#he uses the term 'narcissist' so much to describe bad people

[lovecatsys]

can my moms fiancé stop with the saneism against pwPDs istfg.

[ivys-thick-juicy-thighs]

Sleep Token Lore theory

From the pov of someone deeply interested in psychology and a survivor of narcissistic abuse.

Warnings: mentions of narcissistic abuse, brief mentions of suicidal ideation, alcohol use.

Disclaimer: my idea of what all of it means is less in the esoteric direction and based more on my opinions of some of Vessel’s personal experiences. I’m basing all of this on lyrical content, the evolution of his masks, how he behaves on stage, and my own personal experience. I will not mention any of his previous work or related individuals. I will keep this as neutral as possible out of respect for all of their privacy.

Read part two here

1. The deity of Sleep: I believe that Sleep is less of an actual deity (I know it’s mostly a marketing gimmick), and more of a metaphor for someone that Vessel used to be in a relationship with. This person was very toxic and likely abusive in some manner. They also definitely had a god complex. In my opinion they most likely displayed a lot of narcissistic tendencies, such as love bombing, denying responsibility, manipulating, lies, mind games, and other such things. Emotional and psychological abuse are very likely. People who display narcissistic traits tend to worm their way into the minds of their targets. They prey on their insecurities, weaponizing them. Hence “my insecurities surround me like lions in a den.” This person met Vessel, noticed the things he was probably already insecure about and deliberately poked at those wounds, making them worse. This person also probably made efforts to isolate Vessel from the rest of his family and friends, making him dependent on them and them alone. If you have no one else to turn to, you are much less likely to try to escape.

2. Vessel’s part in the toxicity: in multiple lyrics from different songs Vessel expresses deep all consuming guilt over the way that he acted in this relationship. Being in a relationship with a narcissist will change you into a different person, but who you become depends on who you are to start with. Some people become more argumentative and fight back, which the narcissist enjoys. They like it when you react emotionally, they take it as a chance to say “look at the way you’re acting, you’re being the bad guy. Now I can go and make my smear campaign to make me look like the victim.” Other people shut down emotionally, becoming even easier to manipulate and control. In Vessel’s case, I think he mostly became the argumentative version, though inside he was likely pretty emotionally numb. This is shown in DYWTYLM when he says “maybe it’s not that you conceal your feelings, they just don’t exist.” The narcissist has succeeded in alienating him from himself so much that he can’t recognize his own emotional state or needs.

3. Vessel’s emotional state: with the narcissistic behaviour that I mentioned earlier, it’s very likely that Vessel was the recipient of a lot of mind games and love bombing. Love bombing, to put it in the simplest terms, is when a narcissist pours on the charm in opportunistic times to get you to believe that they are the nicest person ever. They follow this up with extremely shitty behaviour, and then more charm. This way you start to believe that you imagined the shitty part and that they couldn’t do anything wrong. This back and forth creates a pattern that the victim will be addicted to, the good parts are so good that they brush off the bad. This is shown in Sugar “I’ve developed a taste for you” and in Distraction “you come crawling back to me, but I’m already on the ground.” If the narcissist is tenacious enough, this will push their victim to the point of wanting to take their own life or attempting to. This is shown in Atlantic, Are you really ok?, Dark Signs, and several others. References to scars on arms, trenches deeper than the scars can show, tearing off limbs, etc etc.

4. Vessel’s actions during: there are several songs where he describes self sacrificing behaviour, the biggest example being The Offering. Just the whole entire song. He gave himself over completely to this person. In a healthy relationship this isn’t a bad thing, but in an unhealthy relationship, it most certainly is. His entire identity could’ve been defined by the other person. “I am Vessel, and I belong to ________. They are my purpose.” That kind of thing. A complete erasure of who he was prior. At this point, he does not know who he is, he depends on them to tell him and others who he is. Through this he also grew to hate himself, and to believe that all of his dreams were probably unrealistic or something like that. And that he is ugly, as is shown in the Fall For Me video. This probably acts as the main driving force behind the masks in the first place. To literally hide behind, in fear that if the mask were to go away, that we the audience would no longer be interested. There’s those insecurities again. Afraid that he’ll lose all of his success if they see his face. Despite the fact that we don’t buy his albums to listen to his face.

5. The aftermath of this: When this relationship ended, which would’ve been after a long course of back and forth, and probably some on again off again cycles, Vessel would’ve been left feeling completely dead inside. To put it simply. Recovering from this kind of abuse takes a very long time, for most it takes months, for others years. At the start, he would likely struggle to see any worth in himself at all, hence him saying that who he is behind the mask does not matter. He was taught that belief. I think we can all agree that for Vess, it took several years to fully recover, and we continue to see his progress with every performance. We can also see this via the evolution of his mask, in the beginning covering his whole face, very much not human. Then the second mask, also not human but also softer. Not as archaic in appearance. But still not human. Still not him. The current mask showing a portion of his face at all times, the red lace like design on the bottom. It’s prettier, softer. It’s more human and approachable, but it has the spikes on it. He still feels the need to defend and protect himself. The other ways we were able to see the damage incurred, was through the fact that for many earlier performances, Vessel was drunk on stage. It doesn’t take a lot of thought to see that he wasn’t feeling too good about himself. A lot of victims of this kind of abuse tend to turn to some kind of vice/addiction to get them through the pain. After going through and getting out of something like that, self care and healthy habits usually isn’t a top priority. All you want in that situation is to numb the pain and distance yourself from it.

Someone on TikTok also pointed out to me the line (I think) from TMBTE “I’ll take a pound of your flesh before you take a piece of my pay stub.” With the idea that the person he was in a relationship with he also worked with, and they hogged a lot of his money. This aligns very much with narcissistic tendencies, as financial abuse is also extremely common.

More about the other members and their roles tomorrow.

[eclaire-went-bam]

Hi I had a few questions about the Dutch Van Der Linde NPD post :-)

I'm not trying to be rude or an asshole, I'm just genuinely confused because there seemed to be conflicting things.

You seem to agree that he has NPD but then call folk ableist for calling him a narcissist. Saying they're demonizing personality disorders.

I know and understand why demonizing NPD amongst other personality disorders is bad. But I don't understand why people calling him a Narcissist = demonizing.

Dutch is a terrible person so obviously people would point out his terrible actions along with a possible personality disorder. Because the disorder is a huge part of his character for some folk, which I'm sure it is for you.

I guess what I'm really wondering is what do you classify as ableist when it comes to discussing Dutch and his possible NPD?

The post, or I guess the way things were worded, made it hard for me to see your point.

Thank you :-)

rolling around tysm for the ask /gen!!! i did word things a bit unclear bcs a lot of my posts are catred to ppl in my own community so don't worry :)

i'm also using terminology associated w/ npd in this post so refer to tags if you don't know what something means

it's a bit complicated & i tend to over-explain so strap in !!

acknowledging he is a narcissist is fine! but the term "narcissist" very specifically refers to a mental illness & is a term very often mishandled

the problem lies here!

on one hand, people will know narcissist refers to npd specifically, but they won't care & are thus very explicitly demonising pw/npd. i've seen a great many posts (not just from this fandom!) who will call a character a narcissist, and then will proceed to prescribe that as the reason why a character is a bad person. npd is a personality disorder which yes, can often cause a lot of interpersonal conflict if not properly coped with, but it can also present in numerous other ways (eg, people-pleasing) — people who are abusive don't generally have npd and pw/npd aren't all abusive (many are actually abused themselves! if i had a dime for every article/post i've seen detailing how to make a narcissist crash, i'd be rich lmao). so automatically correlating abusive behaviour w/ having npd is very damaging to pw/npd

or,

on the other hand (this i see Most often), someone doesn't really seem to know that being narcissistic is a mental health thing and are using that word as a stand-in for a plethora of negative words — which is really easy to do given how much it's used incorrectly in a lot of anti-npd short form content (tiktok, yt shorts, etc ...). someone may use the word "narcissistic" when they're trying to describe someone who's self-centred, or rude, or aloof, or vain, or abusive, when they could use any of those other words just as easily while both being correct, and not including that underlying stigma

the vast majority of posts i've seen refer to dutch as a narcissist, are using that word in a derogatory sense to air their frustrations with the character — not as a genuine analysis, and not acknowledging the nuances of npd

it is important to note, many of these people would not call a character who is seen as a good person a narcissist, even if they may exhibit many narcissistic traits in canon, because narcissism already has a really negative stigma attached to it that they would be perpetuating. if dutch did nothing problematic in the entire series, i'd still headcanon him as narcissistic, but i get the sense that many just wouldn't because it hinges so much on the worst of his character

an egotypical may see dutch being simply careless with anyone but his own skin as he drags everyone down with him and call him a narcissist

whereas for me, i may see him desperately trying to appear as the greater-than-life man everyone talks him up to be to the point of delusion and self-sabotaging while everything is falling apart around him and call him a narcissist because yea, me too honestly !!

the first position is often tying narcissism to a shallow and overwhelming negative view of a character, because one may already have a bias that narcissism = living your best life as your family falls apart or something

so imagine like ;;; an allistic seeing a blunt character that is often viewed in fandom as autistic, and calling them autistic because of the outward bluntness — especially if they view bluntness as a bad thing. this view may perpetuate stereotypes about autism while also not really offering any nuanced look at the character. that, vs an autistic person seeing the same character and maybe relating to how confusing that social interaction was, and how awkward it must must've been for the character realising they did x y and z "wrong."

using the same example, there could be a character in media that's considered extremely blunt and mean to others, who's implied to be autistic. it's fine to not like said character, lord knows i'm thinking of a Few i hate, and being autistic doesn't excuse people from being mean to others, but to insult a character for being blunt because of their autism is pretty ableist! just like how having npd doesn't excuse any characters abuse, and someone can not like their vanity, but it'd be kind of ableist to insult a character for being vain because of their narcissism

or just like how an autistic character may unintentionally be mean to somebody due to misunderstanding social cues/being overstimulated/etc and will thus be percieved as cold and unkindly, a narcissistic person may percieve small criticisms as really pointed attacks that can cause crashes, which can cause us to become defensive & be percieved as childish or uncooperative (here's a good post that talks abt how certain problems may appear from a narcs pov, for example). these are just little things that oftentimes people who don't have said condition may not understand, which can contribute to a really flat reading of a character based on More Stereotypes

of course, you don't have to have a specified neurotype or mental disorder to headcanon someone with something (though i definitely recommend the Nuance ahaha), but i get the sense that when ppl use "narcissistic" with dutch, it's less of a respectful headcanon that acknowledges the disorder & how distressing it can be to not only others around him, but him as well, and more as a jab coming from the users own personal experiences from people they didn't like, or as a way to explain specifically just his abusive behaviour & nothing else (which is already a yikes cus that implies someone's automatic association with abuse is people of a very specific stigmatised neurotype). and i mean hey, dutch does deserve. Like. Multiple Jabs. (understatement). but it shouldn't be at the expense of people who actually exist irl who struggle w/npd

no i do not excuse dutch's problematic/abusive behaviour, i literally physically recoil from my screen whenever i see him do literally anything, and it's pretty evident that untreated Issues™ definitely contributed to him going batshit (especially considering as far as every account i've seen go, he was pretty damn Decent in terms of 1800's outlaws prior to blackwater), but i can definitely say that i do rlly relate with some overarching themes with him & can often pretty much hear what he's thinking sometimes without necessarily thinking something he did was okay. & again, there are sooo many words in the english lexicon, people can definitely choose words that aren't specifically related to conditions when talking abt what they don't like about him

so many other headcanons, whether it be regarding race, gender, sexuality, neurodiversity, etc, are treated with a lotta respect on this website! you'll hardly ever find someone seriously insulting a character's headcanoned autism, or gender identity, or anxiety, with such genuine vitriol. i've seen people also headcanon dutch with major depression or bipolar, but i've seen nobody use either terms to insult him — because we all know that's insensitive. so why should npd be any different?

so yeah i hope this made it clear, i don't think its wrong or ableist at all to to have discussions about how a potential personality disorder could've affected his thinking or decisions, but a lot of the posts i've seen have been less about discussion and more of just finding ways to express their hatred of dutch. which ;; i'm sure you can imagine how tiring it gets to see these kinda posts which demonise something you are, in a community for a game you really enjoy, and just have everyone in the comments/tags kinda nod their head. nnnot fun to always catch strays ^^;

anyways that's my spiel tysm for the ask i really like to Yap™

[traumatizeddfox]

This is a genuine question not like,, being mean or judging or trolling or anything

I keep seeing the term Narc abuse or Narcissistic abuse but I don’t know what it means

I know that abuse that’s done by narcissists (not all narcissists are abusers I have to say) is treated differently than other kinds of abuse. And normal therapy things don’t always work to help with that kind

And I get that from personal experience with being abused by a diagnosed narcissist and seeing through therapy that the things don’t get undone by kinda the usual methods you gotta approach it differently

But I guess I just don’t get why? Like do people misuse the term to perpetuate stereotypes? If so why is the term so frowned upon in general? Is it a bad term? If so what’s the name for the phenomenon that’s proven to exist/needed to be distinguished from other kinds of abuse?

Again please don’t misunderstand I’m not defending anything I’m just genuinely confused and don’t understand and need to know what’s happening and what’s appropriate and what’s not

Anyway have a nice day sorry for the long winded question

so a lot of victims have used the word narc abuse as a way to just describe their abuser. i think a lot of them either don’t understand the harm they’re doing when they use the term or just don’t care. most times i see people use it as a way to describe emotional abuse or any kind of abuse but it’s almost as if victims feel like they’re more special if they have been abused by a narcissist or something

i personally don’t have npd so i can’t speak for those in the community but from the people i know who have it, they say it makes them feel terrible, and not welcomed in victim spaces because the term narc abuse has just become another way to describe abuse and so it alienates those with pd or npd because people now think narcissist = abuser.

i know when i first started to look into abuse i kept getting a lot of those narc abuse videos on tiktok and most of the time victims try to make themselves feel “special” for being abused by a narcissist because these spaces describe narcissists like they’re some vampire lmao waiting to lure their victim because the victim is “soooo special” which is super dangerous to tell victims because that’s something abusers do tell us especially if they have groomed us, but it’s not a narcissist thing it’s just an abuser thing. the thing is i was also abused by someone with NPD but he didn’t abuse me bc he’s a narcissist he abused me because he’s an abuser.

the main issue with these types of people is they don’t want to ever hear the other side because they think if you say “narc abuse isn’t real” ur saying that their abuse didn’t happen which isn’t the case it’s just trying to get people to change the language. unfortunately it’s hard to talk about these things in victim spaces because it’s everywhere. i feel like tumblr is the only place where i don’t see much ableism towards those with npd (i can’t even look up trauma or abuse on tiktok w/o seeing someone talk abt narc abuse)

it would be nice if we could eventually learn that all victims are on the same field and abusers are just abusers no matter what disorders they have and that a disorder doesn’t = abuser

[monty-glasses-roxy]

(sorry in advance, this might get long) Not to play devil’s advocate or anything, but Roxy DOES display a LOT of narcissism symptoms, just not where the ‘say anything you don’t like is narcissism or gaslighting’ kiddie fans like to say. The Gregory stuff is pretty much irrelevant for a lot of already mentioned reasons, but people discount the possibility of NPD going “no no no poor sweet little bean just has bad self esteem!” and

OKAY.

So I have TWO responses to this! Bare with me here. The second one goes more into the traits you're talking about, so stick with me.

For the first one, I'm going to focus on your first ask, where you say that Roxy does show traits of covert narcissism. If this is in response to the post I reblogged about how some fans continue to call her a narcissistic bully (obviously using the term narcissistic wrong as is typical), then you have missed the point entirely. I apologise if I come across as aggressive here, my intention is to be as clear as physically possible.

What we were not complaining about her being labelled as a horrible person. We are not complaining about her potentially being a narcissist in the way you've described. We are not complaining about people criticising her. We are not complaining about people just not liking her.

The whole point of the post, was that we were annoyed by the hypocrisy. The point was about the double standards in a large chunk of fandom spaces.

You're right! Narcissism is used as a catch-all for someone people (not just 'kiddie fans') don't like and want to hate on, when that's not what narcissism is! But that's not the point we were making. Let me give you some examples of what we meant.

Whether you believe it or not, it's widely theorised that Monty killed Bonnie. It's a common interpretation that he killed Bonnie to take his place in the band, and to get the spotlight all to himself, with his sights now being set on Freddy himself. These fans often say that he did this regardless of the virus effecting everyone, and got more aggressive under its influence.

Now, these same fans, see Roxy. She tells Gregory that he has no friends. She calls him nothing, a loser and that she's better than him. She talks to herself in the mirror to boost her ego, and compliments herself fairly regularly throughout Security Breach while she is under the influence of the virus that changes their behaviour.

Many of these fans, adore Monty. They love him despite what he's done. They find him interesting, with more character depth than meets the eye, and ship him with the rest of the male cast liberally. He's UwU'd and a himbo and they love him as their poor little meow meow.

However, this is not the case with Roxy.

To many of these fans, she is awful. She's irredeemable and deserves everything she got. She's the worst character in the game. She only likes Cassie because Cassie is a big fan of hers and idolises her. She's nothing but an arrogant, self-centred, bitch, with the word narcissistic used incorrectly to encapsulate all of this.

Do you see the difference?

This was the point of the post. And please don't come at me saying not all Monty fans are like that, I know that already. To say that to me would also be missing the point.

The point is that, if you swapped the two over, and Monty did exactly what Roxy did in the game, while Roxy did exactly what Monty did... The results wouldn't change. Monty would still be their complicated, deep and meaningful character to thirst over and adore, and Roxy would still be the worst person you've ever met because how dare she kill Bonnie? That's irredeemably awful!

This is what we were complaining about. It doesn't matter what words are used, it's the fact that they're used by some fans to villainise her, and not anyone else. We were complaining about how Roxy can't be mean without being hated, virus or no virus, there is no excuse for being mean, unless you're a hot guy everyone likes and it adds to your hot guy character. It's not just Monty either, he was just the best example I could think of off hand. If Moon, Freddy, Sunny, DJ, Bonnie or even Foxy said the exact same things as Roxy, and acted in the exact same way, they would also be loved and adored for it, while Roxy is hated.

I'm going to say this one more time for those still missing the point, I am not saying everyone does this. I know not everyone does this. What I'm saying applies only to those that do this. This is just a common way to interpret these characters in a handful of corners of this fandom, and it's part of a wider problem you see in a lot of other fandoms as well. We are annoyed by the hypocrisy of how some characters are betrayed compared to others. The wording used is a separate issue, to the intention behind them.

I am not aiming to call anyone out with this. I am not aiming to start drama either. That is not the intention of any of this. We are talking about what we've observed and how we feel about it. This is not intended as an attack on anyone, or saying you shouldn't like your favourites or any other bad faith read you can make of this. We were complaing about what we've seen and how we feel about it. That is all.

And this is the last time I am clarifying that discussion. I apologise if this all comes across as rude or aggressive, I'm just trying to make myself as clear as physically possible. This being the second time I've clarified it, feels enough to me. I'm open to discuss some of this, but honestly, this isn't what I want to continue spending my night on, so if anyone wants to talk about this stuff, the responses may be slow. Got other, more fun stuff to talk about, ya know?

NOW the SECOND response is more relevant to the rest of what you said.

You're absolutely right! You could attribute her traits to the covert narcissism that you've described! I've never said she can't be and I love the fact that you've drawn these connections with some level of understanding of it! I've only seen one other person describe Roxy as a narcissist that didn't use it as a way of saying she's awful and I love that! You might be the same person as that other anon, I can't really tell, but just know that I appreciate you telling me about your interpretation with actual information on narcissism!! I may not see her as such (for reasons to follow), but it's really interesting when people portray her differently to me, and can actually back up assigning her a label like that!!

I'll say my interpretation of her is different to what you've described, and I can elaborate on how I read and portray her any time you like but this post is already long so I'll save it for another time. We're different people, so of course we have different interpretations, that's what makes talking about a character interesting! This isn't the only reason I wouldn't describe Roxy as NPD though.

I will not say that she has NPD, and I will not argue the idea of her having it with someone that can tell me about it like you have. This is because I don't know enough about NPD to draw a conclusion like that. I don't have anywhere near enough information on actual narcissism to draw any kind of connections to anything. My understanding pretty much starts and ends with 'low empathy', and how people are constantly misusing the term by applying it to everyone they don't like, or people that are just kinda mean. As such, I'm just not in a position to use the term to describe a character at all.

I can research it of course, but until then, rest assured, I will not be describing anyone as such, fictional or otherwise. I have no plans to research it for the time being in case you were wondering on that one, so this isn't likely to change any time soon. I'm just not educated enough on the topic to confidently write Roxy as a narcissist. If people read my version of her as such, then that's great! But I will not go into a discussion on Roxy's character and refer to her as anything specific unless I know what I'm talking about. Based on what you've said, my version of her woudn't line up with NPD that much anyway, so it's likely not going to be a conversation I'll need to be having very often after this.

By all means, if you know what you're talking about or are willing to research and learn about it? Don't let me or anyone else stop you from reading Roxy as a covert narcissist! If that's something you wish to explore in her character then you do it buddy!! I'd love to hear about it!

I just can't really have a strong opinion on something I'm not educated on. I take no issue in people calling her a narcissist in the context you have described. I don't get involved in the conversations surrounding the misuse of the word as a general descriptor of every negative trait ever, as I don't have the knowledge to properly engage in that kind of discussion. So if you did talk about this more with me, I'm afraid I couldn't really offer you much but my own interpretation in return. Would still love to hear about it though if this is something you're familiar with and are interested in though, that's the takeaway here. I may not have all the information, but I can still appreciate someone trying to properly portray it, right?

And those are my two responses!

Tl;dr:

Response 1: If this was your takeaway from the reblogged post about people hating Roxy, you've missed the point. We're annoyed by the double standards between how she's seen as awful, whereas others are praised for doing arguably much worse things than her.

Response 2: YEAH!!! YOU HEADCANON HER AS A COVERT NARCISSIST IF YOU WANT TO AND KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT TO DO SO COMFORTABLY!!! YOU DO YOU!!! ENJOY YOURSELF AND DON'T LET ANYONE ELSE STOP YOU!!! I can't really have a big long discussion about Roxy displaying those traits though, because I don't have the knowledge to do so. Can still enjoy people talking about it though.

[demigodofhoolemere]

I’m so glad I didn’t bother watching this show, because every time I see these things online I just want to scream. This moment isn’t new to me, but for crying out loud:

Marvel desperately needs to learn what the heck “narcissist” actually means. They keep using it on people and the character they’re describing that way is literally never actually a narcissist. It’s a clinical term and so not synonymous with someone who just has some level of ego, and certainly not something you can throw around to describe someone who is merely trying to give the appearance of an ego in order to cover their vulnerabilities like Loki or Tony.

And like, Loki in particular? Holy crap, that is not a narcissist. That’s someone who’s been having a hard time all his life and was raised with a comparison to Thor always hanging over his head, showing those vulnerabilities would just get people treating him like he’s weak, of course he tries to hide it behind a bit of false confidence. On top of that he’s trying desperately to not look broken after everything Thanos did. His “ego” is really just a shield. This should have been blindingly obvious but Waldron apparently has no critical thinking skills when watching anything (assuming he watched Loki’s prior appearances in the first place, which I’m pretty sure he admitted he hadn’t), and Marvel seems to have lost all memory of phases 1 and 2. They also don’t appear to have realized that real narcissists aren’t gonna just admit to being a narcissist, and everyone from the writers to the audience don’t appear to understand that just because someone says they’re xyz doesn’t make it true. People can have VERY wrong perceptions of themselves (“Always so perceptive about everyone but yourself,” anyone?…), and in this specific scene I believe the context was that he was trying to get an endless loop of physical abuse to stop so he was willing to just say what they wanted to hear. Those are NOT the conditions under which someone should be believed without question, that’s duress. (Also I find it darkly amusing that so often people will act like every word out of Loki’s mouth is a lie and nothing he says can ever be trusted, even though he’s blatantly being honest a lot of the time, but then if he says something bad people take it for the truth immediately without analyzing the situation whatsoever. That feels very typical of his life.)

And as for the craving attention part, I mean, yeah? He was on the sidelines for so much of his life and felt he could never measure up to how much people adored Thor, and worst of all couldn’t even measure up in the eyes of his father. Of course that environment creates someone who desperately wants to be seen and paid any attention. But they seem to act as if it’s an innate thing rather than born of something, and that everything he does is just him acting out in some kind of tantrum to be noticed, and that wanting attention is some kind of failing and he’s just being childish for it. Craving attention is almost never as simple as just being childish, generally speaking there is always a reason that that behavior came to be. (Even if he did match the words I just used like “childish” and “tantrum”, even those things aren’t usually black-and-white purely negative behavior that’s solely on the person acting that way, because they come about in the first place due to suffering a lack of something they truly need but aren’t being given. A baby cries when they aren’t being fed, a child may act out if their parents aren’t giving them the focus they need, etc. These things come from a source. Even if Loki WERE just throwing tantrums, that’s indicative of a root problem started by others’ neglect.)

And literally why the heck would he say any of this, even under duress? This is not a man who would just admit to these things, whether or not they were true, because either way it would make him feel like he’s being weak and he can’t do that. He didn’t even tell his family about Thanos to give himself a defense because he wouldn’t admit to having been made so weak. He may not be egotistical but he does have a fair amount of pride born of the need to look strong in a culture that doesn’t value him. He’s not gonna just lay down and go, ‘I’m bad for xyz reasons and I’m scared of being alone.’ That’s not how he works. I want to shake everyone who made this show by the shoulders and force them to watch Loki’s first three movies on endless repeat until his psychology really sinks in.

[fwoosheye]

Sometimes you have to include problematic things to lift problematic issues. And in the context of historical fiction (and here I mean fictions based on real life historical events even if the characters might be fictional, NOT fics that take place in a setting that is inspired by history, etc) if you do it like this you might accidentally "remove" or hide what progress that was actually done at the time if you remove all the stuff that would be problematic today.

This is especially true of you include Actual. Historical. People.

Like the example above, we all know Reagan would never have respected a non-binary person's pronouns, and letting him do that in a game is giving him way too much cred. Let the man be remembered as the trash he was.

And in The Imitation Game (2014), the movie about Alan Turing (the man who cracked the nazi's code and was later prosecuted for his homosexuality which was illegal in the UK 1952) not only misrepresented his accomplishments but also his person as narcissistic instead of kind as he's been described as by others, the movie also pretty much accused him for being a traitor and a spy which he never was and never was even accused of.

Even if your intentions are good, removing problematic stuff would imply that the problematic thing never happened. If we look at the game with Reagan in it again, it's great that the game creators apparently decided to make it possible for people to choose how their character should be addressed as in the game and have npc:s respect that, more games need that, but to have a real life historical figure so that when he wouldn't have done that? I suspect it's probably because of technical limitations, so I'm not mad about it per say, but it does imply Reagan was a better person than he was. And for those who don't learn anything about him because they aren't from the US, it might paint a faulty picture and that paves the way for more misinformation. Of course a game shouldn't be used as an accurate source of history, but you get my point: Good intentions can go wrong if not done with careful thought and research.

Of course if your character is completely fictional you can make them however you like! Your 1852 man can be what we would call a feminist today, that's not the issue, but he must likely wouldn't go about it like we do today or use the terms and expressions we do. Perhaps he does think it's a woman's choice of she should give birth or not, but he probably wouldn't call himself pro-choice, you know what I mean? Like...

History must be allowed to exist as it truly was back then.

There have always been people around who have had feministic views and worked for them, which is a big part of the reason society have grown to be what it is today (eg people being allowed to vote at all).

History is a lot more queer than most people think (there's a reason the song History Hates Lovers exists).

Speaking of that song though, that kinda might be another reason why people might feel iffy about the removing of "problematic" stuff in fiction (whether that removal is of eg. trans people themselves or the removal of the bigotry against them): Removing, hiding or denying parts of history have been used a lot by various groups throughout history as a means of control. One of the more famous examples was when nazis burned the library of the Institute of Sexual Science in Berlin because it 1) was founded by a Jewish person, and 2) included queer stuff. A lot of leaders all across the world had memorials and symbols etc from previous kings/religions/etc vandalised and/or suppressed to strengthen their own position — colonialism being one example. Plenty of schools around the world have banned some books because they cover subjects they don't want kids to know about or question (things that are lgbt, books about why book banning is a bad idea, books that are anti-athorian, etc etc). And as mentioned in the song, historians have often denied that romances were romances because they didn't like same sex relationships. And so on. So, like... Even if it's done in all well meaning, doing it like this might not be the best way to go about it (especially as fascists will happily be hypocritic if it means they can use it as an excuse to paint feminism and lgbtq+ etc in a bad light). So by all means do include the stuff you want to highlight in your story, but research the history well so you can back up why it makes sense in your story, and don't remove the problematic stuff if it is something that really ought to be there...

And as I mentioned in the beginning, this rant is about stories that are supposed to take place in our real world history. If it's like, a history inspired fantasy you can go shamelessly hog wild bat shit crazy. Use only neo pronouns because He and She are exclusive for the Gods or whatever reason you want to use. Piss off meninist babys by having more than five women in a story (which is like the equivalent of it being 90% women apparently) and let them have a narrative that isn't sexy eye candy fridged hottie. Have the bigots in your story be genuine asshats that don't respect pronouns and then let them fall/die in a suitable way. Or use a made up antagonists who wouldn't even consider using the wrong pronouns because they have better stuff to do than wasting energy and time on remembering a random Hero's old pronouns and name when they only needed the Hero's current ones to keep track of them. They got a world to conquer and it ain't gonna do that in its own, geez.

But yeah don't be afraid to include problematic things in your story and let it be a problematic issue. Problematic content does not automatically equal a problematic story.

If you remove everything “problematic” toward women and minorities from sincere historical fiction I am biting you biting you biting you.

Sometimes “he would not fucking say that” is when the guy living in 1852 is a third wave feminist.

[self-loving-vampire]

Narcissistic abuse is a real thing, it fucks you up for life and narcissistic abusers always get away with it. Check out Dr. Ramani who is a specialist and focuses on helping survivors and educating them. She also talks about narcissism and autism because some of y'all can't be fucking trusted with big words and can't understand that autism and narcissism are rather unlikely to occur together (not impossible tho).

Can you explain how it is meaningfully different from the behavior of abusers who don't have NPD?

The things people like that doctor describe tend to be things that abusers in general do. In fact, they sometimes amount to being a basic definition of what abuse is.

The consequences of "narcissistic abuse" are also a checklist for the consequences of abuse in general.

For example, this article "helpfully" describes narcissistic abuse as being selfish and involving the use of words and actions to control someone's behavior and emotional state.

But this is literally just a generic definition of what interpersonal abuse is! It's not a trait specific to only one special subtype of abuse, it's general and it is inaccurate to blame that kind of behavior on a rare disorder when it is considered normal and even good in many societies.

While there are ways in which literally any factor affecting someone's mind (including more sympathetic conditions like anxiety or PTSD) could theoretically lead to abusive behavior, the bulk of it is the result of social norms that enable and support it.

For example, the norms that demand obedience and submission from children and reward control and authoritarianism in parents. These norms could not exist if they relied on a small percentage of mentally ill people. They are normalized, in my country they even used the Bible to justify corporal punishment of children as a means to shape them into decent people.

My father even personally believed that he would go to Hell if he did not train me to submit to him, and also that I would become spoiled and evil if he did not do that.

The article also talks about the consequences of "narcissistic abuse": Anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, loss of sense of self, loss of self-worth, guilt, physical and cognitive problems, trust issues, and so on.

This, too, is a list of effects you can reasonably expect from abuse in general. I have experienced all of those things myself.

So, if there doesn't seem to be much of a difference between narcissistic abuse and just abuse, either in actions or effects, I am skeptical of the term being useful.

It always really seemed to be more of a pop psych thing people were encouraged to armchair-diagnose every bad person in their lives with even though this is absolutely not necessary considering the existing definitions of abuse cover their experiences perfectly well and the term only serves to further demonize the survivors who develop NPD (which can be the result of trauma) by equating them to their abusers.

[bull-shit-suji]

I mostly agree with your analysis but I have some thoughts about Sebastian’s perspective within the story (sorry for the absolute essay):

Sebastian isn’t a stagnant character — his behavior towards Ciel has changed drastically from their first meeting to present day. A lot of this change is out of necessity, similar to your claims in how he goes to extreme lengths to maintain Ciel’s health and wellbeing-ish because he wants Ciel to feel dependent on him. Because of this, I’ve always taken his actions when he’s around others, especially Ciel, with a grain of salt, given that it’s pretty much all an act. 

BUT his actions when he’s alone, or, at the very least not being perceived by Ciel, don’t always coincide with his malevolent nature. I had to dig through the manga to find this panel but it immediately came to mind:

^For reference this is chapter 144 on the very last page, after o!Ciel was arrested upon learning his brother had returned. Now, this slightly breaches my prior rules because Sebastian isn’t alone here, but I’d argue that Ciel is paying zero attention to him and Sebastian is aware that he isn’t being actively perceived. 

I can’t think of any other way to describe this expression than “concerned”, and I’d say this was likely intentional on Yana’s part given how subtle the look is and how in-your-face the panel is. Which is weird, right? Even if Sebastian was acting on an assumption that Ciel was looking at him, I can’t think of a single reason as to how appearing concerned would benefit Sebastian in such dire circumstances. Ergo, Sebastian is likely feeling some level of pity. And that’s insanely out of character! 

Sebastian is certifiably a narcissist, and we know he doesn’t experience empathy or compassion because he’s told us at least a million times. But this panel seems to nullify that claim, given feeling concern requires Sebastian to be able to empathize with Ciel. 

So! I agree that Ciel doesn’t view Sebastian as a trustworthy person in any regard, and I don’t think Sebastian will be morphing into a stand-up father figure anytime soon, nor will their relationship ever be anywhere near the realm of healthy, but I think claiming that the bases of Sebastian’s actions are solely manipulative and have not changed at all would be dismissing the development his character has had. Which, in my opinion, makes the story even more compelling than if Sebastian were just a big bad guy with big bad intentions. 

I also think this change in his character is where a lot of people insert that found-family aspect! Which, as you said, holds no ground in canon, but I think it’s due to a lack of a better term given Sebastian’s inhuman nature. We really don’t have a good way of understanding or describing what he feels since he doesn’t abide by our social rules, and that is a huge chunk of his character that gets swept under the rug when his relationship with Ciel is condensed into parental or otherwise. 

Anyways! I’ve talked for way too long, but I’d love to hear your thoughts!

𝕴 believe that Ciel sees Sebastian as neither ultimate safety nor a found family member.

Sebastian's attitude towards Ciel is rather wicked in the sense that while he does some actions that show his care for the wellbeing of his master, such as going an extra mile managing his health, the contract also rests on a number of pillars Sebastian still refuses to change that show how ambivalent his motives are.

First, Sebastian knowingly took a form of an adult man: the very thing that traumatised Ciel to the point where he no longer trusts adults, including Sebastian (never fully, and for a good reason). He is an ageless demon that directly states that he is "nothing that can become anything". Surely an entity that can turn into a dozen animals in sheer seconds can take a form of a pet, an animal companion, a woman, a child or perhaps anything else that does not have a direct connection to Ciel's trauma. Sebastian, narratively, chooses to be what scares and intimidates Ciel — besides the form of an adult man giving him ultimate authority in both Ciel's household and overall life.

He also did so immediately after taking a martyr (Ciel's brother), manipulating his corpse to shame Ciel into a contract, and ultimately doing nothing to "protect" his master from the traumatizing scene affront of him.

Then, he proceeded to re-traumatise him further. That is, constantly allowed Ciel to be in situations where his trauma would, or should, resurface so that his bond with the demon becomes more and more dependent. Ciel gets kidnapped a lot and with how skillful Sebastian is and how purposefully long he takes to arrive at times, appearing only at the last moment, one would think he could prevent it easily; as a "caring father figure" would. He does not. Green Witch showed a culmination of Sebastian's appetite and agenda: he will kill Ciel if he shows weakness. Which, I believe, is exactly the reason Ciel does not show fear around Sebastian, alongside his inflated pride.

Sebastian has never been a "kind parental figure", at least canonically. He is also not a "place of safety" aimed to cure Ciel's trauma: he makes it worse for his own gain.

Kuroshitsuji is such a compelling story despite oftentimes messy writing that it's a shame it so often gets boiled down to either boring romance or found family dynamics. It's neither.

[valkyrieandstrangeridingaragorn]

The Loki series showrunners don’t know diddly-squat about real narcissism and what all that really entails. To them it’s just a hilarious Bad Thing that a bad person has that has earned them the hilarious humiliation and beating they so richly deserve. It’s like they sought to just stigmatize Loki with that word. Just slap a narcissist label on him like a Kick Me sign and proceed to do exactly that. Go to town.

I know Michael Waldron has also used the word sociopath to describe Loki, and it’s like, dude, do you even know what that is, or do you just like using big psych terms to try to sound like you know what you’re talking about? Ooh, are you sure about that Mikey? Or does it just sound like a real Bad Thing that a real bad person none other than Loki could be hilariously tortured for?

I’m sorry but these people are idiots and they prove it more and more every time they open their mouths. I wish people out there, especially the young, naïve, innocently gullible and vulnerable people out there would stop listening to their psycho babble and stop believing that verbal and physical abuse could actually “fix” someone. If anything this show just promotes cruelty and apathy towards people with mental/emotional/behavioral problems.

For the record, I don't believe Loki is a narcissist OR a sociopath! No more sociopathic than the people who go around calling torture therapy!

I mean, I just read a thread on reddit that called Will Smith a narcissist for what happened last night 🤷 People throw that word around and have no damn idea what it means and I'm convinced movies and shows have a lot to answer for in that regard.

I was told not long ago that calling Loki narcissist isn't a big deal, that surely Waldron meant "proud" or something similar. They defend it instead of realizing that if Waldron wanted to claim Loki is too proud he should have used that word. Psych terms have a meaning behind them and knowing how much mental health and personality disorders are stigmatized in society they should be more careful, or at the very least they should do their research before using words they don't understand.

Deciding what words to use is a choice.

And I didn't know that he had called Loki a sociopath but it doesn't surprise me. The worst part of all this is that they call Loki all these words and deem him a villain while at the same time they show other characters doing worse things than he ever did, but of course those characters get a pass and the hero-coded treatment.

Nothing, absolutely nothing justifies the difference in treatment once Loki and Sylvie are arrested, especially when Sylvie had been torching and killing and enchanting agents and innocent people for years. But since this show wasn't made for Loki fans I suppose those who don't care about his past or the context behind his actions are more than happy to pretend he had it coming and beating the shit out of him would "heal" him. How disgusting.

[longitudinalwaveme]

DC Comics’ Portrayal of Mental Illness

 As you can probably ascertain from the general contents of this blog, I am a huge fan of DC comics (and, more specifically, of the Flash). I am also a psychology major who is on the autism spectrum and has struggled with Social Anxiety Disorder and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. As such, I have a...complicated relationship with comic books that discuss mental illness. 

Of course, of all the comics that deal with mental illness, Batman is undoubtedly the most prominent, and, as such, is the easiest target for criticism. The more a comic book talks about mental illness, the more opportunities it has to get stuff wrong. Since there are literally thousands of Batman comics out there and I don’t have the time to research them all, I will be using a 2001 Batman guidebook to give you a few examples of the things that it gets wrong about mental health (and psychology in general). 

To start, let’s talk about Arkham Asylum. Not only is its name anachronistic (virtually no mental heath facilities are called asylums anymore), but its depiction usually is as well: even a psychiatric hospital that doubled as a penal facility probably would not be located in an old Gothic-looking building that looks like it came straight out of a horror movie. It’s also worth noting that Arkham Asylum didn’t exist in the Batman mythos prior to 1974, and that originally, Two-Face and the Joker were the only two villains who went there. Prior to that point, everyone, even the Joker, just went to prison when they were caught (which, as we shall see, is actually probably more accurate for everyone except maaaybe modern Two-Face and the Mad Hatter). My suspicion is that it was introduced to capitalize on the popularity of the 1962 novel (and, once it was released, the 1975 movie) One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, which was about a psychiatric institution, but there were probably other factors involved, such as the popularity of works by H.P. Lovecraft (which is where the name Arkham came from). Whatever the reason, though, Arkham Asylum is really only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the misrepresentation of mental illness and mental health in Batman fiction. 

The introduction of Arkham Asylum led, increasingly, to the idea that all Batman villains were mentally ill, which, in turn, led to some...um....very inaccurate portrayals and depictions of what mental illness is and how it works. 

For example, the 2001 guidebook I am using incorrectly describes the Joker as “certifiably psychotic”. He’s not. While there are individual exceptions (we are talking about comic books, after all), in most appearances, the Joker is not psychotic. He has no apparent hallucinations and does not seem to display signs of delusions, either. He is not out of touch with reality in any meaningful way, he’s just horrifically violent. Describing him as “certifiably psychopathic” would have been much more appropriate (although you can’t technically diagnose someone with psychopathy; the condition he would be diagnosed with would be Antisocial Personality Disorder). 

In the same book, Two-Face is described as “schizoid” and “schizophrenic”, both of which are not even remotely correct. What the modern Two-Face is supposed to suffer from is Dissociative Identity Disorder (what used to be called Multiple Personality Disorder), although it’s not always portrayed terribly accurately. Schizoid Personality Disorder is not DID, and it’s not Schizophrenia, either; it’s a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships-basically people who are extreme loners. Similarly, Schizophrenia is not DID. While it is hypothetically possible for the two conditions to be comorbid, they are not at all the same thing. Schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder characterized by delusions and hallucinations, which Two-Face almost never displays in fiction. DID is a dissociative disorder. Most people with DID do not experience delusions or hallucinations; their condition is typified by the presence of more than one personality and is thought to usually only occur as a reaction to severe childhood trauma. (Credit where credit is due: modern Two-Face is correctly shown as having experienced trauma as a child.) The fact that the term schizophrenia literally translates into “split mind” is probably the source of some of this confusion, but with schizophrenia, the split is between the mind and reality, not between the mind and itself. 

Also from this guidebook, the Riddler is, confusingly, described as having “an obsessive-compulsive desire for attention”, which, from a psychological perspective, is pretty much nonsense. Desire for attention is one thing; obsessive-compulsive disorder is another. The “obsessions” in OCD refer to intrusive, recurring thoughts, not to something that a person strongly desires and spends a lot of time pursuing. Additionally, the Riddler is described as “pondering the unsolvable riddle of his own psychosis”, which is not accurate. The Riddler consistently displays signs of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and less consistently displays signs of OCD, but neither one of these conditions is a psychotic disorder, as neither involves hallucinations or delusions. When the Riddler says he’s not psychotic, and that he’s perfectly sane, he’s completely right on both counts. He’s never displayed any evidence of a break from reality, so he’s not psychotic, and he’s almost always aware that what he’s doing is a crime, so he’s not insane, either. In fact, with the possible exceptions of the Mad Hatter, Man-Bat, and Two-Face, none of the Batman villains are insane, since they are all aware that what they’re doing is illegal when they do it. 

What makes the earlier mistakes in this particular guidebook even more mystifying to me is the fact that their description of Scarecrow, and, more impressively yet, Scarecrow’s fear toxin, is pretty much accurate. They don’t call him psychotic or label him with conditions he doesn’t have and they accurately identify his on-again off-again phobia of bats (Chiropteraphobia). It also describes his fear gas thusly: “a toxic mix of adreno-cortical secretions and strong hallucinogens...it prompts neuromuscular spasms, cardiac arrhythmia, and panic attacks”. This is an astonishingly accurate description of what his fear toxin would need to be made of and what it does to his victims’ bodies. I don’t know who wrote this section, but they deserve some serious credit for doing their homework! (It makes no sense to put the Scarecrow in Arkham. Not only is he neither psychotic nor insane, but putting an evil ex-psychologist in a psychiatric institution is a REALLY bad idea, as he has the know-how to easily manipulate both the doctors and the patients.) 

Also from the 2001 Guidebook: The Ventriloquist is described as having multiple personalities, and is NOT described as schizophrenic or schizoid. While the term Multiple Personality Disorder is no longer used by psychologists for diagnosis, it is at least describing the same condition as DID. Modern Firefly is described as a pyromaniac; this is accurate from what I know of the character. Mr. Zsasz is described as a “sociopath”; again, this is mostly accurate. 

I also decided to use a few other DC guidebooks and see if there were any other egregious mistakes: 

2015 Guidebook:

 Haha, “Lenny Snart”. (That has nothing to do with mental illness, I just thought it was funny.) 

 Dr. Polaris is described as suffering from “a split personality disorder”; they mean DID. It’s also worth noting that most people with DID do not have a “good” alter and an “evil” alter; having DID does not make you Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. 

The Joker is described as “crazy” and “insane”; while the former is up for debate, I can say with confidence that the Joker meets no real-world definition of insanity that I know about. 

Riddler is not described as insane, yay!  

Two-Face is described as having Multiple Personality Disorder; this should be DID but is otherwise broadly correct. That being said, the idea that getting acid thrown in your face would cause you to develop a split personality, as this book seems to imply, is unlikely. DID doesn’t develop that suddenly. 

2016 Guidebook: 

While Doctor Polaris may very well have a personality disorder, the emergence of a second personality would indicate the development of DID, not  a personality disorder. An adult man couldn’t “develop’ a personality disorder anyway; they’re developed in childhood and are usually lifelong afflictions. 

Harley Quinn is a weird case; to call her psychotic isn’t completely inaccurate, as she has displayed signs of hallucinations and delusions in the past. That being said, the way her condition is depicted is inconsistent and confusing, and doesn’t seem to line up perfectly with any actual real-world condition. 

Modern Heat Wave is absolutely a pyromaniac; Johns in particular was surprisingly good at writing a realistic case of the condition. 

The Joker is not insane. Neither is the modern Joker’s daughter. Both understand what they’re doing is wrong. 

Lex Luthor is indeed a sociopath, as is the New 52 version of Mr. Freeze (BTAS Freeze is not). 

Two-Face’s condition should be described as DID, not MPD; otherwise things are about as accurate as one can expect from Two-Face. 

2008 Guidebook:

Calling Abra Kadabra narcissistic is accurate. 

The Black Manta autism thing is icky on multiple levels. Ewww.

The first Cheetah probably would not have suddenly developed a second personality as an adult. 

Dr. Polaris. You know the drill. Split personality should be DID. A “good” and “evil” alter are pretty unlikely. Usually DID would show up before adulthood. 

Firefly and Heat Wave do both seem to have pyromania. It’s also accurate to describe Heat Wave as cryophobic. 

The Joker cannot be “certifiably crazed”; crazed is not an official psychiatric term. And again, he isn’t insane, so he shouldn’t be in Arkham. 

Killer Croc has never displayed any noticeable signs of psychosis. 

Magenta having DID is actually more realistic than most of the other characters I’ve talked about; she’s got the necessary childhood trauma and her alters developed when she was still quite young. Furthermore, her more violent alter isn’t manically evil. 

Whoever wrote the Scarecrow piece in the 2001 Batman Guidebook must’ve also helped to write this one, since the shockingly-accurate fear gas description is the same. 

Professor Strange is not insane in the legal sense of the word. 

Arnold Wesker has DID; MPD is the condition’s original name but is no longer used by professional psychologists. 

Zoom (Hunter Zolomon, not Eobard)... I think there’s an argument to be made that Zolomon actually is psychotic. While he’s never displayed hallucinations, he is clearly delusional in the most literal sense and does seem to have lost touch with reality. As such, this book is not wholly inaccurate in calling him psychotic.

You get the idea....

Looking specifically at the Flash, things improve slightly simply because writers who don’t understand psychology aren’t constantly talking about it. That being said, that doesn’t mean it never gets brought up. 

Golden Glider was intended to receive a psychiatric evaluation in the late 1970s. It’s interesting that she actually protested this, pointing out that the male criminals never received psychological evaluations (and indeed, they always went to prison rather than to an institution). She was indeed motivated by something other than profit, and I can understand why they wanted to have her evaluated given her lack of earlier criminal activity, but I don’t know if she was actually mentally ill per se...and she definitely wasn’t insane. 

In the early 1980s during the twilight hours of Barry Allen’s first run on the Flash, it seemed that the writers were trying to take a page out of Batman’s book by arguing that Barry’s costumed criminals were insane (even though they usually didn’t display any behavior that would indicate this). As such, Barry stated to imply that his Rogues were mentally ill in some fashion despite the fact that their behavior really hadn’t changed appreciably since their earliest appearances. That being said, the Pied Piper did appear to suffer some sort of nervous breakdown during the “Trial of the Flash” arc; what exactly this was is difficult to explain, since we didn’t get to see a whole lot of him after this point, but he did go to an actual psychiatric hospital (that was referred to as such rather than being called an asylum) and he did recover, relapsed, then recovered again, making this one of the more accurate portrayals of how mental illness works despite the limited information we have about his actual condition. They even showed him slowly deteriorating over a period of time before the actual collapse!

Big Sir, who made his debut in the same storyline, was rather more poorly handled....but at least he was explicitly manipulated into villainy rather than becoming evil simply because of his condition. 

Wally West went to therapy early in his run; given the context I’d say it was reasonable that he was suffering from both anxiety and depression (his uncle had just died and he was really struggling to fill his shoes as the new Flash). Going to therapy did actually help him, which was nice to see, and his therapist did not become evil, which was also nice to see. (I’m not going to talk about Heroes in Crisis, as I prefer to pretend that that never happened.) Yay for protagonists discussing their mental health problems in productive ways! 

In the early-to-mid 1990s, Mark Waid wrote a story in which Lisa stated that she’d faked insanity in order to be sent to a psychiatric hospital rather than to prison, but the story seemed to be implying that she was actually insane. Not only is successfully being declared not guilty by reason of insanity incredibly difficult, but Lisa displayed no signs of not recognizing that her behavior was wrong, so she wasn’t insane. She was, however, displaying strong signs of paranoia, which could perhaps be attributed to a paranoid delusion of some sort. It’s especailly weird since this was never really a characteristic of hers before or since, and it just kind of came out of nowhere. 

The Trickster (specifically the first one, James Jesse) is often mistakenly believed to be mentally ill by casual fans. While he is indeed mentally ill, possibly even psychotic, in the DCAU,  and he’s a remorseless psychopath in both live-action Flash shows, in the comics themselves he displays no real signs of mental illness. That being said, I LOVE the interactions between DCAU Wally and DCAU Trickster. They’re made of adorable.

The Pied Piper went through a second bout of mental problems in the mid-to-late 2000s, being tricked into believing that he’d murdered his parents, going to prison, being beaten regularly by the warden, escaping from prison, going through the stress of fighting in the Rogue War, having his mind messed with by the Top, accidentally becoming involved in the murder of Bart Allen (another thing I like to pretend never happened), having to go on the run, watching the Trickster get shot in front of him, having to drag his corpse around a desert, almost dying, getting transported to Apocalypse, blowing it up with Queen music, and then being left basically all alone. He really went through a trauma conga line, so it’s not surprising that he was starting to display some odd behavior. Poor guy probably had PTSD. 

And then there’s the Top. Beyond the speculation of @gorogues that he’s on the autism spectrum (a  theory I find to be quite persuasive), I also think it’s likely that he suffers from another mental illness (most likely bipolar I disorder, also as suggested by @gorogues). He was clearly mentally ill for most of Geoff Johns’ run, and his behavior in his very first appearance was decidedly odd as well. Intense mania and depression can sometimes induce psychosis (as we seemed to see during Geoff Johns’ run), and his “threatening to blow up half the world to become its ruler while I’m somehow safe on the other side of the planet” plan from his first appearance, which he clearly expected to work perfectly, is so overconfident and over-the-top that it fits well as a particularly exaggerated manic episode. While it’s not conclusive by any means, I think it’s a distinct possibility.

[floridagirlboy]

once again i indulge you on my dogshit phone /lh silly. thank you for asking i will give you a handful

Florida: aspd+hpd. total and utter disregard for the law and authority, doesn't care for the consequences of his actions, and seems to have a really difficult time forming meaningful bonds with others (loui being a distinct exception). that's so aspd of him. in terms of hpd? he always has to be the center of attention. good or bad attention? he doesn't care. saying the most provocative stuff or doing provocative stuff if it results in people paying attention, regardless of how it affects him or the people around him. i think it clashes really bad with his antisocial "idgaf about anyone" so he ends up vaccinating a lot in terms of how much he feels like he needs attention (p.s. I don't have HPD.. histrionics forgive me if i have poorly described symptoms and correct me).

texas: npd. we were all expecting this i think. incredibly inflated sense of self and large ego but 5 bucks he has a Horrible self esteem under that. he has to be the best and most important person in the room or he WILL explode. probably has delusions of grandeur too. gets really upset if he feels like you're trying to "outdo" him to the point of borderline aggression. i'd say he's working on it but he definitely is not. he thinks therapists are snake oil salesmen.

california: bpd. don't ask me why i don't actually know i just get The Vibes. florida started being his fp like 3 months after he moved in. admittedly I don't have bpd, just severe borderline traits, so. forgive me if this sounds weird

utah: aspd. uses religion to cope with it. relies on established ethics (i.e. actual law and religious law) to determine if his actions are good/bad and keep himself morally in check.

gov: npd. but it prevents wayy differently than it does in texas. he has an incredibly inflated ego and incredibly low self esteem but he's like..a really bad pushover. so his npd presents more "quietly" so to speak. i think it's Incredibly obvious sometimes but most of the time he just comes off a little snooty and not like a narcissist lol

who else

[animaniachan]

ᴛʀᴀɴꜱʟᴀᴛᴇᴅ ᴄʜᴀʀᴀᴄᴛᴇʀ ᴘʀᴏꜰɪʟᴇꜱ ꜰᴏʀ ꜰʏᴀ’ᴍ’, ᴏɴᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴛʜᴇ ᴀ ᴄᴀᴘᴘᴇʟʟᴀ ɢʀᴏᴜᴘꜱ ꜰᴏʀ ᴀᴏᴘᴘᴇʟʟᴀ!

ʀɪʀᴜʜᴀᴘɪ ᴘᴏꜱᴛ ʜᴇʀᴇ

ᴘʟᴇᴀꜱᴇ ᴅᴏ ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴇᴘᴏꜱᴛ ᴍʏ ᴛʀᴀɴꜱʟᴀᴛɪᴏɴꜱ! ᴛʜᴀᴛ ɪꜱ ᴀ ꜰᴏʀᴍ ᴏꜰ ᴘʟᴀɢɪᴀʀɪꜱᴍ! ᴛʜᴇꜱᴇ ᴛʀᴀɴꜱʟᴀᴛɪᴏɴꜱ ᴛᴏᴏᴋ Qᴜɪᴛᴇ ᴛʜᴇ ᴛɪᴍᴇ ᴀɴᴅ ᴇꜰꜰᴏʀᴛ ᴛᴏ ᴍᴀᴋᴇ ꜱᴏ ᴘʟᴇᴀꜱᴇ ᴅᴏɴ’ᴛ ꜱᴛᴇᴀʟ ᴍʏ ᴡᴏʀᴋ! ʙᴇʟɪᴇᴠᴇ ɪᴛ ᴏʀ ɴᴏᴛ, ɪ’ᴠᴇ ʜᴀᴅ ᴘᴇᴏᴘʟᴇ ᴅᴏ ᴛʜɪꜱ ᴛᴏ ᴍᴇ ʙᴇꜰᴏʀᴇ ᴀɴᴅ ɪᴛ ᴡᴀꜱ ɴᴏᴛ ᴀ ɢᴏᴏᴅ ꜰᴇᴇʟɪɴɢ ᴛᴏ ꜱᴀʏ ᴛʜᴇ ʟᴇᴀꜱᴛ.

ʟᴀꜱᴛʟʏ, ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ ᴀʀᴇ ᴛʀᴀɴꜱʟᴀᴛɪᴏɴ ɴᴏᴛᴇꜱ ᴜɴᴅᴇʀ ᴛʜᴇ ᴄᴜᴛ ꜰᴏʀ ᴛʜᴏꜱᴇ ᴡʜᴏ ᴀʀᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀᴇꜱᴛᴇᴅ! ᴀʟꜱᴏ ɪɴᴄʟᴜᴅᴇꜱ ꜱᴏᴍᴇ ᴀᴅᴅɪᴛɪᴏɴᴀʟ ɪɴꜰᴏʀᴍᴀᴛɪᴏɴ ᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏʏꜱ!

ᴇᴅɪᴛ: ʏ’ᴀʟʟ ɪᴅᴋ ᴡʜᴀᴛ’ꜱ ʜᴀᴘᴘᴇɴɪɴɢ ʙᴜᴛ ᴛᴜᴍʙʟʀ ɪꜱ ᴇᴀᴛɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ ᴛʜᴇ ɢᴇɴᴇʀᴀʟ ɴᴏᴛᴇꜱ ꜱᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ ɪᴍᴍᴇᴅɪᴀᴛᴇʟʏ ᴀꜰᴛᴇʀ ᴛʜᴇ ᴄᴜᴛ ᴀɴᴅ ᴍᴀᴋɪɴɢ ᴠᴇʀʏ ᴡᴇɪʀᴅ ᴇᴅɪᴛꜱ. ꜱᴏ ɪꜰ ʏᴏᴜ ꜱᴇᴇ ᴛʜᴀᴛ, ᴊᴜꜱᴛ ᴋɴᴏᴡ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ’ꜱ ɴᴏᴛʜɪɴɢ ɪ ᴄᴀɴ ᴅᴏ. ɪ’ᴠᴇ ʙᴇᴇɴ ᴛʀʏɪɴɢ ᴛᴏ ꜰɪx ᴛʜɪꜱ ꜰᴏʀ ʟɪᴋᴇ 30 ᴍɪɴꜱ ɴᴏᴡ ᴛᴛ

fya’m’ ’s name is derived from the first letter of each member’s first names. but because there was a dupe in the a and the m, they added the ’ behind the respective letters to indicate the duplication

check riruhapi’s post about the note on the schools

the two emblems/logos seen on the top right of fya’m’ ’s image is of their school emblem and group logo respectively. the top one being their school emblem while the bottom is their group logo

the two emblems/logos seen on the top right of fya’m’ ’s image is of their school emblem and group logo respectively. the top one being their school emblem while the bottom is their group logo

Coresawa Maito:

don’t ask me what a work-leader is because i don’t have a clue lol (the original japanese phrase used is actually “part-time job leader)

he is in class 2-1

his favourite food is dagashi (cheap japanese candies and snacks)

his hobby is making money (mood)

what he likes about a cappella: ...isn’t it just fun to do something like this with people? it gives you the vibe of being normal teenagers

others introduce him as the following:

the work-leader at his part-time job in a family restaurant

he wants to get the drivers license for his motorcycle

a word to his group members: “aoppella... if we’re doing this then we’re doing this to win.”

Ayase Mitsuo:

“little devil” is a japanese term used to describe a specific personality. the little devil personality is essentially someone who likes to tease others and toy with people’s hearts by seemingly giving them what they want but in reality, have no intention in doing so. they often like to act all cute to let people’s guard down in thinking that they’re of no harm.

“wicked-hearted” is translated from the japanese term 腹黒 (haraguro) which literally means “black belly.” basically, it’s someone who always likes to tease others and usually has an ulterior motive (usually to tease) when asking people to do something for them. haraguro can sometimes play hand-in-hand with sadism (not always) because the things haraguro people like to ask others to do are usually things against their wishes or things they don’t want to do (which in terms can make them suffer).

he is in class 1-3

his favourite food is skewered chicken (team salt without doubt) <- referring to the add-ons, usually it’s between sauce and salt

his hobby is photography (his dad is a photographer apparently)

what he likes about a cappella: it’s the best chance to appeal my cuteness to the world

others introduce him as the following:

a complete narcissist to the bone who has the world revolving around him

the other member who is responsible for arranging their songs

his emotions are more reliable than anybody else (i’m kind of confused myself on this line so don’t quote me)

a word to his group members: “do your best but only to the point where you won’t stand out more than me please~”

Shigaki Akira:

he is in class 1-4

his favourite food is anything that is recently popular between girls

his hobby is reading (especially romance novels targeted towards female readers)

what he like about a cappella: whenever i sing, all of the girls become super happy for me. but recently, i’m beginning to find joy in singing itself.

others introduce him as the following:

he disrupts the school discipline

super strong at social media (meaning he has a lot of followers)

he has way too many posts on social media that include girls

a word to his group members: “recently, singing with everybody has become so much fun. it may not be such a bad idea to seriously aim for aoppella, just kidding.” (he’s totally not kidding)

Soenji Asaharu:

asaharu’s name means “sunny morning” in japanese where sayo’s name means “rainy night.”

there’s a video posted on aoppella’s official yt channel that involves asaharu explaining the basics of a cappella and breaking down all of the parts.

he’s in class 2-2

his favourite food is traditional japanese meals (especially family dishes)

his hobby is walking his dog (a borzoi) and visiting dog parks on days off

what he likes about a cappella: he’s able to explore the deep topic of “using only voiced to charm people’s hearts” and thinks of a cappella as a deep and complicated subject

others introduce him as the following:

the student council president

the main music arranger for the group

can be very scary occasionally

a word to his group members: “they say that if you slack off even for a single day while doing arts that it will take 3 days to gain back the progress you have made. so, let us not slack off at our basic trainings.”

Nekoyashiki Yui:

yui’s surname, nekoyashiki (猫屋敷) literally means “a house for cats”

the student disciplinary committee is actually quite a common student body in japanese schools. the title sounds scary because i legit couldn’t find any other translation for it but basically what they do is make sure students follow the school rules and code.

he is in class 2-2

his favourite food is onigiri (especially the ones his grandma make)

his hobby is paper craft and watching history dramas (from tv to stage shows, he is a total history nerd) (also i’m pretty sure history drama in this context refers to the samurai and sengoku era shows based on yui’s personality)

what he likes about a cappella: a way to improve one self and to sharpen his skills alongside his friends to create high quality performances

others introduce him as the following:

a grandpa and grandma’s boy

super straight-laced samurai

has a surprisingly cute hobby

a word to his group members: “i don’t work well with half-assed people so give nothing but your best from now on too.”

Shinkai Fukami:

the name “fukami” can be interpreted as “a deep person” (referring to personality) or even translated to “a deep sea.” this is interesting because fukami’s surname, “shinkai” (深海) literally means “a deep sea” in kanji.

total side note but when translations fukami’s profile, i totally got hisoka vibes from him, please tell me i’m not the only one.

he is in class 2-3

his favourite food is chicken

his hobbies are muscle training, jogging, and collecting panda goods

what he likes about a cappella: the atmosphere when singing

others introduce him as the following:

mystery boy

a hidden high-spec (means that he’s secretly very capable and skilled)

the amount of panda stuff he has increased recently

a word to his group members: “thank you for singing with me.”

[jade-marie]

Heyyy. With all this supposed romantic jealousy and like you said ‘dick measuring’ game that Nick and Rio are playing, I think about the scene in the car after Beth got Rio arrested and Nick got him out. Rio said: “so what do you want to do about [Beth?] and Nick said “not what you want to do.” This scene makes it seem like they have a plan that they’re BOTH in on to deal with Beth. I’m at first I thought they were playing good cop/bad cop (I still think they are) but now Rio is clearly uncomfortable with Nick’s plan. What the fuck is going on because I am confused?

Also do you think the dynamic between Nick and Rio will become clearer by the finale? They seem to have a very complex relationship and wow, who would have thought utilising one of your best and most underused character that LITERALLY DRIVES THE WHOLE MAIN PLOT would make the show interesting again 🤔

Hi, doll! Ok, you’re gonna have to bear with me because my brain is messy at the best of times and I’ve had a non stop headache since yesterday morning, so making sense of my thoughts is hella difficult right now lol. I’m just gonna break this up into sections to help me keep track of everything!

P.s. I’m sorry this got long 🥴

Rio and Nick’s dynamic

So, from what we’ve seen so far, Nick is extremely narcissistic, manipulative, and selfish. In my opinion, he doesn’t really seem to have a very strong sense of self or morality, he just becomes whoever he needs to, in order to achieve the goal at hand. Whether it’s kissing ass at the golf club, playing politics, or having Rio thrown in jail/beaten with a stool. He’s always thinking about the long game, always about the bigger picture, he likes to use every situation/person to his advantage. He seems to have some sort of resentment and/or jealousy towards Rio and that comes out a lot in his desire to take from Rio. He took his dreams of being a boxing a boxer, his freedom, trivial stuff like the burger and the basketball. I also think he wants to take Beth but they’ve not made it clear in what capacity he wants to take her. Whether it’s because he’s clocked that Rio has/had genuine feelings for her, or because he thinks Beth is a business asset. Either way, he sees that Beth is a sore spot and he’s going to keep pushing as a way to exert power and feel like a man.

Rio, on the other hand, likes to see immediate results, and he can be pretty impulsive. He’s also very self-assured, he is who he is and he doesn’t change that for anyone. He literally has a giant tattoo across his throat which he displays proudly because he doesn’t care how anyone else sees him. But he has a natural charm and charisma that he can use when he needs it, without having to become a completely different person. I think he’s a very emotional person, regardless of how much he tries to hide it, which can make him pretty reactive to situations – see: basically every interaction with Beth.

They’re wildly different people and this would cause conflict in itself because they immediately want to handle situations differently, like with Annie being kidnapped. The girls owed him money, Rio was mad about it, and he wanted an immediate resolution to that problem, whereas Nick didn’t care so much about the short-term financial issues, in comparison to the long-term benefit to him of keeping Beth onside. Within their organisation, the structure is still kinda murky because he doesn’t seem to be the boss, but then he does and ehhh. Supposedly Rio handles all the illicit stuff and then Nick pushes through city contracts to shell corporations he owns and also makes money from that, as well as keeping Rio out of jail. The actual power imbalance between them still irks me because Nick is literally a councilman. He has no real clout. There’s no reason for him to have such a hold over Rio, especially when Rio knows exactly what Nick is and he also knows that Nick wouldn’t have dick without him. But I digress.

The conversation in the car

I definitely think that conversation is very relevant to what’s happening with Beth right now. In that moment, I think Rio wanted revenge, plain and simple but he was also thinking long term. I don’t think he was planning on going out to kill her, but that’s where Nick’s mind went because he severely underestimates how much of a “big picture guy” Rio can be hence telling Rio, “not what you want to do”. Presumably, there would’ve been a discussion between them off screen where Nick decided exactly what was going to happen and how they were going to use her. My guess is that going forward they were basically going to play a game of ‘good cop bad cop’. Nick offers himself up as the friendly local councilman, shows concern for Beth, helps her etc, while Rio is more menacing than ever. Rio is reluctantly going along with this plan because of the stupid power imbalance, but I think he’s got something up his sleeve. I think the discomfort we’re seeing from Rio stems from their difference in opinion on how to handle Beth, Rio chafing under Nick’s control and also the resentment Rio holds because of Nick’s constant routine of taking what’s his. I kinda spoke about it in this post.

Last time Beth got Rio arrested, he shot Dean - he’s not shy when it comes to payback. Typically, he’s always quite reactive to situations and that can (has) come to bite him in the ass but he knows this. He was there. He knows that every time he pushes Beth, she pushes back with equal force, so he needs to immobilise her. While Nick just wants to use Beth to benefit himself financially, by using her to push through contracts for shell corporations etc, I think Rio wanted to kill two birds with one stone. He can use Beth as a shield for his business and make money off her, then later on, I think he probably wants to use her to get rid of Nick and potentially let Beth go down with him as payback for her betrayal (at least, I think that was his original plan but he may soften to her and end up forming an alliance once Nick is out of the picture).

Romantic Jealousy?

As for the jealousy, it’s still not the word I’d choose to describe Rio. It probably fits, to a degree, but I always associate it with pettiness and wanting stuff you don’t have - i.e. Nick. With Rio, it feels more possessive over what he already has because he knows Nick wants to take it. This now extends to Beth because she was and is his, at least in a business sense. I don’t think he’s ever been particularly jealous of her in their personal relationship because neither of them ever truly gave into whatever it was. In business, she worked for him, she answered to him, if she needed help – she came to him, and he’s created that dynamic with Beth by keeping her isolated from his wider organisation. He was effectively trying to mentor her and make her in his image. Now, Nick comes along and suddenly Beth’s going to Nick for help, Beth’s doing what Nick says, and she’s looking to Nick as a mentor. So, once again, Nick is taking what belongs to Rio. That’s why I think he reacted the way he did in the strip club. He realised that he was about to lose to Nick again, and he wasn’t willing to let that happen, so he pulled out the ol’ carrot and stick. He took her money away as a punishment, made her think on her feet, and then rewarded her for a job well done. He showed her that she doesn’t need Nick because then Nick has no hold over her. He’s showing Beth that she can get shit done on her own, but also reminding her that he essentially made her what she is. He taught her. He believed in her. He asked her what she gained from being on the city council and doing what Nick tells her, knowing full well she gets fuck all out of it because he knows Nick. Then he gave her a reward to make ‘team Rio’ all the more appealing. Yes, there could well be some romantic feelings under that but I don’t think that’s what’s driving Rio right now. I think this is firmly about him and Nick, while Beth has become another toy for them to fight over.

[bandsanitizer]

okay okay but like high and place in me as complementary songs for so many reasons.

starting off with the epistolary-adjacent feel. like they aren’t letters but there’s this aspect to their sound that gives this pre-recorded message imagery to the song. that luke was aiming for a voice mail vibe with place in me which he absolutely nailed. then with high there’s that vinyl record crackle going on that conveys this sense of playing something recorded. then added to the lyrics in both songs being written towards a certain person but progressing in a way that also conveys time passing.

notably verse one of high says “today” and “waking up” then the chorus hits and there the use of “mornings” in verse two before back into the chorus and repetition is used a lot throughout the song. similarly, place in me uses a bit of repetition particularly with the first two verses/stanzas with “hold on” and “with eyes wide open” into the chorus with “call me in the morning” (which another parallel is luke’s use of mornings/waking up in both songs) and then the third/middle verse “how many chances does it take?”

and then speaking of the that verse there’s the line “no words left to play on” in place in me which when you look at high’s lyrics plus the music&production, there’s a bit of word play going on in the chorus with high/highly and lie/like, along with the song getting higher when “high” is sung.

so considering the continuity of place in me coming after high, and high being something narcissistic—with recognition of mistakes (“I need to stop letting me down”) there’s a lack of apology and it’s pretty arrogant—compared to place in me where there’s recognition of the mistakes in a different form along with apology (“I’m sorry that I let you down”). plus the lyrics in place in me: “now with my eyes wide open / I’m nothing but a fake” if we consider high to be this post break-up bordering angry/denial “I know I did something wrong but I just want you back” then place in me is along the lines of the grief of post break-up that still focuses on mistakes but “I know I did something wrong but I’m afraid to lose you” with a key difference being high assumes a state of affection of liking of “this is you losing me” while place in me with the ending is like “I don’t know how to be without you. please don’t go”

and I think about this in terms of growth. that these could easily not be break-up songs and more of “we got into a really bad argument” songs. and I think about what it implies to go from this state of feeling like you changed so that makes you almost deserving of forgiveness? this “well now i’m just disappointing myself” whereas place in me is focused outwards on “oh i hurt you.” and particularly with “i never meant” repeated in the opening of the verses it’s this sense of “oh I hurt you. I didn’t intend to, but I still did. and then I reacted poorly.” that the poor reaction (“I’m so apathetic”) could even be a reference to high itself? and place in me is recognizing the shit apology that was and offering this in place. that it’s still equally along the lines of some level of maybe they don’t deserve this so why ask? but it’s way less self-centric about it and even though it is, it’s still something mroe genuine. more thoughtful. less narcissistic and more of “I know I’m really caught up in my mistakes right now and I’m sorry but I’m trying so please stay”

and I guess for a running theme of wfttwtaf being what luke describes in slip away where there’s fears of them leaving and this need for him to run away, it’s like place in me is that inbetween. it’s him catching himself in the midst of walking away from his mistakes bc “what can I do? how could I possible change?” and as the person the songs are directed to leave in this “please stay. please be patient with me” and then go into bloodline and the whole “your heart can’t keep a vacancy for me / only you know how long you’ve got to go” where overall it’s grappling with this understanding that he probably couldn’t handle another person leaving but also doesn’t know if he’s worth sticking around for/deserving of the patience that sticking around takes.

so like with “when facing the things we turn away from” it’s facing the mistakes instead of running away—for both people in the relationship and analyzing where to go from there, which is almost essentially what comedown is. it’s this eventual give into the fact that you cant keep running and the acceptance of however things go from here is how it is meant to go. and back to place in me and high, place in me is an interesting comparison in how much those songs do and don’t differ. that high is self-centered and naracissitic while place in me is within a similar realm of something selfish but not how high is. and both struggle with this idea of “I made mistakes but I don’t want you to leave so how do I get you to stay?”

alternative idea is going from high’s “I called to tell you that I’m changing” but they don’t answer and the voicemail aka place in me is left but by the time he’s finished with the voicemail it’s back to the angry/bitter sort of pain that pulls out the feeling of “but you don’t have enough respect to see me try”

[starring-movies]

The Haunting of Bly Manor: Episode Analysis

*SPOILERS*

Episode 3 - The Two Faces, Part One

Episode 3 begins by starting to help us to fill in the backstory of who Peter Quint and Rebecca Jessel were. The episode starts one year ago and we’re first introduced to Peter as he stares at his reflection in the window of an expensive men’s clothing shop, Kensington Tailors, where he is picking up a shirt for his boss, Henry Wingrave. From this very first shot of Peter, it’s immediately established that he’s ambitious (as he’s imagining himself in Henry’s position, wearing suits from the expensive shop that Henry gets his clothes from), but also that he’s narcissistic.

The song ‘Tainted Love’ by Soft Cell plays during this scene. The lyrics that we here are:

“Sometimes I feel I’ve got to,

Run away I’ve got to,

Get away,

From the pain you drive into the heart of me,

The love we share,

Seems to go nowhere,

And I’ve lost my light,

For I toss and turn I can’t sleep at night,

Once I ran to you (I ran),

Now, I’ll run from you,

This tainted love you’ve given,

I give you all a boy could give you,

Take my tears and that’s not nearly all,

Tainted love”

The lyrics of the song that we hear foreshadows Peter and Rebecca’s sad and toxic relationship that will come. “Tainted love” is definitely an appropriate phrase to describe Peter and Rebecca’s relationship. Where Rebecca once “ran to [Peter]”, she now wants to “run from [him]” after he betrayed her trust - Peter drowned Rebecca and so now she can’t escape and just like the singer of the song she is suffering from “the pain you drive into the heart of me”.

When we’re first introduced to Rebecca we see her looking at her reflection in a compact mirror, as she waits in Henry’s waiting room to have her interview for the au pair job. Through this first shot of Rebecca we can see that her beauty is important to her and that she wants to make a good impression. This makes Peter’s killing of her even more tragic as she holds her beauty as important to her, so he did not only take her life from her but also her body.

While driving up to the manor, as the car drives down the drive, in the foreground of the shot we see a white rose with thorns on it. This rose alludes to Peter and Rebecca’s relationship, just as the song ‘Tainted Love’ did. On the outside their love looks like it will be beautiful and pure, but it will also cause pain. In a similar vein, the rose also portrays Peter as a character - beautiful on the outside but someone who will hurt you if you get too close.

On her arrival at Bly Manor, Rebecca tells Flora and Miles that she’s not “practically perfect” like their “very own Mary Poppins”, but rather that she is “perfectly splendid”. From this we learn that the reason why Flora was describing everything as being “perfectly splendid” in Episode 1 (and subsequently), is because of this first meeting with Rebecca.

Flora’s use of the phrase shows us how much she loved Rebecca and how much of an impact Rebecca had on her as a new mother figure of sorts. This is one of the things that makes Rebecca’s death so sad, because Flora had such a bond with her new motherly figure and she was the unfortunate one who first found Rebecca dead in the lake - so by using the phrase that Rebecca used, Flora is able to keep a bit of her with her all the time.

A small detail to notice; is that the lighter that Peter uses and lets Miles play with, is the lighter that Luke, also played by Oliver Jackson-Cohen, uses in The Haunting of Hill House.

After bringing the flowers for Flora/Rebecca, Peter explains to Miles that you have to find out which ‘key’ (thing to please a person) is the right fit, in order to open the door to them. This is not only the explanation for why Miles said that he was trying to find Father Stack’s ‘key’ in episode 2, but it is also a reference to the theme of keys in The Haunting of Hill House.

In Hill House the members of the family were trying to look for the right key to open the door to The Red Room, but it is later revealed that the individual themself is the key to the door, and that the room puts on different ‘faces’ to placate its current inhabitant. In the same way as The Red Room, Peter employs different tactics (flowers for Rebecca; alcohol, flattery and money for Henry Wingrave) in order to win favour from them and he consumes Rebecca just like how The Red Room was slowly consuming whoever was inhabiting it.

While Owen, Hannah, Jamie, Dani and the children are staying up in case Peter returns, Dani and Jamie have a conversation about possession and love. Jamie begins the conversation by again ‘testing the water’ with Dani, as she asks her if she wished that she was curled up with Owen instead of Hannah. In Episode 2 Jamie questioned Owen to find out if he was interested in Dani (which he wasn’t); and now Jamie is similarly trying to find out if Dani has any interest in Owen. Jamie presumably does this because if she finds out that Dani is interested in Owen, then she thinks that she will have no chance of pursuing her and might as well give up before she even tries.

The conversation moves on to “love and possession” and Dani tells Jamie “I don’t think that should be possible. I mean, they’re opposites really, love and ownership”. This one little thing that Dani says to Jamie foreshadows the fate of their relationship. When Dani and Jamie leave Bly Manor to go and live in Vermont and start a proper relationship together, they both started the relationship knowing that they were never a possession belonging to the other. Since The Lady of the Lake took some possession of Dani, her and Jamie always knew that they were on borrowed time and whether they wanted to admit it or not, that they’d have to let each other go at some point.

In Episode 9 when Jamie goes back to Bly and finds Dani’s body in the lake, she even invites Dani into her and begs for her to “take me with you”. However, Older Jamie says that “Dani wouldn’t, Dani would never”, because Dani knows the difference between love and possession and she could never allow Jamie to invite her in because that’s not love.

This also strikes a stark contrast between Dani and Peter’s love. Dani’s love with JAmie was a real and pure love, as she wouldn’t allow Jamie to be possessed by her. However Peter’s love with Rebecca was a possessive love, as he abused the trust that Rebecca gave him and drowned her body so that she would also become a ghost and be with him.

Hannah then wakes up and says that the children really ought to be in bed, and when Miles wakes up he says that he “had a bad dream” where he “hurt” Hannah. This “bad dream” isn’t a dream but it’s Miles vaguely remembering Peter pushing Hannah down the well, when Peter was in possession over Miles’ body. This tells us that the owner of the body does have some partial recollection of what the possessor was doing with their body.

When Dani goes to bed, the severed hand that she sees on her bed after spotting Eddie’s glasses on her bedside table is not just any hand, but it’s Eddie’s (we can see it’s his hand from the watch and blood we see on his hand in Episode 4). Eddie’s severed hand is also an indication that Dani’s feelings towards Jamie are getting stronger, because as her feelings for Jamie get stronger, so does her guilt over Eddie’s death and coming to terms with her sexuality.

When Dani comes downstairs the next morning, we get a shot of her watching over Jamie as realises that stayed on the sofa in the manor for the night. If we view Dani’s hand on Jamie’s shoulder (at the very end of Episode 9) as Dani watching over Jamie in some sort of way, then this moment is another sweet (but sad) foreshadowing of the quiet and caring watchfulness that Dani will give Jamie for the rest of her life.

Back in the past timeline, Flora gifts Rebecca the doll that she said she would make for her. Rebecca had previously told Flora that “I like all the colours” and so Flora said that she’d make her a doll with “all the colours”. When giving Rebecca the doll, Flora tells Rebecca that “Miles says that if you mix all the colours in the world together, you get black”. It may be a stretch, but as the dolls have a very intertwined relationship with the people they are made for, this might be a forewarning of Rebecca’s own fate.

Before coming to Bly, Rebecca had everything going for her and her future was incredibly bright, just as Hannah says in Episode 4, “she was brilliant, she was beautiful”. However, after meeting Peter Quint, her future becomes dark after he ruins any chance at a good future that she once had after he drowns her. So, in the same way as “you get black” from mixing all the vibrant colours in the world, Rebecca’s future also becomes black when she once had such a bright future.

Retuning to the present, Miles and Flora gather everyone to come and watch their ‘story time’, which Owen tells Dani is “like therapy for them” and to make sure Flora (and presumably Miles also) has “processed whatever she’s been chewing on”. Miles tells the story of a puppet named Poppet, who we can assume from the story itself and Miles’ costume/makeup, is a pseudonym for Miles himself.

In the story, Miles tells his audience how Poppet’s creator, Claude (who we can assume is Peter), got angry at the puppet for forgetting who his maker was and forgetting that he had strings. This could be Miles processing Peter’s controlling nature as the ‘puppet master’ over Miles, who “pulled on their strings” (takes control of Miles’ body) whenever he pleases, which “hurt[s]” him.

Finally, the episode ends with Owen and Jamie going home after Owen’s neighbour, Mr McQueeny, rings to tell him that his mother has died. Dani walks Jamie to her car and tells her that she’s “so glad you stayed”, a small compliment as a way for her to ease-in to try to tell Jamie how she feels about her. But Dani telling Jamie that she’s “so glad” is only an insignificant drop in the ocean of the emotions that she’s feeling.

Finding that her words aren’t a sufficient enough way for her to articulate her feelings, without a word Dani tentatively reaches out to hold Jamie’s hand, breaking the physical barrier between them which has not yet been broken - and more than likely a barrier that Dani hasn’t ventured to cross with anyone since Eddie’s, never mind doing so for the first time of her acting on her sexuality. With only a simple touch and a heartfelt look, Dani is able to convey more of her feelings than she ever would have if she’d tried to use words to explain how she felt.

After Jamie leaves, Dani sees Eddie’s spectre once again. Except for perhaps the severed hand, which isn’t quite the same as the spectre, the spectre of Eddie that we see in this scene is the most aggressive vision of Dani’s Eddie-related-guilt that we’ve seen.

Firstly, Eddie’s spectre is standing right in front of Dani, confronting her directly, whereas previously Dani had only seen him in the reflections of mirrors or windows - usually she can try to reduce seeing the spectre by covering up mirror, but now he’s apppearing right in front of her, unavoidable and inescapable.

Secondly, the spectre is violently pulled back towards the manor, again this is the first time that we’ve ever seen Eddie’s spectre move - when we see his image in any reflections, he is always standing still.

Thirdly, Dani actually gives out a loud scream at seeing Eddie spectre. She often does give a shocked gasp or a small yelp when she sees him but she has never screamed like this, so we can see that she is even more shocked than usual by his appearance.

The aggressiveness of Eddie’s spectre, the difference in the way that he appears to Dani and the fact that he appears after she has just taken a leap and outwardly showed her romantic interest in Jamie - which is likely to be the first time that she’s ever acted on her sexuality, except for when she broke off her engagement which didn’t end well - confirms to us that his appearances have been related to the guilt over his death and the shame that she feels about her sexuality, which she believes is what led to his death.

You can read my previous The Haunting of Bly Manor posts here:-

Episode 1 - The Great Good Place

Episode 2 - The Pupil

Episode 4 - The Way It Came

Episode 5 - The Altar of the Dead

Episode 6 - The Jolly Corner

——————————————————————————