#don't they see the bigger picture- AKA the child?!

[tetsunabouquet]

I just read the maniest AITA story involving someone who's mom died when he was young and is having issues with his stepmother, stepsiblings and half-siblings. Now there's my usual gripes with these people who 'didn't wanted another mom' because as someone's who's grandfather died when my deadbeat father and his sisters were still kids, I can assure you most of their behavior issues stem from that, being spoilt rotten to compensate for their loss and my grandma not remarrying as the eldest of my two father's sisters has major validation problems and all stemming from growing up without a father. Kids need two parents. But in this case, the man just had a baby he honored after his dead mother. This is quite selfish, he wants a connection to his mom, but the baby will NEVER have a connection with that woman because she is dead! As someone who looks more like her grandfather then my dad and his sisters do because they look fully white and we both visibly look partially Roma, I don't like that nearly every time I meet with my dad's eldest sister, she starts comparing me to my grandfather. Seriously, I don't need to be reminded of a man I never had a relationship with every time. But you know who this baby can have a connection with? Oh right, his stepgrandmother. My mom never saw her stepmother as her mother, but she never tried to correct me when I called my stepgranmother 'grandma'. She actively encouraged it! We're not close, but I'm closer to her then I ever have been to my biological grandmothers. Are these people seriously not realizing that the OP and people like him, are depraving that child of familial connections? I even saw a top post saying that 'OP's father better needs to step up and put them in place if he ever wants to see his grandchild'. Don't they realize that the half siblings are biologically the aunts and uncles of that child too?! I don't care how the OP and other OPs feel about their half siblings and wether they didn't wanted them to be born, at the end of the day those are still biological relatives of their children. People say its the family's problem and not the OPs, but that only accounts in situations were there isn't a child. Once there is a child involved, it IS also the OP's problem as that child shouldn't be burdened with his father's ill-relationships with the rest of the family. People in this case should be the bigger person and try to handle the situation with grace. My mom isn't close with her half brothers either, but she always gave them the opportunity to have bonding moments with me. In the southern part of the Netherlands, we celebrate carnival, like the actual holiday. Our wagons aren't as showstopping as the ones in Rio, but we definitely have parades with wagons and I have memories of sitting on top of my youngest uncle's shoulders who's the typical 'really tall Dutch man' so I could have full vision of the parade. Don't even get me started on how I have likes, hobbies, skills and whatnot in common with my aunts and uncles alike that I don't have with either of my parents. What if that child is going to have a hobby that he does have in common with one of his uncles or aunts? Those can bring precious bonding moments! When my deadbeat father tried to demonize my mother, accusing her of 'trying to keep me away from him', I knew he was lying out of his ass because my mom always was the bigger person. Wether it was towards him or her own family members, she only kept me away from problematic ones like her abusive mother she went no contact with years before my birth. She always tried her best to keep her drama with everyone to herself, and I respect her so much for that. I say it on my blog instead of the actual topic as I always get downvoted a lot for my unpopular opinions but to the OP & people like that I have one thing to say: Always do your best to try to make amends, always do your best to give them the opportunity to be family to your child. You might not feel like they are your family, but your feelings don't matter. Your child's feelings do.

[mbti-notes]

Hi! I came across this post of yours /post/179222467392/you-once-said-that-you-are-not-a-religios-person and i was wondering what the things are in Buddhist philosophy that u dont agree with? And also how did u manage to tap into the oneness belief? I heard ppl often get there thru ego death by using meditation or psychedelic drugs. Lately I have been into this topic and into getting into that oneness belief and you seem to know a great deal about philosophy!

If you're new here, philosophy is one of my majors. I learned religious philosophy as part of my studies in the history of human thought, so people sometimes ask me about these topics.

- To be clear, I am sympathetic to Buddhist beliefs and I think the religion has a lot to offer people. Buddhist philosophy underwent a lot of change over the centuries as the religion spread through very different cultures. When you dive deep into the scriptures, you'll find some truly wild ideas about multiverses and supernatural beings. It's hard to get on board with those ideas if you are a rational and scientifically minded person.

At this point, there are several different branches of Buddhism that sometimes hold very contradictory beliefs, yet they all still call themselves "Buddhist" (contrast this with Abrahamic religions that splintered three ways). Such contradictions are possible because Buddhist beliefs are almost designed to be impervious to critique. On one hand, this allows for great diversity of thought. On the other hand, it can make the whole thing seem nonsensical.

For example, I don't agree with how Buddhists conceptualize and characterize the human ego. However, as soon as I raise those objections to these Buddhists over here, some Buddhists over there will argue that there are different levels of understanding and many different ways of looking at the ego depending on how far you've gotten in your Buddhist practice. They simultaneously accept and dismiss my objections. Thus, if you want to be Buddhist, you basically have to accept this sort of incoherence and perhaps dismiss it as illusory or the result of small-mindedness.

At the end of the day, whether I agree or disagree with the beliefs is inconsequential, because no objection is really real or pointing to anything permanent. But when all your thoughts and feelings and behaviors can easily be dismissed as unreal, what happens to your life? Whether or not your life is objectively real, it still seems real to you and you have to live it, and the suffering you experience feels real. Can you dismiss it as just ephemera? There has always been an internal debate in the religion about whether one should be apart from or a part of the material world, and I don't think this kind of ambiguity helps people who are already struggling psychologically.

- I guess you could say I came to the belief in oneness first through intuition, then through science, then through philosophy. I think I mentioned before that, as a child, I genuinely believed that everything in the universe was imbued with some form of consciousness (aka panpsychism). It's not an uncommon belief in children because the human mind has a tendency toward anthropomorphism. For example, I would wonder whether stepping on the sidewalk was hurting it. People had to reassure me that if the sidewalk had feelings, its feelings worked differently than human feelings, otherwise, the sidewalk would object in the same way I would to getting stepped on.

Most people grow up and forget about these silly notions, but I didn't. Psychologists say that normal infant development starts at oneness and evolves into individuality. I feel like the world tried to convince me that I'm this separate, discrete, individual being, but I just couldn't believe it. Separation has always felt to me like a very wrong way to be. Who is right, the psychologists or me? I don't know. Maybe a Buddhist would say we're both right and we're both wrong and that neither is seeing the bigger picture.

To me, it seems as though I was born believing in panpsychism because I don't remember a time when I didn't believe it, so there is no actual "origin story" or explanation as to how I came to the belief. If I am capable of consciousness, why wouldn't it be possible that everything else is as well? If I am capable of being conscious of others, shouldn't there be something out there conscious of me? And if consciousness exists everywhere in everything, isn't reality fundamentally relational? In order for these beliefs to stand, I had to possess the underlying belief that everything in the universe is somehow interconnected despite superficial appearances.

Then, I studied science in school and learned that all matter in the universe is made up of the same constituent elements. We are all stardust. At the atomic and quantum level, the boundaries we perceive between objects are difficult to define. As an adult, I studied philosophy and was introduced to the full gamut of human thought and learned that oneness was a key concept in many Eastern religions. Actually, several influential thinkers in the West (such as Jung) were heavily influenced by Eastern philosophy. Philosophical training helped me sharpen and refine my spiritual ideas.

- Yes, some people come to a belief in oneness through psychedelic drugs. Presumably (according to the limited research that has been done so far), these drugs help to "open up the mind" by restructuring it in such a way that expands one's perspective beyond one's narrow everyday ego concerns. Some people call this "ego death", but I don't like that term. As I mentioned above, I don't agree with Buddhist conceptions of the ego, which some secular Buddhists blithely reduce to "ego death = enlightenment". If you read my previous posts on this topic, you'll see why. I don't believe the ego is a bad thing or an enemy to be vanquished. I've seen how aspiring to ego death can go terribly wrong for people. And I've been exposed to different perspectives on ego and believe there are better ideas out there.

[sadaveniren]

Hi! Why do you think BG is still going? I see a lot of people saying that it is an alternative to Louis having to have a beard but in my opinion it's much worse to use a child who has no say in the matter and will probably grow up damaged than a beard who has signed up for the job and is getting paid well. A child is not needed to maintain a closet. So with that in mind, why do you think Louis is stuck with Freddie?

Okay you are like the fourth or fifth anon who has insisted that a child is not a way to maintain a closet and while I... guess I get where you are coming from I feel like everyone asking this seems to be forgetting that this isn't just... a decision Louis made in 2022.

Here lemme just include a portion of this ask and then I'll ramble behind a cut

That anon is 100% right btw. This decision was made in 2015 (tbh I think it was probably made in late 2014 but that's a whole separate talk) by music execs who wanted something flash in the pan for their boyband that was about to lose one of their most well known members (Zayn - and no this isn't blaming Zayn for BG I am lying the guilt very FIRMLY on the feet of Sony/Syco/Modest/Simon for this one). What happened after has just been... a shit show.

I don't think Louis knew there was going to be an actual fucking baby involved until October when Belfast happened and when the baby was born I don't think anyone knew how long this was supposed to last. They took almost two weeks to file the birth certificate. I think they were trying to figure out something else to go forward with it, and they were trying to muddle all of what was coming out so fandom didn't know top from bottom.

They ultimately decided to file the birth certificate and go the paternity route and everything was then meant to lead up to a paternity test denial. And then Jay got diagnosed with cancer in March 2016 and everything went off the rails.

I think decisions were made back in 2016 because of that so Louis could have the privacy he wanted for his mother and BG was put on the back burner of his mind. I think Louis did two years of hard pap work for BG before he decided "okay I'll move back to London and let this baby thing die off, I'll focus on making music I want to make and I'll figure it all out later." He did Xfactor like Simon wanted in 2018, he avoided LA like a plague, and he tried to get Walls made.

I think he might have felt he found a good balance ignoring everything by 2020 and not mentioning it and then Briana had to go and get fucking sued because she scammed some dude for fake boobs. I'm not expecting anyone to remember this but I went on a VERY LONG RANT about how dangerous of a position that put Louis and his business companies in because it involved taxes and the IRS. I would not be surprised that that moment basically made Louis go "okay well I can't just let things lie because then I'll have a bigger mess on my hand and stuff will creep up that I can't control that involves my closet" and so he has taken back over the stunt so he can have control over his closet.

Here's basically where I'm at and you can agree or disagree but this is what it is: Louis ending BG without coming out would be very difficult. Someone asked me "what do you mean babies are part of the closet" and it's kinda like... a baby is like the ultimate proof to the heterosexual world that you are heterosexual. You have had verifiable sex with the opposite sex. The nuance of how that all happens is lost in part of the bigger heterosexual picture. If you remove the baby from the equation you are now left with "Turns out Louis Tomlinson isn't the dad of the baby his fans never thought was his because they think he's gay and in a relationship with Harry Styles." And the fact that they have let it go on longer and longer just makes the fact you can't end it without forcing him out of the closet very difficult.

Especially if they don't have another section of the closet to fill that piece. AKA... he gets engaged or married to his long term girlfriend. Because what most people try to accomplish with their closets is that people don't go snooping around it. And losing BG would cause people to do that with Louis. "oh that baby was fake what about your relationship? oh you and this girlfriend have been together for how long and you guys never post anything normal or have gotten married/engaged? huh... weird"

And if he is trying to remove having a public girlfriend from his public persona, which I think he is, the only piece of the closet he has left is BG. Because if he removes BG he has to do SOMETHING to re-enforce the heterosexuality. He'd need to up the girlfriend side of things. He might need to get "engaged" so that way people don't go poking around at his closet.

TL;DR: BG is being used because it has been here. They missed the boat of ending the stunt at a time where it wouldn't have immediately outted Louis and now they have to use BG as part of his closet until Louis is able to come out. Which is his right to choose when he wants to come out. Does it suck for the kid? Verdicts out tbh but I'm not someone who thinks the kid really knows what's going on at this point outside of "oh hey I know this famous dude and go to Christmas with these people who are nice to me" and I also think when he's not with Louis - which is a lot - he's probably living his little six year old life with his mom and dad.

[lost-act]

An Informal Analysis of Metamorphosis That I Need for School but I Can't Write Anything so I Decided to do The Old Fashion Way of Writing It By Using Tumblr and Now I Hope Turnitin Doesn't Detect My Paper Being Plagiarized or Else I Have to Archive This Post or Something...Also Using ザムザ by Teniwoha as a Basis for Deeper Understanding and Analysis of the Story

Ok so we all know Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis, right? It's a pretty surreal story of Gregor Samsa turning into an insect (no, not a roach. You're being overrated at this point). What kind of insect? Varies from telling to telling and I'd rather imagine him being a beetle of sorts rather than a roach because dear god I am traumatized of roaches.

Well, in fairness the entire ordeal of "Samsa turned into a bug" is just surface level knowledge of WHAT Metamorphosis is. The bigger picture is beyond "turning into a bug" but rather the "isolation and alienation" from the "turning into a bug". Why did Gregor turn into a bug? Beats me. That's why I'm writing this, and why you're reading this.

Basic rundown is that, obviously, Gregor turned into a bug, his entire family tried to cope with it until his father started throwing apples at him, everyone started to ignore him, Insect!Gregor dies to starvation, and everyone has started to plan on moving on.

Easy right?

WELL THAT'S WHERE WE'RE WRONG!

You see, despite the glaring lack of sources because this is just my rambles for a more professional paper, we can dig a bit deeper to this analysis of what Metamorphosis really means because so far...I'm literally on the idea of "ah yes...this could definitely mean the sense of alienation and isolation coming from a change no one asked for".

And yes I am basing this off of Samsa by Teniwoha. Yes this falls under pop culture reference for Metamorphosis.

(This is the OG Vocaloid ver.)

(And this is the PJSK ver.)

(Here's one with an EN Fanlation of the lyrics)

Yes it's very obvious as to WHY I picked this story for my analysis in college. ALL IN THE NAME OF VOCALOID- anyways.

I'll be sticking with the theme of "alienation and isolation from an abrupt change no one saw coming or asked for". Can I expound on this? I don't know because I am lowkey also basing this off of the Vocaloid song as well. Not gonna lie...this analysis might be heavily influenced by the song Samsa and the event that it was made for. Ifg the name of the event but it also references towards Metamorphosis in a way that Mafuyu's mom hates how Mafuyu changed from being an "ideal daughter" to a "delinquent child" (sounding familiar now?).

"I beg you, please don't throw those apples at me" (EN Fanlation of ザムザ)

So...where should we begin?

Right...The Author himself: Franz Kafka.

So Franz Kafka is an Austrian-Czech novelist famous for his novel "The Metamorphosis". Kafka has a strained relationship with his father, which is pretty evident as he referred to him as being "authoritarian and demanding" (Wikepedia, though this is a direct reference to Letter To His Father as well). On a professional standpoint, he worked in insurance companies which he dreaded because it took the time away from his writing (I don't blame him). It's also here that his father only sees Franz's job as a "bread job" (Wikepedia...again...trust me I'll get better sources guys) where it's basically all just for the bills. His personal life is interesting, to say the least, as it mirrors some characteristics seen in the story.

On another note, The Metamorphosis was published in 1915. What was going on in 1915? World War 1, obviously, fellow history nerds. Well...to be honest there's not a lot of context behind this because The Metamorphosis has heavy references that point towards Franz Kafka's personal life. The pressure of his father to how Gregor's job was basically to pay the debt of his father and the bills (aka being the breadwinner) mirrors to him having a "bread job". I'd like to confess I'm just reading stuff off the internet and Kafka writing The Metamorphosis in three weeks after writing The Judgement. (Sparknotes my beloved thank you). Metamorphosis took like- three years of persuasion for Kafka to get it published out and about.

Another note to take up on is Marx's theory of alienation which is basically more or less about estrangement of people from their human nature. How so? well it's a consequence due to labor division and social class...

So time for a deep dive towards Marx’s theory of alienation because this is something we need to understand rq.

Ok so basically, Marx’s theory of alienation is under ✨Marxism✨ (that’s not exaggeration because this is Karl Marx we’re talking about). The theory of alienation covers different forms of alienation (derived from this guy called Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel) which is objective, subjective, and complete.

Objective: the social world they inhabit is not a home. Could be experienced as a metaphysical fact (extentialism)

Subjective: a) world they inhabit IS a home but they FAIL to understand it, and; b) world they inhabit is NOT a home, yet they BELIEVE it is.

Complete: basically both, seen in the condition of the contemporary world

By the way I just pulled all of this out of Wikipedia so feel free to do a deeper dive because that’s what I’ll do later.

So with this out of the way, how the fuck does Marx see this? Let’s just first off say CAPITALISM right off the bat and then things will start getting obvious.

It’s here that Marx distinguishes alienated labour, specifically the alienation of the worker because of alienated labour. It’s here that it’s identified into four dimensions of alienated labor:

From product of his labour

From worker’s own activity

From species-being

From other human beings

I know I should be explaining what each of these mean, but I’m on my wits end but yeah.

(Yes I’m still referencing Wikipedia)

But overall, Marx’s alienation theory (derived from Hegel and Feuerbach) primarily takes a jab towards the capitalistic cycle that everyone’s stuck in and that those who fall deeper into it slowly get consumed by it and suffer the consequences of alienation.

[Someone remind me to write on this later or maybe organize this cuz holy shit man…talking with someone rn and like- talked about a person’s value…which is pretty interesting and something I might talk on as well because that made me realize it as well which can tie with in the new theme that my group decided on]

So

It's time for us to confront the elephant in the room:

What could The Metamorphosis be possibly about?

I would like to give a nod to the vocaloid songs mentioned above for being a ground base that I started building this idea from (Yes, the vocaloid songs play heavy reference towards the story to the point it had taken lines that reference events in the book).

"The abrupt change Gregor Samsa underwent caused dissatisfaction within his family, leading towards a slow descent of alienation and soon...his isolation over his surreal metamorphosis."

[I apologize for the shitty thesis statement, these things are the death of me, ngl.]

[Update: my group changed the main theme again so now we have “questioning social constructs/roles and status quo regarding labor” or something…which can also tie in to what i discussed with someone because holy fuck how did i not see that now….]

Then again…it could also be something along the lines of:

“The “metamorphosis” of Gregor Samsa resulted into a slow descent of alienation and isolation, which itself brings out the questions of a person’s “value” as a “human being” and if they have any “value” as the persistence of such alienation deprives someone of their human nature.”

(Okay, looking at it now, I think that’s way better to look at but then again I feel like we’re still not hitting any points…EH THIS IS A RANDOM RAMBLE DRAFT FOR A REASON)

Samsa's abrupt change brought about...a mix of feelings within the family. His father's disdain on him, because Gregor was basically the source of income for the house hold. His mother crying because he's turned into a bug. And his sister, Grete, who still tries to help him in some way (spoiler: she got tired of Gregor’s bullshit towards the end).

I think the fact that it's just out of nowhere and out right supernatural for Gregor to turn into a giant insect. Why is there this transformation and whatnot. Why Gregor out of all unfortunate souls???

Yet I think the reason as to why could also be a mirror to the author's own feeling of alienation.

I'm not sure if it's of any importance but Gregor does have some hobbies (woodworking) that he does on the side. Then again it's too small of a pin to try and hook something to it.

Thing is...Gregor has not broken his routine in the 5-ish years of his job so it's pretty difficult to get a pinpoint somewhere to frame on. Then looking back again to what his “value” is to his family being the sole income earner…it could be inferred that this abrupt “uselessness” in Gregor’s value after transforming has been a form of possible alienation that stemmed from the capitalistic cycle he’s stuck in (this is a very big stretch because I have yet to fully analyze the theory of alienation).

Maybe breaking it down in three parts can help our scatter brain selves cuz holy fuck we got a lot to unpack here and I have no idea if anything I'll write will make any sense because this thing is due at 5pm on a weekend.

I would also like to note that I will be doing a LOT of cross-referencing here and there

Part 1

Gregor turns into a bug

Everyone is mortified

Accidentally hurts himself in trying to run away from his now furious father

This entire "turning into a bug" ordeal is a slap on the face on the symbolism and overall theme of "turning into something else abruptly". Gregor's now a "vermin" of sorts; not just a bug, but someone despicable. He's now a "problem" for the household to deal with (though it's still unknown to WHY he suddenly turned to being a "problem" when in fact he's been doing everything to bring food to the table...I'll probs write further on this because it's very interesting).

[WHY DID GREGOR TURN INTO A "VERMIN" WHEN HE'S BEEN WITHERING AWAY???]

I find the way Mr. Samsa acted to be somewhat a mirror to the strictness of Kafka's own father towards him.

(Ok I’m awake now do yeah)

How does this relate to the theory of alienation, you ask? Well…not entirely to be honest because I said that up there for reference if I do end up saying it here but I think it can connect in a way that it isolates him from his family. Now what I’m saying is pretty much a stretch to what it originally means of “alienated labor alienates the labor from other humans” (which is more or less alienating workers from one another in means of competitive socio-economic activity). Though Gregor’s transformation does bring this thought of the discussion of human worth while they are still considered “human”.

(Actually maybe if i just remember to reiterate my points then maybe I can be more consistent)

Gregor’s worth in his family here is being the main source of income. But when he became a bug, that worth is now at a loss and that coincides with the consideration if he’s still really “human”. Going back to my previous 3 am thought of Gregor “withering away”, Gregor WAS indeed withering away because of how cyclical his life has become. His days have become rather redundant that it could be seen to suck the human-ess out of him. I guess that’s where the other part, the humanity, that Gregor has that disappeared in an instant. I find that the metamorphosis that happened here, despite its absurdity, is the most evident form of metamorphosis that happened to Gregor. What it might possibly be is still vague so I’m probably gonna try to shoot some darts in the dark here.

The alienation that occurred to Gregor is the change of his “value” in “society” (in this case, his family). This alienation led to the perception of his family towards him as “less than human” now that he’s a bug (even though it can be of literal here). Then it leads to his “isolation” where they lock him away in his room.

Part 2

Everyone locked Gregor in his room

His sister, Grete, tries to tend to him

Gregor gives everyone a heart attack

Mr. Samsa starts throwing apples at Gregor for the mishap

Ok so this is where the "alienation" and "isolation" starts to come into play, chat. First the isolation...which already started in part 1 of The Metamorphosis by locking Gregor away in his room because of his...unsightly appearance (LOOK- HE'S A LARGE BUG ALRIGHT?!). So this is where the sense of alienation starts to settle in slowly.

Grete, Gregor’s sister, tries her best to tend to him by feeding him every now and then. This then went on to her moving his stuff in his room out after seeing that Gregor has decided on roaming around as a past time as a bug. His mother also comes in the picture, though with wishing to see Gregor again. This didn’t really end well especially when they were moving Gregor’s stuff out of his room. To Gregor, he refuses to have what reminded him of his “humanity” away. He then proceeded to cling on to the framed portrait, in hopes that his mother and sister doesn’t move it away from his room. From here, Mrs. Samsa gets shocked and faints which made Grete go out to get the smelling salts. Gregor goes down from where he was to see what happened but was met with his now furious father. Mr. Samsa started to hurl apples at him, one of which landed a hit on him and injured him.

With that summary out, this slow descent into Gregor’s further alienation is starting to stem from any hopes that Gregor is still with them even if he’s stuck as being an insect. Grete’s actions lean towards some hope in Gregor’s “humanness” is still there. Arguably so, her actions are perceived as seeing the loss of “human” of Gregor since he’s handicapped.

Mr. Samsa’s response, however, is the sealing point of this alienation. He has visible frustrations in having to go back to work to provide after 5 years of being retired because Gregor took upon the role of being the income source.

Ah…I should’ve mentioned the role of Gregor playing a role towards the slow demise…

Gregor’s role as the main income source meant all expectations being placed on him to be able to pay off the debts and keep the family afloat. His “value” in his family is placed high because he’s the one bringing in the money. Though ironically, his “value” in his company is “replaceable” (yippie, capitalism) as he’s literally at the brink due to his performance. And if not his performance, he is at most replaceable.

Now that he’s basically a handicapped (BUG), his value is literally gone. I mean— what can a bug even do?

I find it here that the role his sister had of being carefree is slowly being stripped away. Gregor had plans in helping her and enrolling her into a conservatory. But now that he’s nothing but a useless bug that everyone is disgusted at, Grete has no choice but to step up.

Part 3

Everyone started ignoring Gregor cuz they’re all working

Eventually they forgot about Gregor

The Charwoman they hired is the one who still recognizes Gregor to some extent

Grete’s violin playing leading to Gregor offending the hell out of the tenants

Family discussion on getting rid of him

Gregor just dying off to starvation instead

The Samsas moving on in a way (notably speaking on the ending as well)

This is the part where the alienation, isolation, and the decline of human value really shines. Why? Because it’s the third part and holy fuck this is where we get existential (not really).

So a lot is going on in the third part unlike the previous two parts.

Gregor’s isolation here is growing more and more since everyone started working to stay afloat. With that, they turned his room into a storage closet, which defeated the original purpose of Grete’s first initiative of giving her brother more space to roam around. It’s here as well that Gregor doesn’t eat all that much, either because everyone slowly forgot about him or him going on a hunger strike. I find it ironic that among everyone who remains in the household, the Charwoman (a widowed old lady who comes by every now and then to help with he chores) is the only one who still acknowledges Gregor (though as a silly little dung beetle) .

Actually I still wonder why the Charwoman is the one that still has some acknowledgement towards Gregor when everyone just slowly moved away from him. (Hmm maybe I should dissect that idea later.)

It’s in this chapter that Grete turns against Gregor after the mishap that happened after him making appearance in front of the tenants that rented a room in the apartment. She was the first one who offered on the idea of getting rid of that “vermin”.

Gregor’s value is literally gone at this point, not only just that but he’s completely alienated and seen as “inhuman” (in a way that is no longer human). His family no longer sees the human nature that he once had when he was human and had some use. It’s at this point where they see him as nothing more than a vermin and that itself led to him just proceeding to die off alone. (Update: I had a double check and apparently Gregor died because of the injury from the apple being yeeted at him... So his dad was the one who killed him ultimately... W H O O P S)

It’s with that the burden is released from the family after hearing word from the Charwoman that “it” has died and she is off to dispose of the corpse. The story closes off with the Samsas going to the countryside and planning on moving to a smaller place. Here, Mr. And Mrs. Samsa realized Grete’s growth to being a fine young woman.

So…

That’s that I guess…

Really this part confuses me a lot because I don’t really know what to say. On one hand this could be beyond just alienation and isolation stemming from the loss of value of one’s human nature. On the other, this is a cycle that continues to persist. The deprecating nature of what is considered valuable in a human is what can lead towards the alienation and soon, isolation, of a person. Mostly seen in the fourth dimension of Marx’s alienated labor is alienation from other humans which more or less describes alienating workers from one another through socio-economic means (think of pay difference or something similar to prevent them from banding together and whatnot). Though in this case, the alienation is more evident in the measure of the person’s worth. Since Gregor isn’t a person anymore, his worth is basically useless and thus he’s slowly being alienated.

Man…I think that’s as straightforward as it seems now…

“Gregor Samsa was alienated due to his lack of worth in his family’s eyes.”

Then again it can’t be THAT easy.

Can it?

To close things off because I ran out of ideas to write, I’d like to say that I might make a follow up analysis that’s more…formal to say the least. As well as an analysis that tackles both the vocaloid song and the novel. For now…my ideas have ran their run and it’s time for me to write my formal essay.

The Metamorphosis stands to me as an enigma as to what it truly means. A short three chaptered story that could cover topics such as the actual metamorphosis of certain characters to the alienation that is discussed here. Marx’s theory of alienation has heavy influence on many of Kafka’s works with The Metamorphosis being one of them. I was challenged at some point by another friend of mine to figure out why The Metamorphosis is considered “non-fiction”. I am not sure if I’ll ever get a proper answer for it.

The story of The Metamorphosis could also be some sentiment Kafka had as well in his actual life, especially with his relationship with his father. Having preference to write while being pressured to be more rational by one’s father could bring forth that feeling of alienation of not being understood. Just like how no one understood what Gregor said when he was turned into a bug. To be alienated is to also be isolated from society. Hegel’s identification of the different forms of alienation can be referenced by identifying that the form of alienation being seen here as the complete form of alienation.

Why haven’t I discussed this earlier? Well because I was too busy trying to figure shit out.

But yes…the complete form of alienation is both on the subjective and objective kind. The world Gregor is placed in (in a social context) is a repetitive cycle that eats itself over and over again. It’s the kind that is self-sabotaging in a way that either you leave it or it eats you alive. As for Gregor’s own home, at some point he failed to make sense of the home his family is trying to make way for him. But in part 3, the home Gregor once knew is no longer a home that welcomed him, it is one that saw him as a “vermin” that needed to be rid of.

All in all, it’s difficult to make sense of the weight of human value and any remnants of Gregor’s human nature post-transformation. His sister’s growing frustration against him bears this lack of empathy to understand Gregor anymore. Imagine that…being backstabbed by someone who first tried to be kind for you. Oh what alienation does to people… as well as the fact that the shift in the value their parents now hold for Greta seeing that she also metamorphosed into a young woman of “value” (married off). I think it’s here as well in seeing this shift in value fitting Marx’s forms of alienation aka “from humans”.

[Look, I’m lowkey rambling here and sound like I don’t know what I’m saying but that’s because I don’t know what I’m saying]

That’s all…I’ll also be archiving this tomorrow but I’ll put it back up in a few days after my essays’ been graded.

Wish me luck on my madness.

[spiridakos]

I didn't watch last Wednesday's ep, just some Hailey clips, but it's amusing (to me) cos adopting a childlike persona can ironically be a trauma response (aka the scene with Hailey and Voight). She's cute in it and of course she's a sweetie, but if you want to go deep you can ask why she didn't present that dialogue normally and went into age regression/adult child mode when trying to question him.

I'm likely overthinking it, but as someone that does it when i'm uncomfortable challenging someone cos of my background, that's straight where my head went in that scene as she only did it with him. Unless i'm meant to ignore it and see this just as day 2 in Hailey's voyage of self discovery as a free woman.

Total change of subject but the hate Hailey got in this ep on X though is insane. Adam always makes mistakes and is the weakest of the group as an officer in my view. He means well but he frustrates me. Something else that amuses/annoys me is that these character centrics tend to mean that if you're not a focus, you often do a personality 180° to how a character is in their own eps and it messes up the flow. It's the case with all the characters, they all come across as different people in non-centrics.

Like i'm gutted this Hailey wasn't there when Voight kept nagging in ep1 and she stubbornly sent the divorce papers and cried to him, but it's just because it didn't serve her story to have a backbone in that moment. But suddenly after all that she's able to see the bigger picture in a case again. When it's her next ep she'll probably go back to confiding in Voight and stressing out and as a viewer you're getting whiplash keeping up with the changing personalities. Med and Fire aren't as bad as this in my view, so the bad storytelling is a PD speciality.

Oh, there's a lot here. Okay. Hello, anon.

I did not watch the episode - I didn't even watch Hailey's scenes. I fast-forwarded the episode on mute to clip Hailey's scenes so I could gif them, but I have no idea what was said or going on in any moment, so I can't really comment on the episode.

Re: the Hailey hate - it's kind of absurd. I find it...it's annoying, but also, I just ignore it. These haters want a response, they want a fight, and they likely are getting it when people jump to the defense of Hailey. It's fine to not like Hailey, we all don't like certain fictional characters, but purposely spending all your energy on channeling that hate is just weird to me. Focus on what you love.

The Hailey/Voight switch is also annoying. These characters personality and mannerisms and responses to Voight change based on the story Gwennie seems to want to tell per episode, and that's just...it's a sign of bad storytelling. From two episodes to have her confiding in him and then standing up to him, it's just poor choices. It's not writing for the character, it's writing for the plot. The flip-flopping in only two episodes alone tells me all I need to know about her exit - it will not be satisfactory.

[umbracirrus]

what made you settle on balgruuf of any character? just curious

OOOH

Okay okay okay, so like, bare with me on this because this is a very good question!!!! It is in part my own judgement of his character but alskfhsajdfhasdj I'm not normal about him

He is one of the first characters that become a 'constant' in the Dragonborn's main quest. You meet him early on, you go back to him time and time again, and he is always willing to listen to you even if what you are telling/asking him is downright madness (i.e. asking him to trap a dragon).

And that is even bearing in mind that you can downright tell him that you were being executed in Helgen, he sees the bigger picture than the fact that there is a soot-ridden possible criminal on his literal doorstep, because this one person has brought him news which set into action things which in the end likely saved the lives of many of his people in Whiterun hold.

He doesn't panic when the news of the dragons reaches him, he instead takes time to think and chooses to be practical by planning and preparing and remaining vigilant until the time comes that they can be pushed back and/or killed.

Whilst Proventus and Hrongar bicker about the importance of the Dragonborn and whether you are or not, he keeps a level head and advises you on what to do (go and see the greybeards because it was them who summoned you as that was what the thunderous noise when you reentered the city was) as opposed to showering you with admiration (or being highly suspicious of you)

The Dragonborn, as part of the main quest, becomes a Thane of Whiterun. That means that you have contributed significantly to the hold of Whiterun and that he trusts you.

And speaking of trust, he gives you his axe when you become thane and giving axes is a huge sign of trust in Skyrim (and I have written a mini essay on this before, so I won't go into that all again. that post is my pride and joy lol)

And speaking of Balgruuf trusting you, his voice if you join the Stormcloaks and says that he thought better of you breaks my heard ashjkasdablkjsdhjkh- (again, see linked post about axes above because you can only do battle for whiterun after you become thane of whiterun)

Even if you ask him the most nonsensical things, he thinks rationally about it. Yes, ending the dragon menace is a good thing even if the insane has to happen to do so (aka trapping Odahviing), but if the cost of stopping it is his hold and his people, it is out of the question. His priority is keeping his people and hold safe, and by the looks of things if things were to go to shit, when weighing up the options, it being the result of dragons is preferrable over it being a result of brother against brother, friend against friend. It is also likely preferrable because of my earlier point that he is trying to be practical about the dragons and come up with plans to handle them. He does not wish to partake in the war whilst he has the option to keep clear of it.

You don't often see him interact with them, but he has his family around him! His brother and children! And even though there is a lack of interaction, there are a few little ways in which he can be seen as looking out for them. For example, Frothar likes to go around saying 'Father says I'm too young to train with a sword' and that he wants to fight in the civil war. He's trying to keep his child as far away from the danger as he can.

Admittedly, Dagny is a bit of a selfish and spoiled child... and Balgruuf contributes to that. She argues with Frothar about how Balgruuf promised her a new dress and doesn't like it when her brother calls her out on the selfishness. It's almost like he can't say no to her when his little girl wants something (and adds an extra layer to his character that you don't really see otherwise in-game!)

And Nelkir, he does worry about the boy. He knows that he is typically a quiet child, but is incredibly worried about him once he starts falling under the influence of Mephala (though obviously doesn't know that), and is worried that he is the cause of him no longer talking to him and ending up all brooding, which unwittingly he kind of is, because of the secrets he holds... such as Nelkir having a different mother to his siblings (leading to a whole other thing about their identities because you have no idea who their mothers are, were they a string of tragic romances? a result of affairs and such? there are so many unexplored opportunities there, of which I quite like the concept of two consecutive tragedies explaining why he doesn't appear to have a significant other at the time of Skyrim because of what if it happened again, no, he needs to put what he has of a family and Whiterun first), that he doesn't want to be forced out of Whiterun, that he doesn't like the Thalmor, and...

He still worships Talos! In theory against rules, something which could potentially get him into trouble or killed, but he still does it, he still gets away with it, and may be a contributing factor to the fact that there is still numerous statues of Talos in his hold, including the city of Whiterun itself, and that Heimskr is still about preaching and not in jail.

Just quickly going back to Mephala, he knows (presumably first-hand if the book found during that quest is anything to go by) about the dangers of the Ebony Blade. He and Farengar did what they could to destroy it to protect everyone in the long run, but couldn't - so they did the next best thing and tried to lock it away in a hidden/difficult to get to room and limit access to it by being the only ones to have keys. I don't think he ever anticipated one of his own children finding said door though and getting the Dragonborn involved...

Going back to the worship of Talos, that is one of (but not the only) justifications for the civil war. In the end, he sides with the Imperials which is quite interesting, given that he seems to have a rapport with Ulfric Stormcloak. Though he does mention at times that he sees good reasons for both sides. His reasoning is not completely clear(from what I can recall without loading up the game) but based on the fact that he seems to look out for his people and hold over other things (and would have preferred to remain out of the war completely), he must have deemed that siding with the Empire was less bad of an option than siding with the Stormcloaks. Perhaps he felt that would lead to more stability in the long run.

Basically, he's a loyal man who looks out for those nearest and dearest to him (even if his way of doing so is unhealthy *cough* Dagny *cough*), holds his position with pride and does what he can for his people, and there are many little nuances of his character which I really just like and makes him much more of a multi-dimensional character than quite a few others in the game. Probably could've just said that from the start hehe.

As I have said though, this is my own interpretation of his character.

Sorry if this list is very ramble-y - I've been awake for like an hour or so at this point and still haven't sufficiently caffeinated myself lol...

[hydroglia]

Anon ⸺ how do you feel about people attacking tartaglia after what happened in fontaine?

I have to admit that, I didn't truly know that people were "attacking" him. I know some are making fun of him after what happened with him and Neuvillette, which, I am not really all that happy about. I can though see the humor in it, the way that it happened, I mean, I would be lying if I said that it wasn't funny. The thing that though truly gets me with this sudden negative attention that Childe is receiving, is more the fact that quite a few people don't really get the bigger picture and what hints Hoyo gave us, with what happened. People blindly calls Childe weak due to what transpired and an idiot, which really grinds my gear. However, we will of course always have those people, who will immediately jump to make fun of any character, I think this just gets under my skin a bit more due to how much I love Childe and also due to how many only scratches the surface, when it comes to him. He is a really complicated character and that is honestly something I really love about him. Also, a little spoiler ahead about Neuvillette, which has pretty much been confirmed at this point; What people forget is that Neuvillette is instantly strong, he is after all the hydro dragon (which is even shown in his con) aka he is an ancient being and in the end, Childe is only 21 years old (lots of growth still left) and "only" just a human. Yes, he got his foul legacy and yes, he is insanely strong for a human, but we can't expect him, at all, to beat someone like Neuvillette, especially not with him being attacked from a blindside like he was. I also think that there are those of us, who were simply disappointed by how short Childe's fight was and how little we saw of him - don't get me wrong though, I appreciate so, so very much that he is a part of the story again and look very much forward to seeing more of him and to see, why he feel the way that he does. There is also a huuge meaning behind the fact that Childe hurt Neuvillette, even if it was just a scratch, but many oversee that part.

[phoukanamedpookie]

I don't feel like I'm familiar enough with the source material to make a particularly detailed analysis regarding how Azula is handled as a character within the arching plot of the story, but I am familiar enough to at least be able to pick out some possible reasonings for the questions you've asked with regards to audience interpretation.

Race, full stop, absolutely has a large part to play in why people easily accept Azula - war criminal, and take incredible convincing to even float the idea of Azula - child soldier. I would not and could not argue against that.

But I think, unfortunately, there's a crossing not only of racial implications within the writing and character design bleeding into audience viewpoint and assumption, but also of heavily Christian-influenced morality jumping out almost definitely from a large portion of the audience and quite possibly from the creative team as well.

The legacy of Puritanical thought in Christianity is insidious, and has crept a lot farther than people assume or care to acknowledge. Azula functions well as a war criminal because so much of Puritanical Christian thought - in practice if not in theory - reveals itself in a pure vs unpure ideology. Even if a person doesn't hold the idea of the inherent sinfulness of humanity to apply to the world we live in, it's very easy to see how a lot of people justify their own failures and shortcomings by holding other people to standards they themselves can't meet or by throwing them under the bus.

What I mean by that is, for example, most people can see a character like Zuko, who is given a sympathetic light in the story of the show and developed into a likable person by audience standards, and see part of themselves in him. But Zuko was not a "good" character to begin with. By the standards of Puritanical Christian thinking, he would need to be 'redeemed' of his wrongdoing before it would be acceptable to call him a good person. And that redemption would most likely need to take the form of what Azula is put through - bound, broken, stripped of her power and dignity as punishment for the weakness of character that let the 'sin' of wrongdoing enter her heart. But we like Zuko, or at least we're supposed to. We're supposed to sympathize with him. So how do you have a character redeem themselves in order to justify their transition from "bad" to "good" without breaking them. Well, you have them focus on the larger sin, aka Azula. If Zuko was "bad", but we don't want to have to break him down in order to justify his being "good", we point to a "bigger" "bad" and say that he can redeem himself by redeeming an even worse instance of 'sin'.

Azula, in this scenario, must be Azula - war criminal, otherwise the logic falls apart. "Good guys" are good because they're pure - either they do no wrong, or the wrong they do can be justified within the picture of working for a pure world. "Bad guys" are bad because they're unpure - they do wrong things and those wrong things can't be justified as working towards a pure world. But if you introduce any kind of middle ground, any kind of moral neutrality, where we try to give context its proper weight, that split immediately falls apart. And worse than that, it suddenly paints not only Zuko - a well-liked and accepted character - in a "bad" light, it paints nearly every other "good" character in a "bad" light as well.

Azula - child soldier requires a very stark reframing of the idea of who gets the label "good" and who gets the label "bad". It requires, if a person's viewpoint is influenced by Puritanical Christian thinking, to acknowledge that influence and actively set any notions and assumptions of 'deserving' vs 'non-deserving' and acceptance via 'redemption' aside.

I suppose the tl;dr of it all is a lot of modern morality is Puritanical Christian thought repackaged for the 21st century, and absolutely requires a scapegoat to justify the 'redemption' of any other ambiguously "good" character. If there isn't a 'worse' character to point to in order to excuse the previous actions of other characters, then the audience would be required to rethink how we draw the lines of morality. If your big bad isn't big and isn't bad, and we suddenly can't compare and contrast our morality with them, then how will we know we're still the good guys.

And I say all this speaking of Azula in general terms. There is absolutely a deeper level of criticism and insidiousness within this Puritanical Christian viewpoint that directly comes from her non-whiteness, but I can only speak on it as a white person who was raised Christian, and I don't think I would do that topic justice and be able to give it the nuance it deserves, so I will leave it at that.

I can see that working in a lot of reactions to her, yeah.

[scuttleboat]

Parenthood as a Major Theme in The Witcher

aka a defense of Yennefer's fertility arc

In some commentary on The Witcher season 1, I've read about disappointment that mid-season Yennefer spends her story time dedicated to hunting a fertility cure. The primary critique of this 2-episode arc for her is that it appears to conform too readily to a trope that "all women eventually want babies", and also seems counter to her previous disregard and cynicism for the idea of motherhood.

I think there's two cases that can be made that demonstrate why this element of the series deserves more than to be judged as "lazy or reductive writing". The first is Yennefer's personal journey--which after two viewings I believe holds up strongly. The second, even bigger case is what the theme of parenthood means to the show, and why Yennefer is only one of several aspects of it. That's what I am going to talk about in this post. Expect full spoilers for season 1.

Birth, Babies, and Legacy in Season 1

To put it bluntly, the topic of reproduction is all over The Witcher. The show is kind of obsessed with it. Let's go through the ways that parenthood and/or reproduction feature significantly in every episode:

1 - The conflict in Blaviken is a result of Stregobor's murderous obsession with killing babies born under a supposed curse. Those  infants and girls represented power that he wanted to terminate. In Cintra, Ciri becomes an orphan.

2 - Yennefer's mixed elven parentage is the source of her power and her physical deformity. Trauma is inherited generationally, seen again in Fillavandrel's outcast society, stripped of heritage and legacy. Jaskier's first song references abortion.

3 - A striga is made when a pregnant woman is cursed and her undead fetus becomes a ravenous monster. Foltest wants her to be rescued to live as his child and heir. Her monster body still has its umbilical cord--a gnarly cosmetic flourish that drives the point home. In Aretuza's scary gyno chair, Yen is sterilized in exchange for ultra-performative femininity. Although she consents, it is a corrupt bargain designed to exploit her.

4 - The Queen of Aederin and her newborn are assassinated for being unable to birth a male baby. Yennefer almost dies trying to prevent it, then gives a monologue about how the patriarchy only sees women as vessels.  Queen Calanthe tries to protect her daughter from the Law of Surprise, only to see it initiated again on her grandchild.

5 - After some 50 years as a mage Yen goes hunting for a fertility cure, using alchemy and then a djinn. She tells Tassaia that although she knew what she was giving up in Aretuza, "I didn't know what it would mean to me." Also, wow a lot of sex is had.

6 - Geralt and Yen talk about parenthood and their respective lost opportunities. The episode mcguffin is a dragon egg, whom they both fight to defend. Borch Three Jackdaws states the theme of parenthood outright. On the surface he is proclaiming his own motivation, but in the context of Geralt and Yennefer's prior discussions we know that he is speaking for both them and the show as a whole:

"This is my final 'first'. A child. This treasure, this legacy, must endure. There is no other reason to go on."

Episode 6 also shows how Geralt and Yen have grown since episode  4. She is forced to accept that natural birth is impossible, and Geralt is forced to reflect out loud that it's only fear of parental failure that has prevented him from claiming his own child. 

7 -  On getting news of the Nilfgaard invasion, Geralt decides to claim Ciri. Calanthe and Eist go to extremes to keep their child in their family.

8 - Everyone wants to be Ciri's new family, including this nice woman who doesn't have any daughters. In the end, Geralt finally becomes a father. 

Destiny = Family 

I firmly believe that the show is leading us to a point where Geralt, Yennefer, and Ciri form an eventual family. The desire for family is verbalized multiple times for Ciri, notably in Brokilon Forest when she calls Dara her family, and then when Dara leaves her and tells her find another family. Twice in the show women try to adopt Ciri, promising safety and care. Yet she's driven by a strong directive to find Geralt as "he is your destiny".  She is his Child Surprise, essentially this universe's fucked up version of a godchild. And the Law of Surprise is not just tradition, but a cosmic binding with tangible consequences. Geralt initially denies this, but Duny, Eist, Mousesack, Yennefer, and Borch all vocalize it, and season 1 events bear it out.

If Ciri is steered by a bond of destiny, so is Geralt. When he rejects the Child Surprise at Pavetta's wedding, Mousesack warns that doing so will bring ill fortune. Episode 5 and 6 subtly but persistently imply that this prophecy is true, as the witcher's next several years are filled with sleeplessness and an undefined longing. Magically binding himself to Yennefer alleviates some of that (essentially by making him happy), but I don't think it's only because of love, but also because his destiny being intertwined with Yennefer is a step towards his destiny being intertwined with Ciri. Because even after getting some peaceful nights with intermittent Yennaffairs (get it? hah!), something still seems off with Geralt.

"You feel it just the same as me that hole inside you. That itch inside your brain keeps you awake at night. Come with me, I'll show you what you're missing." - Borch Three Jackdaws

This is a cute screenplay trick because we assume that he's talking about nostalgic adventure, but on review he's actually talking about parenthood. Later when Geralt gripes that the thing he was missing is Yennefer as she walks away again, Borch replies, "What you're missing is still out there. Your legacy, your destiny. I know it." (hello Ciri!) We never get a clear idea of why Mr. Three Cool Names knows all this stuff, but I didn't care because a dragon being cryptically omniscient is exactly the sort of thing I want from my fantasy shows.

Conclusion 

So it's family, family, family. Yennefer is just one corner of this thematic tapestry; the other three are Geralt, Ciri, and #destiny. Their journey to find each other, to accept these bonds, is what the show is about. I expect the theme to cement even more in future seasons.

Consequently, to reduce Yennefer's storyline to cliché alone is to miss the way everyone on this show is obsessed with parenthood in some form. It also misses how much fatherhood will be central Geralt's journey.  Even if he came to the same decision 2 episodes (and 13 years) later than Yen did, Geralt actively decides that he want to claim his role as a parent figure. That isn't the easy gripe target of "women want babies", but the point is that Yen and Geralt are both on the same path, with Ciri as the destination. A character can have something that resembles part of a cliché without being negatively defined by it. In The Witcher, the greater context is relevant to this critique.

So I urge you to look at the full season and see how her fertility arc fits into the big picture. If you still wish that Yen had continued to be proudly child-free, then I respect your desire to see that story told. However, it would be worth it to recognize now that this probably isn't going to be the story you want. Parenthood is a big part of it. This story is going to be about two magical adults and one magical child becoming a family.

A family of total badasses, adopted through destiny and love.

[shieldofrohan]

I don't know how Brienne would escort Sansa to the Wall . I think Sansa has to go there on her own and Brienne's story now is intertwined with LSH. I think the irony will be that in ADWD Jon thought of rescuing Arya but will meet Sansa in TWOW. Similarly Brienne starts her quest in search for Sansa in AFFC but the sister that she might run first into would be Arya.

Hello @lazypizzagiantpalace ,

I do believe that Brienne will come to Vale. Why do I believe this?

One of the dangers that Sansa faces in the Vale is Shadrich. 

Shadrich of the Shady Glen aka The Mad Mouse [according to TWOW; Alayne sample] is in Vale... And he is one of the hunters who are after Sansa. And he seems to found her.

When did we meet him? 

AFFC; Brienne I chapter:

“Aye, love of gold. Unlike your good Ser Creighton, I did fight upon the Blackwater, but on the losing side. My ransom ruined me. You know who Varys is, I trust? The eunuch has offered a plump bag of gold for this girl you’ve never heard of. I am not a greedy man. If some oversized wench would help me find this naughty child, I would split the Spider’s coin with her.”

So for some reason GRRM chose Brienne chapter to introduce us to this man. Brienne is the one who knows Shadrich and his plans for Sansa.

Another reason that makes me believe that Brienne will be in Vale is that the parallels between Ashford Tourney and Vale Tourney.

Examples:

(source: xx ) 

Sansa and Dunk watching the respective tourneys being set up on the grounds:

Whitewashing the Barriers and Competitors' entryway:

Sansa's POV:

Lord Nestor’s men were painting the barriers with whitewash, draping the stands with bright banners, and hanging shields on the gate the competitors would pass through when they made their entrance.

Dunk's POV: 

Lord Ashford’s carpenters were whitewashing the waist- high wooden barriers that would separate the jousters. There were five lanes, arrayed north to south so none of the competitors would ride with the sun in his eyes.

Viewing stands for the audience:

Sansa's POV:

Viewing stands had raised for all those who had come to watch, with four long tilting barriers in between.

Dunk's POV:

A three- tiered viewing stand had been raised on the eastern side of the lists, with an orange canopy to shield the lords and ladies from rain and sun

Participants training with Quitains at the edge of the grounds and our POV characters recognize the competitors involved:

Sansa's POV:

At the north end of the yard, three quintains had been set up, and some of the competitors were riding at them. Alayne knew them by their shields.. Ser Mychel Redfort set one quintain spinning with a perfectly placed blow. He was one of those favored to win wings.

Dunk's POV:

On the eastern verge of the meadow, a quintain had been set up and a dozen knights were tilting at it, sending the pole arm spinning every time they struck the splintered shield suspended from one end. Dunk watched the Brute of Bracken take his turn, and then Lord Caron of the Marches.

Both POVs watch a lithe knight beat down a large knight who gets his head injured. Both POVs recocgnize the knights via their shields:

Sansa's POV:

A few feet away, two knights were fighting with blunted practice swords. Their blades crashed together twice, then slipped past each other only to be blocked by upraised shields, but the bigger man gave ground at the impact. Alayne could not see the front of his shield from where she stood, but his attacker bore three ravens in flight, each clutching a red heart in its claws.A few moments later and the big man sprawled dazed in the dust with his helm askew. When his squire undid the fastenings to bare his head, there was blood trickling down his scalp

  Dunk's POV:

Elsewhere, men were training afoot, going at each other with wooden swords while their squires stood shouting ribald advice. Dunk watched a stocky youth try to hold off a muscular knight who seemed lithe and quick as a mountain cat. Both had the red apple of the Fossoways painted on their shields, but the younger man’s was soon hacked and chipped to pieces. “Here’s an apple that’s not ripe yet,” the older said as he slammed the other’s helm.The younger Fossoway was bruised and bloody by the time he yielded, but his foe was hardly winded

And we can safely assume that Brienne is one of Dunk's descendants. So her being at that Tourney makes great sense. Almost every tourney in ASOIAF had a mystery knight and Brienne would fit into this one nicely.

Another reason for my Sansa-Brienne meeting in Vale is the Alysanne-Jonquil Darke parallels.

( For Alysanne//Sansa please read: xx )

[ Jonquil was from Duskendale btw. And that's where Brienne met Shadrich in AFFC; Brienne I - AND Sansa is literally called Jonquil so they are all connected somehow- ]

This was how we meet with Jonquil:

At the Golden Wedding in 49 AC, a test of arms that became known as the War for the White Cloaks was held with hundreds of knights competing for the honor of serving in the Kingsguard of Jaehaerys I Targaryen. Jonquil took part as a slender mystery knight known as the Serpent in Scarlet. She was eventually defeated and unmasked, and became a great favorite with the small folk. [AWOIAF] 

"Knight competing for the honor of serving in the Kingsguard" sounds really like this:

She closed the window, gathered up the fallen papers, and stacked them on the table. One was a list of the competitors. Four-and-sixty knights had been invited to vie for places amongst Lord Robert Arryn’s new Brotherhood of Winged Knights, and four­ and-sixty knights had come to tilt for the right to wear falcon’s wings upon their warhelms and guard their lord.

[...]

And they came, Alayne thought proudly. They all came.

[TWOW; Alayne I]

So these are my reasons for believing that Brienne is really linked with Vale tourney.

Also Brienne is close to Sansa:

In conclusion: I believe that Brienne will be with Sansa during her journey up North. I see no way for Sansa being alone in that kind of journey. And I think Brienne will be her companion at some point. 

I disagree with the part that you say: "Brienne's story now is intertwined with LSH"

Lady Stoneheart plot is just a test for Brienne. Just like Jaime had to do in the past, Brienne also has to choose between two oaths. Will she choose Jaime, Catelyn, Sansa or LSH? This will be an important point of her arc as an ideal knight. But the choice is quite clear if you ask me:

“I have made kings and unmade them. Sansa Stark is my last chance for honor.” Jaime smiled thinly. “Besides, kingslayers should band together. Are you ever going to go?”

Her big hand wrapped tight around Oathkeeper. “I will. And I will find the girl and keep her safe. For her lady mother’s sake. And for yours.” She bowed stiffly, whirled, and went.

[A Storm of Swords - Jaime IX]

Sansa, though... I will find her, my lady, Brienne swore to Lady Catelyn’s restless shade. I will never stop looking. I will give up my life if need be, give up my honor, give up all my dreams, but I will find her.

[A Feast for Crows - Brienne II]

Sansa is the way of her keeping her promise to Catelyn and Jaime AND herself. Even Jaime's honor is linked with Sansa.

So, Brienne's journey is still linked with her knighthood ideals and Sansa... 

Arya doesn't even need a knight. It is Sansa who needs a protector who won't abuse her. So it would be waste to bringing them together because they have nothing to give each other right now tbh.

(BTW: I think Arya's story is linked with LSH.. she needs to see that revenge is not good and she is linked with Riverlands and Red Wedding 2.0)

And Sansa is the character that was always praying for a "true knight".

By the time she reached the godswood, the noises had faded to a faint rattle of steel and a distant shouting. Sansa pulled her cloak tighter. The air was rich with the smells of earth and leaf. Lady would have liked this place, she thought. There was something wild about a godswood; even here, in the heart of the castle at the heart of the city, you could feel the old gods watching with a thousand unseen eyes.

Sansa had favored her mother's gods over her father's. She loved the statues, the pictures in leaded glass, the fragrance of burning incense, the septons with their robes and crystals, the magical play of the rainbows over altars inlaid with mother-of-pearl and onyx and lapis lazuli. Yet she could not deny that the godswood had a certain power too. Especially by night. Help me, she prayed, send me a friend, a true knight to champion me . . .

[A Clash of Kings - Sansa II]

About looking for Arya/Sansa but finding Sansa/Arya thing:

Fake!Arya and Melisandre's Grey Girl prophecy were there to "distract" us from Sansa... 

What I mean is: Sansa was always the GG but Martin was trying to distract us by making Jon only thinking about Arya.

He does such things:

GRRM: There are some mysteries in these books. There are some things that I’m gonna reveal later on that I’m planting clues for. There are some later plot twists that I’m foreshadowing. There are things that are gonna happen in Book 5 and Book 6 and Book 7 where I’ve planted a seed for it in Book 1. But I don’t necessarily want to give away my hand. So, what do I do when I plant the seed? Well, I plant the seed, but I try to do a little literary sleight of hand, and while I’m planting the seed, my other hand is up there waving and is distracting you with some flashy bit of wordplay or something that’s going on in the foreground, while the seed is being planted in the background. So hopefully the seed is there, the foreshadowing is there, but maybe you won’t notice it, because it’s surrounded by so many other things.

Thanks for the ask; I hope it was helpful. 

[aspoonofsugar]

Hi...how are you? If you don't mind me asking, who are your top 10 favorite anime characters? And why you like them? Sorry if you've answered this question before.....

Hello!

I am fine, thank you! I hope you are well too :)

Ok, I have answered similar questions here, here and here.

That said, my rule is that every time I am asked abt my faves, I will add new ones in an endless chain :’’’). So, actually thank you very much for this ask. It is always fun to talk about faves!

That said, my new “faves” are not all anime characters. Still, I hope you would still enjoy reading about them. I have mentioned some of them in this other list, but I have not explained why.

As usual, in no particular order.

1) Suzuha Amane (Steins;Gate)

She has my favourite story in the series. She is an example of why I think Time Travel can be enriching when it comes to characters and relationships, if well used. She is basically a child soldier from a bad future and seeing her enjoy herself in a peaceful time is delightful. At the same time, I love how she ends up being so important for different people in many different ways because of her time travels. She ends up being both daughter and friends, big sister and little sister, mentor and disciple of the same characters. She manages to experience many different relationships with the same people and this ends up making her story and her character beautiful. At the same time sad and hopeful.

2) Fragile (Death Stranding)

I have talked about her here. Fragile embodies one of the thematic hearts of Death Stranding imo. She embodies the beauty of humanity. A humanity who is fragile, but not that fragile. It is a humanity that specifically because it is frail is beautiful and must be protected. It is a humanity that wishes to reconnect and to build something new. A humanity who is frail, but not weak.

3) Yosano Akiko (BSD)

Yosano (together with Chuuya) has one of my favourite backgrounds in the whole series. Her background is great because it explores how a healing power can be used in a disastrous and utilitaristic way. It is also a story that highlights the strong link between death and life and how death is a part of life and also something that in specific situation gives value to life itself. In short, her story and character are incredibly complex and deep.

4) Mikasa Ackerman (Snk)

I have written about her multiple times. In particular, this is why I love her. Mikasa is for me an incredible refreshing character and her story and character moments are all all very beautiful and delicate, but also powerful.

5) Gabi Braun (Snk)

I like children characters that are also complex. Gabi is like this. She is a kid, but has a very well defined personality and you can clearly see why she is how she is at the beginning of the story. However, she is also challenged and is able to grow and to bloom. I like what her arc represents and her relationship with Falco is very cute. I also like that she is able to be useful in fights despite being a child and not having superpowers. Her ability are well fleshed out since the beginning and they remain as a constant throughout her story.

6) Emerald and Mercury (Rwby)

I adore them. They are the reason why I am currently so passionate about Rwby tbh.

They clearly represent two different sides of Cinder and are linked to the root of who she deep down is. Moreover, they are two very complex characters on their own rights and have opposite strengths and weaknesses.

Emerald is a child hungry for love who would even accept wasted food to try and fill that hole she has inside of her. She steals from others to feel whole, but she is never able to truly get what she wants.

So, she traps both others and herself inside complex illusions and refuses to use her (very powerful) gifts for others. Despite this, it is clear that she has an incredibly high potential to care... she fights her feelings, but they are very slowly resurfacing. She is a gemstone covered in dirt (I am the one, who rose out of filth and was loved by no-one) and her outfit clearly conveys this as well.

Mercury is a child who has been hurt so badly he thinks he can’t be anything else, but what his abuser told him he is. He killed his father, but is still very clearly stuck in a cycle he can’t escape and that will repeat itself forever, if he does not manage to change. Before there was his father, then Cinder and now Tyrian.

He very clearly lashes out at others because he feels he is less than them in a way (he has no semblance, he has lost a part of himself). However, it is clear he has within himself still the ability to care. He very obviously cares about Emerald and tries to protect her in a misguided way. His attempt to help her are honestly just heart-breaking. He wants her to be safe, but has no idea of what a safe environment is.

In short, Emerald and Mercury are very clearly two abused children, who react to their abuse in different ways. Mercury’s sense of self is so fragile he just kills it and tries to fit where he is, while Emerald develops her semblance aka that part of her she uses to hide her true self behind.

8) Allison Hargreeves (The Umbrella Academy)

I love Allison’s powers and arc in both the series and the comics. I would love to write a meta about her eventually :’’’) Probably when TUA comes back and I feel motivated again. Anyway, I love that in the show her story is basically about her finding her authentic voice. She has lived a life made of lies and now she is trying to discover who she truly is and has trouble accepting her powers as a part of herself. Who is she without them? When should she use them? How? And won’t she disappear behind them if she uses them? How can she be herself with her powers? And how can she be herself wthout them?

What is true and what is not?

Allison’s arc is basically a very nuanced answer to this complicated question.

9) Five Hargreeves (The Umbrella Academy)

Five is my favourite character of the series. I love him very very much. He is a tragic character because he is so active, but his actions end up creating more problems than solutions. To avoid the apocalypse he should simply spend time with his siblings and care for them as people, who he does, but often fails to convey to them. I also like how in both seasons his power are fundamental for the plot and are used in the finale to solve the conflict.

He spends the majority of season 1 doing everything alone and ends it, by choosing to bring his siblings with him.

Season 2 happens because Five aims too high (a mirror of how he always values the bigger picture instead than the small meaningful moments with his family). This is why in the finale he travels back of only some seconds, just enough to prevent the deaths of his loved ones.

10) Levi Ackerman (Snk)

I love that Levi is such an important character both in terms of plot and in terms of themes. I think the Serum Bowl is one of the hearts of Shinjeki no Kyojin and one of the moments where the theme of freedom and choice is explored in its more nuanced way.

11) Krel Tarron (Tales of Arcadia)

I love Krel’s development. It is subtle, but it is very effective. Krell deep down wants companionship, but uses his own bias to put distance between him and others, so that he can’t be refused. Seeing him defrosting and becoming warmer because of his friendship with others is great! And I love his dynamic with Aja and how the two sibling are complementary and grow in opposite directions. I really like their arcs and their complementarity.

BONUS: Cinder Fall (Rwby) and Viren (Tdp)

They are bonus characters because they are not faves on an emotional level. However, I really like how they are written and that they both form a complex trio of foiling with two kids characters (and the kids characters are in both cases faves).

They are both two complex villains with complicated motivations that tie in their own self identities. They are also very clearly not the final villains of the series, but are still pretty much at the centre of the conflict of their respective stories.

Thank you very much for the ask!

[ianthedisastrous]

Fair warning, I am in fact terrible with faceclaims and that won't be a thing. So, moving on.

First, my main pitch for characters I want to see and the entire reason I did this one on Ian's account. Onward background characters! Specifically these!

Okay, technically most of the background characters in Onward don't even have names. Most of Ian's friends (eventual friends to be fair...awkward child) weren't that big of a part of the movie. But! The best thing about background characters is they're great for new ideas!

And Onward is excellent in demonstrating body and ethnically diverse characters, and expressing people with disabilities and mental illness in accessible and realistic ways. (Listen, I could write a whole thing on this and why I love this movie because of it.) Canonically there's a lot of room for diversity; one of the canon kids uses crutches for mobility, we have this cute scene with an elven girl who is deaf;

Yeah...pictures and videos aren't great because it's literally a very short moment in the film; the two girls on the left, pink shirt.

(In case you were wondering, in the movie she's signing to her friend that Ian is cute. Plots? Maybe?)

Now, there are background characters with names too! And backstory to some degree; mostly from the Onward books that were published since the movie release. (Yes I own them, if you need info. Yes...I realize my fandom nerd is showing here.)

Sadalia Brushthorn! (AKA will be my ongoing wanted connection pitch for a while.)

Movie canon she was one of Ian's friends by the end of the story, post movie she's a bigger part of the books and ends up being one of Ian's best friends. Journalist, reporter for the school paper, enthusiastic type.

Plot-wise I've been wanting someone around from Ian's past that used to know him, although he was nine when he moved so it would be an earlier childhood friendship (or something like that)

There's also the literal troll who was a bully; Gorgamon. (Ongoing wanted connection pitch #2 for the foreseeable future)

Listen, I think that would also be amusing for a plot if Ian had to deal with one of the people who used to mess with him showing up in town. It could be a great enemies to friends thing! Or just let him stay a bully and Ian can suffer. So many options! Plus we have no troll characters so new lore possibilities!

So, things that comes along with these ideas:

A very anti-Magick Detroit. Because Ian's canon is very influenced by how horrible Magicks were treated. I've referenced this some on-dash but there is much more depth to it that I'm going to be addressing soon and it would be interesting to have someone else from that setting and their views, even if they were only there briefly themselves. I will say the established on-dash canon is rough though, discrimination and dehumanizing concepts are involved. Basically this is a very strong reference to intolerance of magic that is very contrasting to Swynlake. (And one of the reasons Ian had an emotional breakdown. So...not light subject matter.)

Past ties with Ian! Somehow. But I want some sort of connection; clearly this is the main reason for my selfish plea here for these characters.

Magicks that aren't fully human! Unless you want to go that route of course, which is also fine. But it would be interesting to see cyclops or fauns or even trolls around.

Detroit accents? Maybe? Tbh this is the funniest thing about Ian because that is a rough af accent and I find it hilarious for Ian so that's just a bonus really. Obviously these character ideas could just be Detroit transplants from elsewhere.

Me annoying you to plot things! ...well, okay, maybe that isn't a plus. I am highly enthusiastic about this tho.

Now to non-Onward related ideas.

Sid! (Toy Story)

We had a Sid so very briefly, and I need this character back around! More specifically I need him, selfishly, while Zero is still in Secondary (though tbh that might be for a while...urgh) because I have truly extensive plot ideas involving this specifically. Plus Sid has so much potential for both angry teen vibes and tragic backstory! I need to see this, I want this very badly; I love Sid as a character and he's such a dynamic personality. Perfect for playing a character that can cause trouble without it being on scale that carries as much repercussions as adults deal with.

Jack (The Nightmare Before Christmas)

Selfishly, I need this. I also need someone to do this because if they don't I will 100% pick up Jack after I close a character. Because I have so many ideas and I still deeply miss playing Jack. Most of these ideas center around mediums, reincarnated ghosts and dark magic so, hey, if you want some really weird concepts for this? I've got so many, Jack was a full fledged concept before I had to duck out of the group forever ago due to illness and I will happily throw these possible ideas at someone.

Or not; really I just want Jack around somehow (because omg I will pick him up again and no, I'm not doing that for a long time but my willpower is in pain here) and I will make some sort of connection with Zero somehow if somebody picks him up.

Pascal! (Tangled)

The skeleton references magical tattoos and such and that's a great idea if someone wants to go with it? But also. Another character with color based magic around? Of course I want that. Plus I've always liked Pascal. Isaac would quite willingly be best friends/old friends! Yes! I just really want to see this character around, I love the potential concept.

Peter Pan (Peter Pan)

I had a pile of plot ideas with our original Peter so far as Ren, and would love to resurrect these. Plus the High Fae are a weird bunch, hard to get bored around them honestly. I would love to see another of the cousins, and one Ren grew up so close to, in play! This is a wildly open concept for a character and I think having Peter around would throw a bit more of the childish chaos into the bunch. (Not that I'm saying Peter needs to be younger, just...the character lends to a more free-spirited vibe?) So, yes, bring Ren their other cousin.

[garetthawke]

i mean you stated the problem right there. two decades. sure sounds like something that is, gee, i dunno, more systematic and in the hands of those in rule and power than, gee, the average army recruit who is below legal goddamn drinking age (aka virtually a child,) when they sign.

and like i said. you don't have to support a single fucking soldier. the point was that coming for individual soldiers is much less useful than actually coming for the system and those in power.

doubly so when you acknowledge their tactics for targeting poorer communities with promises of free rides to college. poor folks do not have to be the majority of recruits for them to be targeted, which they undeniably are. even in a minority, those preyed upon deserve acknowledgement apart from military leaders and recruiters who know exactly what the fuck they're doing.

the other largest recruitment pool is actual children. and no, children are not signing on en masse, but they are being bred to choose to join from fucking middle school. the US is rife with propaganda and brainwashing, which children cannot realistically be expected to fight against or know better about when we don't target the system!

but this wasn't even a generalized post. this was literally a vent post in the wake of seeing someone specifically attack individual soldiers who talked about being preyed upon, claiming they "knew what they were doing and are just as guilty because resonable people can figure out that the military are just evil murderers."

and no. they fucking can't. not all of them. not the children, not the people without education, not the people who have been manipulated.

there is no fucking reason to specifically demonize them instead of attacking the military recruitment system and the US military as an organized whole. it does fucking nothing except brush over how the US government preys upon its own people in order to commit crimes (like causing so many civilian casualties.)

it plays into that very system to refocus attention on such small scales rather than attacking the root. it alienates the brainwashed and ignorant people, because they take your criticisms personally instead of being able to see the bigger picture, which is that the military itself is evil, not the individual person. it alienates the people who were taken advantage of, because they get treated like shit either way and it actively ignores the first evil the military commits and relies on to keep its system functioning.

it. does. not. help. that is the point I'm making. it's not a position of wrong or right to me (although the people i was reacting to were certainly in the wrong,) but it is a major whopping case of misdirected energy.

honest to god people who attack military members who got preyed upon as kids, when they didn't know what they were getting into and are trapped and can't leave, vs attacking the fucking predatory government who targeted poor kids from middle school on up....how's it feel to play into their hands?? y'all aint gonna break the fucking system by tearing down the first victims of the military. do you have to like and support them? no. but you aren't doing fucking anything focusing time on the first people who have been taken advantage of by the system rather than....literally targeting the fucking system, jesus christ.

do you know how many soldiers come out of the military fucking hating them and the US? and they don't give a fuck if you wanna shit on a vet, so long as they can keep tricking children into signing up blindly. but its all about the public moral outrage than actually changing anything, isn't it? villanize the governement, recruiters, the army as a concept!! villanizing soldiers on their own is....literally nothing. the point needs to be to stop feeding them more recruits, not a sense of moral superiority for you, you fucking assholes.