#classic is dangerous. modern supports him the most

[000marie198]

Imagine if in the Olympic games series. The Tails Squad were participants

You just know most of the other participants will sit aside and let them have their fun.

The squads' competitiveness amongst each other and support to the point of multiple tiny teams is highly entertaining to watch.

[caligvlasaqvarivm]

I've been reading your Erikar posts and I think that they work really well with the idea that moirallegiance really doesn't work the way it's "supposed" to. It's framed in-universe as a very one-sided "stable person pacifies dangerous person" deal, but both Erifef and Gamkar, which are basically platonic ideals of that concept, failed independently because of how unstable that dynamic is -- one person is worn out doing all the emotional labor and the other is not interested in being pacified. Whereas the meowrails, despite also being framed as a "classical" moirallegiance, are much more clearly two-sided, as both parties consistently help, listen to, and advise each other, and the relationship is consequently much stabler and more enduring. I love the way you frame Erikar because it works really well with this by showing both parties taking and giving "pacification" and support in turn, instead of one shouldering all the work.

Yeah! I think this is a good way to talk about something Hussie likes to do that I'm a huge fan of, which is: unreliable narration. This unreliable narration has garnered Hussie the reputation of being a "troll" or even flat-out "wrong" about HS, and I find both of these to be very unfair because the use of unreliable narrator is both deliberate AND thematically fitting.

As part of Homestuck's post-modern stylings (and I mean post-modern in the literature sense, not vis. art, though it has shades of that too), it plays heavily on the ideas of narrator-as-character, author-as-character, metafiction, and we-all-know-it's-a-story-itis. Hussie himself, even in his external commentaries (Formspring, Tumblr, Books, etc.), is fully aware that his additions add to the metatextual texture of the work and change how it's interpreted - that, although his additions technically lie external to the "story" Homestuck is telling, they are also paradoxically part and parcel of that very story.

As a result, they deliberately play a character WRT Homestuck, both in- and out-of-universe, and this character is, by their own admission, buffoonish and oafish. It's really apparent in their book commentary, where they'll sometimes even drop the act, or "realize" they've dropped the act and hurry to put it back on (a standout moment is when he provides a very genuine, honest analysis of Vriska, before going "oh, wait, I forgot, she's literally my wife and has never done anything wrong ever in her life ever"). They also mention how their narrative voice sometimes works antagonistically to the characters, such as when it assures Vriska that she has no choice but to kill Aradia, subtly pushing Vriska towards that option.

Functionally, neither the narrator nor the author (and by that, I mean the caricaturized character of "the author" that Hussie plays) of Homestuck are entities that you can take fully at face value; they need to be challenged and interrogated as much as any other character, have their motives dissected, have their blind spots pointed out.

And why would this need to be the case? Because that's literally one of the main thrusts of Homestuck: malicious entities (in HS's case, LE, Doc Scratch, and Caliborn, who at various times struggle with Hussie for control of the story, before killing him and wresting it away entirely) will attempt to write the narrative. They'll push their version of events, their politics, their biases, their philosophies. They'll try to change the story to suit them and perpetuate their own power and ability to enforce that power. And you can't let them win.

Hussie-as-a-character/narrator himself is not particularly malicious, and, as the narrative prompt serving as Caliborn's guide, is even ultimately sympathetic, expressing that kids need to grow up and mature, achieve self-actualization, emotional catharsis, etc.

However, as a result of his oafishness, he has a tendency to play to the characters' worst instincts, to pick favorites among the cast. The most blatant example of this is his "love" of Vriska, which - contrary to popular opinion - isn't "real". Hussie is not actually in love with Vriska; the whole thing started because - due to misogyny - people accused Hussie of only giving Vriska so much plot relevance because he was literally in love with her. Why else would a female character with an unpleasant personality be allowed to be important, amirite? And Hussie clearly thought that this whole thing was so ridiculous that he 100% leaned into it as a joke. I'm not here to litigate whether or not it was appropriate to do so, just to point out that Hussie's "love" of Vriska was always an artifice - an aspect of Hussie-as-character that he played up to highlight the fact that Hussie-as-character is an unreliable buffoon, and, by extension, that Vriska is not blameless and perfect.

Since this is the Eridan blog, I'd be remiss not to talk about him. Hussie's commentary towards Eridan is especially fascinating to me, because Eridan is one of he characters Hussie-as-character is biased against, in a similar way as he's biased in Vriska's favor. Thus, his attitude towards Eridan is very dismissive, both in the book commentary AND in the comic itself. "Gamzee: Indulge emotional theatrics" and "Jade: Answer this douche bag" come to mind. He also spends the vast majority of the Act 5 Act 2 book mocking Eridan for being sad and alone, with nobody to care about him and nobody who listens to his problems.

Now, the reason I call this fascinating is twofold: the first is that his commentary in the Act 5 Act 1 book has a WILDLY different tone: while he's still biased in Eridan's disfavor, he outright calls Eridan a "good character" alongside Nepeta, and offers genuine insight into his characterization and the powers of Hope - comparing him at one point to Dave if Dave took a much darker path.

So when his attitude changes from "he's a shithead, but fairly complex, I guess" to "he's a loser idiot that nobody likes LMAOOOO", you're supposed to notice that! You're supposed to question that, to wonder why he has a change of heart, why he's suddenly so dismissive of a character he was genuinely writing whole paragraphs about before.

And the answer is multifaceted:

He's playing up his buffoonish character, to let you know that he's about to be wrong as hell. Every time Hussie starts really amping up the Hussie-as-character persona, you're about to be in for an opinion that SHOULD NOT be taken at face value.

He's reflecting a common fandom opinion, because one of his favorite things to do as an unreliable narrator is to speak on behalf of another character or entity, highlighting the biases and blind spots in play - in this case, the audience's. Again, he's about to be wrong as hell, so he's doing this specifically to indicate that the audience members who believe this are also wrong as hell.

Act 5 Act 2 is when we get the one conversation in all of Homestuck where somebody (Karkat) cares about Eridan and takes his problems seriously. During this part of the story, Hussie goes COMPLETELY silent. This is incredibly out of character, as he usually can't shut up, and the commentary is usually dense, packed with words, without pause. Compare:

In those blocks of silence are contained the conversation Eridan has with Karkat where Karkat literally tells him "I know it's hard being you" and that Nepeta's rejection of him wasn't a negative reflection of him. In other words, Karkat cares about Eridan and takes him seriously, COMPLETELY contradicting Hussie-as-character's assertions that nobody does, so utterly that Hussie-as-character has to completely shut up during that entire sequence because he has no way of reconciling his stance with the evidence presented.

Now, Hussie-as-an-actual-person is completely aware of what they're doing, or else they couldn't do stuff like this so consistently and so precisely. So I want to be very, very clear that this is not Hussie "not understanding his own story" or whatever BS the fandom likes to say in order to cast Hussie as the villain. This is masterful usage of unreliable narrator, like, I'm genuinely impressed.

By acting a clown and insisting that nobody likes or cares about Eridan, the audience is MEANT to glean from the text:

That Karkat is clearly an exception, and he quite likes and cares about Eridan,

That those who are dismissive towards Eridan and treat him purely as an object of ridicule are Wrong as Hell,

That maybe it's not a good thing for us - both audience, author, and characters - to be so quick to judge and dismiss others just because they're annoying and nasty - that doing so can have dire consequences, as we see with how Eridan's story plays out.

And I'm not kidding when I say that we have to be constantly fucking vigilant, that there's very, very little that can be purely taken at face value. Not long after this is one of Karkat's memos, where he attempts to warn his past friends about all the murders, only to dismiss past!Gamzee by saying that current!Gamzee going crazy murderclown "barely even concerns [him]." Hussie then notes in the commentary - and not for the first time - that Karkat has a Problem(TM) with not seeing past/future versions of people as contiguous with their current selves, which he does as a defense mechanism so as not to confront his own feelings of shame and self-loathing. Hussie then proceeds not to comment on the following:

CCG: YOU ARE DEAD TO ME CCG: PAST YOU, PRESENT YOU, FUTURE YOU CCG: AND ABOVE ALL, UGLY SCARFNECKED DOUCHEBAG HIPSTER YOU CCG: WAIT I FORGOT, ALL OF THE YOUS ARE THAT YOU

Hmmm... interesting. I wonder why Hussie points out one of Karkat's running character traits, just to "forget" to notice when an exception happens directly after? I'll let this one be an exercise for the class.

So to tie it all back to your ask: why is the exposition on troll romance done the way it is? What are the narrator's motives? Hussie even outright states in the commentary that Kanaya/Tavros/Vriska, which is used as an example of an auspicetism, isn't even a real auspicetism, as Kanaya feels no need to commit to it, and at most is putting out mixed signals - it's just used as an example because it's the closest thing we've seen.

Well, the answer I've arrived at, personally, is that the troll romance explanation is as flawed as it is because the narrator is taking on Karkat's point of view. A movie poster on Karkat's wall, the troll version of Serendipity, is used and namedropped as the ultimate expression of meeting your soul mate in every quadrant - as well as the assertion that "every" troll believes that there ARE destined soul mates for every quadrant, which Karkat definitely believes, but isn't a sentiment necessarily shared by everybody else. Moreover, the explanation ends with a tirade about how Karkat tried to explain quadrants to John, who didn't get it because "he's an idiot".

I'm not saying that Karkat is literally narrating here, just to be clear - I'm saying that the narrator (Hussie-as-character) is relaying factual information as processed through the lens of Karkat's biases, and, as a result, we can't take the explanation at 100% face value (though we can't discount it as entirely untrue, either). It's not so much that "real" moirail pairs work because they're doing moirallegiance "wrong," but that Karkat's view of moirallegiance is simplistic, idealized, and flawed, and we see this play out when he's bitter about his breakup with Gamzee because Gamzee stops "needing" him to keep him calm, even after Karkat has failed to be kept calm by Gamzee in return.

The more I look into Homestuck, the more that I'm genuinely impressed by the way it handles its writing. I hope this was interesting to everyone, too. I feel a little like I'm peeling back a curtain, or opening up a clock to reveal all the little cogs and wheels.

No, you can't trust Hussie as the narrator, but that's on purpose, and it's on purpose because why do we trust narrators? Why do we assume people telling a story are unbiased, benevolent, and have no ulterior motives? Why do we let idiots, assholes, predators, and monsters get away with their version of the truth, when a little scrutiny will have the whole ruse fall apart? Why do we let people tell us not to care about other people, why do we let them tell us that it's okay to be cruel to acceptible targets, why do we let them go unexamined?

And how about the stories we tell ourselves?

[fantastic-nonsense]

im soso curious, i need to know... why is tim a child of apollo? bless u for not going with fanon<3

[referencing how I decided who the Batfam's godly parents were in my PJO AU WIP]

People like to sort him into Athena because DC has spent the last few years emphasizing how smart he is and how he's better at the more “cerebral” and detective aspects of the job. But Tim’s most prominent pre-reboot traits are not actually his detective or tech skills: they’re his reckless, impulsive bravery, his ability to analyze and think very quickly on his feet in dangerous situations, and his "power of friendship" idealism.

He's a people person; it's one of his greatest strengths. Tim is like...physically incapable of going somewhere and not making at least one friend while he's there. Hell, when he ran off to travel the world on his "fuck you, I'll find Bruce on my own" trip he still managed to pick up his own little crew of assassin friends along the way. Making connections and talking to people and relying on others for help is how he successfully navigates being a hero, as he himself notes on multiple occasions:

"Did you think I was going to run all around the city, desperately trying to save everyone all by myself? I'm not Batman. I have friends." -Red Robin #12

Tim loves his family and friends, and losing so many people he's close to within such a small timespan sends him off the deep end in multiple ways (trying to clone Kon, fighting Dick to get the Lazarus water, isolating himself from everyone, fighting with Dick and running off to find proof that Bruce was alive on his own, etc).

At his core, Tim is an idealist who becomes a hero for no other reason than a) a broken man needs help and a broken family needs mending and b) if Dick won't go back to being Robin he might as well do it, because someone has to be Robin. He sees what will happen if Bruce stays on the path he's on and says "no. I'm not going to let that happen." He's a hero because someone has to help, and he's able and available to do so. He doesn't work on cold hard logic and facts. He works off of gut instinct and then uses his big brain to go find facts and logical conclusions that support those instincts.

Tim was never going to be an Athena child.

So I started thinking. At first, I wanted him to be a Hermes child; it seemed right to frame his parentage around being the child of the messenger of the gods given how he became Robin. But that's not really him, either. Apollo, within the scope of both classical mythology and the PJO-verse's depiction of him and his children, fits him better.

While modern culture tends to zero in a lot on Apollo's status as the god of music, poetry, and the arts (for good reason), Apollo in classical Greek mythology was first and foremost known as the god who (for lack of a better term) helps his people. He's the god of the sun, of light, of medicine and healing, of prophecy, of truth.

Tim comes into Bruce's life at a time when Bruce is at his absolute lowest point. Jason is dead. He's estranged from Dick. He's failing in his mission to save Gotham. He's highkey passively suicidal. And Tim takes it upon himself to fix that. And he does it by being a solid, bright, stable presence in Bruce's life and an extremely blunt, truthful messenger of the future he sees: Batman needs a Robin, and if Bruce doesn't have one he's going to die.

And I didn't abandon his intelligence in the calculations: Apollo is also the god of rational thinking, order, and knowledge, contrasting and working in harmony with Dionysus (the god of irrationality, chaos, and passion). He was also known to be the god whose job it was to interpret the will of Zeus to humankind, which I thought was appropriate for a boy who spends quite a lot of his time being the living communication translator between Bruce and everyone around him.

So. Apollo child.

............also I thought it was funny to make the god of youth the father of the boy DC refuses to allow to age.

[the-bleeding-weave]

Im back on my bullshit since yall seem to enjoy it. This time ive got a proper au for you

Tulpar crew cowboy au!!!

Takes place in southern georgia in 1880

The gang is called the McCurly's (after curlys last name)

Curly is a 35 year old scottish immigrant who came from a decently wealthy family, but he hated the lifestyle and wanted to live a freer life. He developed a hatred of the wealthy elite and believes humanity is at its best when they serve each other and not just their own interests. He also has a hatred of the law for uplifting the wealthy while trampling the poor and working person.

Curly is revolted by racism and bigotry in all its forms and vows to kill or "change the minds" of every person who dares to support the harming of minorities. This will become one of his gangs main goals (ie. Kill all kkk members with no remorse, kill bigoted protesters, beat the fuck out of and intimidate politicians until they change laws, etc)

Curly does well at all ranges of combat but he prefers long and medium range, using his favorite lever action rifle for most combat encounters. His sidearm of choice is a classic six shooter revolver which hes gotten very quick with reloading.

He has a silver and black brindle thoroughbred mare named Tulpar

Anya is a 32 year old Cherokee native whose village was devastated by oil barons who stole her people's land and left them to fend for themselves. Her family was massacred in the middle of the night by pinkertons with her being one of the few survivors.

Despite this incredible trauma, she survived on her own for a while before finding curly grievously sick in the wild. Feeling bad for him she used her extensive knowledge of herbs and medicine to heal him back to perfect health, the two forming a tight bond in the process.

Shes the gangs resident healer, they all refer to her as a doctor even though she isnt licensed, though they all agree shes better than a doctor.

She studied germ theory extensively and even learned about viruses several years before modern science did.

She loves hunting along with curly :3

She loves going on raids with the others and does great with all forms of combat.

Because shes a smoker her voice is distinctly raspy and deep, meaning she can put on what she calls her "bandit voice," a uniquely intimidating tone she uses for raids or to intimidate people.

She has a golden dun tiger stripe mustang stallion named Yorkshire that she raised herself, as a result he refuses to let anyone else ride him. The gang jokes that shes unintentionally convinced him hes her human son

Daisuke is the newest and youngest member of the gang at 23 years old. Hes japanese and mexican and speaks fluent English, japanese and spanish. His parents were killed by a dangerous gang and he was left homeless overnight, struggling to survive on his own. He was found by anya who took him in to camp to treat him for an infected injury and he quickly endeared everyone in camp with his infectious positivity. Curly allowed him to stay as a new member to which daisuke was eternally grateful

He LOVES his pistol like its his wife and has modified and decorated the hell out of it. It has engravings on the barrel and handle as well as gold plating. Hes gotten surprisingly good at using it too, able to aim well at decently long ranges especially for a pistol. While he prefers medium range combat he isnt too bad with long range either.

His horse is a reverse dapple roan nokota mare he named Asteroid destroyer. Shes the fastest horse in the whole gang and daisuke is incredibly proud of that fact

Jimmy (34) is an old childhood friend of curly and was the son of american immigrants to scotland. Though his family wasnt wealthy he still hated european life and wanted to join curlys lifestyle so he became curlys first gang member.

In this au he isnt a sexual predator, just abrasive but mostly well meaning. Hes a strategist and bounty hunter as well as the assistant manager for the gangs funds alongside curly. Hes not terrible at it but swansea loves complaining about things he spends on

When doing raids he often serves as supporting fire or lookout, keeping watch for cops and security. Hes a pretty good shot but he cant do very well with more than medium range combat. He relies very heavily on his side arms and almost never uses large arms like rifles.

His horse is a dark bay turkoman stallion named Polle and jimmy treats him like royalty

Last but certainly not least is swansea. Hes 58 years old and he used to work for a steel refinery but he hated every second of it. His true passion was in horses and gunsmithing.

He often takes up sniper positions when they perform raids since his horse is the slowest in the gang. But he also makes for a great tank when theyre in the thick of it, he has the unique ability to take several bullet wounds and not even flinch. He also has two shotguns, one is a pump shotgun and the other is a sawed off double barrel which he uses religiously. He excels at long range and short range combat due to his weapons expertise

He may not be the tallest but his sheer bulk and deep voice is enough to intimidate most people, especially when he presses his shotgun into their belly

He has an iron gray roan Ardennes mare he named after his late wife Andrea. He has the biggest soft spot in his heart for her and regularly has conversations with her when he thinks hes alone.

[satoshi-mochida]

ROAD59: A Yakuza’s Last Stand launches September 25 - Gematsu

Visual novel game ROAD59: A Yakuza’s Last Stand will launch for Switch and PC via Steam on September 25 worldwide, publisher Bushiroad Games and developer Rocket Studio announced. It will support English, Japanese, Traditional Chinese, and Simplified Chinese language options. In Japan, the Switch version will be available both physically and digitally.

Here is an overview of the game, via Bushiroad Games:

■ About

ROAD59 is a character-driven crime drama set in Tenkai Ward, a sleepless city floating in the Tokyo Bay of the near future. The story follows modern-day yakuza who possess a supernatural power known as JINGI, passed down through the Grail of Blood ritual. Within this dark world of betrayal, desire, and turf wars, a reluctant young successor, Shou Himuro, is forced to take on the role of boss of the Hakurou Family. While burdened by a title he never asked for, Shou races through the dangerous underworld of Tenkai in order to protect the people he holds dear. With its fusion of mythical elements like the Grail of Blood and JINGI, and the intense factional conflicts rooted in classic yakuza narratives, ROAD59 offers a gripping tale of honor, legacy, and survival.

■ Story Synopsis

A towering metropolis floating in Tokyo Bay—Tenkai Ward. Here, beings known as Jingi wield inhuman powers and engage in brutal blood-soaked battles for survival. Despite being born as the heir to Hakurou, Sho Himuro longs for nothing more than an ordinary and peaceful life. Yet, fate binds him to his duty as the new boss, forcing him to shoulder the burden of his family’s future. As Sho hesitates to fully embrace the path of the yakuza, the conflict in Tenkai Ward intensifies over the legendary Power of Orochi, said to grant its wielder their deepest desire. Meanwhile, the city’s largest gang, Kurojou, begins to move in the shadows as they seek to absorb the weakened Hakurou following the loss of its former leader. To protect his family, Sho must navigate a world of betrayal and desire, forced to make impossible choices by his own hands. Will salvation or ruin await him at the end of this path?

■ JINGI: The Yakuza Who Transcend Humanity

In Tenkai Ward, those who seek to forge unbreakable bonds with their comrades undergo the Grail of Blood Ritual. In this ritual, a child receives blood from their parent, and a younger brother from their elder, symbolizing their inauguration. This sacred exchange not only marks them as full-fledged members but also grants them an extraordinary power beyond human limits—the divine force known as Jingi. To share blood is to forsake the path of a mortal. Once one becomes Jingi, there is no return to normalcy. Their bodies are forever altered and they must server any ties to the world they once knew. Yet, despite this irreversible fate, they step forward, driven by unwavering resolve and the a desperation for power.

■ The Stage is Set: Tenkai Ward

National Route 59 cuts through Tokyo Bay. Beyond it lies a world glistening with desire, home to the most renowned skyscrapers in the world: Tenkai Ward. Once a vast artificial island built upon a landfill site in Tokyo Bay, Tenkai Ward was redeveloped into a special economic zone. This area operates under special regulations and the district has seen rapid expansion as a casino resort and tourist hub. Fueled by massive domestic and international investments, the new cityscape flourishes at an astonishing pace. Sleek high-rise offices and luxurious residential areas define the skyline. However, the old district suffers from worsening public safety and has become a hotspot for crime and social disparity.

■ The Power of Orochi and the Key of Orochi: A Wish Granted at a Heavy Cost

It is said that any wish can be granted by offering the blood of the Key of Orochi to the severed head of Yamata no Orochi buried deep underground. However, doing so will unleash a great calamity… The mere existence of this power holds the potential to upend the entire balance of power in Tenkai Ward, serving as the catalyst for an escalating conflict.

■ ROAD59: The Bar Where Secrets and Strangers Gather

Nestled quietly in the entertainment district of Tenkaiku, the bar “ROAD59” serves as a haven for customers with troubled pasts and a hub where valuable information flows. In the latter half of the story, the protagonist takes on the role of a bartender at ROAD59, working to save Hakurougumi while interacting with various characters and gathering intel. Don’t overlook the secrets that are spilled over drinks…! But be careful—if your hospitality is not up to par, you may lose out on critical information when your guest walks away! (*Non-alcoholic drinks will be served to underage characters.)

■ Character Information

Shou Himuro

Faction: Hakurou Family

A troubled ordinary young man who is also a gang member. Unable to resist the expectations around him, he is burdened with the traditions and prestige of the gang, reluctantly walking the path of the yakuza as the young acting leader of the Hakurou Family. Caught between a strict older sister and a selfish younger sister, it is difficult for him to voice his true feelings.

Suzuka Himuro

Faction: Hakurou Family

A lively and cheerful high school girl who is the younger sister of Shou and Shizuka. Due to the JINGI’s power, she possesses incredible strength despite her appearance. In combat, she swings a 100kg iron bat, decorated in a cute style.

Shizuka Himuro

Faction: Hakurou Family

The eldest daughter of the Himuro family who effectively manages the Hakurou Family. She pushes her still-inexperienced younger brother, Shou, determined to shape him into a great leader. Fearless and sharp-tongued, she never backs down, even when faced with unreasonable demands, and is always ready to fire back with a bold retort. Her commands are absolute within the gang, and the men of the Hakurou Family fear and respect her.

Shion Hyuga

Faction: Hakurou Family

A good understanding supporter of Shou burdened with the fate of the family. Although he usually has a soft and gentle demeanor, his dedication to the Hakurou Family is exceptionally strong, and he shows no mercy to those who speak ill of the gang. When he was young, he was saved by Shou after being caught in a conflict and gravely injured, he still feels indebted to him to this day.

Kazuomi Kurogane

Faction: Hakurou Family

A high-ranking member of the Hakurou Family and a childhood friend of Shizuka and Jin, Kazuomi is known for his unwavering composure and reliability in battle. To the gang, he is an indispensable asset. To Shou, he has been like an older brother, always looking out for him since they were kids. Though not the talkative type, his quiet words often carry a deep sense of care for the gang and its members.

Bakuto Yanagi

Faction: Shinonome Family

He might come across as someone who handles everything half-heartedly, but when it’s time to get things done, he delivers. As the de facto leader of the Shinonome Family, he has a laid-back, almost mocking way of handling situations that leaves people bewildered. His unpredictable and bold actions to resolve problems often annoy those around him, but at the same time, they rely on him for his ability to get things done.

Kensei Sumeragi

Faction: Kurojou Family

Kensei Sumeragi is the formidable leader of the Kurojou Family, renowned for his arrogance and disdain for others. His confident smirk barely masks the cold, calculating glare in his eyes—a reflection of his ruthless nature. On the surface, he is the CEO of a major corporation spearheading Tenkai District’s urban development, but behind the scenes, he forcefully seizes rival territories, turning them into towering office districts and extravagant casino resorts. With an iron grip on power, he has skyrocketed to dominance in the criminal underworld, rapidly expanding his gang through sheer wealth and influence. However, his relentless and uncompromising methods have left a trail of bitterness and resentment among those he’s crushed along the way.

Masamune Niimi

Faction: Tenkai District Special Police

A vengeance-driven former yakuza turned police cyborg. Falsely accused of assassinating the former Kurojou Family boss, Niimi was imprisoned—until he struck a deal with Sui Kadosaki. In exchange for aiding the police, he underwent cyborg surgery, determined to exact revenge on those who betrayed him. Despite his cooperation, Kadosaki treats him not as an equal, but as a disposable tool—electrocuting him into obedience whenever he resists. “If disrespected, I kill. If challenged, I fight. And I always uphold the code of honor.” In many ways, he lives by the yakuza code more earnestly than anyone else.

Kyoji Serizawa

Faction: Tenkai District Special Police

Known for his kindness and unwavering sense of justice, he was a role model within the police force. However, on the day of his daughter’s birthday, he and his entire family were murdered by a JINGI-affiliated gang. The coat he left on his desk at the station that day remains in Kadosaki’s possession—a treasured memento she carries with her to this day.

Sui Kadosaki

Faction: Tenkai District Special Police

A detective in the JINGI Crime Division of the Tenkai District Special Police, an agency operating under special ordinances unique to Tenkai’s status as an economic zone. To avenge the murder of her respected superior, Kyoji Serizawa, and his family, Sui Kadosaki arranges the release of former JINGI wielder Masamune Niimi, on the condition that he undergo cyborg surgery. Since Serizawa’s death, she has shut herself off from others, treating Niimi solely as a tool for apprehending the culprits—never as an equal or partner. She continues to wear Serizawa’s coat, a keepsake that symbolizes both her unyielding pursuit of justice and her deep-rooted need for revenge.

■ Hakurou Family

A traditional and highly esteemed yakuza organization with roots in the Kansai region. The Himuro family has led the group for generations, and their bonds run deep—like a true family. Known for avoiding unnecessary conflict, the Hakurou Family prioritizes stability within their territory. However, their adherence to old ways has made it difficult to adapt to changing times. As a result, they’ve steadily lost ground to the Kurojou Family in recent years, and their influence is now in decline. With a troubled young acting boss and loyal members striving to uphold their legacy, the family now stands at a critical crossroads—its very survival hanging in the balance.

■ Kurojou Family

The largest yakuza organization in Tenkai Ward, the Kurojou Family has rapidly expanded its influence in recent years, backed by immense financial resources and manpower. At the heart of their rise is the powerful Sumeragi Conglomerate, which holds a dominant share in urban development projects throughout the district. The current boss, Kensei Sumeragi, seized control after surviving a fierce succession battle. It is rumored that he possesses the JINGI ability of Future Sight. While the Kurojou Family’s momentum seems unstoppable, dissatisfaction brews beneath the surface. Discontent grows among factions loyal to the previous boss, and the organization teeters on the edge of an internal power struggle, sparked by unrest under Kensei’s cold and authoritarian rule.

■ Shinonome Family

A yakuza organization known for its free-spirited nature, unbound by outdated traditions. While they may appear disorganized at first glance, they are a capable and responsive group that draws on each member’s unique strengths when trouble arises. Currently, the boss Kiyonobu Yutsuma has gone missing, raising concerns that something unusual may be unfolding behind the scenes. If a leadership transition becomes necessary, succession disputes or interference from rival gangs could arise. However, despite their small numbers, the Shinonome Family is known for its strong internal unity, and the likelihood of internal conflict remains low.

■ PHOENIX

An international alliance of foreign mafia groups operating on a global scale. While it boasts the largest presence in terms of size, information about its boss and executive members is tightly concealed, leaving the full extent of the organization shrouded in mystery. Led by rational and calculating leaders, PHOENIX has recently set its sights on Tenkai Ward, recognizing it as a critical hub for their cross-border business expansion. Their full-scale entry into the district has begun in earnest. With their influence steadily growing, PHOENIX has become a rising threat to the established JINGI organizations of Tenkai.

Watch the opening movie below.

Opening Movie

[greatdevourer1231954]

Superman & Lois (2021)

Over the years, many television series have attempted to delve into Superman's personal life—exploring not just the hero in the cape, but the man behind it. Few, however, have done it as successfully and thoughtfully as Superman & Lois, a series that not only honors the mythos of the character but redefines it for a new generation.

What makes Superman & Lois stand out is its heartfelt exploration of something often overlooked in superhero stories: the everyday human responsibilities that come with being a husband and a father. It reminds us that even the most powerful man on Earth isn’t exempt from the challenges of raising children, maintaining a marriage, or balancing work and home life. It's a series that shows Superman not just as a savior of worlds—but as a man trying to hold his family together in an increasingly complicated world.

Officially announced in October 2019, with Tyler Hoechlin reprising his role as Clark Kent/Superman and Elizabeth Tulloch returning as Lois Lane after following their well-received appearances in the Arrowverse. The show was initially intended to be firmly rooted within that shared universe, plans for major crossover events with shows like Supergirl and Batwoman were ultimately scrapped due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, showrunner Todd Helbing and Warner Bros. Television made a creative decision: to allow Superman & Lois to stand on its own, free from the narrative constraints of the larger Arrowverse.

And that decision paid off.

Set in its own continuity, Superman & Lois carves out a unique tone and storytelling style that sets it apart from other superhero shows. Rather than focusing solely on world-ending threats and super-powered battles, it roots its drama in the real-life complexities of family and identity. The series follows Clark and Lois as they move back to Smallville to raise their two teenage sons, Jonathan and Jordan Kent, each of whom faces their own trials—from discovering superhuman abilities to struggling with adolescence in a small town under the shadow of Superman’s legacy.

The premise blends domestic drama with superhero spectacle, balancing intense action with emotional nuance. Viewers watch as Clark grapples with keeping the world safe while being there for his family—often forced to choose between saving lives and showing up for a school event. Lois, too, faces her own struggles: fighting corruption as a journalist, supporting her family, and navigating the danger that inevitably follows her husband's double life.

Throughout the series, familiar faces and new threats emerge—ranging from classic villains like Tal-Rho and Morgan Edge, to more grounded, modern-day challenges like corporate corruption and community decay. And through it all, the series asks a powerful question: What does it mean to be Superman in today's world—not just as a hero, but as a father, a husband, and a man?

In doing so, Superman & Lois doesn't just succeed as a superhero show—it excels as a family drama, a coming-of-age tale, and a celebration of what makes Superman truly super: his heart, his values, and the strength he finds in the people he loves.

I think what I admire most about Tyler Hoechlin’s portrayal of Superman is how effortlessly he captures the spirit of hope, compassion, and humanity that has always defined the character. Much like Christopher Reeve before him, Tyler’s Superman isn’t just a symbol of strength—he’s a beacon of inspiration. He sees the best in people, even when they can’t see it in themselves. He doesn't just fight villains—he tries to redeem them, to help them find a better path. And that, to me, is one of the truest interpretations of who Superman is meant to be.

But what truly sets Tyler’s version apart—and what resonates with me on a personal level—is his role as a husband and a father. His love for Lois is unwavering. His bond with his sons, Jonathan and Jordan, is heartfelt and believable. He’s not perfect. He makes mistakes. He struggles. But that’s what makes him so compelling. He doesn’t just save the world—he comes home to help with homework, mend broken hearts, and be there for his family in the quiet, ordinary moments that truly define us.

For years, I wondered what a version of Superman would look like if he had to juggle not just being Earth’s protector, but also being a good father, a present husband—a real man trying to live up to the expectations both of the world and his loved ones. Tyler showed that with grace, with strength, and with vulnerability.

Throughout the series, we were given countless memorable moments—moments where he teaches his sons the value of doing the right thing, not because it’s easy, but because it’s right. Moments where he comforts Lois after a loss, or sacrifices something personal for the greater good.

And even during epic battles and world-ending threats, he never loses sight of what truly matters: family, love, and doing what’s right.

Tyler also manages to capture every facet of Superman’s identity. He gets the gentle humor, the quiet pain of loss, and the weight of legacy—all the complex layers that come with being the last son of Krypton. His performance isn’t just about the cape or the powers; it’s about the man underneath it all—the man trying to hold everything together, not just for himself, but for everyone else too.

What makes Superman & Lois so unique, in my opinion, is that it’s one of the only adaptations—aside from some comics and select films—that truly shows both the beginning and end of Superman’s journey. We see Clark grow, change, and eventually find peace with his role in the world. That kind of full-circle storytelling is rare, and incredibly powerful. There are moments, especially in the series finale, that still bring me to tears—not just because of what happens, but because of what it means.

And that’s why, even though Tyler isn’t Christopher Reeve—he never had to be. He honored the legacy by showing us a Superman grounded in love, shaped by responsibility, and driven by hope. He proved that being Superman isn’t just about what you can do—it’s about who you are, and how you inspire others to be better.

In the end, he was a hero, a husband, a father… and above all, a symbol of hope. And really—that’s who Superman should always be.

[magicantare]

mmc magical girl AU lore dump:

The year is 20XX. The world is slowly approaching a post-scarcity utopia supported by unprecedented advances in technology and science. Quantum and classical physics have been united, asteroid mining has made electronic components cheap and abundant, medical technology guarantees a higher quality of life, and most recently, inorganic matter has been able to be converted into data and back.

Dr. Light and Dr. Wily developed a “robotic support system”, a type of protective suit integrated with incredibly advanced robotic tools for specific dangerous tasks, like rescues, handling hazardous material, or performing tasks in extreme environments. Light wants the suits to be used to help advance the frontiers of science, while Wily is more interested in its military applications despite large-scale conflicts being minimal in the present day. These support systems are integrated into the body to the point that removing them requires special equipment (think like an HEV suit), but the suits themselves are very powerful and cutting-edge. Light’s proposal to use them for scientific reasons is what ultimately wins out, and Wily is shunned for pushing for military use. Soon after this, Wily simply vanishes without a trace, which bothers Light but he can’t do anything about it.

At some point Light saves his oldest son, Blues, from dying of a heart condition with a suit prototype (LRSS-000) that regulates his heart rate and provides strength for his weakened body, but Blues had already accepted his death and doesn’t take having his body tampered with super well and ends up leaving home. Light creates generic support systems in the form of LRSS-001 and 002, proving the non-weaponized potential that the support system has, where his twin children Rock and Roll happily volunteer to demonstrate them with great success. Light then deploys LRSS-003 to 008 with handpicked candidates, qualified university graduates and trade employees, for use in scientific and industrial fields.

Wily shows up some years later and declares war on the world with his own version of the robotic support system, and a handful of 20-somethings that he’s coerced/bribed/blackmailed into piloting them, calling them “Bion Masters”. The suits are ridiculously powerful and there are far less military resources out there than in modern day due to the general state of peace in the world, so nothing can stop them. Rock and Roll both volunteer themselves to fight against Wily, but Light can’t bear to let either of them face danger after nearly losing Blues. Though Light’s Bion Masters try their best to fight back, they don’t have the same weaponized capabilities that Wily’s do and are slowly defeated and abducted one by one, each disappearance further weighing on Light’s conscience.

The most egregious act comes when Wily and Shadow Man break into the Light residence and kidnap Rock and Roll and their support systems, absolutely shattering Light’s will to fight back. Before he vanishes, Rock tells his father that he can’t give up here and urges him to resist Wily for everyone’s sake.

Light makes the difficult decision to weaponize the second series of support systems he’s been developing and seek out people who have enough courage to take on Wily’s forces. He finds the first seven users relatively quickly, but the last support system, 016, has so much dangerous potential that Light hesitates to find a user for it…

Light’s (Current) Bion Masters:

LRSS-009 “Concrete Man”

Good Point: Gets the job done Bad Point: Self-righteous Likes: Fulfilling work Dislikes: Laziness

The support system was designed for construction. In battle, he’s most effective at backline support, civilian rescue and damage mitigation, but has quite a lot of raw physical strength for defense. Concrete Shot can immobilize enemies.

LRSS-010 “Tornado Man”

Good Point: Confident Bad Point: Slacker Likes: New experiences Dislikes: Working

The support system was designed for weather management and mitigating storm damage. In battle, he acts as the leader and has quick mobility, focusing on clearing out large groups of enemies and moving victims of Wily’s assaults to safe areas. Tornado Blow can throw even heavy enemies into the air and damage them upon impact with the ground.

LRSS-011 “Splash Woman”

Good Point: Hard worker Bad Point: Moody Likes: Self-care Dislikes: Having her time wasted

The support system was designed for rescuing shipwreck survivors. In battle, she can fight up-close and excels at underwater combat and has small fish-like robots she can call on for extra support. Laser Trident can cut cleanly through metal and destroy robotic enemies.

LRSS-012 “Plug Man”

Good Point: Quick learner Bad Point: Over-exciteable Likes: Technology Dislikes: Boring tasks

The support system was designed for delicate but high-powered electronic manufacturing. In battle he’s a long-ranged fighter that can use both physical and electrical projectiles. Plug Ball can spread across surfaces and short-circuit any machines that aren’t hermetically sealed.

LRSS-013 “Jewel Man” Good Point: Stylish Bad Point: Self-Centered Likes: Interesting things Dislikes: Being rejected

The support system was designed for jewel mining. In battle, he’s a very fast and up-close brawler that can even claw metal apart. Jewel Satellite can protect him from energy shots and damage enemies on contact.

LRSS-014 “Hornet Man” Good Point: Compassionate Bad Point: Pushover Likes: Nature Dislikes: Selfishness

The support system was designed for botany and environmental science work. In battle, he’s primarily a backline fighter that provides remote support. Hornet Chaser can pursue enemies and pierce through metal with lasers.

LRSS-015 “Magma Man”

Good Point: Calm Bad Point: A little dense Likes: Traveling Dislikes: Staying indoors

The support system was designed for work in volcanic environments. In battle, he’s a very slow but powerful frontline fighter. Magma Bazooka can melt through metal armor with direct shots.

LRSS-016 “Galaxy Man” Good Point: Creative Bad Point: No people-skills Likes: Science Dislikes: Strangers

The support system was designed for performing spacewalks and maintenance on space stations and satellites. In battle, they’re highly mobile and can hit devastatingly hard, but are themself fragile. Black Hole Bomb can suck up pretty much anything that isn’t tied down or attached to the ground, so it can destroy huge groups of enemies at once.

...That's everything I have formally written down, at least, but I've also made a lot of offhand remarks when brainstorming for this.

[nicklloydnow]

“Mises' disciple Murray Rothbard complained that conservatives' adoption of Mises occluded the more radical portions of the economist's thinking: elements that were antistate, pro-peace, pro-immigration, even critical of the Christian tradition. In a 1981 essay in The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Rothbard griped that too many of Mises' right-wing fans "have unwittingly distorted [his views] and made them seem at one with the modern conservative movement in the United States," as though Mises were "a sort of National Review intellectual."

(…)

Yes, some conservative mandarins mistrusted Mises, fretting that his rationalistic, utilitarian focus on economic liberties failed to stress the importance of, as Russell Kirk put it, "supernatural and traditional sanctions." But a Misesian take on the benefits of private property and minimal economic interference was one of the three legs of the American intellectual right from the rise of Buckley's magazine to at least the end of Ronald Reagan's presidency (the other two being Judeo-Christian traditionalism and militant anticommunism). Mises' intellectual dominance was rooted in his masterfully detailed defenses of 19th century classical liberalism and free market economics, and also in his influence on other libertarian intellectual giants, such as Rothbard, F.A. Hayek, and Ayn Rand.

Among the most damaging changes Trumpism has wrought on conservatism has been the rejection of core elements of Mises' thought—the parts that undermined the idea that a "national interest" should supersede individual choice and freedom in markets.

Mises was an ardent free-trader. President Donald Trump promotes autarky and calls himself "Tariff Man." Mises was a devoted anti-inflationist, a promoter of hard currencies that government could not create and manipulate at will. Though Trump has given lip service to private cryptocurrency as part of his larger antiestablishment coalition, he also demanded in his first term that the Federal Reserve expand the money supply to goose the economy and give him a short-term political benefit. In his 1944 book Omnipotent Government, Mises condemned forceful territorial expansion as one of the causes of Europe's terrible 20th century wars. Since the election, Trump has publicly mulled territorial seizures around the globe. Trump ardently supports a restrictionist immigration policy. Mises believed the free flow of people, goods, and capital were linchpins of the ideal international system. Trump favors industrial policy, in which government planners intervene to assist selected domestic industries. Mises understood that would lower, not raise, overall prosperity.

And when Trump's interventionist policies fail, that will mean more danger—for as Mises pointed out, failed government interventions often lead to still more intervention. Bureaucrats stubbornly continue to try to achieve their desired results through more interventions that also fail, spinning increasingly complex webs of ineffective controls. That dynamic made Mises deny the possibility of a viable "third way" between free markets and socialism. Once you start down the socialist road, he wrote, you tend to go further and further from freedom.

(…)

What free markets did that the socialists didn't understand, Mises explained, was reduce comparisons between incommensurable objects to a common denominator: a price. Without that common denominator, it would be impossible to make rational and efficient decisions about what to produce and in what quantities to meet demonstrable human needs. For instance: What if you possess a warehouse full of steel, but need food to eat, and wish to exchange it in the manner that would benefit you the most, commensurate with your trading partner's desires? In a market economy, prices tell you what everything is worth in relation to everything else. If steel sells for $120 a pound, and apples for $3 a pound, you know a pound of steel is worth 40 times more than a pound of apples.

With private property and people's ability to keep what they earn by buying and selling, market prices are likely as close as possible at any moment to how people actually value things. Why? Because "wrong" prices create entrepreneurial opportunities to raise or lower them until they do reflect people's actual desires. This continuous market process never results in the modern economist's perfect model of an equilibrium where trading becomes irrelevant. Thus, the combination of prices and private property comes as close as any social process could to reflecting true social desires about what should be made and what it should cost.

(…)

Free market prices spread information about everyone's subjective valuations of what they want and what they are willing to pay for it. In doing so, they depend, as Hayek especially emphasized, on individuals' unique personal awareness of local circumstances that no central planner could ever know, except through the very market prices the planners think they can either eliminate or invent. This makes any version of the sort of "pro-American" industrial policy Trump promotes ultimately nothing more than using political force to push privileged groups' interests at the expense of every other American worker or consumer.

After Socialism, Mises wrote Liberalism in the Classical Tradition(1927), a brilliant explanation of his social philosophy. Mises' liberalism is materialistic; "it has nothing else in view than the advancement of [man's] outward, material welfare." It is capitalistic, but it recognizes that a truly liberal capitalist system has as its engine not capitalists' whims but consumers' desires. It is democratic, but only pragmatically so; democracy largely ensures the peaceful turnover of state power. It is utilitarian; Mises advocates economic and personal liberty not from a metaphysical belief in rights but because liberalism delivers the greatest wealth and abundance.

Mises' liberalism requires peace for its fullest flowering: When everyone can benefit from everyone else's ideas and productivity through universal free trade, we are more likely to avoid the demands for colonialism and lebensraum that triggered the 20th century's hideous wars. Mises' liberalism is also a doctrine of maximal tolerance: "Liberalism proclaims tolerance for every religious faith and every metaphysical belief, not out of indifference for these 'higher' things, but from the conviction that the assurance of peace within society must take precedence over everything."

Mises' liberalism is rooted in private property: If property is protected by law, he argued, the other aspects of his liberal vision will likely result. Mises saw his worldview as a continuation of the liberal philosophy of the 19th century, which had been eclipsed in the 20th by bloody statist doctrines such as socialism and nationalism.

Mises' 1933 book Epistemological Problems of Economics explained the connection between economics as he understood it and libertarianism. Before the development of economics, he wrote, "it had been believed that no bounds other than those drawn by the laws of nature circumscribed the path of acting man. It was not known that there is still something more that sets a limit to political power beyond which it cannot go….In the social realm too there is something operative which power and force are unable to alter and to which they must adjust themselves if they hope to achieve success."

Thus, government must remain humble in its goals in the face of economic reality and realize that most attempts to shape the economy through intervention are bound to fail, even by the standards of those who advocated the interventions. For example, those who institute price controls want goods to be abundant and cheap; but such controls inevitably make the goods more scarce and expensive as people refuse to sell at losses or for profits lower than they prefer.

(…)

Meanwhile, in a sign of Mises' low status in American academia, as of 1949 his salary was paid not by the university but mostly by the Volker Fund, the sole libertarian funding foundation in existence at the time. When Mises was seeking an American academic berth in the 1940s, his star was so low that "we felt lucky to find some place that would take him," the Volker Fund's Richard Cornuelle recalled. "It was more than contempt they felt for Mises. They thought he was dangerous. They thought he was pushing a vicious, inhuman position that appealed to capitalists but didn't deserve any encouragement."

As Trump conquers the American right, Mises' ideas are still dangerous to the regnant forces of both major parties, each offering different culturally coded approaches to managing Americans' choices and limiting Americans' liberties. The MAGA movement's many violations of free market principles break with the wisdom of a man the right honored for decades, an economist whose sophisticated, far-ranging understanding of markets and freedom reveal the folly of so much of Trumpism.”

“Trump’s salient characteristic as a political figure is anti-intellectuality. Because Rand saw this mentality as on the rise (she called it the anti-conceptual mentality), she had a lot to say about it, and it’s illuminating how much of it fits Trump.

In Rand’s terms, to be intellectual is to sustain through life the conviction that ideas matter. This means that knowledge, abstract principles, justice and truth are of personal importance to you, embedded in everything you value and informing your every action. “To take ideas seriously,” Rand says, “means that you intend to live by, to practice, any idea you accept as true.”

This is a demanding responsibility. To be intellectual requires real independence of judgment and enduring honesty and integrity.

It’s not just that Trump lacks these virtues; in comparison to, say, Jefferson, Washington or Madison, most of today’s politicians do. It’s that Trump projects disdain for these virtues.

(…)

 Trump makes no distinction between truth and falsity, between statements backed by evidence and statements unsupported by any evidence. This is why you can’t catch him in a lie. He doesn’t care.

(…)

Closely connected to this disdain for the truth is a complete amoralism. “The normal pattern of self-appraisal,” Rand observes, “requires reference to some abstract value or virtue,” such as “I am good because I am rational” or “I am good because I am honest.” But the entire realm of abstract principles and standards is unknown to an anti-intellectual mentality. The phenomenon of judging himself by such standards, therefore, is alien. Instead, Rand argues, the “implicit pattern of all his estimates is: ‘It’s good because I like it’ — ‘It’s right because I did it’ — ‘It’s true because I want it to be true.’”

(…)

The self-centeredness that an amoralist exhibits, Rand holds, is centered on self-doubt; he therefore exhibits a constant and pathetic need to be loved, to be seen as a big shot and as the greatest ever. Observe Trump’s steady refrain that he’s accomplishing feats no other president has or could, Washington, Madison and Lincoln included. One suspects that the fake Time magazine with him on the cover hanging in Mar-a-Lago was as much to assuage Trump’s anxieties as to impress the gullible and sycophantic among his guests.

The place that loyalty to abstract standards occupies in a moral person’s mind, Rand argues, is typically replaced in an anti-intellectual mentality by “loyalty to the group.” Observe Trump’s special focus on this. Loyalty is desirable — if it has been earned. But Trump demands it up-front. As former FBI Director James Comey and others have remarked, a pledge of loyalty was among the first things Trump asked of them.

The wider phenomenon this demand for loyalty represents is a profound tribalism, a world divided into the loyal and the disloyal, insiders and outsiders, us versus them. To get a flavor, listen to any Trump rally.

Rand argued that in a period of intellectual and cultural bankruptcy, if the anti-intellectual mentality is on the rise, tribalism will be ascending culturally and, politically, a country will drift toward authoritarianism and ultimately dictatorship.

(…)

During the 2007–8 financial crisis, sales of Atlas Shrugged soared, in part because people wondered how Rand could have foreseen America’s economic collapse. Sales should be soaring again — because the book is not primarily about economic collapse, but about cultural and intellectual bankruptcy.

At the novel’s start, we witness a crumbling world, with posturing intellectuals who have long ago abandoned the intellect but who continue to preach irrational, shopworn ideas, which everyone mouths but no one fully believes — or dares challenge. Part of the point of the story is that these pseudo-intellectuals will eventually be replaced by their progeny: people who more openly dispense with the intellect and who are more explicitly boorish, brutish and tribal, i.e., by anti-intellectual mentalities.

(…)

The only way to prevent this kind of political and cultural disintegration, Rand thought, was to challenge the irrationalism, tribalism, determinism and identity politics at the heart of our intellectual life, propagated by the so-called left and right and by too many others as well. We need to realize that whether the appeal is to ethnicity or gender or faith or family or genes as the shaper of one’s soul and whether the demand is to sacrifice the rich to the poor, the poor to the rich, the able to the needy, whites to blacks, blacks to whites, individuals to the nation or sinners to God, all of it is corrupt. We are rational beings, who are capable of choosing a logical course in life and who should be pursing our own individual happiness.

Unless we are ready to radically rethink our culture’s fundamental ideas, with the same intensity of thought our Founding Fathers exerted in rethinking government, our long-term trajectory is set and will play out. But the choice is ours — this is the message of Atlas Shrugged.

Thus I think Rand would have said that a President Trump is a predictable outcome, but not an inevitable one.”

[minheelovelee]

epex as college boyfriends ? <3

as a professional college student, i love this ask! thanks anon!

college boyfriend!epex

warnings: mentions of controlled substances.

wish

- physical education major

- plans to teach middle-high school. he lives for growth and improvement. it’s the most rewarding thing about teaching.

- makes you walk everywhere with him. never takes his car for some reason. has really nice calf muscles and works out almost every day.

- eats with you every day at the dining hall. wants to make sure you’re eating well. sometimes he forgets, too. you keep each other in check.

- takes you to parties. he has a million friends. he always knows someone at every event. you don’t know how he made all these friends.

- doesn’t study and doesn’t set alarms. likes to live dangerously. take care of him.

- he ends up rooming with jaeho, a weirdo who wants to follow you everywhere. you both come to love him <3

keum

- modern dance major

- wanted to go to a college with non-art majors, too. so he settled for a school with just a general dance program.

- made friends with everyone on the first day. everyone has his snapchat. suddenly became a social butterfly. you’ll start off as friends.

- makes playlists for you. he makes music with some of his buddies. he dedicates songs to you and makes mix tapes.

- amazing host. always has gatherings at his apartment. stocked up on drinks and bud 24/7. doesn’t party sober.

- has a couple secret spots around campus to take you to. he’ll bring you to them when he wants to be alone with you.

- obsessed with his roommate. kyungmin never partied, drank, or had fun before coming college. he takes it upon himself to introduce km to all of college’s joys.

kyungmin

- art history major

- wants to be a museum coordinator or a journalist. he’s still kind of figuring things out. classic art student.

- you met through his roommate. you end up hitting it off and end up spending a lot of 1-on-1 time together.

- takes you out for coffee almost every day. the campus cafe takes all of his money. also, you eat on the floor of his dorm together because you don’t want to go to the dining hall. crackers, cheese, and whatever alcohol you could get your hands on that day.

- walks you to classes. insists that you never walk anywhere alone. makes sure you’re never lonely. also drives you wherever you need to go.

- drinks la croix at parties. with vodka. he can’t resist a drunk cigarette on the balcony either. not a big fan of crowds or drunk people though.

- his roommate, donghyun, is a lot. kyungmin likes him, but is annoyed by how many people he has over. so he comes to your dorm to watch you study.

amin

- business management major.

- following in the footsteps of one of his relatives. he wants to end up in human resources or entrepreneurship.

- brings you gifts of encouragement when you’re studying. might surprise you at the library with boba. also makes sure you eat dinner daily. he’ll cook for you if you’re too busy to go to the dining hall.

- his room is a mess. always. he thrives in chaos. even when he cleans, it’s still dirty.

- goes to campus events like plays, art shows, or comedy nights. he’s very appreciative of the arts.

- thinks putting something on the door handle is a universal sign not to come in. apparently it’s not. his roommate has seek you naked.

- roommates with hyunwoo. they spend a lot of time together. you three become a cute trio and share an apartment the following year.

baekseung

- major: undecided

- he didn’t want to graduate high school. or go to college. he’s just going to meet girls and please his parents.

- biggest dining hall supporter. he thinks the food is fire. you meet him there when you both sit by a mutual friend.

- you can hear him coming from a kilometer away on his skateboard. one time he hit a pothole and went flying. lol.

- goes to all donghyun’s parties. they write music together. he’s pretty well-known for being the campus rapper. you’re his groupie.

- he’s just taking generals right now, so his classes are pretty easy. he’ll try to help you with homework. but after one problem, he goes back to playing fifa.

- lives with minwoo. his roommate is only slightly obsessed with him. they love each other though. you spend a lot of time as a trio.

ayden

- biochemistry major

- he’s planning to go to med school. his mom told him to. he’d actually make a fantastic doctor.

- way too smart. he doesn’t study though. he just plays crossy road while watching you do class work.

- he falls asleep in class. bring him a red bull and he’ll be so happy.

- takes care of you like no other. he doesn’t take care of himself though. make sure he gets scolded for that.

- his dream date: watching netflix documentaries and procrastinating.

- roommates with yewang. they get along too well and encourage each other to do stupid stuff. like stay up all night and light fireworks in the parking lot.

yewang

- music education major

- wants to teach high school or middle school music. dreams of being a choir director. he couldn’t see himself in a field that isn’t focused on music.

- writes songs for baekseung and donghyun. he’s got his guitar, keyboard, synthesizer, and everything set up in his room.

- always has food in his pockets. not normal food though. like an entire cookie or a grilled cheese sandwich.

- you’ll never catch him working on homework. he always has it done before he sees you. he’ll help you with yours, too.

- probably joined the choir and encore for the school. or he plays in the band. he thinks he’s the next Mozart.

- roommates with ayden. they love each other. they always are up to shenanigans. if someone gets pranked in the dorm, you can bet one of them had something to do with it.

jeff

- criminal justice.

- probably will work in the juvenile field. he really likes kids and thinks that corrective services are super important for teenagers.

- captures everything on camera. he has albums and albums dedicated to you and his college experience. y/n sleeping. dining hall shenanigans. donghyun parties.

- good friends with donghyun. he joined the dance crew because donghyun gave him a flyer and he was too scared to say no. he’s quite good. go support him and he’ll be so happy.

- goes to the vending machine everyday. he has to get a diet coke. he keeps his mini fridge stocked WELL.

- he snuggles you to sleep every night. then he’ll walk home in the dark. he just likes you a lot and need to hug you before he goes to bed.

- roommates with dawit. you guys follow him around to get on his nerves. he never says no. you cook together at 2am sometimes.

[dhm-rising]

Fan Dragon Month Series One: Alice in Wonderland

Day One: The Mad Hatter

Male Spiral - Plague Swirl

Garnet/Obsidian/Blood

Pinstripe/Blaze/Glimmer

Lore Under The Cut!

This Alice in Wonderland retelling takes notes from other darker modern retellings like American McGee’s Alice*, Lorestrome’s Alice is Dead series, and the 2010 Burton film. Instead of taking place in a classic Wonderland setting, it takes place in one of the many strange magical pockets of Sornieth.

In this version, the Hatter serves as a sort of guide to Alice, but his alignment is constantly changing and it’s really hard to tell whether or not he’s actually trying to help. We first meet him when Alice falls into Wonderland and stops her from following the White Rabbit. He then steers her immediately into danger, very nearly getting her killed by one of The Things In The Woods, and then saves her and takes her to his home, promising her a place for the night. When Alice awakes, she finds herself in a freak show ran by the Hatter, and finds herself surrounded by strange yet friendly faces…

First | Previous | Next | Last

Design Notes

This guy isn’t really based on any particular interpretation of The Mad Hatter, other than the fact that he is a little hyperactive man with a top hat and a funny cane.

He is based on my mental image of a circus ringleader though. Lots of reds and stripes and a pointy stick to point at things.

Originally his scry had Hypnotic instead, but when I saw that the edge of Obsidian Blaze matched the Blood Glimmer I couldn’t pass it up.

His original outfit had Skeleton Chimes, but I removed those when I found out how expensive they were, plus they stopped fitting the vibes I had in my head.

The two shirts are intentional. For some reason most every shirt on Spirals just kinda ends after the first loop, and I don’t really like that.

The Hatter was the first fan dragon I ever made and I love him for that.

*Disclaimer: I no longer support American McGee due to his recent actions involving AI and the treatment of the members in his Discord server. That being said, Alice and it’s sequel are amazing and underrated games that I encourage people to check out.

[angelo-the-whistleblower]

Part 12 - Incoming Text for Michelle Obama (@michelleobama) and Jeff Bezos (@jeffbezos) and Connie Orlando (@connieorlando) and Draya Michele (@drayamichele) and Eiza Gonzalez (@eizagonzalez): “An Idea Worth a Billion Dollars”

Here are the links you requested for the Wikipedia pages of Logan Lerman, Christopher McQuarrie, and Tom Cruise:

Logan Lerman - Wikipedia - (click on the blue link)

Christopher McQuarrie - Wikipedia - (click on the blue link)

Tom Cruise - Wikipedia - (click on the blue link)

Great request — and a really exciting creative direction! Let's walk through how to adapt The MacKintosh Man into a modern reboot centered on the CIA, with Logan Lerman as your lead and Tom Cruise in a strategic supporting role that could span future sequels.

🎬 1. Shifting the Story to American Intelligence (CIA)

Adapting the original British espionage plot to the CIA context is not only doable — it actually opens up a lot of potential for expanding the franchise.

✅ Key Story Shifts:

Original (UK-based):

Joseph Rearden is a British agent infiltrating a criminal escape network.

British politics and post-war intelligence dynamics drive the plot.

Based on the real escape of George Blake, a British double agent.

Reboot (CIA-based):

Joseph Rearden becomes a young CIA operative, possibly seconded to work with international agencies (e.g., MI6, Interpol, NATO, etc.).

The escape network could be an international extraction ring specializing in breaking out war criminals, terrorists, or double agents across the globe.

The underlying conspiracy now ties into U.S. foreign operations, deep-state politics, or a rogue intelligence cabal—heightening global stakes.

Set the action in Europe or the Middle East, with CIA operations masked as diplomacy or black ops.

🧑‍🚀 2. Logan Lerman as Joseph Rearden

Why He Works:

At 33, Logan Lerman can embody the youthful but seasoned energy of a field operative who's smart, morally conflicted, and physically capable.

His screen presence blends well with espionage drama — intelligent, earnest, but with edge.

Lerman’s version of Rearden could be:

A CIA operative from a family with deep intel roots.

Recruited young, worked in cybersecurity or psychological ops.

Now tasked with his most dangerous deep-cover mission: infiltrating a criminal escape syndicate that may involve rogue agents.

Potential Character Arc:

Starts out believing in the mission.

Discovers the CIA itself may be compromised.

Begins questioning who the real enemy is — mirroring the ambiguity of the original.

🧔‍♂️ 3. Tom Cruise as a Recurring Legacy Character

Tom Cruise could play a mentor, handler, or antagonist-turned-ally, whose role is strategic and expandable for sequels. Think gravitas, mystery, and impact.

🔥 Option: Walter Rogers – Former CIA Black Ops Legend

Once one of the most feared covert agents in the Cold War era.

Now a shadow figure in retirement — or so it seems.

Appears in the first film as the man who recruits Rearden for this impossible mission.

Possibly orchestrating operations from behind the curtain — maybe he's helping Rearden, or manipulating him for his own ends.

Returns in sequels as either a mentor, ghostly advisor, or eventual adversary if the series evolves into Rearden challenging the agency’s corruption.

Think:

A mix of Ethan Hunt's legacy from Mission: Impossible and George Smiley’s calm manipulation from Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.

Cruise brings credibility and intensity to the role without dominating Lerman’s lead performance.

✍️ Bonus: Renaming the Film for the Reboot

You’re not obligated to keep "The MacKintosh Man" — and since the name was tied to a fake identity and British espionage, a modernized title might be more fitting.

Possible New Titles:

The Freedom Protocol – a nod to The Freedom Trap and modern thriller branding.

Escape Directive – evokes covert missions and the idea of orchestrated prison breaks.

Alias Rearden – character-focused with a classic espionage feel.

The Fifth Exit – mysterious, could refer to a classified escape network.

Operation Hollow Point – darker, more militarized title for a high-stakes thriller.

🧭 Final Thoughts:

This reboot could work brilliantly as a modern spy thriller with roots in Cold War paranoia, adapted for an age of global surveillance, misinformation, and rogue power plays. Logan Lerman brings fresh energy, and Tom Cruise gives you built-in gravitas and franchise potential.

If you'd like, I can help write:

A full treatment or synopsis for the reboot

Character dossiers

Franchise arcs or sequel concepts

Visual moodboards and tonal references

Question:

"Was Walter Rogers an original character from the 1973 film The MacKintosh Man or the novel The Freedom Trap by Desmond Bagley, or is he a newly created character for the reboot?"

ChatGPT Answer:

No — Walter Rogers is not a real character from the original book (The Freedom Trap) or the 1973 film The MacKintosh Man.

I created Walter Rogers as a new, original character tailored specifically for your 2025 reboot concept, especially to provide a compelling role for Tom Cruise — someone who could serve as a recurring figure across multiple films (mentor, handler, potential antagonist, etc.).

Original Characters in the Book & Film (Key Figures):

Joseph Rearden – The main character, an undercover agent (played by Paul Newman in the film).

Sir George Wheeler – A senior British figure with possible double-agent ties (book).

Mackintosh – Rearden’s handler in the film (not present in the novel; invented for the movie).

Slade – Escaped convict and possible double agent (in both book and film).

Mrs. Smith / Maggie – A mysterious female figure tied to the operation.

So, you're free to invent and insert a character like Walter Rogers into your reboot. He would add a layer of intrigue, age hierarchy, and franchise longevity — and could take over the “handler” role originally played by the MacKintosh character in the film, but in a CIA context, with far more depth and range.

Would you like help fleshing out Walter Rogers’s backstory or role in the plot more concretely?

[dreamonminecraft]

https://www.tumblr.com/dreamonminecraft/778428592882352128/up-late-debating-the-ethics-of-queer-speculative?source=share

Can you write more about that? I would love to read more

im actually working on what may just be a little passion project may turn into a blog or essay or maybe even a book about queer history but here's a little summary of what I've spent the last few hours thinking about:

if digging into the real lives of celebrities who are still alive is a disrespect of privacy, how long ago did a historical figure have to live for speculation to be appropriate?

How many of these "queer icons" throughout history would have chosen to live publicly queer lives if they hadn't faced the discrimination they did in their time?

How much of their hidden identities were their own choice? How much was historical preservation of legacy by their friends and families?

What danger does a speculated queer identity have on the teaching of legacies in places where being queer is still dangerous?

How sure does someone have to be that a figure was queer to place an identity on them posthumously?

Is it enough to simply acknowledge relationships that were outside of the status quo or is that not enough?

What are the ethics of using modern labels to understand the identities of people who lived before they existed?

What is the harm in mislabeling a historical figure?

What do we gain from examining the individual queer histories of people who are famous already?

Does it do more harm than good to the queer community to focus on individuals over groups or does representation matter more?

Can you harm a historical figure with speculation into their personal life?

Is there any way to avoid the harm that might come from homophobia on the legacy of a person speculated to be queer?

Are you disrespecting a legacy by speculating, or are you celebrating an identity that someone might have been able to express if their society was different?

When does history become historical fiction?

How does one reconcile with destroyed personal artifacts and the motive behind their destruction?

If history was destroyed on purpose, should it be used as evidence?

How can a historian present an argument that an audience can understand without projecting modern ideas of gender, sexuality, and relationships onto the historical subject?

Does looking into the personal histories of historical figures further understanding of the queer community or does it push ideals of "one man history", exaggerating the importance of a person history will already remember and diminishing the reality for most people?

Can you celebrate the identity of rich queer historical figures who used their positions to avoid persecution? (like King James I, who openly kept many male lovers yet supported sodomy laws and the Catholic Church)

When does the overlap of queer history and classicism become too hard to distinguish? Did ancient societies really not care about sexuality or do we only understand the lives of the wealthiest, most powerful people who could afford to be queer?

Are queer people who are still living being ignored in favor of romanticized versions of potentially problematic historical figures and do we have enough attention on chronicling our own modern queer history?

what makes a queer icon? did they have to be out or did they just have to be rich?

(thinking about Lord Byron specifically) when does a queer identity become secondary to a more problematic personal detail. (yes, Lord Byron had sex with males, but many of them were much younger than him and/or children. is that really a win for bisexuals or was he just a pedophile?)

Does claiming historical figures with dubious morals as queer icons erase the harm they did in their lifetimes? can you celebrate the identity of someone who had slaves, colonized, raped people, etc? do we want to?

how far does the argument of homophobic historians go before it becomes harmful to reputable biographical history?

[bm2ab]

Arrivals & Departures . 14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955 . Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein (/ˈaɪnstaɪn/ EYEN-styne; German: [ˈalbɛʁt ˈʔaɪnʃtaɪn] (listen)) was a German-born theoretical physicist who developed the theory of relativity, one of the two pillars of modern physics (alongside quantum mechanics). His work is also known for its influence on the philosophy of science. He is best known to the general public for his mass–energy equivalence formula {\displaystyle E=mc^{2}}, which has been dubbed “the world’s most famous equation”. He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics “for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect”, a pivotal step in the development of quantum theory.

Near the beginning of his career, Einstein thought that Newtonian mechanics was no longer enough to reconcile the laws of classical mechanics with the laws of the electromagnetic field. This led him to develop his special theory of relativity during his time at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern (1902–1909). He subsequently realized that the principle of relativity could be extended to gravitational fields, and published a paper on general relativity in 1916 introducing his theory of gravitation. He continued to deal with problems of statistical mechanics and quantum theory, which led to his explanations of particle theory and the motion of molecules. He also investigated the thermal properties of light and the quantum theory of radiation, the basis of laser, which laid the foundation of the photon theory of light. In 1917, he applied the general theory of relativity to model the structure of the universe.

Einstein moved to Switzerland in 1895 and renounced his German citizenship in 1896. After being stateless for more than five years, he acquired Swiss citizenship in 1901, which he kept for the rest of his life. Except for over one year in Prague, he lived in Switzerland between 1895 and 1914.

He received his academic diploma from the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School (later the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, ETH) in Zürich in 1900. Between 1902 and 1909, he was employed in Bern as a patent examiner, at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property, the patent office. In 1905, called his annus mirabilis (miracle year), he published four groundbreaking papers, which attracted the attention of the academic world. That year, at the age of 26, he was awarded a Ph.D. by the University of Zurich.

He taught theoretical physics for one year (1908/09) at the University of Bern, for two years (1909–11) at the University of Zurich, and after one year at the Charles University in Prague he returned to his alma mater ETH Zurich between 1912 and 1914, before he left for Berlin, where he was elected to the Prussian Academy of Sciences.

In 1933, while Einstein was visiting the United States, Adolf Hitler came to power. Because of his Jewish background, Einstein did not return to Germany. He settled in the United States and became an American citizen in 1940. On the eve of World War II, he endorsed a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt alerting FDR to the potential development of “extremely powerful bombs of a new type” and recommending that the US begin similar research. This eventually led to the Manhattan Project. Einstein supported the Allies, but he generally denounced the idea of using nuclear fission as a weapon. He signed the Russell–Einstein Manifesto with British philosopher Bertrand Russell, which highlighted the danger of nuclear weapons. He was affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, until his death in 1955.

He published more than 300 scientific papers and more than 150 non-scientific works. His intellectual achievements and originality have made the word “Einstein” synonymous with “genius”. Eugene Wigner compared him to his contemporaries, writing that “Einstein’s understanding was deeper even than Jancsi von Neumann’s. His mind was both more penetrating and more original”

[norsecoyote]

Five years after running out of steam halfway through season 3, my wife and I finally picked Fargo back up -- starting over at the beginning -- and we just finished season 5 last night. And god damn, what a fucking season of television that was. Some unsorted thoughts, full of spoilers:

***

God damn but the soundtrack had zero respect for Roy and his militia. Like, for a show that has the running theme of "local connectivity getting steamrolled by modernity and corporations" (to borrow @bambamramfan's phrasing) but carefully avoids taking a firm stance on the moral valence of that -- until now, it had made a point of treating both sides in all iterations of that conflict with equal dignity, and the narrative of S5 treats these men as genuine, serious threats -- the needle drops in the last few episodes overtly mock their self-image as Serious Men.

For instance, the goddamn two-minute long single-take close-up tracking shot of Roy marching to the shed, his anger and steely resolve building into the Manly Determination to Do Whatever it Takes to bring Dot to heel -- it's a great moment! And the music sounds appropriately dramatic and threatening, except for how it's, you know, a cello-forward cover of "Toxic" by Britney Spears. And of course there's the E9 montage of the podunk proud boys rolling in to defend the ranch, armed to the teeth and manning truck-mounted machine guns, set to "YMCA."

And I'm a little torn, because on the one hand these moments are both extremely funny, but on the other hand they undercut the villains in a way that feels like the hand of the author making itself visible. It's not at all of a piece with how the show has handled criminals and villains in the past -- even Gaetano's greatest moments of buffoonery weren't actively mocked by the show itself -- and while I get why they made those choices on the interpretive level I don't really understand them on the meta-interpretive one.

You could argue that the show wants to clearly communicate that, you know, self-righteous wife-beaters deserve less respect than even the most casually murderous profit-motivated criminals, but... why would it want that? Did the writers not trust the audience to get that without such blatant hinting? That would be very out-of-character for this show.

***

Sort of related, thinking about the villains in particular and characters in general: this season, more than any of the other ones, really played with the contrast between apparent competence-vs-gormlessness and actual competence. To crib bambamramfam's analysis again, the show generally sorts characters into quadrants defined by lawful vs. criminal and naive vs. effective, in support of the thesis that Objective Good does not exist, and good in the world can only exist when people who believe it ought to make it so.

Except, now that the show has explored and implicitly codified this dynamic over the course of four seasons, in S5 it blurs the hell out of those lines. Dot is the central and most obvious example, but there are many others:

Roy starts out seeming like a classic Wolf: dangerous, determined and calculating. Sure, he's continually let down by the various Goons he dispatches to do his dirty work, but for the first 2/3 of the season, every time he gets directly involved, he immediately achieves his goals. It had me trying to figure out how much of his far-right, Christian nationalist/SovCit rhetoric was genuine, versus the fiction that would most effectively let him manage his minions. ...and then he shoots Danish, a purely self-destructive action. He gains absolutely no value from the murder -- something he could easily have understood at the time -- and if you had to pick a single moment where his fate is sealed, that would probably be it. It's not just purposeless, it's ineffective, and at that moment you realize that: oh shit, he actually believes all his horseshit. Roy is not a Wolf, he's a Goon who's just been lucky his entire life until now. Note, too, the contrast between Roy's defeat and Malvo's from S1: Malvo, basically the iconic Wolf, is only beaten by a Sheepdog, while Roy is captured by unknown, faceless federal agents as a direct result of another of his own stupid, self-indulgent decisions (disowning Gator before leaving him behind).

Danish, meanwhile, goes the other way: for the first several episodes, he seems like a retread of Sy (S3), an impression strongly supported by his oddball appearance (and, of course, by the casting of Dave Foley). But... he's actually very competent! Despite the impression of gormlessness he projects, he doesn't make a single misstep in his actual actions throughout the season -- except for the same one that the audience has been led to make, of mistaking Roy for a Wolf who can be trusted to act in his own self-interest if nothing else.

Witt spends almost the entire season as an nigh-archetypal Fargo Sheepdog: focused, attentive, clever and strategic. And indeed he is all those things; he seems very much an extension of Gus (S1), picking up at the end of that season after he's found his nerve. We get so many scenes of Witt staring down the villains, refusing to be intimidated and only backing down when it's clear his position is tactically impossible (a characterization that's made particularly rich coming off S4's focus on anti-Black racism). ...but, for all that he seems to embody the best of Fargo lawmen, when it comes down to it, unlike Gus he can't actually pull the trigger. It's a particularly harsh commentary, for this show, on the difference between wanting a better world and being willing to make one.

***

And then of course there's Lorraine. My god, what an incredible character and performance; some of Jennifer Jason Leigh's micro-expressions had me literally clapping in delight. For a character who's introduced as a loathsome stereotype of conservative billionaires (the first two episodes feature both her gun-totin' Christmas card, her blithe dismissal of Scotty's gender presentation, and the giant "No" mural behind her desk (which had me in hysterics the first time it was revealed)), she grew fascinatingly nuanced over the course of the season.

In particular, she is the first character in the series who blurs the Wolf/Sheepdog dichotomy. Specifically, she's a Wolf who uses her awareness of the imaginary nature of Rules not just to enrich herself but, like a Sheepdog, to protect a community. The "community" in this case is partly, you know, her immediate family and friendscolleagues, but also the broader category of "women who are victims of sexism." This latter is crucial, because it makes it clear that she actually has a positive vision of How The World Should Be, and she makes several choices that advance that vision even at some cost to herself. This culminates in her final revenge on Roy, which has her forgiving debt in the name of ensuring his misery.

Her worldview, without question, is fairly twisted and a little self-centered, but it isn't one where The Only Thing That Matters Is Power. She genuinely cares, in her weird way, about women who struggle against patriarch[s/y]; that belief is what leads to her changing her mind about Dot. She also genuinely cares about (some) other people, even though she tries not to show it; her genuine attachment to Danish comes through clearly both when she learns of his death (those micro-expressions!) and in her vengeance.

Anyway, I don't know that I have a clear thesis here, other than holy shit what a character. Very likely my single favorite from all five seasons of the show. Yes, even beating out Mike Milligan.

***

There's a whole lot more still to say about:

the central concept of Debt -- I was so impressed with how coherently the season handled that theme, in both the literal/financial and metaphorical/interpersonal sense, and the way Munch was like a hidden throughline for it.

Masculinity (god, but Wayne is a fascinating character).

The way this season, despite (per wikipedia) being the only one with no connections to any other seasons or the movie, is in much deeper dialogue with all that came before it than any previous one.

How the last two episodes retroactively transform Gator from a walking stereotype of a Goon getting his well-deserved comeuppance into -- and I mean this very literally -- the protagonist of a classical Aristotelian tragedy.

...but that's all gonna have to wait for another post because this one has gotten enormous. Hopefully tomorrow.

[denimbex1986]

'Depending on who you ask, the character of Tom Ripley is a Machiavellian criminal, a mastermind of deception, or a hopelessly deluded dreamer. Patricia Highsmith’s quintet of novels centering on the tortured, talented con artist have invited several cinematic interpretations, each with a different take on his slippery essence. Some actors might hesitate to step into the protagonist’s dubiously-acquired Ferragamo loafers, but Andrew Scott, star of the new limited series Ripley, had no such qualms. “Since I’ve been associated with the role, people say ‘Oh my god, that character,’” recalls the Irish actor, known for his subtle, precisely observed performances as the magnetic Priest in Fleabag and Adam, a lonely writer batting grief in All of Us Strangers. “People have a lot of preconceptions about Tom Ripley. It’s my job in some ways to ignore all that and create our own particular version of it.”

Anchored by Scott’s mercurial performance, Ripley is a finely drawn character study of one of the most beguiling creations of twentieth-century fiction. Helmed by DGA Award-winning director and Academy Award-winning writer Steven Zaillian, the gripping psychological thriller unspools over eight episodes shot in elegant black and white by Academy Award winner Robert Elswit. From a rat-infested flophouse in 60s Manhattan to a dolce vita gone sour in Italy, Ripley’s travels — and travails — come to life in noir at its most luxurious and complex. Its cinematographic lushness is haunted by ever-present threats of deception and violence and shot through with sly wit. “It’s just the way I write, intertwining drama and in this case, suspense, with humor, because that’s what life is like,” says Zaillian. “I’m always after what’s real in behavior.”

When we first meet Ripley, he is scraping together a living in New York’s underbelly when an offer arrives that few in his position would refuse. A shipbuilding magnate practically hands Ripley a blank check to retrieve his wayward son Dickie Greenleaf (Johnny Flynn) from an extended vacation in Italy. Yet upon arrival, the mission takes on a complex and sinister edge as Ripley becomes dangerously infatuated with Dickie’s haute bohemian lifestyle and carefree cool. He grows possessive and jealous, raising the suspicions of his partner Marge Sherwood, played by Dakota Fanning. “Marge susses him out pretty quickly,” notes Fanning. “A lot of the other characters think that they’re playing Tom — and Tom is fully playing them.”

Zaillian sought out Fanning after watching her “expressive and eerie” turn as the Manson cult member Squeaky Fromme in Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood: “I thought, This is someone who can go toe to toe with Tom Ripley, who is too smart to be conned, who can threaten his schemes.”

To find the perfect setting for Dickie and Marge’s Italian idyll, Zaillian and production designer David Gropman set about the rather enviable task of location scouting on the Amalfi coast. Amid the area’s swishy modern-day hotels and luxury boutiques, they discovered Atrani, a quaint village that seemed frozen in time with its lemon tree-lined streets, tenth-century church, and stunning vistas of the Tyrrhenian Sea. The costume department meticulously recreated the period’s fashions to outfit a supporting cast that brings richness to Atrani’s pensiones and vibrant life to its bustling Roman piazzas. Filming happened to coincide with a lull in vacationers, adding to the authentic feel. “This was during COVID, so there were no tourists,” notes Zaillian. “It made it feel all the more like we’d gone back in time.”

Despite its fidelity to the 60s setting, there’s a sense that Ripley is meeting the moment, reentering popular consciousness at a time of cultural fascination with real-life scammers such as Anna Delvey and Elizabeth Holmes. Even so, Scott bristles at the idea that the series’ protagonist is a mere grifter. “I think he’s very charming and not in a manipulative way,” says Scott, who rocketed to stardom playing a true literary villain, James Moriarty in the BBC’s Sherlock. “When [Ripley] comes to Italy and he’s exposed to all this beautiful art and landscape and beauty and food, he adores it. But the people that he’s with I’m not sure have the same appreciation or humility about that stuff that he does. So in a way, he’s very like us.”

Scott adds that Ripley’s unsavory exploits are motivated by fear, specifically the FOMO-like certainty that everyone else is having a fabulous time without him. “He’s a dark character and does bad things,” says Scott. “To me, what it’s about is feeling like you are not invited to the party. It’s about feeling like you’re ‘other.’”

It’s hard to blame Ripley for longing for what he can’t have. One early scene in New York sees him gazing admiringly into the window of a refined boutique while on the way home from a dingy dive bar, transfixed — taunted — by an upper-crust lifestyle that is inaccessible to him no matter the cash in his wallet. You can’t merely buy your way into the echelons of high society, or acquire the laissez-faire attitude to wealth that comes with it: Dickie shrugs on his made-to-measure Italian suits with the same careless ease that a dock worker tosses on his overalls. “Essentially, Dickie doesn’t want to inherit the rich kid status,” says Flynn. “In his heart, he’s a bohemian artist-poet, and he’s getting to imagine he is that, living in this reclusive place in Italy.”

This nonchalantly rakish dreamer-gone-adrift casts a particular spell over Atrani’s newest arrival. “To my mind, it’s all about love,” says Scott of Ripley’s attraction to Dickie. “I think he loves Dickie. It’s not really specified as to what the nature of that love necessarily is from Tom’s point of view. Do I think that it’s in some way sexual? Possibly.” Ripley doesn’t know whether he wants to be Dickie, or wants to be with him.

Scott is no stranger to getting into the bones of characters that subvert audience expectations. He recently scored an Olivier nomination for a tour-de-force turn in the West End’s Vanya, an audacious Chekhov adaptation in which Scott played every role. His Ripley is just as multidimensional, teasing out the humanity of a man who is certainly no hero, but is also too complex to quite be a love-to-hate-’em antihero. “I always think the great works of art are or should be about who we are and not who we should be,” says Scott. “I think we contain multitudes within us and all great art reflects that, that we’re both the light and the dark.”'

[hellsbellschime]

The Myth That Catelyn Stark Is Jon Snow's Wicked Stepmother

There are plenty of nearly universally accepted perspectives in the fandom of A Song of Ice and Fire, but one of the most interesting and seemingly over-simplified perceptions of the story is that Catelyn Stark somehow occupies the role of the classic fairy tale wicked stepmother to Jon Snow.

This particular point of view is a bit perplexing though, both because the textual support around this idea largely isn't strong enough to treat it like irrefutable fact, but more importantly, because the idea that Cat is Jon's abusive stepparent seemingly takes a very modern idea of what blended families should look like and ascribes it to a situation where it does not even remotely apply.

To get it out of the way, Cat telling Jon that "It should have been you" after Bran's fall is an utterly horrific and inappropriate thing to say. It was an unusual circumstance, Cat is clearly not coping with what has happened to Bran very well, and based on her behavior towards Maester Luwin a bit later, she seems to be cruelly lashing out at everyone. But as an adult, it was undeniably Catelyn's responsibility to not take her pain and frustration out on a completely innocent child. Her behavior in this situation is utterly unforgivable.

But aside from this instance, their relationship seems to be almost entirely nonexistent. And the dynamic between Catelyn and Jon was incredibly complex, complex in a way that a child like Jon would be incapable of fully understand and in a way that Ned went out of his way to completely ignore to the detriment of everyone. And ultimately, many fans seem to entirely blame Catelyn for a situation that she didn't want to be in and was objectively in danger as a result of, despite the fact that Cat had absolutely no power or even any other options when she was put in this position.

One of the most informative and interesting passages regarding Jon and Catelyn's relationship and hints at all of the endless influencing factors to it comes relatively early on in A Game of Thrones. In Catelyn II, Ned and Cat have this exchange:

Many men fathered bastards. Catelyn had grown up with that knowledge. It came as no surprise to her, in the first year of her marriage, to learn that Ned had fathered a child on some girl chance met on campaign. He had a man’s needs, after all, and they had spent that year apart, Ned off at war in the south while she remained safe in her father’s castle at Riverrun. Her thoughts were more of Robb, the infant at her breast, than of the husband she scarcely knew. He was welcome to whatever solace he might find between battles. And if his seed quickened, she expected he would see to the child’s needs.

He did more than that. The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him ���son” for all the north to see. When the wars were over at last, and Catelyn rode to Winterfell, Jon and his wet nurse had already taken up residence.

That cut deep. Ned would not speak of the mother, not so much as a word, but a castle has no secrets, and Catelyn heard her maids repeating tales they heard from the lips of her husband’s soldiers. They whispered of Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys’s Kingsguard, and of how their young lord had slain him in single combat. And they told how afterward Ned had carried Ser Arthur’s sword back to the beautiful young sister who awaited him in a castle called Starfall on the shores of the Summer Sea. The Lady Ashara Dayne, tall and fair, with haunting violet eyes. It had taken her a fortnight to marshal her courage, but finally, in bed one night, Catelyn had asked her husband the truth of it, asked him to his face.

That was the only time in all their years that Ned had ever frightened her. “Never ask me about Jon,” he said, cold as ice. “He is my blood, and that is all you need to know. And now I will learn where you heard that name, my lady.” She had pledged to obey; she told him; and from that day on, the whispering had stopped, and Ashara Dayne’s name was never heard in Winterfell again.

Whoever Jon’s mother had been, Ned must have loved her fiercely, for nothing Catelyn said would persuade him to send the boy away. It was the one thing she could never forgive him. She had come to love her husband with all her heart, but she had never found it in her to love Jon. She might have overlooked a dozen bastards for Ned’s sake, so long as they were out of sight. Jon was never out of sight, and as he grew, he looked more like Ned than any of the trueborn sons she bore him. Somehow that made it worse. “Jon must go,” she said now.

“He and Robb are close,” Ned said. “I had hoped …”

“He cannot stay here,” Catelyn said, cutting him off. “He is your son, not mine. I will not have him.” It was hard, she knew, but no less the truth. Ned would do the boy no kindness by leaving him here at Winterfell.

The look Ned gave her was anguished. “You know I cannot take him south. There will be no place for him at court. A boy with a bastard’s name … you know what they will say of him. He will be shunned.”

Catelyn armored her heart against the mute appeal in her husband’s eyes. “They say your friend Robert has fathered a dozen bastards himself.”

“And none of them has ever been seen at court!” Ned blazed. “The Lannister woman has seen to that. How can you be so damnably cruel, Catelyn? He is only a boy. He—”

His fury was on him. He might have said more, and worse, but Maester Luwin cut in. “Another solution presents itself,” he said, his voice quiet. “Your brother Benjen came to me about Jon a few days ago. It seems the boy aspires to take the black.”

Ned looked shocked. “He asked to join the Night’s Watch?”

Catelyn said nothing. Let Ned work it out in his own mind; her voice would not be welcome now. Yet gladly would she have kissed the maester just then. His was the perfect solution. Benjen Stark was a Sworn Brother. Jon would be a son to him, the child he would never have. And in time the boy would take the oath as well. He would father no sons who might someday contest with Catelyn’s own grandchildren for Winterfell.

It's a long passage, but it explains nearly everything important about Catelyn and her feelings towards Jon. She outright states that, although being with another woman is an objective betrayal, and although Catelyn clearly could never be with another man despite the fact that she owed Ned no loyalty either, Ned cheating on her in the early days of their marriage was to be expected and she's not even angry about it.

She also directly states that she would have expected Ned to care for any illegitimate children, and she seems to have no negative feelings towards that either. What upsets her is that Ned brings Jon to Winterfell before Catelyn and Robb have even arrived, and acknowledges Jon as his son for the entire world to see.

In a normal contemporary society, Catelyn being upset about her husband's illegitimate son is far less reasonable, and it seems like many fans seem to look at her behavior and decisions through this lens. But she very directly explains why this is a problem, and frankly, she's right.

Ned treating Jon as an equal to all of his children puts all of them in an extremely dangerous and precarious position, and it puts Catelyn in potentially mortal danger at some point in her life as well. However, because Catelyn is a woman and Ned is her husband, she has to go along with whatever he wants and she can't do anything about it.

In the real world, if a woman didn't want to be with someone who already had a child, they would be able to decide not to marry that person. And if a woman was put in a position that was uncomfortable or even dangerous for them after being married, they would have the option to leave. But Catelyn doesn't have those choices, and Ned takes complete advantage of the fact that he can simply tell Cat what to do and she has to do it regardless of whether or not she wants to.

And that really leads into another interesting aspect of this notion that Cat was Jon's wicked stepmother. Because very early on in Ned and Cat's marriage, she inquires about Jon's parentage and the rumors surrounding it, it's the only time in their relationship that Ned ever truly frightened her, and Ned commands her to never ask about Jon's mother again and tell him who started the rumors about Ashara Dayne.

But, one particularly vital aspect of this whole exchange is that Cat does what Ned tells her to do when it comes to Jon. So, if Cat is supposed to be abusive to Jon, then that would logically mean that Ned was aware that Cat was abusing Jon and never told her not to, which makes absolutely no sense.

Interestingly, Ned also says that he can't take Jon from Winterfell to King's Landing because he would be shunned. And although he's angry at Catelyn for being what he characterizes as cruel, he is also blatantly acknowledging that regardless of Cat's lack of relationship with Jon, he is literally more comfortable leaving Jon in Cat's hands alone at Winterfell than he is taking him south among the other lords and ladies who will apparently treat him much more poorly than he thinks Cat will. So again, the notion that Catelyn was abusive to him, and even the notion that she didn't treat him considerably better than Westerosi society would expect him to be treated, doesn't seem to be backed up from Ned's own point of view.

Ned acknowledges that Robb and Jon have a good relationship, but Jon's relationship with all of his siblings seems to be pretty great, or rather, he at least doesn't seem to be treated much differently than any of the other Stark children. At different points, they all acknowledge that Jon is a bastard, but that doesn't seemingly affect the way that he is treated among his siblings. Which again, hints that Catelyn isn't particularly hateful of him, at least outwardly, because she very easily could have poisoned the well against him with all of her kids and she very clearly hasn't done that.

But, one of the most interesting and telling thoughts that Catelyn ever has in relation to Jon is this: "He would father no sons who might someday contest with Catelyn’s own grandchildren for Winterfell."

This is the very obvious problem that everyone likes to ignore or blame Catelyn for outright. Because Catelyn's rejection of Jon isn't just an emotional reaction, it's a political necessity.

Ned isn't a particularly politically savvy individual, and given that he is one of the most powerful and autonomous people in Westeros, he doesn't really have to be. He is the person who is in complete control of his own world, so in his mind, he can treat Jon just like he'd treat a trueborn son and it's fine because what Ned wants is what happens. However, he is very willfully ignoring the societal structure that he lives in, to the detriment of Catelyn, all of their children, and even Jon.

The expectation that a woman should perform a maternal role for any child aside from their own regardless of circumstance is a pretty sexist point of view to begin with, but when it comes to Catelyn specifically, asking her to accept Jon is basically directly asking her to put herself and all of her own children in danger.

Clearly, the rules of Westeros are incredibly unfavorable to all but a few of the people who live within their society. However, the highborn women who are essentially property that is transferred from their fathers to their husbands have very few silver linings in this system that keeps them almost completely disempowered. But one of those silver linings is supposed to be that their children's future is secured purely through the rules of legitimacy and primogeniture. And Jon's very presence in Winterfell is a massive threat to that insurance.

Based on the fact that Catelyn is specifically worried that Jon's sons might contest her own grandchildren's claim to Winterfell, it seems obvious that Cat doesn't question Jon's integrity as a person and doesn't believe that he'd attempt to take her children's inheritance for himself. However, something that a politically savvy person like Cat would likely be aware of is that Jon doesn't even necessarily have to be a manipulative traitor in order to pose a danger to the future of House Stark or to Catelyn's children specifically.

Cat is an intelligent person who understands and more importantly accepts the political complications of Westeros in a way that Ned simply does not. That should come as no great surprise though, as she spent a significant amount of time being raised as Hoster Tully's potential heir and she's a daughter of the Riverlands, a region that has been particularly affected by rebellious bastards. She undoubtedly grew up hearing tales of her uncle Brynden's exploits during the War of the Ninepenny Kings, so she'd be keenly aware of what a dangerous illegitimate child or that child's future bloodline can do.

And that's largely only looking at the Blackfyre rebels, illegitimate Targaryens who largely had no connection to Westeros or the Iron Throne. If the Blackfyres could cause that much war and chaos in the Seven Kingdoms, imagine what kind of effect a northern-looking bastard who is believed to be the son of a highborn woman and has been raised with a lord's education in Winterfell could do to the political situation in the North.

Ned legitimized Jon's position in the North as much as he possibly could have, and Catelyn embracing him or raising him as her own only would have further endangered everyone. Ned obviously has a strong desire to have a happy and united family, but what he refuses to recognize is that ultimately, Jon's character or his love for his family might not even matter all that much in the end.

Jon notices that Catelyn is upset every time he outshines Robb in some manner, but that is only because, unlike Ned, she actually accepts that the more competent Jon seems to be, the bigger danger he could potentially pose. Because Jon doesn't necessarily need to have an independent desire for Winterfell. The lords of the North could throw their support behind him or point him out as a better option if they're ever unhappy with Robb for any reason. Even if Jon outright rejects it, the very fact that Jon offers up another possibility in a world where primogeniture would at least ensure that Cat's children couldn't really be pitted against one another in any kind of succession crisis means that Jon's presence destabilizes the political situation of the kingdom by very nature of his existence.

And, as Cat clearly understands, the threat doesn't end with Jon unless Jon has no children. It's an impossibly cruel situation for Jon to be in, but Catelyn didn't create that situation. It is almost entirely Ned's fault.

Ned clearly feels a lot of responsibility for the near-destruction of his family, but in certain ways, he essentially uses Jon as a means of punishing and publicly shaming himself in the way that he thinks that he deserves. However, Jon and the entire Stark family would have been much better off if Ned had made another decision, and it was entirely his choice to make.

Ned is far too reliant on his own political position and power, and he suffers massive consequences for his belief that his position in society will keep him and the rest of his family safe. He claims Jon as his own son both because of his promise to Lyanna and largely because he's traumatized and afraid of what will happen if Jon is ever discovered, but the cover story that he comes up with actually causes a lot of unnecessary suffering and threats of danger for everyone.

Because unlike Catelyn and the rest of the world, Ned knows that Jon is not his son. Ned has essentially put an enormous amount of pressure on Catelyn, has forced Jon to be isolated and rejected, and has put the political state of the North at great risk because he feels really bad that his sister died and he wants to punish himself for not saving her. But he didn't have to do that, and Jon and the rest of the Starks would have been far safer if he had simply come up with another lie.

Because it really could have been as simple as Ned passing Jon off as Benjen's bastard son instead of his own. He could have raised him like his own son, raised him among the rest of the Starks, and he actually wouldn't have doomed Jon to a position where he would essentially have to forsake every possible future for his own family in order to prevent a potentially catastrophic succession crisis. Plus, obviously Catelyn wouldn't have been nearly as resentful or felt remotely threatened by Jon's presence. But Ned failed to think ahead or plan for Jon's future, and Ned failed to think ahead or even plan for any possible scenario where he wasn't the one who had control of the North and Winterfell, and that choice had terrible consequences for everyone.

It's obvious that the vast majority of Catelyn's behavior towards Jon was driven by the fear of what would happen if he ever posed a threat to the future of her own children, and ironically, those fears have already been proven to be founded, as Jon has literally already been offered legitimacy and Lordship over Winterfell to prevent Sansa and the Lannisters from inheriting it.

Unsurprisingly, he has turned that offer down despite the fact that he genuinely wants it, but Catelyn's instincts regarding what could happen as a result of Jon's existence seem to have been dead on. If the situation had been only slightly different and Jon had made another choice, then Sansa would have become a nearly valueless hostage of House Lannister, and although they were likely planning on getting rid of her once she had given Tyrion children anyway, Stannis' offer of legitimizing Jon could have posed a mortal threat to Sansa despite the fact that as far as the world knew, she was the legal heir to Winterfell.

Obviously, Catelyn's behavior towards Jon hasn't been unimpeachable, and it understandably had an effect on Jon himself. But she had no control over the situation whatsoever, so castigating her for being put in an entirely unfair position and then not standing up to volunteer as a surrogate mother to a child that not only wasn't hers, but could pose a serious threat to the future of her entire family, is ridiculous.

According to the actual text of A Song of Ice and Fire, it seems like the fan perception of Cat's hatred towards Jon is massively overstated as well. And, although Cersei Lannister should obviously never be the standard-bearer for anything, it's worth acknowledging that if Ned had married Cersei instead, Jon would have been dead within a fortnight. Frankly, if he had been wed to any politically motivated and particularly cold woman, then Ned openly claiming Jon as his own bastard son probably would have gotten Jon killed very early on anyway.

Ned's desire to do what he believes is honorable can be admirable, but realistically speaking, he is often willfully ignorant of the realities of the world to the point where it endangers everyone around him. Ultimately, his commitment to honor even when it so clearly conflicts with common sense is what literally got him killed.

However, blaming Cat for not 100% committing to Ned's delusional fantasies of what he wanted the world to look like is absurd, and does not take into account that in the end, Ned had absolute power over Catelyn to the point that he could force her into a life-threatening situation and she had no other choice but to follow his commands.

Cat didn't play the part of mother to Jon, but she didn't have to, because he's not her child. It's not abuse for a woman to not parent a child that isn't hers, and the notion that she's a terrible person because she didn't enthusiastically embrace Jon as her own and instead simply tolerated the position that Ned forced her into is a completely unfair characterization.

Ultimately, neither Jon nor Cat bears any responsibility for what happened to them, and they both suffered as a result of Ned's desire to publicly self-flagellate as some sort of roundabout punishment for failing Lyanna. Although unfortunately, by making the choices that he does, Ned seemingly makes the same mistake that he made with Lyanna all over again. Lyanna wasn't comfortable with marrying a man who fathered bastards or wasn't loyal to her, making her standards surrounding illegitimate children considerably stricter than Catelyn's. However, Ned didn't want to face the reality of the problem, and that resulted in an absolute catastrophe for the North and the Starks.

Ironically, hardly anyone in the A Song of Ice and Fire fandom drags Lyanna for literally fleeing her home in secret because she didn't want to marry a man who had already been disloyal to her and fathered bastard children, a decision that ultimately resulted in a civil war that nearly destroyed House Stark. But for some reason, Catelyn isn't offered that same inherent agency as a person in the eyes of many readers, who apparently believe that instead of being able to have some actual input in a life-altering choice for her, she should have just devoted herself to her husband's desires and ignored her own feelings and self-interests.

In terms of the fictional world of Westeros, Ned is obviously just about as good as a man can be, but he's certainly not without flaw. He's in a position of near-absolute power over his entire family, and he often makes decisions that are what he wants personally rather than what is in their actual best interest. Cat had no right to lash out at Jon after Bran's fall, but frankly, Ned shouldn't have ever put her in the position she was in to begin with, and the notion that she is a wicked stepmother because she lashed out once after suffering indignity and insult in front of the entire world for a decade and a half is ridiculously unfair.