#discourse the endless

[fairycosmos]

when will we be free of taylor swift

[selenophany]

LAMIA 🪸🌴🪷

original video by Rexlent

𓇼 | Endless Count of Favorite Characters

[padmestrilogy]

I believe, of course, that the Jedi are a benevolent, well-intentioned institution, but they are an institution and they have amassed all the power. So the question becomes when did that happen, and since we know where they’re headed in Phantom Menace, what went wrong?

- The Acolyte creator Leslye Headland (x)

[arkadi-jones]

Gonna be real with you guys I'm getting sick of the Malenia Vs Radahn debate again (oh my god what a shocker Internet debates are driving people insane)

The whole point of the battle was that it was a pointless tragedy cause both parties were equal opposites. Malenia is a Dex and Faith build, Radahn is a Str and Int build; Malenia rejects the Golden Order, Radahn embraces it (moreso Godfrey tbh); Malenia's got no poise, Radahn is the poise (I'm joking w/ this one).

Even despite their differences, both had similarities, like how their armies are extremely devoted to their leader and how both are insane on the battlefield. Just like other characters, they fit perfectly into Elden Ring's theme of perfect opposites (take Marika and Radagon for instance)

No attribute they bear outweighs any others, so the battle is literally the definition of 'Unstoppable force Vs Immovable object'. Inevitably, it ended in disaster for both sides: Malenia is losing her memories and self and is only being driven by her blind faith in Miquella, whilst Radahn and the entirety of Caelid are rotting away, waiting for someone to put him out of his misery. No one benefitted from this fight or got the better outcome, which makes it the perfect tragedy that could've been so easily avoided had their Great Runes not corrupted them.

[relaxxattack]

if grub sauce does come from culled wigglers, like you suggested with the paints being confirmed to be that, then one has to ask: why do Beforan trolls have grub sauce?

OH SNAP. the plot thickens???????

and also, now that you mention-- here's sollux's blood once again, but now being referred to as a grubsauce substitute specifically, instead of just tasting like it.

but then again, here's cronus just using grubsauce as a word meaning blood. (seems like captors specifically get this a lot?)

what the fuck? i guess this is a mystery for the ages. which nobody is ever going to solve

[proudfreakmetarusonikku]

before people criticise something i fucking NEED them to look up the definitions of condone, glorify, romanticise, normalise, sexualise, and fetishise before they use them and also internalise that having characters in a romantic relationship doesn’t always mean the author thinks they’re cute and that sexual content isn’t always meant to be sexually arousing because i'm losing braincells with fandom discourse. like even people who point out it’s stupid to say like yaoi is bad bc it fetishises gay men go like “well it does but it’s okay” like no!!! that is a word that has meanings!!! and those meanings are reducing groups of people into props for your sexual fantasy!!! which is very different from sexual attraction oh my fucking god!!!

[writing-for-life]

Nuance in (The Sandman) Fandom

Send me asks about everything Sandman-related!

I thought a lot over the past few days, partly prompted by discourse on here, partly due to a couple of “interesting” asks and messages I received (the type you don’t answer). I *think* they might have been prompted by engaging in discourse on topics like anti-blackness/racism, misogyny/sexism, TERF characters etc in The Sandman.

Fandoms are always getting super sensitive if someone shines a critical lens on their favourite works, authors and characters. So to make this clear (in case it isn’t already obvious from my brain-rot blog):

I love The Sandman. I love Neil Gaiman. I have an extremely soft spot for Dream (and Desire btw, who deserves a lot more character analysis than just being summed up as “villainous, sexy bitch”. One day, perhaps ;)).

I can read The Sandman and just get lost in the story, even after decades and many rereads. 

But I can also view it through a critical lens—these things aren’t mutually exclusive.

Not critical enough or too critical?

As fans, we can get trapped in certain thinking patterns, like:

“My blorbo can do no wrong”-syndrome 

“Characters with flaws are inherently problematic and imply authorial endorsement of those actions” 

“Characterisation and problematic subtext are one and the same” (aka overanalysing and looking for problems where there are none is the death of every story, but failing to see problematic patterns where they are clearly visible is a problem, too).

Don't say anything bad about my favourite character

I think this doesn’t need much further exploration. It’s not my personal way of looking at stories through permanently rose-tinted glasses (I always feel it stalls my experience, but my experience is not everyone else's). Some people prefer that type of escapism, and I’m good with that (although the downside is of course that by not willing to engage with issues, we can unwillingly perpetuate them). Live and let live, ship and let sail. But please, for the love of god: Don’t insult people via their inboxes or messages just because their opinions and preferences don’t align with yours. I’m not going to sugarcoat it or phrase it “nicely”: It’s infantile (and a form of bullying btw), end of.

How can you even like a character who's so horrible? And that author must be equally horrible, too

We have to separate flawed characters, even those who are written to be really problematic, from real-life endorsement of these actions. 

Author, narrator and character are three fundamentally different things, and don’t overlap as much as some people seem to think. 

We can write vile, despicable characters to make a point (for me, Thessaly was always a prime example for this, and I explained why here). We probably hate them as we write them. I don’t know what else to say, but this facet of writing seems to get more and more lost on people, and it’s a worry. Crying for sanitised characterisation is one step away from censorship. We explore what is problematic about people and humanity through story. That’s how we process and learn. It’s nothing new, but it becomes impossible if we can’t write flawed and even disgusting characters. 

Face value…

Since I’m mostly in The Sandman fandom, I often read that its ending is hopeless, and that’s supposedly the entire message. 

It is agonisingly sad, yes. But is it truly hopeless? I personally see it as quite the opposite, but of course that’s my opinion, coloured by my life experiences.

I also get that show-only fans often haven’t read the comics, or at least not the whole arc. And as such, their outlook from what they’ve seen so far (and choose to focus on) has to be different by default. I also understand that many people are quite new to the comics, even if they have read them in their entirety. I’ve sat with them for 30 years, and I still find new things on every reread (and I read it more times than anyone should 🙈), and I still don’t feel like I’ve understood it all. Perhaps because I still haven’t fully understood myself (and it’s unlikely I ever will). If there’s one thing The Sandman isn’t, it’s one-dimensional and easy to grasp in its whole depth.

I just wrote a ginormous meta on it, if you’re interested, it’s here:

Subtext, (not so) glorious subtext

This is where it gets complicated:

We shouldn’t mix up characterisation and story subtext. Overanalysing every line to death will always make us find something that’s “problematic”, when it really isn’t in the wider context of the story.

Zooming in is NOT always a good thing. Sometimes, we actually need to zoom out. 

But subtext *can be* (accidentally) problematic. Even in stories we love. And none of this negates what I previously wrote.

Stories have real-life implications of sorts, and we need to be able to talk about it. That’s where those slightly flabbergasting, hostile inbox messages come in, and I want to expand on that "topic of contention" a bit:

Neil himself confirmed that the Endless basically warp reality, and that this is why, after Dream’s failed relationship with Nada, many black women in his vicinity suffer terrible fates (Ruby and Carla in particular). And that this spell is only broken when he dies, and that it is the reason why Gwen doesn’t suffer the same fate. And said Gwen then gets used as a plot device to basically absolve Hob (who canonically really is a problematic character, whether show-only fans like it or not) from his slaver past. Once again, very clearly: No one is making this up. Neil confirmed it (for the comics, and that was over 20 years ago. It remains to be seen if his stance has changed as we move into that arc in the TV show).

I don't think it is correct to imply that Dream as a character is racist (I've read that, too) because he logically can’t be. He holds *all* the collective unconscious. He is also, strictly speaking, not white. He is everything and nothing, and he shows up in many different ethnicities throughout the whole arc, depending on who looks at him. But Neil played with a subtext here (reality warping due to a bad relationship which then affects everyone with similar physical traits) that will read very differently to a black person than it reads to a white person, and we have to understand why that is an *extremely* slippery slope.

Plus, we are supposed to see Hob, who *was* a racist at some point (you can’t not be if you’re a slave-trader—it’s impossible by default) as redeemed. And yes, he *does* regret deeply, good for him (and if I were saying this aloud, you would hear the sarcasm in my voice, because it is indeed all about him. We are to sympathise/empathise with him and his character growth while there isn’t much mention of the people he maltreated). But also: it was a black woman who basically forgave him (with dialogue that personally makes me cringe). And that black woman who offers forgiveness is not truly a black woman—she is a character written by a white man. And as much as author and character are not the same (see above), there is an inherent sensitivity in that power imbalance that we can't brush under the carpet.

I don’t think Neil is racist. Probably quite the opposite, and I can even see that his intentions were good from a storytelling point of view. BUT intention and impact are two fundamentally different things, and telling the story this way (comic version) betrays blindspots only white people have. Just like women have blindspots when they tell stories about men, and men have blindspots when they tell stories about women (and there are a few of those in The Sandman, too). And and and…

As storytellers, we can’t always speak from lived experience. It’s impossible. And that also means we occasionally make mistakes that look bad in hindsight, even if our intentions were good.

I guess the proof is in the pudding: What do we do when people who *have* that lived experience tell us it looks bad? If they inform us why it is hurtful, plays into old stereotypes etc?

Are we willing to listen and yield (both are the foundations of allyship btw), or are we insisting that our viewpoint as someone *without* lived experience is right? That lived experience extends to all lived experiences (sex/gender, sexual orientation, age...), and from all we’ve heard from Neil so far, it seems important to him to rewrite what he sees differently today. Whether they’ll always get it right for the show—we’ll see. At the moment, it looks a lot better than in the comics, and certain issues are already being handled with a lot more sensitivity, but a few problems remain.

Pushing back on criticism that comes from people with lived experience is problematic—I’d encourage us to think about what it looks like if a white majority in the fandom is basically saying that the opinions of POC are essentially “overreactions” (and yes, that happened).

It’s complicated. The Sandman was written in a different time, and I think we have to distinguish between things that weren’t really problematic at the time but have aged poorly (again, Thessaly springs to mind, and I have lived experience as a queer person during that time, so I can see it in context while at the same time acknowledging that I would make changes to bring it to the present day), and things that were always a problem due to blindspots. They were a problem in 1990, and if they don’t get changed, they are still a problem today.

This fandom is generally so much more open and nicer than others I know. But that doesn’t mean it’s infallible, because it’s full of humans. 

Nuance is sorely needed, in both story interpretation and interaction between said humans.

[sylhorn]

I’m kind of baffled about the state of dawntrail discussions having two parties in regards to Living Memory, one being “shutting it down is amoral” and the other being “it’s moral and not at all like what Emet-Selch wanted to do with us”. It’s like a lot of people refuse to engage with the narrative from any other perspective other than their own when the game essentially hits you over the head with the message.

Yes, the existence of Living Memory is unsutainable and amoral and, frankly, pointless – you can make the very valid argument that the people there were just AI chatbots trained on the memories of a given individual, leeching off of the souls of others, their existence demanding the genocide of the entire universe in the end. I agree, in our eyes, Living Memory is an affront to life, sure!

Nobody seems to talk about that this is the exact same perspective Emet-Selch had about us, or when mentioned, people say that it isn’t the same. It is? He very explicitly tells us that the people living on the shards today are pale imitations to what he considered to be life, and thus shutting it down and trying to undo his mistake IS the solution (he is very much like Solas from DA in this regard), because in his eyes there’s nothing to lose but everything to gain. Emet-Selch saw us in the same light we see the people of Living Memory, and the game is painfully unsubtle in drawing this parallel. Even with the differences (we are not recreated memories but actual souls being reborn from the aetherial sea, etc-etc), the game WANTS you to make this connection between Emet and what we do. It is quite literally the point!

Yes, Living Memory has to be shut down because its biggest drawback is that it’s unsustainable and would continue to destroy what we deem to be lives. It is also arguably an affront to what we consider life and its natural end (directly opposing the message of Endwalker). The Endless aren’t even too hung up about this shutdown, bar Sphene. Shutting down Living Memory is necessary.

But you can’t say it was morally good and unquestionable if you can’t give Emet’s views the same grace. In the end, both his plans (and the Ascians at large, frankly) and Living Memory had to be stopped because that means survival for us, but to divorce the two narratives to maintain the WoL and co.’s moral superiority is disingenuous and does the story a disservice.

[rickybaby]

Fernando Alonso angry post-qualifying | Hungarian Grand Prix 2024

[iraprince]

speaking of fishtanks actually. if u have ever found yourself interested in keeping aquatic pets, but have held back bc ur unsure about a pet that u can't touch/interact with -- basically, about having a pet that will not be able to feel or express affection for you -- i really recommend u return to ur research and think about it just a little more.

it was a reservation i also had at first -- i'm used to mammals! things that snuggle with u and choose to spend time with u. but what i have discovered thru aquarium keeping is that there is a distinct but equally valuable feeling of love and peace and accomplishment from putting together a safe, beautiful environment for a group of creatures, for no reason other than to watch them enjoy it.

like, there are also aquatic pets that CAN and will socialize or behave in ways that can be understood as affectionate -- bettas will come to recognize you and usually greet their owners, a lot of more intelligent fish like cichlids etc have strong personalities, etc. you can find overlap between the experiences you'll have w aquatic + non-aquatic pets. but that's not rly what i'm talking abt in this case!

like, i have really really enjoyed having shrimp, who frankly do not give a shit about me at all. they don't know i exist (beyond, like, 'Sometimes There Is A Large Shape Out There.') they don't even come up to the front glass in anticipation of food the way fish do -- they really do not interact with me in any capacity ever, aside from curiously checking out my tools when i'm doing maintenance on the tank.

but they're happy and healthy. they enjoy the shade under leaves the big cryptocoryne i planted in the back corner. they spend all day plucking algae off the three glass walls that i purposefully leave unscraped to make sure they'll have enough. they go fucking apeshit when i grudgingly give them a little crumb of crappy pleco wafer, Junk Food Of The Sea. basically, they have a peaceful home that i made for them, and it seems like they like it quite a bit. it's really really nice to be the silent custodian of a little ecosystem like that.

[antiyourwokehomophobia2]

The amount of shit I would post if I didn't care about discourse

[qtubbo]

The amount of people saying blues using unfair strategy again, and are being cruel for wanting to destroy green’s base when red has destroyed green and blue bases?????

[gallantblade]

Comparing Porrim and Kankri is very interesting and entertaining to me, because if Kankri was on his own he would just read as just another ridiculous dunk on SJWs... but he's not, there's an actual feminist standing right next to him and her perspective is written with immensely more respect.

[muirneach]

there can and should be criticisms of the gifted school system and its variants but broad generalizations quickly fall apart when you consider that literally every school district is different and definitions, practices, and policies vary widely from place to place

[candidsoup]

the waverly hills sanatorium arc in The Spirealm is so funny to me

not like, the story but whenever they make digs at American healthcare

because

I 100% agree

but at the same time I'm like, this was Tuberculosis in the 1910s. maybe you're being a little unfair.

also Ling Jiushi quoting Fromm, and there's a painting of a panopticon on the wall. very cool.

[guardian-angle22]

just saw your tag about the new guy having more screentime than paul and marjan and now that's my one fear because we already know carlos is going to have a lot of "at work" storylines this season compared to earlier seasons while paul and marjan's main storyline seems to include both of them and we heard nothing about them having individual storyline so far

[reference to my tags on this post]

I mean, listen, I know that the fandom for this show on here is mainly a Tarlos fandom not always a 911 Lone Star fandom. So I understand I’m probably in the minority here.

But if they knew this was more than likely the last season when going into filming and still made the decision to introduce a brand new random white cop and give him more time, development, and/or interesting plots than characters we’ve spent the last four seasons loving, watching, and investing in…

my reaction will be a giant 'what the actual fuck'

HOWEVER! I am keeping my mind open here. And also maybe they’re trying to keep at least SOME things under wraps and not give away the entire 12 episode arcs before the show even starts. and that might include some exciting things for Paul and Marjan and Mateo and Nancy because they deserve it in their final season.

So while I do not care in the least bit about this new guy, I am withholding any real frustration with any of this stuff until we actually get these episodes!