#fascinating thing to help drive a narrative tho

[red-dyed-sarumane]

love to submit my fave songs to vocaloid tournaments & watch them get decimated

[holderoftheg-r-a-i-l]

giant mechs hc dump under the cut. some are silly, and some are. very sad.

- some times someone will ask Ivy a question and instead of her voice they get a text-to-speech voice because the info is from a data download instead of her reading it

- Jonny sleeps with a weighted blanket. if he is sleeping in the same bed with someone, they will usually roll him up in the weighted blanket because if they do not, they will get kicked in the face from his flailing

- Marius spends a lot of time in the cockpit with Brian. Partially because he's fascinated with the control panels (he only knows what a few of the buttons do) but also because Brian tends to hum while he drives and it's calming.

- Raph keeps a catelogue of plants & substances from every system they visit. Ivy helps her categorize them. when they leave a system often the two of them can be exclusively found in the labs or library for several days as they sort & label plants, drugs, ect

- Tim has spent a lot of time studying whatever notes he can cipher out of Dr Carmilla's works. he spends a lot of time tinkering to try to create more mechanisms. he blames himself for Berties death since he convinced him to enlist, and even though bertie is long dead he still wants to learn to build a Mechanism, just to prove to himself he could have saved him if he had time

- Marius absolutely will hand someone his arm if they ask for a "hand" with something. this has ended in him getting shot more than once

- Jonny enjoys laying his head on Brian and listening to his heart beat, imagining it's his own. He has sworn Brian to secrecy (everyone already knows)

- occasionally ivy's brain will crash and she has to reboot. originally this freaked out the others but they're used to it. they will fuck with her while she's out of it. once a reboot took several hours and she woke up and every inch of her face was covered in stickers

- in order from best cooks to worst- ivy, Nastya, Marius, Raphealla, TS, Brian, Jonny, ashes, Tim.

- ashes & Tim are both natural heaters and are usually in the middle of a cuddle pile on colder planets

- Brian doesn't technically need to breathe and enjoys walking on the bottom of deep bodies of water to see the creatures below. he does have to make sure he gets all of the salt water off so he doesn't rust tho

- no one is letting the toy soldier back into the aurora, it just exists where it believes it should (because it's needed, narratively important, or because it believes it will be funny). only aurora knows this, the others believe they keep accidentally letting it back in. this also means toy solider is *incredibly* good at startling others by just appearing in corners or behind doors.

- Jonny is missing the finger prints on one of his fingers from a bar fight, where he narrowly missed losing the whole finger.

- Tim has some knee damage from living in the tunnels during the moon war and while the mechnaizing has helped some, occasionally uses a cane

- Ashes has nerve damage in thier lower limbs from the flame damage

- Marius sometimes gets phantom pains from his missing arm

- somwtimes Brian turns all of his sensors up because he forgets what feeling actually alive feels like. his processor has limited ability to process things like warmth or pain so they just feel like echos of the real thing. he gets jealous sometimes of the others. everyone else can *feel* thier hugs. he's even jealous of TS. it can't feel like him, but it also doesn't remember what it felt like before. he's even jealous of the others feeling pain because at least it's more than just dull flashes that thier brain attempts to imitate as feeling

- ashes is Brian's favorite to touch/hug/cuddle with purely because they run hotter so it's easier for his sensors to pick up the temperature difference (so it feels the closest to hugging did before mechanizing)

- Brian hates the zero grav zones on the aurora & avoids them if at all possible because they remind him of his time before mechanizing (aurora knows this and will shuffle corridors around if she knows where he is going to avoid low grav areas)

- sometimes Tim will just. turn off the sensors in his eyes for a bit. usually when he's over stimulated. sometimes when he's tinkering on something he knows well and someone keeps bothering him. sometimes it's because someone keeps trying to get his attention and "sorry I didn't see you my eyes were off" is hilarious

[kendrixtermina]

The "waifu bait" criticism of Edelgard is so dumb given that most of the cast is technically waifu/husbando bait in one way or another, they're all meant to appeal to players as romance options, and she's the only one getting flack for it. (Well, not the only one, there were some people giving Dimitri shit too for being "wish fullfillment for stupid teenage girls who think they can fix a man," but I see the complaint most often with Edelgard.)

Yeah. I mean, you can boink Rhea and Jeritza!

It’s not like satelite love interests aren’t a plague onto anime and fiction in general, but I only ever hear this “you only like them because they’re waifu/bishie” thing directed at characters who very much DO have personality, unique compelling features and plot relevance. 

I’ve also seen this thrown at, say, Evangelion’s Miss Ayanami, as if all the fascinating sci-fi concept stuff and compelling narrative about finding your own worth and making a connection in a cruel lonely world wasn’t there - and at least we do see her through a “main character’s love interest” sorta lens. (I was thinking about how Byleth is actually quite similar, except more proactive with more of a dorky side, and less philosophical/reflective, but because Byleth is the MC we come off with a fairly different impression. )

Meanwhile with Edelgard they really didn’t pull any punches, the whole story is set in motion and dominated by her active choices, most the unique designs/outfits she gets are geared to look elegant/powerful.  (Apart from the usual ‘individually wrapped boob armor would break your sternum’ thing but you’d really have to know physics for that/ could be fixed easily by making the fit more sweater-like), she has a specific discernable philosophy and makes impactful choices, that can genuinely be agreed or disagreed with.

You can’t swag her into your way of thinking - you can only ally with her under the presupposition that you already actively agree. (See all the people complaining that you cant “criticise her more”, expecting her to be like Dimitri basically even though they are exact opposites. You can only get on her route by making two deliberate choices. I mean they wrote this with your first playthrough in mind, in-universe you’re not there because you wanna complete all aroutes but because you actively chose to join her after she spent a year unsubtly trying to recruit you to her cause)

You don’t talk Claude out of his tactics either. (and forcing it all into this comparision often leads ppl to overlook that he has ambiguities or character development at all, maybe he isn’t vilified but he gets simplified and therefore wronged just as much in the end. They’re not all Dimitri. The whole point of having three or four different potential deuteragonists to choose from is that they’re different)… heck, even if you look at Dimitri, you only get him back to what he really wanted to do back in part I before his black-and-white thinking and exaggerated sense of duty got the better of him. 

With all three, joining them eventually just enables them to get closer to their actual vision. Back when you meet her in Remire, Edelgard outright tells you that “with your power on my side, we could courttail the slitherer’s atrocities much more efficiently”. You don’t change her mind at all; You enable her to use “Plan A”. Same with Claude, who otherwise plains much more defensively both because he has less support and because he’s more jaded. And Dimitri essentially pulls a Sayaka, ie being unable to live up to his own unrealistic standards drive him to lose all hope and become the very opposite of the hero he wanted to be, but you do help him get back to that, or to a more balanced mature understanding of that. 

The best proof of that is that the popularity poll numbers actually went down after the release, ie a lot of ppl who liked her just bc they liked her design were turned off that there’s a specific personality there that isn’t necessarily their type/ a MO they don’t necessarily agree with. Or all those peeps complaining that the S-support was too understated for them. Claude got that too - They’re just not the most open/expressive people in the world, one would think that after playing through their routes you would know and understand that. Whereas Dimitri has been super emotional from day one (which is both his greatest strength and greatest weakness), so it figures that he’d be more conventionally romantic. 

- Hardly things that would happen if she were written to be “blandly pleasant”.  I mean generally speaking she’s not the best as showing her feelings and when she does she’s often pretty blunt at it even with her closest friends (El: ”Hubert! I order you to tell me what it is you’re not telling me!” Hubert: [elegantly weasels out of answering] El: [after he’s left the room] I’m worried about him tho. )

Seems senseless to claim that she’s blandly pleasant when she’s absolutely gotten a love-it-or-hate-it-marmite-reaction all across the board. It also seems to go along with the implicit idea that everyone who likes her is heterosexual boys. I’m neither, and it’s not like heterosexual boys aren’t ever interested in “plot” or “writing” I mean geez. Though I would resist the temptation to fully ascribe it to things like that. 

To an extent it’s simply confusion. “How can they like this thing that obviously sucks? Must be an ulterior motive”, whereas in reality ppl who like her have probably parsed what happened here differently to begin with (It depends greatly on how powerful you concluded Rhea was, ie, wether what Edelgard is doing is a conquest or a revolt. She certainly sees it as a revolt. Even today in the modern day most of us see revolts as legitimate, or at least, if they get overly destructive, as a fault of the bad government. Heck, there are many on this very site who would label all revolts legit by default (”eat the rich”, the more ‘original sin-like’ variants of privilege theory) which is further than I would go )

There certainly are a bunch of ‘cute’ scenes post holy-tomb scene and under the assumption that Edelgard is this my-way-or-the-highway type of person that many have her pegged as I can see how they might think that it “makes no sense” but that’s really down to wanting her not tp step outside of that idea they have of her. I mean even supervillains have silly everyday situations. Bin Laden loved Disney Movies, Hitler loved his dogs. By itself that has nothing to do with morality or likeability. It’s just being human. Supervillains blush, not because they’re not villains, but because they have blood vessels in their faces. It’s only logical that once you get close to someone and get them to trust you, you get to see more of their silly or vulnerable sides. It’s the same with Rhea. (except that the same people argue that having personable vulnerable sides at all makes Rhea good s of course it causes some cognitive dissonance when Edelgard also has them. I’ve yet to see ppl calling “waifuism” on Rhea (whom I would consider a full-fledged villain), and they shouldn’t - it’s characterization.) Same with ppl calling Edelgard a “manchild” for liking stuffed animals and sweets. She’s actually very mature and adult for her age, having some interests that aren’t super high-minded is just realistic and if you looked at her as a full 3D person who can have more than one trait you’d see that. 

This also goes with that tendency of holding up AM as the gold standard complaining about the lack of AM-like plot that they completely miss the different but equally compelling character arcs in VW and CF. That’s not a lack of arc, that IS the arc, it’s just a different arc: We get to see this tough, in-control high-minded character who’d completely given up on the normal life she wanted so much and resigned herself to never being understood finding out that she is very much still capable of normalcy and humanity and finding friendship and love and I think that’s beautiful. It’s my jam. 

And it’s meaningful precisely because it’s a change from only seeing the tough leader guise otherwise. Complaining about that is like complaining about getting to see Claude’s more wistful, dreamy, benevolent, not-entirely self-interest side in VW or claiming that the writing would be better if he were just a straight-up selfish trickster. Actually, if you removed their heroic traits you’d end up with a lot more generic characters. You’d simply get every wild card trickster ever, and every “Nietzschean” villain ever.  It’s the fact that they’re unconventional heroes that makes Claude and Edelgard so unique, compelling and interesting. If you like conventional heroes, Dimitri is right here. Your basic heroic fantasy ‘rightful king returns/ soft peace loving hero’, plus your basic jrpg guilt-ridden angsty protagonist. I mean there’s good reason that these character archetypes are popular. Plus he’s especially well-executed and recontextualized by the contrast to the others, but there he is, enjoy him! We’re not stopping you. 

It’s really Seteth who came up short arc wise. You could have given him an arc, the potential was there, he essentially transistions from protecting himself and his family to taking on his family’s heroic quest and rising up to that, but he doesn’t get like, a scene reflecting on that. Or you could’ve sent them on some mission to actually curb some corrupt cardinals etc, shown them actually reforming the church and realizing that it wasn’t all perfect, after all he very much knows that Rhea herself wasn’t all perfect. 

For all that much of media is obsessed with making characters “hot”, the truth is that if people like them for any reason, they will find them hot anyways, regardless of whether that was the intention. (unless the people in question are aroace, or the character is a literal, realistic prepubescent child)

You don’t have to “make”  a character hot for ppl to find them so.

[hitchfender]

@wishforwishes and i were discussing this ages ago, and i’ve finally worked up the courage to do my official ranking of 1989 (deluxe). without further ado:

1. out of the woods 2. style 3. you are in love 4. welcome to new york 5. shake it off 6. blank space 7. wonderland 8. wildest dreams 9. this love 10. how you get the girl 11. i wish you would 12. i know places 13. all you had to do was stay 14. new romantics 15. clean 16. bad blood

to complete this list, i listened to the album in order and wrote a paragraph with my impressions of each track; then i went back and ranked them. i worked very hard on it, and it turned out very long, so it’s all under a read more! please send opinions and reactions ❤️ love u

welcome to new york - honestly, this song is just so fun. the beat drops smooth and satisfying, and when she yells “new york!” just before the bridge it feels like a shout of freedom. the track is lyrically thin, but that doesn’t mean the lyrics are bad, and i think taylor communicated everything she wanted to with them; this first song invites us into the album, and sets us up for a pop-flavoured story of “real love that drives you crazy.”

blank space - this is taylor at her most sardonic and self-aware, tongue firmly planted in her cheek as she sings about bad boys and loving the game. some of her imagery falls flat, and that repetitive drumbeat grates after a few verses, but man, that tongue click was a stroke of genius: bringing the listeners into her world with insolence and irony.

style - this guitar knocks me off my feet every time. here’s where she makes her 80s influences most keenly felt, and where she brings that imagery she’s so famous for to the foreground. she paints her experience with a combination of broad strokes and achingly specific detail, and when it’s over you feel drained and renewed, like at the end of a long drive through beautiful, dangerous terrain.

out of the woods - i don’t know what to say about this one that i haven’t already said, so here it is again. reading the lyrics this song feels almost manic, the chorus losing its meaning and becoming a frenetic howl, the stories she’s telling disassociated and too-sharp, like shards of memories. once you get to the bridge, it starts to sound that way, too - she switches from the more complicitous “we” to an accusatory “you,” and she starts making demands - yet even in this moment of fear and anger there’s tenderness: a sunrise and shared tears. when she seizes her agency with that “oh, i remember” i feel some primal emotion lodge itself like a bullet in my chest.

all you had to do was stay - although i like the way she transitions from vindictive to tender and back again (“you were all i wanted / but not like this / not like this”), the lyrics feel a bit repetitive and the upbeat mood detracts from the meaning she’s trying to express.

shake it off - RIGHTS for these trumpets. and the giggle. some of the vocabulary feels a little forced (hella good hair?), and the production is oddly gapped - there are breaks in the ambient sound that force you to focus on her singing, but this isn’t her best vocal work... but, like, i think i’m concentrating on the wrong thing here. this is a song about letting go of the hate, literally intended for you to lose your mind to in your room at 3 am. i can’t fault the concept.

i wish you would - this start sounds a lot like the opening of style, actually, and these spaced-out electronic drums are straight off ootw. fascinating. moving on: this sounds like a diary entry, which is extremely taylor, but it makes the song come off a bit disconnected. love that line about “a crooked love in a straight line down,” but by the end i’m left with no distinct emotional impression. also literally forgot about it when i was trying to rank the songs.

bad blood - (i know it’s not on the album but i can’t not critique the kendrick verses. “pov of you and me, similar iraq”: L. i like the nod to backstreet freestyle tho.) anyway i feel like i would be more fuck-feminism about this whole thing if it slapped harder, but as it is i’m falling asleep a bit. album version especially. sorry ms swift!

wildest dreams - that’s more fucking like it. this is probably in my top 10 of her songs, from any album. every line of this! the imagery! the dreamy vibes! the way the bridge hits and she lets loose all of that fierceness she’s been holding back (”burn it down”)! i love how the sunset line parallels her own red and rosy makeup, and the dreamy feeling that conveys. also one time i had sex to this song and it was exactly as transcendent as you’d imagine, so.

how you get the girl - i’ll admit i’m not a massive fan of taylor’s favoured “ah” exclamations, but i’ll let em slide because this song goes off. hygtg accomplishes what ayhtdws set out to do: contrasting message and tone with just the right amount of attitude. i love the narrative in this one, too - she tells a clear story with subtle changes to the verses and the chorus. also the sudden vulnerability in her voice when she sings “i don’t want you to go” is like a shock of cold water. masterful.

this love - i can never decide how i feel about this track. the chorus looks almost ridiculous on paper - “this love is good / this love is bad”, seriously? - but god, she sells it, and just like in ootw the ohhs help to create that dreamlike atmosphere. the water metaphors mirror the seagulls on the album cover, by the way, which: mind.

i know places - right off the bat this piano and the way the drums come in late remind me of kanye’s “runaway” - a mirrored version of it, maybe. "runaway” is a warning - he’s laying himself bare, telling his lover he doesn’t plan on changing, exhorting her to run while she can. taylor’s version is a statement of fierce intent: it’s about isolating yourself from the world, making the almost violent choice to remain with your lover despite everything else. they’re songs about escape, but not escapism. anyway i like this song because it’s about harry styles.

clean - this one is boring somehow. like i get it, water metaphors, but the ah-ahs are getting on my nerves again and “hung my head as i lost the war” seems a bit self-consciously understated. maybe i just haven’t felt the specific feeling she’s writing about yet, but until i do this one will remain low on my list.

wonderland - she’s trying to get across this fierce “us against the world” thing, but there’s not enough of taylor’s specialty: those razor-sharp details that make her music feel both universal and infinitely personal. wonderland is all vague allusions to green eyes and getting lost together, full of sound and fury but not signifying much. i am into the i-am-a-woman-and-i-am-fucking-crazy thing, but i need a bit more from her.

you are in love - am i strong enough for this? we’ll see. this track’s got it all -lyrics clean as anything from her earlier discography, backed by those synths that are 80s without feeling like pastiche. i’m obsessed with the dynamics; her choice to use or remove the backing vocals emphasises her own voice, brings out its flaws and makes the song (though it’s quite production-heavy) feel raw. she makes use of her favourite trick, little snatches of memories creating a pointillist picture, but the most affecting line comes (as with so many of her best songs) in the bridge:��“you understand now ... why i’ve spent my whole life trying to put it into words.” it’s the only time she mentions herself on this self-effacing track, and the effect is immediate and startling - suddenly we’re in taylor’s shoes, watching a beautiful relationship unfold from the outside, and after a full album of songs about a fragile, doomed love affair, that line lends “you are in love” new depth.

new romantics - i have whiplash but WE’RE ALL BORED! taylor once again proves she’s never read the scarlet letter. come to think of it, a whole lot of these lyrics don’t make sense, so... yup, just googled and max martin and shellback cowrote this one. side effect: it sounds great, and the words are secondary. the old taylor pops out on the bridge to remind us of her broken-heart fantasies (“please leave me stranded”), but it sounds more like parody than ever - maybe that’s growth? a bit like blank space, this track is glaringly self-aware, like she’s daring her critics to condemn her for the foibles she already knows about, and delights in. i don’t hold it against her. god knows she’s earned a little indulgence.

tagging @roseringharrie @complicatedbabyhoneyfreak @faithmp3 @carefisher @dyketaylorswift @harrysdimples @rainbowfragrance13 (hi and welcome!) @harrystylesep @winoharry @archer-wilde @haaaaaaarrry because at some point we’ve liked each other’s taylor swift posts and/or you’ve been very nice while i yelled incoherently about her. love you all more than words and stream lover xoxoxo

[heavyweightheart]

not to do the "what's your take on x" thing but.. have you come across the Adapted to Flee Famine theory by Shan Guisinger? I don't have the background knowledge or capacity to assess it meaningfully myself, & it sets off my "bullshit evo psych" alarms - but that's mostly bc of how much that field gets misused by "men are genetically meant to be dominant, actually" crowd. It is interesting tho, especially the instances of behaviour similar to anorexia seen in other animal species besides humans

i have! i’ve mentioned it briefly in past posts. to recap for followers who’re unfamiliar, this is the theory that some of our ancestors evolved to ignore hunger and become hyperactive in an energy deficit, which helped their hunter-gatherer tribes survive conditions of food scarcity. those of us w EDs, and anorexia most specifically, would be the inheritors of that genetic disposition. it might explain this phenomenon (of anorexia) which otherwise defies all basic human survival drives

it’s a fascinating idea which seems to have quite a bit of explanatory power, and who doesn’t love a good eras-spanning narrative?? as a former classic anorexic, i’m v curious to know why my brain was so convinced that not-eating is what would save me (that was a feeling rather than a reasoned line of thinking). i still see these tendencies in myself if my intake drops for whatever reason… increased anxious movement and a kind of “forgetting” about food, dulled hunger. but i can take comfort in the fact that tho my proto-anorexic predecessors could barely procreate and died young (like many of us still), they saved the tribe ;) (there are things to explore here in regard to self-sacrificial behaviors too…)

but as w all highly ED-specific science, i tire of this pretty quickly bc there’s a whole lot more that we don’t know than we do know about the biological etiology of EDs. and this theory is quite speculative, as you pointed out. and even if it were somehow proven, whom would that help? would all of us then get effective treatment? i’m way more concerned about the ppl w EDs who can’t even find/afford a decent haes therapist than i am the epic origin story of anorexia lol

there’s a lot more to say about the theory and its implications but this is my basic take xx

[elizabethrobertajones]

Why do you think that when seemingly funny thing happen, they happen to Dean? Like the fear thing in Yellow Fever or the age thing in 5.07 and 10.12 (both old and young!) or the memory thing in Regarding Dean. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of others (and also the not so funny like the vampire thing in 6.05 and of course Demon!Dean in S10). But I can't really picture Sam on those situation tho, Dean is perfect xD

And this is why Plucky’s is my favourite episode, because the thing happened to Sam and it was also perfect but in a completely different way :P 

If you’ve seen the gifset ever of that con where they were talking somewhat seriously about this, before someone said Sam was the straight man to Dean and then Jared imploded… I mean, I need someone to turn that up for me so I can stick it in the “thanks Jared” section of my massive bi dean meta etc resource… But also they WERE making a serious point before they derailed it :P 

The show has a lot of quietly set in stone dynamics. I mean, well, they’re stuff that can get subverted or a particular arc or season will try to explore things from a different angle, but even when they try to do that they still work within certain rules. 

I should probably just make a gif of it for myself, but my favourite visual for this is in 11x04… actually it’s 2am and I have the Sleep Madness so I’ll just do that… 

It’s such a wonderful image of the 2 of them, with Sam wearing red and Dean wearing blue, and top and tail like that. They’re 2 parts of a whole but they’re utterly different people and they’re often mirror images to each other in ways where when something applies to one, the direct opposite is shown in the other. 

(Sidebar: it’s why I’m so delighted that Sam was like blah blah Cas is family and then Dean was like you may be able to forget Cas but I can’t!!!!1 in 13x03… But on the other hand there are things where the nuances get lost and people make weird wrong assumptions like us having to endlessly prove Dean is the smart one because of the lingering first impression that doesn’t let anyone create any nuance after “sam went to college and dean didn’t”)

Anyway, setting up a straight man and comedy sidekick duo drops that all on Dean because from the first episode Sam’s all serious and has epic angst, while Dean tries to lighten the mood and clearly has the snarky sort of attitude that lends itself towards being the comedic one. Even when they make Dean angsty, Sam is serious and Dean big brother picks on him a bit sometimes (in a nice way) and teases him a lot - this is all broad strokes season 1 characterisation I’m talking about, really. But yeah, even if they go super deep or make Dean super angsty, he’s established as the character who can deal with it. And sometimes dealing with it is shouldering a cracky episode’s concept because they know his reactions are going to be easier to sell the thing.

The other thing is emotional POV and Dean’s largely established as the character who has that. Sam spends a lot of time unavailable as the emotional POV and Dean has shouldered entire SEASONS of it (season 6 especially where he was the ONLY viable emotional POV character for large chunks of it). Emotional POV is not really who the episode is ABOUT but what character is reacting to it and filtering how we should feel about a thing for us. In 6x03 when Cas wants to read the kid’s soul to get info, Dean steps in like wtf we don’t torture kids, but Sam and Cas outweigh him because utilitarian means to an end for the greater good blah blah. It makes it clear if we’d missed it that Dean is the only person whose judgement can be trusted until further notice. So until then, we always have to check in with Dean to get the read on a thing. 

Anyway because Dean is the emotional POV we cry and suffer along with him, but we also laugh along with him.

In 7x14 even when Sam gets a funny episode about him, the clowns aren’t really revealing anything about him - we knew about the clown fear since 2x02, it’s explored before the fight but largely for Dean’s benefit, and Sam getting the crap kicked out of him by clowns makes him a hilarious object for us - the fight scene is ridiculously funny but it IS just Sam having the snot beaten out of him while they come up with creative ways clowns would WRECK you in a fight. Dean gets an emotional showdown with the guy controlling the fears, and is the one who learns a lesson from it, while Sam had never really been set up for anything other than being the centre of attention of all the nonsense because it was really really funny that he was scared of clowns. It’s like the “the ball washer” “the what?” exchange explains Sam’s entire role in the episode. 

(Which was Dean doing big brother teasing but like the entire narrative decided to torture him :P)

And meanwhile when Dean gets the hilarious episodes which turn out to be really really painful, we get deep explorations of his psyche. 4x06 explores his hell trauma and reveals a lot about what he went through, and his fears about what Sam will become (LOVE THAT DABB EXPOSITION :D)… Idk about the old man Dean episode but he had some DEEP scenes with Bobby in it I seem to recall… I think @thejabberwock was probably giffing it recently and putting it on my dash for me to scroll past without really looking the moment I recognised what episode it was :P) but it was an episode that let them sort of relate to each other a bit better I think. Or Dean to feel for Bobby some more. Idk, I think there is a super important conversation between them? This is what happens when you put an episode on your “eeeeh skip it unless you’re being weirdly thorough” list :P

But yeah young!Dean was a massively important Dean episode exploring deep down in his character, but just delivered through silly moments about cake and Taylor Swift and complaining about puberty. Or the CAR THING with Sam where it’s a huge description of their relationship that Dean hops in the car seat even though he might not be old enough to even legally DRIVE her, and then Sam gets in the front seat and Dean just squishes him, hauling the seat forward for his tiny legs to reach the pedals. Like, Sam didn’t argue and it didn’t occur to Dean and they only swapped AFTER this bad dynamic caused a stupid mess and crushed Sam? Hello entire codependency metaphor :P 

(And I don’t think I need to explain 12x11 since it was so recent and so so awful about Dean D: Oh gosh, you could have just given us the Larry riding montage and no episode and that would have been enough :P)

Anyway as the emotional POV this stuff happens to Dean because changes to his self is the plot idea to help with stuff that’s to come or to explain things that already happened in the main plot, or really OTT situations they want for their own sake, that push the boundaries of his character but seem more to do with the main plot unfolding, make sense to explore through Dean, because his emotional landscape is often plot relevant, and the exploration even if it’s wrapped up in a silly concept, usually makes a lot more sense to apply to him because we already have a vast playground of his characterisation to mess around in. 10x12 and 12x11 especially were calling on everything about Dean. I think the writer even went on Twitter I guess when he was writing it and polled everyone on the most Dean-like things they could think of, and clearly got the answers “music, pie, car and girls” because those were the main metaphors of subverting Dean’s character that he offered.

I don’t think this is to reflect negatively on Sam - he gets some fascinating character stuff but connected to the main plot and not delving him in the same way Dean is delved (I think the imbalance and not understanding how they’re written can make people sad on Sam’s behalf he doesn’t get enough development in the same way Dean gets it, which is often by default when we care about character stuff over plot. I also think the writing falls into ruts of this which HAVE favoured Dean and his emotional arcs over Sam’s plot stuff). But Sam can get some incredible character stuff out of the plot things - I think Sam in Berens episodes is a great example because I’m still reeling from 13x03 and the stuff he said to Jack, because that’s all using the main plot to explore Sam - even if a lot of it was saying obvious stuff we knew about Sam, he doesn’t really say it too often and forcing him to say it out loud in episode THREE means the season is going to have to build on that or fail Sam (and he’s so wrapped up in what happens to Jack I can’t see his character stuff connected to that disappearing :P) 

But yeah, him being the “straight man” means that Dean is bouncing off him to be the funny one, and that really reflects on every level of the show, especially when you take humour and replace it with the emotional connection we have to the show in general and humour is just a great way to game that to get the reaction in a positive way, and Sam’s not the serious one so much as he’s dealing with the big stuff, usually, and that can wander off to all sorts of places like his habit of completely hammering down any other feelings to deal with the things that have to be done. Or to do the opposite of scaling up Dean, he can scale down to be the more serious one in a silly episode. Which doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect him - all the episodes where he had to deal with something happening to Dean that put him in charge it really messes him up. Or makes him really good at poker that one time :P 

…

Ah, my neighbours have stopped having a 4 way screaming match outside in the street, I’m going to stop typing and go to bed, so no tl;dr here… it’s turning 2am :D

[jmalkki]

Luke, Ben and the family saga

These two stubborn and confused fools tho.

Flow of random thoughts after The Last Jedi, about it’s reception and personal resonance.

*warning, following touches some spoiler-y topics*

As much as the movie seemed to try to emphasize, that the force and it’s users weren’t limited to just certain chosen family lineages, it also somewhat brought up a feeling that so much of ‘the galaxy’s problems’ could be solved, if the Skywalker family knew how to communicate with one and other <:D

Had someone reached out to young Ben and/or had he had the sense and maturity to respond to any such advances, maybe he wouldn’t ultimately have felt the need to look for acceptance from all the wrong places. Or had Luke been able to talk about his fears of responsibility and of 'the dark side’ to anyone, to Ben himself even (or any of his ghostly Jedi masters?). They were hardly alone with their struggles either of them even before Rey stepped into the picture (’bless her’ for seeing the good in all of the Skywalkers still). Consequently 'the elders’ (aka the original trilogy kids) wouldn’t need to feel such guilt about the whole ensued ordeal, having talked about their shared knowledge and experiences of 'dark and light’ on a personal level, instead of trying to 'school’ their kids into learning about it… then maybe things would finally stop snowballing over and over.

Speaking of which, where the heck were Han and Leia anyway, when their son was making friends with the dark side and Luke off wallowing in his 'failure’? Ben / Kylo wasn’t missing, like his uncle was, after all. How about a call to the First Order, ask if Ben could come to phone to talk XD

It pained me to see anyone refer to a young and confused Ben as “corrupted beyond repair” and their helplessness in the face of it… and Ben’s continued acceptance of all of this as a fact (after all, this was something coming from his ‘all knowing masters’). As his “destiny”. Really drives home the importance of support and effort to try and understand your fellow people. And leading by example (unfortunate that Ben witnessing his mentor Luke at their lowest lead to such fatal misunderstandings). The movie(s) greatly portray how no-one’s born ‘evil’, or even really wants to be (as evident from Ben’s visible, constant struggle and the ensuing turmoil from trying to keep on the dark side against all his true feelings), some just unfortunately end up as ‘victims’ of circumstances, and doubtfully they’re hardly ever alone in it either.

Personally, the hands down most memorable line out of the whole movie was: “That’s how we’re gonna win. Not fighting what we hate - saving what we love.” Not even relating to it’s context in the movie necessarily (tho, that too was an awesome twist!), but as a general notion (maybe substitute “winning” with “survive” tho, for a more mutually agreeable status quo). I thought Luke adhered to this notion as well, coming to save his sister, despite having vowed never to get involved with this whole force thing again. That WAS Luke’s dark side, I feel: giving up on hope and acting like none of this had anything to do with him anymore. And in the end he redeemed himself coming back to his family’s aid. He didn’t fight hating Ben. This was maybe one more of his 'lessons’ to him (since,you can’t build a blockbuster movie franchise on sensible talking?), he’s final attempt at trying to connect with him. Too bad, Ben might not have learned much from it in his angered state, but there’s always hope he would still remember this last encounter with his uncle later on and realize where he went wrong…

…if it wasn’t a story, which requires an 'ultimate evil’. No pressure for the next chapter, JJ ;D Rian did mighty good, and left you in quite a pickle.

Meanwhile, I can’t even get all of my own family to join in on watching this together - the struggle is real :D The second viewing will surely be that much more impactful, knowing that the one person I think would benefit from seeing the film refuses to accept the movie experience as something worthwhile their time. It’s a real shame about personally set ‘genre restrictions’ and presumptions working against a case of wanting to show them “this one thing they really should see”. Not to mention it’s a mighty entertaining space opera and a 'Disney film’ too.

Everyone will surely come out of the movie with completely different opinions and views on the story, characters… the whole production. And isn’t that the beauty of it? Love it, hate it - it’ll have been that much more richer an experience together, with all the various takeaways from it. I myself mostly loved it - there were of course, as always, less sensible aspects in it as well (the execution of the “Mary Poppins -scene” top-most), but it’d be foolish to think a movie is only good if you unquestionably liked it all the way through. Wouldn’t it be boring, if it didn’t provoke any thoughts or offer any deviation from your expectations. I’m in awe, that a single production can even offer enjoyment for people from such widely varying walks of life. Which is why I gladly sit through couple minutes of Luke milking a grotesque beach cow, knowing it’s there to acknowledge the 'fannish’ legacy of the movies’ more mundane aspects, as well as make the scene with the grumpy old man moping about seem that much more fun for the next generation of Star Wars fanatics ;) Lovingly mocking memes have already birthed from it, and that’s what the fandom is all about!

Speaking of which, I’m totally pro Porg - nothing about those cuties bothered me (even the stiff, puppety legs were a nice nostalgia trip to the practical effects creatures of the past - thank goodness for this current renaissance on that field). Merchandising opportunity done right. Can’t personally say the same about the more 'fantastical’ crystal foxes tho, but hey! They served a major purpose as well! And again, younger audience will surely eat those up no problem.

If ever there was a Star Wars movie to see with your family - parents, kids, siblings, what have you - this is it, I feel. But I might be on the biased side here, whom this 'family drama’ or 'self-searching’ side of the film touched personally. Yet, I obviously can’t be alone on this - factoring in the whole saga’s massive, decades spanning fanbase, I’m way late in the game.

Having found the story touching, gives all new purpose to the action or the tropes even. Along with the already awesome score, cinematography, scenery and sound design it creates the movie’s whole pathos, which I’m thankful to finally having been able to grasp. Otherwise it could easily be 'just another dull scifi flick’ (tho as always, awesome looking and masterfully scored none the less). And of course, it’s fine to enjoy the movie as just a 'scifi adventure movie’ too, but if one claims to “not generally enjoy those genres”, it’d be a shame to focus on just those aspects of the film and dismiss the whole thing based on any such generalizations (as is true with anything). Or leave the movie unwatched because of such preconceived notions or any bad reviews.

I myself never quite understood the fascination of the story of Star Wars before either - just appreciated it’s status as a cultural phenomenon, an artistic production on multiple fronts, industry forerunner and a fandom embracing entity. “The hero’s journey” itself always seemed very basic - fell flat in it’s too black and white presentation - and the fantastical settings further must have helped to alienate from the underlying nuances of the story. So, I’m truly glad to finally have this 'fulfillment of appreciation’ for the film series in all of it’s aspects, story included.

It feels fairly odd to speak of any single movie or ‘pop culture creation’ with such deep notions, but that’s exactly what speaks so highly of the movie, I suppose. It resonates to people  - in good and/or in bad. It IS after all a result of such a huge lot of people’s creative dreams and endeavors over decades, and has inspired even further creativity all over, beyond the franchise. Dismissing it as something frivolous or silly, if oneself doesn’t “get it”, would seem mighty self-righteous. I’m grateful such inspirational, universally relatable stories still get made and survive through the commercially run mega industry’s requirements of what a blockbuster ‘should be like’. Indeed, understanding the industry tropes helps both the makers to include them seamlessly into the narrative and for the audience to find amusement in them too.

Still, in the end “it’s just a film” - a notion now thrown around a lot in defense of the movie for not meeting everyone’s high expectations, it seems -, but what a grand tale of understanding, acceptance, support and hope, none the less. Every bit deserving of a 'high culture’ status.

That all said, just finished watching the Force Awakens with my bros in preparation for the Last Jedi. Their first time seeing it, and my first after seeing it in theaters upon the opening couple years ago. It’s a joy to have things like this to share together. Got them excited too, and can’t wait to go see the movie again on the big screen, this time with the family (albeit minus some?).

[sapphireorison]

Hokay. So. ACOTAR, ACOMAF, and ACOWAR. I finished them. A bit ago. And then I forgot to actual finish this write-up.

I enjoyed them! I have a great many thoughts and it will take a while to unpack them. Fair warning: I’m an editor and some of this is critique. These books hit a good number of my buttons and I legit cried in several different places, so they receive a rec from me. Just--I love to interrogate what I read as well as enjoy it. 

Spoilers to follow. :) 

:rubs hands together: 

Just in case my readers have read some but not all of the books, I’m going to be trying to split thinguses all up. This is difficult b/c I read them mostly back to back and I have a hard time splicing out storylines when I do that. Thank goodness for book summaries. 

Book 1: A Court of Thorns and Roses.

I loved the concept of eternal Spring at the Court, and I love the fact that Feyre is so driven. She makes shit happen, throws herself head-first into...not the best plans, let’s be real, but she’s sympathetic and we get a really deep glimpse into her head with the first person PoV. Her crap plans are also very interesting from a character growth standpoint, because she’s flailing around trying to figure out how things work and still willing to dive into the shit half-prepared because she thinks she needs to. I respect that in a protagonist. The supporting characters, Lucien and Alis, are also a lot of fun. I also thought the worldbuilding was fun in that the fae actually use their glamour for pretty much everything, and that there are festivals and rhythms to life. The estate feels very empty on purpose, but the life of the characters seems to extend beyond the page and I quite like that. 

One thing I found very interesting was that, as the book goes on, Maas slowly finds her stride. The end of the book is better than the beginning (and the second book better than the first, but that’s getting ahead of myself). Maas’ strength is in interaction person v. person and person v. environment, but until the environment is established, her people can’t properly interact with it. We’re missing too much and the clues aren’t actually clues that a reader can put together--or even recognizes as clues. ‘Ah yes this is a mystery’ isn’t...isn’t helpful. The world doesn’t *quite* exist before it’s explained, which is a bit rough when it’s explained at the rate of ‘clueless newbie in an information-averse environment.’ I speculate that a reason why her series are so popular is that she does very well with cumulative worldbuilding. Or, rather, working within established worldbuilding. When she’s establishing it herself, it’s a little wonky until it takes hold.

I mean, I enjoyed the whole ‘masque masks stuck to everyone’s faces’ thing but it wasn’t incorporated emotionally and then they just pop off. The resolution of that arc factored into the climax but the focus had shifted away almost completely at that point. That’s partially because we get three or four character anchors, and not a lot of secondary and tertiary characters to populate the emotional background of the story, so there are precisely two people she knows/interacts with from Spring Court there Under the Mountain and they’re narratively busy. Plus, masks are a major, ridiculously romantic imagery thing. The decadence. The finery. The masks hiding everyone’s true intentions. But without keeping them important, they don’t have the impact I think was intended.

When Maas DOES incorporate something emotionally, she’s good, imho. See anything she does with tattoos. It’s personal, a body transgression with a dab of body horror, it’s visible and has a major impact on her day-to-day attitudes and the images she strikes in this book and for the rest of the series. I ended up caring very much about that damned tattoo. 

On another note, I was /deeply confused/ at the totally blasé attitude the Spring Court had most of the book towards the fact that Feyre had murdered the fuck out of that fae. Like. I didn’t get the vibe that 'something must be going on for everyone to not be beyond pissed off at me.’ I got the the ‘wow, things are moving really fast and everyone’s reactions are a little weird because the main characters need to be together’ vibe. Which turned out not to be the case in, like, any sense, but it was still very distracting. Also, I’m just like, “There is a lot of emphasis on love in this book, but I’m not actually feelin’ it anywhere.” Maybe it’s my aromantic ass talking, but there was a lot of emphasis on the sustaining power of love that didn’t really...okay. I think it’s fair to say that I don’t *get* why love was a driving force for most of the tail end of the book when there were other perfectly valid reasons to take action and/or survive. The main character spent most of the end of the book in an altered state of mind and fixated on an emotion that wasn’t being actionably reciprocated, so that when she won things I was very excited, but when she was floundering in between I stopped being able to quite access the character.

It’s a bit of a left turn at the end into sexy villainess territory, and the altered state of mind thing--like I get why it was done on a narrative level (tho I consider it a bit of a narrative cheat), but it’s also sort of extremely iffy on a ‘future romantic interest’ level.  

Overall, though, I liked a lot of the interpersonal play between characters and how the edges don’t always meet. And I like the sense of ‘no, don’t do it! why are you doing this?!’ and ‘yes, do the thing!’ that I as a reader felt depending on the decision that Feyre had to make, and most of the time those character choices were nicely in character. 

Book 2: A Court of Mist and Fury

Well. I was spoiled by tumblr for this one, so I knew it was coming, but EVEN SO I was still a little ??? that Tamlin was straight-up the villain. On the one hand, the first book WAS a riff on a Beauty and the Beast narrative, so this is the ‘Beast’ subversion book that digs into the abuse and depression narrative. Which--I actually didn’t mind. The oddest thing was Tamlin going from a very poor fit for a boyfriend to legitimately abusive, which I take to mean (as is alluded to in later bits) that his experience Under The Mountain just...broke him. I was actually watching in the first book for ‘abusive’ cues, and they were little red flags that seemed to have been incorporated into the fabric of the story in the traditional-love-story sense that only in contrast and context analysis appear as big red flags. 

So...that’s interesting. Because it was very much a sense of exacerbated personality, without necessarily the seeds of the abusive relationship being developed as such. Even though :waves vaguely at Rhys: that dude’s presence was at least planned, and the mating bond was present at the end of the first book. So yes, it seems abrupt, and I can’t decide if it’s an abrupt that fits or not.

And just as an addendum, I’m not actually interesting in redemption stories (as I know there’s all sorts of discourse surrounding Talmin on tumblr), so I didn’t mind him being the villain and staying that way. 

The strength of this book, imho, is its tight focus on healing from abuse. It’s a very specific narrative, very in-depth, and very personal. Feyre is such an emotionally-driven character, and it’s her emotions--conflicting a lot of the times--that are cracked open and chewed-upon. And, actually, it’s her emotions that, well, it’s not that they provide /continuity/ but they actually carry the book. Whatever she’s feeling at that particular moment is encompassing, and it eclipses a lot of the book’s continuity errors and world-building...holes. At least for me, it did, and that’s part of why I enjoyed the story as much as I did. Worldbuilding is my /jam/, so the emotional resonance has to be engaging for me to enjoy a book without a solid foundation.

But part of the recovery-from-abuse narrative is that there’s a lot of emphasis on consent--or at least there’s an attempt at it. Everything at Feyre’s pace as much as possible (a convention broken only for plot, if I recall correctly.) Even if, most practically, there is a lot of organizing Feyre’s life and she doesn’t have a lot of actual control over it, she feels like she does. She is able to accomplish things again and accomplishing those things isn’t a panacea for her depression, but it certainly helps. 

What boggles my mind, with respect to the consent thing, is that Feyre very much has no control over her emotions at the best of times, not when she’s vulnerable. But that Maas adds the mating bond/soulbond nonsense. 

Okay. FULL DISCLOSURE. I...read soulbond fic. I *enjoy* soulbond fic. But I’m very picky about my soulbond fic. For the most part, I consider it to be a good part manipulative drek where people are attracted to one another for no apparent reason with an automatic love that spans lifetimes. 

Which, you know, romantic. (Says the aro lady) But my point is, that the soulbond fics that I really enjoy are the ones that really grapple with the idea that, okay, you didn’t /pick/ the soulbond. You were destined, and that destiny means you had little-to-no free will, consent, or agency in that choice. You feel encompassing...something for a person. Is it love? Is it healthy? And I understand that some people really, deeply enjoy the idea of destiny and the idea that this bond to someone in your soul means you are inherently lovable no matter where you came from or what you’ve done. I, however, resent even the hint of fate, so exploring how people deal with that (beloved) + (fate) thing is simply deliciously fascinating. 

However, in context of a recovery-from-abuse narrative it’s, uh...wow. Feyre doesn’t have a choice but to fall in love with this man. For a healing narrative making an attempt to be about giving her choice once more, a soulbond inherently removes that consent *especially* because it’s kept a secret. Feyre doesn’t know what’s going on and can’t make an informed decision about. 

But I think what completely flummoxed me was the fact that Feyre’s emotional response to finding out that she had a soulbond was *relief*. ‘Oh, it’s not actually me moving on from the abuser I sacrificed so much for and forming this crazy-strong attachment to this man in what I consider a betrayal of my former love for my abuser.’ She’s happy it’s not her fault. With one soulbond, her conflict over moving on is wiped away and resolved, even when moving on and forming a strong emotional attachment/falling in love with another man is, uh, perfectly natural. especially for someone who runs so much on her emotions as Feyre, even if maybe there’s a bit of concern that Rhys might be a rebound because he’s helping her heal (as not everyone can handle both healing-phase relationships and then the transition to stable-established). I mean, it’s an understandable response for her to be like ‘oh, thank fuck,’ but, um, that’s the end of it. She’s done feeling any conflict because she has cosmic permission to move on. 

And tbh, that’s...not an issue with character responses imho. It’s an issue with how the world is built and what function the soulbond serves within a narrative that attempts to emphasize consent...by resolving part of the conflict by make it fate. 

So that’s a thing. XD

Anyways, I am definitely of the opinion that this second book was stronger than the first, both emotionally and world-buildingly. And just...the visuals are wonderful. I think out of everything, I loved the visuals the most. 

Book 3: A Court of Wings and Ruin

The most recent (last?) book in the series, a Court of Wings and Ruin is by far and away the most solidly established book with respect to the worldbuilding and pre-established character. At this point, the world has accumulated enough that there are repercussions, politics, and things moving and shaking. The narrative expands from tight-focus on specific relationships to an epic continent-spanning conflict with multiple cooperating factions. 

It’s, uh, quite a jump. 

But first let me just...bang my fists on the table and chant: High Lady Feyre. High Lady Feyre. High Lady Feyre. The simple fact that we get to see her be High Lady and that she embraces it. No matter how the execution of her being High Lady falters, it’s viscerally pleasing that the intent is for her to be a partner. She has a powerful position, a seat at the table, and (although her inexperience is, er, a liability, uh) the ability to change the tide of the epic shenanigans going on all over the place. 

Also. Nesta. My love. She shines in this book. I just. I think it says a lot about what your favorite character in any particular book is, and for me, it’s hands down 100-percent Nesta. She’s just so angry and complicated and she lashes out and hurts people and even in the previous books when she’s being stubborn or antagonistic-y and Freyre is pissed off and hurt by her...I just kept thinking to myself: is she supposed to be my favorite? Because she’s absolutely my favorite. 

Like, she’s reserved as fuck and ready to cut into people and eat their hearts, and was dragged into Feyre’s bullshit literally kicking and screaming and basically sinking into the Cauldron while flipping the world off. And then she rips part of the Cauldron’s power out with her teeth. Plus, she develops a thing for the one who is clearly the hottest boy character (sorry Rhys, I have a type). I mean, she couldn’t be set up any more perfectly as my favorite character. 

Like. I like Feyre, but to be quite honest, I don’t GET Feyre. (I don’t recall if I said that in part one, but whatever, this is part three and a whole different book.) I just...Feyre is emotional to the point where I lose hold of her, because I’m not the same personality type. I can feel what she feels because that’s Maas’ forte as a writer, but that’s about as far as my sympathy goes. I /feel/, but I don’t understand why she acts the way she does on those feelings. 

What I do find interesting is the trope evolution of the soulbond thing. It’s like Maas walks it back. It’s a mating bond and it’s physical. It’s not necessarily a ‘meeting of souls’ or ‘one true love’ thing, because there have been crap soulbonds in the past, but a signifier that elf-y genetics decicded they’d create good bebs. Which...holy het, batman, for one, the implication being that only reproducing couples will ever matebond. And two--that’s...a marked difference from the second book. There’s also some confusion as to whether the mating bond is destiny or a result of love. Because more than once it’s referred to wanting the mating bond to snap into place (implying that love can come first), and more often it’s shown that the mating bond is destiny. It’s never clarified if it’s both, or Feyre’s mistaken, or what. Or if it can actually be cancelled, or if it becomes only cancelled for one because it’s ventured by one? Or if there’s an attempt to snap it into place and...

Basically, book three just confuses the shit out of the issue of the soulbond from the straightforward trope-dancing of the second book to attempting to address edge cases without actually clarifying anything. 

There is one point, though, where I’m sort of...the series started as one thing and has morphed into somthing entirely different, and the style it’s written in can’t quite support it yet. Namely, there’s a scene where Feyre does a bit of psychic eavesdropping to relive a scene we would not otherwise have gotten to see and just...

That, my friend, is cheating the first-person narrative. It’s invasive, and debatably out of character, and is handle with a ‘sometimes we suck, and we just have to get over it’ conversation, and the invasion is never elsewise addressed. It’s just, like. An errant scene. It’s worked into things, but in such a way that the value of the scene is debatable for as much damage as it causes the narrative. 

Which flows into the fact that the narrative can’t sustain the epic battle thing. There’s a deus ex machina at the end, even though it’s not the thing that wins the day. Like, there’s an entirely character PoV and narrative thread that’s just...left out. For three books. Which is a limitation of first person without careful plotting. But the whole end with reinforcements and Lucien and the firebird Queen? Not out of the blue, but like...a whole different book. 

And the last thing that I think is interesting that *doesn’t* touch on the Black Jewels trilogy, is part of the inspiration for some of the fae mythology, namely the Black Cauldron. 

Or, more rather, the Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander, upon which the Disney movie the Black Cauldron was based. The Chronicles themselves are based on Welsh Mythology, notably the Mabinogion. But the Chronicles have the three witches in the swamp (the three death gods?), the fair folk, the land of death with its control of the Cauldron with the power to create an unstoppable army. Of a living sacrifice jumping into the cauldron of their own will being the only thing to shatter it.

(And, hilariously, I did a search for what Maas herself said about Prydain since I was gonna ramble on about it, and it really does seem like they were a major inspiration for her. I found a twitter thread where she laments that he used all the really cool antiquated names for all the places she wants to use. If you wanna see what she says about it, pairing the author names will give you direct quotes from her saying how much inspiration she drew from them.)

It’s just that even though Eyrian and Illyrian are very similar, Illyria is the name of a Baltic country back in antiquity. And her naming conventions for the races aren’t complicated. The angel-people are Seraphim. The falcon-people are Peregryn. She uses a lot of possibly-Greek-inspired words for her mythological faerie people. So while I wouldn’t say Illyrian is a coincidence, it does fit with her rampage through her favorite things, pulling in disparate (and sometimes clashing) elements and knitting them together as she slowly builds her world the best she can.

To me, this feels like a hodgepodge of inspiration, though I know that a lot of people knock the books for tasting very strongly of Bishop’s work. I’d argue that, Prydain and the aforementioned Welsh mythology and Greek references are as much an influence on Prythian as Kaeleer and Terrielle are, at least in the worldbuilding aspects. She even says in interviews that they’re her inspiration. She’s enthusiastic about them in a charming way (I say as an editor of new, baby authors who have this sort of love for their inspiration, too.)

But ‘what is inexpert but honest homage and what is are you sure this isn’t fic’ is a discussion for...later. That I’m half done with. Hopefully I’ll be able to finish and post it sometime soon. :)