewer that figuring out for how long they were in Eden is barking up the wrong tree because it's not something considered at all essential to the story.

Whether you think they were there for thirty days or six months or three years really doesn't matter. 'It was rather more than seven days and feel free to do whatever with that you think is reasonable' is the general attitude. What matters more is noticing how the wording states that it doesn't matter rather than trying to solve it. I think it's kind of like a word version of the Gabriel and the box situation in 2.01, in terms of what's important is to note what details are being said are kind of immaterial to the story.

The other one is an example of a time-related figure of speech that they make intentionally impossible to take literally and, as such, is more vague than it might originally appear to be. That is in the S1 script book and it's the note that, when Crowley arrives in the church in 1941, that he and Aziraphale haven't spoken "in a hundred years."

Both within the script book itself and in the show itself, we cannot take this literally for the simple fact that, even if you think that Crowley and Aziraphale didn't speak from their 1862 holy water fight until 1941, that's not "a hundred years"-- that's seventy-nine years.

That's a lot closer to being seventy-five years than it is one hundred so why wouldn't it say in the script book "haven't spoken in over seventy-five years" or something to that effect? Because it's not referencing "in a hundred years" literally but figuratively... and that completely and utterly changes the amount of time we're talking about.

It's referencing the way people will say that they feel like haven't seen or talked to someone they're fond of "in a hundred years!" if it's been awhile since they last saw them. No one ever means literally in a hundred years. It's just a way to say that it feels like it's been too long.

The measure of time in the figurative "in a hundred years" is entirely dependent on the people seeing one another again and what they both consider a long time apart, right? It's wildly subjective.

It could have been a surprisingly short amount of time since they had last seen one another prior to the church in 1941, which would also go along with how their reactions to seeing one another in the church are not really in line with the idea that they haven't seen one another in decades.

Not to mention that Aziraphale, in 1862, was concerned by the holy water request that Crowley was exhibiting signs of suicide ideation. Storm off in a huff for a few hours after the argument, sure, but not talking to him when he thought Crowley was suicidal is just not on. He might have felt uncomfortable for a long time about giving Crowley the supernatural equivalent of a gun but he didn't not talk to him.

Supporting this are other scenes that show that they were in contact between 1862 and 1941, like this scene below in 1.01, in which Aziraphale tells/reminds Crowley that he picked up a dozen cases of Chateauneuf-de-Pape for their "special occasions" when? In 1921...

Why would Aziraphale be investing in 1921 in a dozen cases (that's 144 bottles) of a favorite vintage of wine he and Crowley enjoy drinking on their special occasions if he and Crowley hadn't spoken to one another since 1862?

1921 is just 20 years before 1941, too... but a couple of scenes in S2 narrow that time window ahead of 1941 even more.

Aziraphale mentions "90 years ago" to Crowley in reference to their relationship and The Bentley and, later, Shax has one of the most interesting bits of timeline-referencing in the series when she tells Aziraphale when she remembers first hearing rumors about him and Crowley being lovers.

Referencing "90 years ago" in these scenes is actually referencing the 1930s. In the scene between Crowley and Aziraphale, it's showing that they were together during the 1930s and that is reinforced by the later scene with Shax, which surprises by having her not just say "80 years."

If Shax had only said "80 years ago" in the scene in the present with Aziraphale, the audience would have assumed that Shax had first heard about the possibility of Crowley and Aziraphale being an item in 1941. Instead, they have her say "80, 90 years ago", implying that she actually had heard a rumor about Crowley and Aziraphale in the 1930s.

Since she says "80, 90 years ago", she's probably actually referring to the late 1930s... which means the show's timeline actually just narrowed its "a hundred years" since the last time Crowley and Aziraphale spoke prior to 1941 as less than the number of years we can count on one hand... at the most. It could well be even less than that.

So, the point is that the story will use measures of time in a figure-of-speech sort of way at times so "millions of years" is an example of that. It's an exaggeration that just means that Crowley and Aziraphale have been talking for a long time... but this is where the other layer comes in and make this even funnier.

There are a bunch of scenes wherein Crowley and Aziraphale are each on their own but where they choose to phrase their responses to outsiders-- angels, demons, and humans alike-- using the hidden language they made up to mask their speech and flirt, even though they are the only one in that moment that understands the euphemistic, hidden level of it. The S1 scene below shows why:

They do it so that, when they've met up again later on and are talking about what happened in their days when they were apart, they can crack each other up with their recounting of what was said.

In the above scene, as looked at in another post, Crowley and Aziraphale are really laughing because Hell thinks that Aziraphale-as-Crowley asked them for the little yellow duck toy that kids play with in the bathtub known as a rubber duck and that joke is, as always, funny in its own right. Aziraphale was bursting at the seams to tell Crowley that he asked Hell for a rubber duck, though, because, to the two of them? It's euphemistic for an, ahem, personal pleasure device.

Using their hidden language/cant vocabulary around other people with the intent to share the amusing wordplay later on with one another is a way to make each other laugh and also appears to be a way for both of them to manage stress while interacting with head office or irritating humans. They can get through it by knowing that they are going to tell one another later what words they chose to sound one way on a surface level but that which were actually full of innuendo on a second level.

This is relevant because Crowley, irritated with Maggie and Nina, starts doing this during their conversation in 2.06 and the "millions of years" line is part of the multi-level reply.

When Maggie and Nina show up back at the bookshop in 2.06 and say they need to talk to him, Crowley is already telling them it's not a good time. When he hears what it is they apparently have to say right that moment, he is very over this conversation.

Crowley cannot imagine a more bizarre conversation than this and he's ticked about it because he just spent the week trying to help these two who wouldn't have ever gotten this far without his help and now, here they are, acting like they have the first clue about him and Aziraphale.

Crowley, transcending to another astral plane of what-the-fuckery, as Maggie is smug and Nina is busting out The Grumpy One Is Soft For The Sunshine One...

So, when Maggie says that he and Aziraphale don't talk, Crowley is so annoyed by this ridiculousness that he actually answers her in a way that incorporates his and Aziraphale's hidden language, which he knows that Maggie and Nina won't understand-- and that's the point.

Crowley is thinking that, at some point later on when Aziraphale comes back, he and Aziraphale are going to talk about this conversation that Crowley had with Maggie and Nina, as they talk about everything, and when they do, it'll be extra-amusing to them both that Crowley started replying to being told that he and Aziraphale don't talk with the hidden language they invented as a result of talking for thousands of years.

Crowley knows that Aziraphale is going to find these young women giving Crowley romantic advice to be hilarious so he starts using the cant so that he can make Aziraphale laugh later when he tells him how he replied.

Here's where we'll see how we can square "a million years" with "six thousand years" using some of Crowley's wordplay...

Part of the speak is built around word history. The word million comes from the Latin mille and that root word actually means...

...one thousand.

So, if you're wording in Crowley and Aziraphale's nightingales speak and you say millions on the surface, you can actually really be saying thousands on the level of that hidden cant vocabulary.

On the surface to Maggie and Nina, Crowley sounds like he's just exaggerating in saying that they've been talking forever by saying they've been talking for "millions of years"-- and he is also doing that-- but the amount of time is more accurate in the layer of this that is hidden language, where he's saying they've been talking for thousands of years.

That matches what we said above, as the "six thousand years" we've heard them say before is actually, in their speak, the same thing as "millions of years."

But then there's also what talking is to Crowley and Aziraphale and this is when Maggie and Nina's comments get even funnier...

Talking is, as it always is everywhere, communication. To Crowley and Aziraphale, talking is any form of communication with one another. Different scenes show that it can just be openly discussing things without any particular play on words happening-- just regular conversation. It can also be wording each other-- flirting in their speak.

In 1941, Part 2, Crowley is actually using the word talk in that speak to refer to the two of them wording, which Aziraphale had just begun to do in the scene and to which Crowley was replying when he said "talking of improving", instead of the more correct "speaking of improving"...

Talking is all forms of communication and, surprising no one given Aziraphale checking Crowley out while they're wording in the above scene, talking is also sex.

Crowley pushes back against Maggie saying that he and Aziraphale don't talk by saying, with an euphemistic layer barely hidden in there:

"We talk all the time. We've been doing it for millions of years."

With talking = regular talking/wording/sex and millions = thousands, plus: the hilariously juvenile "we've been doing it for millions thousands of years", then when Maggie is all you should tell Mr. Fell that you *like*-like him!, Crowley's response is basically...

He already knows I love him. We say it in a thousand ways when we're talking... which we have been doing, in different ways, since we first met in The Garden. He's been my lover for thousands of years.

[hanamukes]

To feel saved by your words (Taki and Uika)

While I believe you could compile endless comparisons between any two members of MyGO and Ave Mujica, something that's been on my mind a lot recently are the similarities found between Taki and Uika. Tomori and Sakiko are the ones who pull the story along, but I think Taki and Uika both hold a similar position within the contexts of their relationships with them that warrants a closer look.

This isn't a "complete" and cohesive analysis, so much as a collection of observations I've made as I've been combing through Uika's scenes again lately.

Small disclaimer, but given that Uika as we know her exists in approximately 10 minutes of It's MyGO footage, a lot of this will be my own interpretation of her few existing scenes. Your mileage may vary! I analyze Uika a bit more than Taki here, but this is simply because I honestly feel as if Taki's writing is more blunt and explicit―to "analyze" her almost feels more like a summary of the events and dialogue, whereas with Uika, all we can do is piece together the small crumbs that we have.

To start, I want to talk a little bit about their positions in their respective bands. In ways, they feel similar, but in many more ways, they feel completely different.

Uika is not the "leader" of Ave Mujica in any sense of the word. Sakiko is―Uika is figuratively and literally a puppet Sakiko is playing with. However, she is the "protagonist" of Ave Mujica's stage plays. This is an important distinction to make because while Uika is not the one pulling the strings as we've seen proven in the anime, it's not entirely unfounded for anyone to claim that she may have a special position within the context of the band (even ignoring the fact that vocalists tend to be the "face" of the band which many misconstrue to mean they are the leader).

Taki is an interesting case because she's not the front and center of her band, nor does she have "protagonist" traits, nor does she have something that draws people to her―but nonetheless, through her hard work alone, she has become the primary force that keeps MyGO held together (even if it, at times, feels like duct tape).

I like this distinction between them. Uika gets her special little place just by being popular and having had past connections with Sakiko, while Taki affirms hers by working harder than any one person would have to in order to keep a band together. One of them gets what they want with sheer luck alone, while the other must cling to this band as if it's the last thing she'll ever get the grace of doing.

Though, just what do Tomori and Sakiko mean to Taki and Uika?

Tomori's words save Taki and let her breathe, while if we're to interpret the Ave Mujica doll lore shown in their concerts as applying to their actresses, Doloris repeatedly talks about having a special somebody who accepts her for who she really is deep down, and how she wants to stay alone with them for an eternity―perhaps this is a hint as to how Uika views Sakiko (which has some support in the anime, as I think Sakiko's message to Uika has more to it than meets the eye).

I think there's something to be said about how Taki and Uika seem unhappy with their circumstances (Taki lives her life compared to her sister, while one of Uika's only solo scenes being her dropping the happy idol facade is telling to me), but it's Tomori and Sakiko's words that save them. For Taki, this is Tomori's songs (specifically Haruhikage), for Uika, this takes form in rereading Sakiko's consoling message from her idol debut over and over.

Notably with Taki, this is the happiest we ever see her! Tomori and Sakiko's words save them, and it's absolutely written all over their faces. It's not subtle at all.

Also, how we're (formally) introduced to both characters is in the context of their respective separation with Tomori and Sakiko: Taki is yelling at Anon for scaring Tomori away (after she finally found her again) while this text message scene is Uika's.

Now, separation is of course a huge theme with these bands in general, so what makes their examples special?

Where I think they differ from the others is in the way they approach these separations. Here's the thing: in a way, Taki feels as if her life purpose hinges on being around Tomori, but despite this, she never tracked her down in her absence. Uika always pulls out Sakiko's comforting message to her, so much to the point that she can recite it word for word on the fly, and yet despite having her phone number, she never messaged her. We can see the last message sent between Uika and Sakiko was that conversation from a year ago, and this has to be deliberate.

She probably wants nothing more than to see Sakiko again (when Sakiko calls her in episode 7, she literally blushes and shifts her hair in excitement about it, and I will also mention the director implied the reason she goes to the planetarium is because it reminds her of the stargazing she did on the island with Sakiko), and yet she respects Sakiko to be the one to take that step in contacting her first.

This is also something prevalent with Taki: Soyo exists as proof that if she really wanted to, she could have stalked or harassed Tomori into getting her back in her life, but instead she was patient. She valued Tomori needing space. She put Tomori's feelings above and before her own.

There's just this level of yearning behind their words and actions―of wanting someone in your life so badly, of thinking about them every single day, of looking back at all of your memories together and hoping and praying for the day they will reach out to you once more but not taking that first step yourself out of modesty for your own feelings―that I think separates them from the others. (Ironically, the closest that comes to this is actually Tomori herself but in regards to Sakiko.)

Another big theme they share is that they're rather open with their affection for Tomori/Sakiko, but the way they convey those feelings isn't always interpreted the way they intended for it to be.

(One could perhaps interpret Sakiko's reaction here as embarrassment, and I do think this is a part of it, but given this is the one interaction she's had this series that isn't someone trying to dox her or begging her to be with them, I think she'd be well within her rights to be confused at why Uika's also so obsessively fixated on her.)

Taki falls more under the "awkward" umbrella than Uika (so I'm not about to insinuate I think this will be as common with Uika and Sakiko going forward as it has been for Taki and Tomori), but they both share this trait of "I want to express how much you mean to me" and it being met with confusion.

The way they respond to said rejection is similar as well.

(This anime is very good at expression via a character's eyes alone, and I think this is conveyed really well with both Taki and Uika.)

And of course, because their intent was never to hurt and rather was the opposite (to cherish), they're not afraid to apologize, no matter how "insignificant" their offense may have been.

(The framing on these shots fascinates me, as if the camera needs to zoom out to capture the recipient of the apology in the frame in order for it to land.)

Everything is with Tomori/Sakiko's best interest in mind, but sometimes, just your thoughts and feelings isn't enough. You need to convey those feelings appropriately to the person you're saying them to, and Tomori/Sakiko are of course not the world's easiest people to get through to.

I think on the surface, Uika is presented to us as a character who Taki could aspire to be like. She's calm, collected, and she's able to get through to Tomori as a fellow vocalist. What was that planetarium scene for if not to point out that Uika could present herself as a threat to Taki? But on the other hand, we've seen Sakiko shut Uika down twice already; it's not like her one moment with Tomori makes her better than Taki at communicating with the one she cherishes most, even if she seems more sociable. Tomori is even a bit weirded out that Uika called her by name despite her never telling it to her. When you get down to it and look past their exteriors, they have the same struggles at hand.

Speaking of Sakiko's rejection of Uika, this brings me to what I believe is the most striking parallel between their scenes.

The last episode is fascinating because one of the two examples of Sakiko shutting down Uika is when Uika asks if she can go home with her on the train. We know this is something Taki does with Tomori as well, but that's not what I want to point out here (though that's also noteworthy in its own way):

Earlier in that same episode, Taki was also rejected when she wanted to walk Tomori home! The reasons of course differ (Soyo wanted to talk with Tomori so it's not as if Tomori herself rejected Taki, while I get the impression that at this point Uika still doesn't know of Sakiko's home situation which seems to be the real reason Sakiko said no fun side note though: a Sumimi commercial is very much on screen in the following frame of Sakiko on the train), but the framing of both scenes is very similar, and I honestly find this hard to ignore. The Taki one of course makes sense as it's a well-established thing between her and Tomori to ride the train home together, but Uika had no reason to ask to go home with Sakiko on the train. She got to the venue in a cab just fine! It feels very deliberate to me to have both of these happen in the same episode and to also put narrative weight on both moments as well. When I saw the Taki scene, I thought "Huh, so we're just not getting Taki closure?" and while the Uika scene was too late in the episode for me to really expect an actual scene even had Sakiko said yes, they're similar in that both of these scenes work to set up future developments in the sequel. We're still owed the closure Soyo pulling Tomori away from Taki robbed us from, and we're owed seeing Uika learn about Sakiko's home life.

Something else that I think about often is how Taki and Uika are involved in the songwriting process for their respective bands:

Taki and Sakiko are composers while Tomori and Uika are lyricists

Sakiko and Uika both read Tomori's poetry/ventings in her notebook and attribute it to being lyrical. (Taki does as well but this isn't a discovery she makes through having a one-to-one with Tomori)

Sakiko and Taki both feel inspired by Tomori's writing and do whatever they can to make compositions fitting for her words

While we don't know much about the Ave Mujica songwriting process as of yet, one of the interviews confirms that Uika does the lyrics for Ave Mujica songs. This leaves a lot to be considered regarding 1. why Sakiko wanted her for her band 2. what Sakiko would see in her writing and if it's comparable to how she feels reading Tomori's writing (as a note here: Tomori's writing makes her human, while Uika's writing turns her into a monster), and 3. Uika writes to other people's ideas, but she still feels as though singing is something that conveys her heart to others

Those are some general observations I have regarding this. To both Taki and Uika, they want to see out Tomori/Sakiko's musical ambitions, and they pour their heart into what they do. Of course all the band members are doing this (by playing their respective instruments, and Raana does contribute to MyGO songs in her own ways), but these two go above and beyond in their motivations.

As a much more subtle thing, I want to point out something interesting It's MyGO did: the various Sumimi shills throughout the series that happen during major scenes where characters are trying to communicate how they want to reconcile moving forward. Honestly this is a topic so fascinating I'd love to make its own post dedicated to it, but I want to talk about it here briefly as well because it does relate to Taki. Notably, I want to talk about the example of this in episode 5, because the framing of it felt the most deliberate there.

To set the scene, Tomori just expressed that she doesn't want to hold a concert because that'll end their band, which leaves Taki and Soyo hanging as they're unsure how to move forward from there if Tomori doesn't want to. The scene changes to Taki and Soyo, with Taki overlooking Sumimi's music video.

(The way the shots are composed makes it seem like Taki is staring at the music video, complete with the light of the scenes reflecting on her face, but when we get this zoomed out shot with Soyo in frame, it looks more like she's looking off to the side.)

As Soyo's talking about how unsure Tomori feels and how she's still thinking about CRYCHIC, Here the World is playing in the background. We can hear it pretty clearly; even more clearly than we heard it in the literal karaoke scene! The song continues until it fades out at this line:

The sudden silence almost feels deafening. Taki starts talking about how Tomori's words saved her, and how they made her feel seen. The MV is still playing in the background, we just can't see or hear it. But it comes back on screen to be a backdrop to these lines:

(Interesting how they chose this specific angle that captures the Sumimi MV in the backdrop, when they could have done a different one or turned the video off entirely since the song isn't even playing anymore. Also for the last line, Uika and Mana's silhouettes are no longer on the screen.)

What is the purpose of this? Is it to foreshadow that Sakiko would invite Uika to her band a few episodes later? Do Taki's words apply to Uika as well?

Soyo then continues on and says in order to avoid having things go south again, they need to communicate with one another. Then she says Taki needs to tell Tomori how she feels.

I think the most compelling shot in this scene is this one though.

Because 2 episodes later, this exact shot in the MV is what Sakiko scrunches her face at post-Haruhikage.

(Well, even if Taki's feelings didn't get through to Tomori, Uika did finally get through to Sakiko given she calls her immediately after this. Interesting.)

Taki is trying to express how much Tomori means to her and Sakiko is trying to get over MyGO playing Haruhikage, and there's Uika; happy, smiling, sparkling, and getting everything handed to her. It almost feels as if the MV is there to mock these characters, who are struggling so much to even keep a band together. She's an outsider who doesn't even know that Crychic has disbanded.

It's just one of those things that feels so meaningless, and yet at the same time, the Sumimi MV would not be playing during these scenes unless the writers wanted it to, for whatever reason that may be.

To wrap this post up, I want to mention that I find it very amusing how the director mentioned that Uika was actually not originally intended to be shown in a school setting (like Nyamu is), but when they were thinking about what school to put her in, they put her in the same classroom as Taki because of potential interactions between them. I am very eager to see those interactions in future content, and how Taki will react once she realizes that Uika (and Umiri) are in a band with Sakiko. It'll be interesting to see whether or not these two become proper foils to each other, as I see a lot of potential here given both of their respective relationships with our protagonists. Going back to what I said about Uika being presented to us as something Taki could aspire to be like, I actually hope it turns out to be the opposite: I hope that Taki sees Uika's relationship with Sakiko and learns what not to do with Tomori. This may just me being hopeful though (as in the Ave Mujica concerts, Oblivionis takes advantage of Doloris' dedication to her and turns her into a monster―I want to see something akin to this happen with Sakiko and Uika). We'll truly just have to see!

[adobe-outdesign]

are there any neopets “outfits” (read: colors) that you particularly love? (in case you haven’t already reviewed them)

This is tricky because there's really no easy way to view the colour-like outfits like you can do with actual colours, and there's not a ton that springs to mind just going off memory. However, the one example I can think of that I love are the three museum "outfits":

Honestly, I like everything about these; it's such a fun idea and the execution is really well-done. Conceptually, TNT picked out some great species for these (two being extinct dinosaurs and one being a rhino with dino attributes). Visually, the renderings are great, using more detailed shading throughout then TNT normally does—granted, the anatomy on some of these doesn't always make a whole lot of sense, and I would've like to see more consistency with transparent pets and their skeletons, but that's not a huge deal.

Also nice is that unlike some outfit-colours where the results are wildly inconsistent (like the ones based on real animals), these museum outfits are all handled the same way; old brown bones with pole supports on a rock platform with a some lights and a customized placard. It's not a huge deal, but I like how cohesive they are all together.

I honestly would've loved to see this as colour, though perhaps TNT thought it would've been too close to transparent, or maybe they just thought they only made sense in a prehistoric context. At the very least, I'd love to see more of these; some kind of aquatic animal, like a Jetsam, would be a nice addition in the future.

[artmindlens]

Head of a Woman by Pablo Picasso (1939), Private Collection

Psychology of Fragmentation and Identity

Picasso's Head of a Woman captures a sense of fragmented identity, where the geometric shapes and disjointed lines represent the splintering of the self. The figure's abstracted face evokes an internal conflict—a psychological tension between different aspects of one’s personality that refuse to seamlessly integrate. This disconnection speaks to the unconscious struggle many leaders and professionals experience, where their public persona and private self remain at odds. In the corporate world, this could manifest as a leader who projects strength and control outwardly, while internally grappling with insecurities, doubts, or emotional divides.

For executives or professionals who resonate with this painting, the fragmentation can represent the emotional cost of leadership. The pressure to maintain authority and decision-making often forces them to compartmentalize, dividing aspects of their personality to fit into their leadership role. This splintered self creates a tension that prevents them from experiencing a true sense of wholeness, a theme powerfully conveyed by the sharp, disjointed elements of the portrait.

Ambition, Control, and Societal Pressure

The bright colors and exaggerated features highlight a dynamic between control and societal expectations. The bold reds and yellows suggest ambition and energy, but the abstract nature of the figure implies that this energy is scattered or unfocused. Much like a leader managing a vast array of responsibilities, the figure appears to be pulled in multiple directions, unable to find a singular, cohesive focus. This evokes the unconscious pressure professionals face to meet both their own ambitious goals and the external demands placed upon them by stakeholders, markets, or regulatory bodies.

In a business context, this painting might speak to the overwhelm of leadership, where the constant navigation between personal desires and societal expectations leads to a fractured approach. The geometric shapes can be interpreted as barriers—the hard edges between ambition, control, and external validation—each one creating a sharp distinction that fragments the leader’s path forward. It reveals the emotional toll that striving for success, while maintaining a public image, can take on an individual.

The Unconscious Desire for Wholeness and Authority

Despite the fragmented nature of the figure, there is an underlying desire for wholeness. The painting reflects a leader’s unconscious drive to reconcile the divided aspects of their identity—personal and professional, emotional and rational—in an attempt to achieve a sense of completion. However, the painting also suggests that this wholeness is elusive, as the abstract lines prevent the figure from fully coming together.

For a professional or executive drawn to this work, it symbolizes the constant pursuit of external validation, authority, and success, but also the inherent emotional fragmentation that results from this pursuit. The figure’s disjointed form represents the internal conflict leaders face when trying to balance their need for control with their desire for emotional connection and fulfillment. In this context, the painting becomes a metaphor for the psychological cost of leadership—the persistent drive for achievement, while sacrificing inner cohesion.

Leadership and the Tension Between Public Persona and Private Self

This painting speaks to a leader’s internal conflict, where their public image and personal emotions are constantly at odds. The figure’s geometric face could symbolize the mask of authority a leader wears in their professional life, while the abstraction represents the emotional complexity that remains hidden beneath. The sharp angles and disconnected features convey the tension of maintaining a composed, authoritative persona while experiencing emotional fragmentation internally.

For a collector or executive, this painting serves as a visual representation of the psychological pressures of leadership. It reflects the need to project strength and control, but also acknowledges the emotional sacrifices that come with such a position. The painting becomes a reminder that, while external success and validation are important, they can often come at the cost of personal emotional wholeness.

[disappearenceofsomeone]

the small... the itty bitty.. the sad sniffles..

(hi guys!! needed a break to deal with something, but hopefully I can actually try a schedule for posting stuff soon :3 )

uhh I got designs + barely cohesive context right below:

I love these SILLIES!!! don't mind how empty Winnie's page is, I didn't know what to do

decided that giving them school uniforms to match the surrounding this took place in was a ok decision so I did that!!

also here's the rlly confusing context I made in the middle of the night whilst accidentally pulling an all nighter at the same time:

(I have 0 experience in writing anything in general, I was spouting whatever made sense in my head so if you think this is ooc for them, it probably and most likely is lmaoo. sorry in advance to everyone who was curious ehough to read whatever... this is considered..)

anyways, prologue takes place in an elementary school where Winnie just finished his day at school, it didn't go that well but y'know, there's 10 more things to worry Abt then that. He gets to the bus stop, knowing well he was gonna have to stay there for awhile and planned on making himself comfortable. Upon arriving, he hears sad sniffles from across the seats and boom, sad lil meow meow auggie appears!! Very concerned Winnie approaches the kid, proceeds to get a very hot headed response from him as auggie pushes him away (he isn't having any of it today + he was kinda a punk when he was little like damn!!!) Winnie clearly sees that the dude needs ATLEAST *some* company so he just, sits by him awkwardly. Augustine over here doesn't have a clue why he's still not going away but accepts it nonetheless, albeit in a very tsun tsun way I guess. Winnie takes this as a small talk starter and tries to engage with him, to no avail as auggie seems to have a very reserved manner when alone. After a few minutes of trying, he decides to just be straightforward and ask him what's up, to which Augustine replies with a 'none of your business, why do you want to know?' type of response. He just tells him that moping around wasn't gonna do him any good and since they both seem to be going home late anyway, might as well kill time. (on second thought, they sound very adult for 7-12 yr olds, what. I will come back to reread this dw) Augustine now knows Winnie doesn't mean any harm and decides why not, got nothing else to do. He proceeds to tell him regarding how others seem to only want to be around him whenever he acts a certain way (ie, very bubbly, friendly, etc) and thinks about whether or not people actually do like him for himself. It also makes him feel like if people actually knew how he was, not many would stay (like a 'yeah I want people to stay, but I want them to stay for who I actually am' type thing). Winnie tells him that he should be himself, regardless of what anybody else thinks otherwise. Additionally, Winnie thinks that if nobody's willing to stay after seeing the truth, it's their loss honestly, he thinks Augustine should care about people who would actually be there for him, not for who he's trying to be. Augustine is somewhat stunned by this, asking if he's been through this before, to which Winnie remarks with a similar situation happening back in his previous school (Winnie's friends didn't stay in touch and never contacted him ever since he moved). They pretty much notice atp how similar they were and decided to spend to the entire time waiting just chatting, turns out they got along very well (cue scenes of them yelling at each other playing games, cat scratching as they yell something dumb at the other while simultaneously talking about how cute the cats walking around were). Time passes and bam! Winnie's mom finally comes over to pick them up!!

"Hey! I know that lady! She's my mom's neighbour! :O"

"Oh, it's my mom-- How do you know my mom???"

"Uh, duh!! >:/ I just said that she's my mom's neighbour--- she's your mom!?!?"

(Cue them getting inside the car and getting bits about how Augustine and his mom met. Apparently, he and his mom visited to send off some gifts for her, when in actuality, it was to send off some medicine for Winnie, who was sick during this time. Of course they got some gifts but the medicine was important. And the gifts were too.)

As they got closer towards their houses, Winnie was planning to just go back inside the house immediately since he's got no plans going on and assumes that was it. Augustine thinks otherwise, so when they both got out of the car, he immediately blurts out his name and introduces himself. Winnie, realizing this entire time they haven't even said their names towards each other, also introduces himself in response.

They both seem to connect easily and since no one else was willing to, they will instead. With a promise to stay by each other's side no matter what, they both spent their entire childhood together. They were practically two peas in a pod, nobody ever saw them apart, even if they were in a group of people. They stood out by a lot since then, the very loud and obnoxious kid was hanging around with someone who could chill him out in an instant. The two were inseparable