#i disagree very strongly but also like whatever man

[moonlitlex]

ok. final thoughts on doctor who season 14 (2024) (because maybe if i say all of this i will finally stop thinking about how much i hate this season)

short version: i'm this season's biggest hater. if this season has a million haters im one of them. if this season has 1000 haters i'm still one of them. if this season has one hater it's me. if this season has no haters it means i have left this world. if the world is against this season i am with the world

long & nuanced version (under the cut)

i'm just really, really, really disappointed. i've always said that good writing can redeem any project, and it kind of feels like they just took it in the exact opposite direction this time. there's so much that went wrong and like 99% of it is down to the writing. i did a rant on my youtube channel (which i'm not gonna link here because i want to keep these accounts separate) and it was like an hour long so i'm not gonna go into detail but i'll just go over my main issues with this season

fifteen lacks depth. i think he's a very generic doctor lacking his own eccentricities. after the first season the doctor usually has quite a distinct personality, but i don't think we got that with fifteen. just compare the kind of characterization fifteen has at this point to like... eleven in his first season. he was a lot more fleshed out. we got to see multiple facets of his personality. it seems like they tried this with fifteen but everything we got to see ended up being really surface level. the susan thing just kind of happens. the rogue thing just kind of happens. he faces racism and he's just kind of incredulous and then the episode ends. it's not explored. the show just moves on to the next thing and we don't get to see how he deals with it.

ruby lacks depth. similarly, i think ruby is a very generic companion. she's a young woman from present day london which isn't in and of itself a bad thing but it's not backed up by much. like, what do we actually know about ruby? she's adopted? she was left on a church doorstep by her biomom? she loves her mom but is still disappointed she can't find her bio parents? these are all plot relevant things. what do we know about her outside of the stuff that is necessary for the plot? job? friends? life before the doctor? there are a few tiny glimpses, but not enough to make her a developed character.

fifteen and ruby's relationship is boring. they never fight. they never disagree. they never argue. they're never angry with each other. they never challenge each other on anything. they're shown to have this amazing best-friend rapport but it's never developed or fleshed out. it just kind of happens. one second they're meeting and the next second they're bffs who never disagree about anything and are always on the same page. it's just not an interesting dynamic.

i found ten and donna to be a very compelling dynamic but that's because they actually have a real friendship and have to deal with conflict and challenges and disagreements. times when the doctor and companion challenge each other are interesting. this is a feature of some really beloved doctor who stories for a reason. dalek wouldn't be so well loved if rose just agreed with nine the entire time. the conflict makes the story more compelling. meanwhile ruby can't even muster an ounce of discontentment with fifteen for the entire season.

season finale payoffs were not compelling and are in my opinion a result of prioritizing shock and surprise and social media buzz at time of release over telling an interesting story.

sutekh is not automatically a compelling villain and the way that arc is written is so... bland. he appears and kills everyone and the next episode they just hit the reset button. fine, doctor who has done this before, but there was interesting character writing back then to distract you from the baffling story decisions.

the season 3 finale had flying jesus ten but it also had interesting character dynamics. this one had sutekh defeated in the most confusing way possible (if he got his power from the time vortex why is it killing him now....) but there's barely anything going on in the character department. it's rtd so i expected hamfisted deus ex machinas, but i didn't expect the lack of care on the character front.

the susan thing was just... it came out of nowhere, didn't really make much sense, and then it immediately disappeared. the doctor thinking it's his susan was just confusing for me and it didn't land. like why would susan.... do that? why would she be basically following him around the universe by weaving herself into the scenery everywhere he landed? this is never even addressed. they just get the tardis anagram and he immediately jumps to it being his susan and you're not really sure why he's so convinced and it's never really explained.

ruby's mom being a normal woman literally just doesn't make any sense. it's never explained. "we thought she was really important" doesn't just do all the inexplicable things. why and how is ruby able to make it snow if her mom is just a normal person? why does the song in his soul scare maestro so much? why is sutekh of all people unable to figure out who her mother is? the reveal is played as a criticism of the audience for building up ruby's mom to be this huge mystery, but it wasn't the audience doing this - it was the writers. these are the clues they laid out and they're never explained. "doctor who is more fantastical now" also doesn't make any sense. fantasy has rules too. you can't just do whatever you want. the world still has to be internally consistent. the reveal by itself is a nice moment but it's just disappointing that they decided to laugh at the audience for taking their show seriously.

i've seen a lot of people compare ruby's mom thing with clara's impossible girl thing. i would like to point out 2 differences that make clara's impossible girl arc superior. first - clara's impossible girl arc never tries to weasel its way out of the mystery. the point is that who clara is is more important than the mystery surrounding her. ruby's mom mystery tries to erase the mystery entirely. second - clara's impossible girl arc is resolved the way it is because of clara. clara is a person who takes an action because of who she is. it shows courage and selflessness and care for her friend. ruby's mom mystery is solved by ruby and the doctor finding a database where they can match ruby's dna to her mom's. it doesn't say anything about her character. her character is irrelevant to the resolution.

i've also seen it compared to the hybrid thing from season 9, but with the hybrid there was never anything unexplainable happening in the first place so "it was just the characters obsessing about it all along" makes sense because it literally is just the characters bringing up the hybrid all the time.

the individual episodes are not... good. here are my opinions on each of them

church on ruby road - ok introduction, weird pacing, the goblin song was just tonally off compared to the rest of the episode

space babies - genuinely makes the doctor seem like a sadistic asshole at times like he keeps laughing at the literal babies for being scared of the monster and this is played for laughs (???), boogeyman reveal thing literally came out of nowhere there was no setup and it made no sense and was never really explained, a lot of tonal whiplash in this episode, poor exposition choices at the start

devils chord - maestro was a fun performance but nothing else about this episode is interesting, there are no beatles, the 4th wall breaks are tonally inconsistent with the rest of the season

boom - ruby gets sidelined but making ncuti act without being able to move any of his body slaps as a concept and while it was too on the nose, the thematic messaging aspects of this episode are coherent and don't talk down to the audience, some side characters get to be relevant to the story and moderately developed (mundy, splice, the dad), splice's actor was far too old to be delivering those lines and it didn't land well, the dad ai defeating the ambulance ai was a bit too much but was in line with the power of love and faith theme so i'm conflicted on how i feel about that

73 yards - did nothing right. there are a few minutes of good welsh folk horror at the start before that aspect of the story is undermined by those people in the pub. ruby gets no character development. the horror atmosphere is abandoned at the start and the horror concept is abandoned entirely partway through the story in favour of the political stuff with roger ap gwilliam, which is kind of resolved in a really anticlimactic scene which doesn't matter anyway because everything just gets undone at the end of the episode. there are no answers.

it's not a good horror story because 90% of it isn't horror. it's not a good political drama because nothing happens. it's not a good character study because we don't get to know anything about ruby's character. i genuinely think rtd has forgotten the kind of stuff he's written because he called this the best thing he's ever written and it's literally not even in the top 10 doctor who episodes he's ever written. like midnight is right there. the waters of mars is RIGHT THERE. this episode is all setup and no payoff.

also - i might just be autistic, but the "can i pay with my phone" joke doesn't land because not everyone can actually accept digital payments yet! it's like... an extremely normal question to ask. i literally ask all the time unless i see an "apple pay accepted" sign because sometimes the answer is "no, we only take cash or card". i know it was supposed to be something about how ruby thinks she's in the past or welsh people getting wrongly stereotyped for being backward but maybe rtd should've come up with a line that would actually be offensive and not just a completely normal thing to ask in 2024.

dot and bubble - this is probably my most controversial take. i hate this episode. i think it's a poorly written bad episode. and furthermore i think only people who are disconnected from all discussion around racism think it's got genuinely good commentary. for MOST of this episode, it's a "kids be on they damn phones" thing. like, genuinely. lindy can't even WALK without her phone. there's nothing in the episode to tip us as the audience off to the idea that the dots hate them because they're racist. everything in the episode is pointing at "the dots hate them because they're stupid as fuck because they're always on that damn phone".

lindy at first seems like a flawed but sympathetic character, and this could genuinely have worked with the racism commentary. if it's about them being racist cause they're sooooooo fucking stupid, maybe don't have lindy be an irredeemable extremely racist character who kills someone. maybe she's repeating all the rhetoric she's heard her entire life without ever thinking about it. maybe trying to convince her racist friends to give the doctor a chance gets her socially isolated. maybe it's about echo chambers and social bubbles. maybe lindy as an individual has no malicious intent either way but she still behaves in a racist way and still ends up siding with the racists because they're her friends and she wants to fit in and be part of the in group and trying to not be racist because the doctor seemed kinda nice got her socially ostracized so she perpetuates racism regardless. but none of this is what happens. this is a reading you can get out of it if you're really dedicated to reading into a story written by a guy who doesn't give a shit about racism.

lindy and all her friends are stupid and bad and racist and the doctor is still desperate to save them for some fucking reason and he doesn't even get to SAY anything to them, he just laughs incredulously and that's his entire reaction. the commentary in this episode is baby's first lesson on racism. it's a message of "racism is bad and stupid" tacked onto an episode with a message of "being on your phone is bad and stupid".

it's shallow. it has nothing to say. it's very clearly a story about racism written by a white man who has never had to even think about racism. the entire writer's room for this season was white as well. rtd didn't even think he should maybe consider giving the racism episode to a black writer. he just wrote a full episode where the message is "racism is bad you guys" and patted himself on the back for his social commentary. i think it's embarrassing that people praise this episode for opening their eyes to racism in the real world and helping them understand it better. literally all that tells me is they've been closing their eyes and covering their ears every time a person of colour talks about racism. like black fans have literally been talking about racism in doctor who for decades and clearly none of you listened to any of them because you're here watching an episode with an "omg racism is bad guys" message going "wow, i never though about it like that!" that's because you're an asshole.

"wow i didn't even notice that everyone in this episode is white!" that's because that's not out of the ordinary for doctor who. or for television in general. this isn't revolutionary commentary. it's an indictment of the season 14 writer's room that they thought they could write this episode without even taking a look around their own writer's room and thinking "huh, everyone here is white too. maybe we should try to change that." this show has been predominantly white for MOST of its history. i'm a huge critic of the chibnall era but at least that guy hired poc to write for the show. at least the bad racism commentary in rosa (which was, to remind you, "the future racist is wrong. racism is bad. also the entire civil rights movement was basically a happy accident") was written by a black woman. at least the weird british empire glorifying shit in the partition episode was written by an indian man (to be clear, stuff written by poc also deserves to be criticized. my point is just that at least chibnall had the basic common sense to hire people who knew more than him to write these stories). rtd didn't even consider this. not even a cowriter.

it's just embarrassing to watch white fans falling over themselves analyzing how this episode is soooo deep when it's simply not. racism isn't silly goofy stupid. it's dangerous. it gets people killed every day. it's even more ridiculous that the racism is addressed in the future episode but not anywhere else! fifteen goes to 60s england and... nothing. he goes to 1800s england and nothing. sure, future people are racist. whatever. are we seriously sanitizing the real, actual, real life racist past of britain? and then patting ourselves on the back for it? and ricky september being considered not racist? like, reading a book doesn't suddenly make you not racist. racist people aren't necessarily idiots. plenty of highly educated people are racist. making ricky explicitly racist while also a clearly smart character would have added nuance to this episode, but rtd didn't do that. watching a black man beg and plead with rich racist white kids to please let him save their lives is just... ridiculous.

there are countless (and i do mean countless) works by actual people of colour that discuss racism in a far more nuanced way. that go beyond "racism is bad and racist people are stupid". there are specifically black british shows you can watch that actually address racism and have real commentary on it outside of what you would expect a toddler who has just learnt about prejudice to say. shows that aren't about coddling while people. watch shows made by and for people who aren't white. read books written by and for people who aren't white. and don't just watch and read this stuff to "educate yourself" on other people's experiences. watch it because it's art. because it's entertaining or funny or interesting or dramatic, just like stories that are about white people are allowed to be. and stop praising an episode with a racism is bad message for being good racism commentary. seriously. we already know racism is bad. this is embarrassing for you.

dot and bubble was a "kids be on they damn phones episode" with "racism is so bad guys" tacked onto it and white fans fell over themselves explaining how it opened their eyes and it was so deep and meaningful and powerful and it was none of those things. it was bland and shallow and honestly really boring they spend WAY too long hitting us over the head with how the kids are so stupid cause they're on their damn phones. you should be embarrassed. if this episode was the first thing that made me realize racism exists and is bad you couldn't waterboard that out of me. grow up.

rogue - rogue was an underdeveloped jack harkness ripoff, there's no development of the relationship between him and the doctor, ruby got nothing to do, the proposal came out of nowhere, the chuldurs were an interesting concept but they literally didn't even do any of the larping they were there for apart from the one who was lady emily. murder is not a prominent part of bridgerton or similar regency era romances that they were supposedly there to cosplay

legend of ruby sunday - this episode is literally 99% exposition. like i'm not joking. there's exposition and exposition and exposition for the whole episode and at the end sutekh appears and kills everyone. also "i will kill everyone" is like. not a compelling motivation. doctor who is full of guys who want to kill everyone. there's nothing making sutekh particularly scary or compelling apart from the fact that he thanos snapped the whole universe and that's also not particularly scary or compelling because he spares the main characters AND because you know they're gonna hit the comic book reset button next episode. sutekh being attached to the tardis since pyramids of mars is unconvincing personally (it would've made more sense if it was since wild blue yonder)

empire of death - ??????? ruby's mom is just a normal woman. they leash sutekh like a dog and drag him through the time vortex which kills him for some reason and also hits reset on his kill switch for the whole universe and that just fixes everything. ruby calls her biomom her real mom instead of carla which just really rubbed me the wrong way. she exits the tardis to stay with her family and it's... fine. you never see why ruby and the doctor were attached to each other so them saying goodbye doesn't hit home. nothing happens and then suddenly everything happens. the fact that the reveal is unconvincing makes the whole thing worse.

conclusion: i think rtd ran out of ideas for doctor who. i think he shouldn't have come back. i think the 60th specials were season 4 fanfiction. i think they should've given the showrunner position to a different writer entirely. i think 8 episodes is far too short for a doctor who season (flux being an exception because it was one ongoing story). i think the bigger budget and better production value can't save a show with poor writing. i think gatwa and gibson are acting their hearts out and i wish they had better material because i really like both of them in these roles. i'm also kind of sick of murray gold's music at this point. he won't let emotional moments just sit and it's really annoying how every time anything happens there's a swell of music. i think rtd should give up on racism commentary and just hire someone else who can do it justice if he really wants it to be in his show. i think rtd should shift focus back to the characters and their interpersonal relationships because that's what he's good at and his plot resolutions have always been underwhelming deus ex machinas. i think they should give this show more episodes. i think they should change the broadcasting times to be a better slot in the uk and the episode should go up on streaming at the same time or after it airs. this season has little glimpses of potential (some of boom, first few minutes of 73 yards, episode concepts in general are quite interesting, more fantasy in doctor who is a fun concept) but squanders all of it with flat characters. i started dreading watching the next episode after a while because i kept hoping it would be good and then i would hate it.

but i still care too much about doctor who to not watch the show so i guess i'll be here this time next year picking season 15 apart. woo.

[thedreadvampy]

I mean sure, I can understand this perspective, but I'm not sure whether most people feel less shaken to be thrust into conversations about "self-unaliving" than conversations about "suicide"

and I for one as a survivor would much rather unexpectedly encounter somebody talking about "rape" than somebody talking about how funny it is to have sex with somebody when they don't want to, a normal thing that doesn't need to be named because it's So Normal.

which is to say. this is a post about words. the words are not the distressing thing about the discussion. the distressing thing is the distressing thing about the discussion. sugarcoating, dodging or renaming the distressing thing doesn't make it less distressing but it DOES often make it harder to have a frank discussion about it or address it in serious terms.

[pinch of salt: solid probability from their blog that this person is a Literal 14 Year Old and the perspective from 30 and 14 are very different. I do stand by all the points I'm making but I think this conversation lands a lot different for people at different life stages - there is something to be said for the general issue that the internet has flattened social groups to the degree that I as a 30 year old can make a post to my audience of largely adult millennials that immediately enters the same conversational space as people half my age and still in school. that seems. ungreat. as the primary way we engage in conversation. but I don't have solutions to offer.]

you gotta be able to say "die"

you gotta be able to say "suicide"

you gotta be able to talk about "sex"

they're uncomfortable topics, YEAH for SURE

because LIFE is uncomfortable. Death and suicide and sex and pain are straight up going to happen. not having words for the way it discomforts you doesn't make it more comfortable, it just makes you less able to reach out about it.

even more vital, you gotta be able to say words like "rape", "abuse", "queer" or "racist". cause we fought fucking hard to name those experiences. to identify "rape" as distinct from "sex" and "racism" as distinct from "acceptable behaviour" and "queer" as distinct from "invert"

like the function of communication is not to minimise immediate discomfort. we gotta be able to talk about stuff that's hard or sucks or causes difficult conversations.

[katyspersonal]

Hi there, I hope you don’t mind the random question but in your mind which fanbase would you say is worse, Elden Ring or Bloodborne in terms of annoying fans. I used to think Bloodborne fans could be bad but holy shit ER fans are something else when it comes to lore discussions. As someone who is pretty active in lore talk with both games do you find one side to be more exhausting to deal with than the other? Obviously feel free not to answer this if you think it might start drama

Honestly? I can't hate Bloodborne fandom enough.

Bloodborne was my first Fromsoft game and one keeping me hostage in terms of fixation for over three years, like I said! And yes, it has incredibly bad, toxic people in it - Maria fans who kept slandering Gehrman despite all the info against their takes, honestly believed there is anything problematic with Gehrmaria, had mental breakdown if anyone dared to see Maria as bi or straight despite her not having canon sexuality, believed that the whole story is either about man bad woman good OR was incredibly misogynist, no between. Close minded, toxic people who would deliberately bait anger and pain with placing their hate in the tags and then play victims when those hurt fans snapped back. Oh, I hate them, and revealing that Gehrman's "creepiness" and "misogyny" was completely and fully translation mistake, as well as pointing out how comes why nothing is wrong with how Doll is dressed with facts, is forever my most valid contribution to the fandom. More so than my ugly childlike fanart or convoluted theories could ever be. But, not THIS is why Bloodborne fandom is worse in my opinion.

Elden Ring fandom introduced not one but SEVERAL annoying and exhausting topics to deal with! I "affectionately" titled especially rabid Malenia and Miquella fans 'Twin Cultists' because this is exactly what their behavior is and have always been! Funny enough, a person who got mad at me for this one was someone who got alienated on Discord server for Miquella fans because owners started to insist that only their headcanons are valid AND admitted to me on feeling unsafe for not shipping Finlenia. I am dead serious! Malenia fans are strikingly similar to Maria pseudofeminist fans in toxicity, Miquella fans are like if you removed all likeable traits of Leda and replaced them with even MORE of undying vitriol for anyone who dares to interpret him as anything but perfect pure radiant sunshine. Mohg triggered a pretty awful discourse between those who insisted he was rapist molester whatever and if you interpret it differently you are insensitive and media-illiterate victimblamer and people who defended him "becoming the very thing they sworn to destroy" as well as also exhibiting cult-like thought control in their circles (they know who they are -_-).

But the DLC has changed things a bit, right? Some Twin Cultists are still spilling vitriol, except now they also claim that writers are bad, not only fans that disagree with them! Still, blessed, deserved vindication finally arrived! But what about others, whose situation never changed? Vitriol towards Godrick is ABSURD. You know how common fandoms L is that they judge and hate female character for something, but when male character did the exact same thing it is humored or justified? Godrick is this, minus the gender difference, yet everyone who points out his actual characteristics and the hypocrisy of his haters gets ridiculed. You thought that his fans would flock together to support each others? No, turns out that pocket are loosers who think people who don't headcanon him as trans are childish and ridiculous and loathe cishet Elden Ring fans in general. Fia and D are caught in the weird discourse loop where one is always simplified and idealized and another is demonized to Hell and beyond, when they both are strongly caught in religious brainwashing of sorts but also are sympathetic in their own right. Ranni's fans and haters both do not know the term of Machiavellian (aka "Ends justify the means" philosophy). She is the worst most evil character in the setting over what crimes she committed in order to protect the world from the problem of potentially anyone being able to grab the laws of nature itself and shape them according to their bigotries and preferences, OR she is a perfect innocent fighter against oppression and people who dislike her Just Hate Women TM. And of course we cannot forget the one above them all! The radiant, omnipresent, eternal!...

Marika truly brings out the worst of discussions! She has been before SOTE, but you YEARN for pre-SOTE times if you hate OR love her! Not because things changed, but because now discussion can't be avoided. She is THE Elden Ring character who is only ever demonized and idealized. Before SOTE, she was only ever just a tyrant who loves genocide OR simply a puppet of Greater Will (or rather Two Fingers claiming to speak for it as it turned out) who never meant to do that shit and finally heroically rebelled. After SOTE... hahaha, oh boy... we started to deal with the issue of excusing genocide. Her fans will claim into essays and more essays why Hornsent are all fundamentally dangerous race and Marika is merely trying to rid the world of filth that ruins it by sending Messmer. However, demonization didn't quite go away either, and her haters are so angry at writers humanizing her a bit more that they say WRITERS are pro-fascist!

So, why? I've described such horrid discourse, when Bloodborne fandom sounds like it simply has a few bad apples in comparison! What can be worse than Elden Ring fandom, after a description like this? Yeah, you see... Elden Ring fandom is thorn by awful arguments and discourse, it is hostile and dangerous for your mental health if you are invested into fandom beyond just "consuming content" and advertising your art for sale. Yet, it lives. It lives in the same sense as a land torn by earthquakes lives. It lives in the same sense a volcano that won't stop smoking lives. It lives in the same sense sea lives during the storm. But it LIVES.

Bloodborne fandom is a fucking Caelid.

If you question whether I'd be scared of "drama", I assume you are new here and don't know my epic lore. I am not afraid of anything because society made itself clear on what I am for it. In the most condenced way possible, one OF those toxic Maria fans didn't like me thinking for myself too much so they went out of their way to slander me for various -ists and -phobias. Their ableist friend that doesn't take racism seriously joined in. I was a victim of stalking, harassment, slander, witch-hunting and cult-like shunning for over a year, and so was every kind fool who treated me like a human - friend or mutual. I can NOT speak of Bloodborne fandom experience from personal standpoint because obviously it is not an objective experience (though someone who also got unfairly slandered by Maria fans too contacted me, so I question whether it IS a trend..?). Still, it isn't about me or my friends, we are an oddity. Bloodborne fandom for me was just a bunch of gullible, weak sheep who are okay with witch-hunt because letting just a few people get harassed is not worth souring their fandom experience. And I do not wish to turn back or even try to mend anything. I caught my stalker and exposed their crimes, I made everyone who believed they were innocent feel stupid and ashamed, it was all I wanted. I don't wish to "befriend" the fandom afterwards.

YEAH YEAH "THINGS ONCE BROKEN" WHATEVER

But I was still posting and drawing and playing and talking and writing, right? I was still present. So, I was at least observing what was going on. And what truly soured Bloodborne fandom was actually happening afterwards, what was not involving me or any friend or enemy I knew. The worst thing happened, worse for fandom than any amount of discourse. I call it "centralization", for lack of better term.

Bloodborne is a niche fandom, yet it had a sudden zoomers burst. And that led to dynamics of "fandom leaders", and stupid fucking Discord community that are akin to elite club in which if you are not invited you might as well not exist. It ALL became about stupid "web of mutuals" nonsense. It ALL became about some cool kids deciding what will be the ship or the take of the week/month, and soon you'd see NOTHING but this thing posted. Always through the exact same lense, too. Only to then be forgotten, because it was just a trend. Rom x Caryll comes to mind as a FAD of similar vibe. Micolaurence too.

I just hate this. The fandom stopped LIVING. I saw genuinely absurd things happen! Like someone drawing Mariadeline, one of the most popular ships in the fandom, yet they get completely ignored because they've failed to grab a beer at the bar with "leaders" of this ship who "hold" the distribution of that approval and love. Even worse; over a year ago, a very talented, fun, energetic and creative fan of Mensis Trio and Byrgenwerth squad showed up! They were SPAMMING art and writing, and all of that was good! So good that..... all of that barely got over 20 notes, maybe 30. Why? Because, again, you can't just post about blorbos and expect to be liked and approached. You have to get on the "good side" of "holders" of love for characters like Micolash, Laurence and Rom, or else they'll just side-eye you! But imagine this with literally everything else. I have been watching it happen all the time, to people that were not even targets for cult-like shunning by Alfred, Eugene or Anna for associating with me. You keep to yourself, you are shy, you are not on Discord with them, your headcanons are a bit different? Too bad, you may rot, because it is not about you! People look up to a few popular artists with shallow takes and so much creative liberties they might as well make OCs to know whether this or that person should be liked and reblogged, instead of JUST liking and reblogging them!

THIS is why Bloodborne fandom is Caelid. Not for toxicity, but because it is rotten. It used to be far less "organized" when I joined in. There were no trends to define fandomry for next few weeks decided on a party where ignored creators were not invited to. There was not hegemony of certain ships, designs and headcanons. There was no "web of mutuals" and pressure to either assert yourself by the good side or vanish. Everyone were doing their things and coexisting, nobody could determine who flourishes and who rots, diversity of headcanons and interpretations were celebrated. Oh, what's a matter? You really dislike that popular artist who infantilizes Marika and stripes her out of any agency over her actions? Well, so do like 500000 other people! Every popular take is ALSO popular to hate on in Elden Ring fandom! But if you dislike a popular take in Bloodborne then sucks to be you, because diversity of interpretations, opinions, preferences and takes just doesn't exist in it. Not anymore. Unless you "asserted" your novel idea to the "court" on some stupid Discord server and was "approved", of course.

Look. Elden Ring discourse annoys me to no end. I always get my headcanons and interpretations "corrected" in the worst condescending fashion. My friend posted a very well made lore post and got harped on because his take contradicted someone's idol's headcanons (with that idol approving of that harping) and I am still mad. I don't want to post my GEQ takes to be reminded that "aktualy" she is Melina. I dislike seeing claims of Miquella's nonexistent character assassination or Radahn hated just because some sexist Redditors were using him as a mascot. Nonetheless, deep down, I am THANKFUL. Because even really annoying debates end up being entertaining. Because people here TALK about things, REVISIT things, ARGUE about things, CARE about things, HAVE OPINIONS on things. They will annoy you in the comments or reblogs, but they SPEAK to you. No take is so popular that it defines all art and fanfics because every popular take is also popular to hate on. Things are disorganized. No fandom leaders, no elite club ignored blog wasn't invited to, no "web of mutuals" that should get sucked into a vacuum cleaner and never be seen again. Elden Ring fandom is a battlefield, but also free market minus the money.

To be honest, Bloodborne fandom was done for me when based people started to vanish. Fishbowlcarnage deactivated everywhere, Cuddlefish mysteriously disappeared and I worry whether they are even alive to this day, user Molluscock got bullied away... It felt like a bad omen, it happened before my drama, and I've never seen users like this before. Except I have been, but they all are now ignored because of this stupid high school dynamic taking over. Had Elden Ring hyperfixation not happened, I'd probably just end up blocking many Bloodborne accounts and never care for trying to make connections again, just post art and vanish to draw the next one. I did end up blocking some Bloodborne mutuals, after all. After it hit me, what was bothering me so much. Appreciate Elden Ring fandom and it's earthquakes, because shaking earth can't be bigger evil than stagnation. Bloodborne fandom no longer breathes, they are champions of not feeding the sparkles that were meant to become fire hoping they die down, and I hate every looser that benefits from that "system". In Elden Ring, ALL things flourish, whether graceful or malign.

[justthemis124]

My opinion on “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez story” PART I

If some of you guys have read my presentation post, you know that this show encouraged me to create this blog, because after finishing the last episode, I just needed to talk about it to someone. Unfortunately nobody I know has seen it or is even interested in seeing it. Anyway that’s not the point, I have a lot of things to say about the show, that’s why this post is only a part 1, and I’ll try my best to organize my thoughts as best as I can.

You can read part II just here :))

I. THE RYAN MURPHY PROBLEM

I feel like I needed to start with the most obvious one.

So first of all you need to know that my only knowledge of Ryan Murphy comes from the 5 seasons of American Horror Story that I watched. And the thing that I noticed straight away when watching AHS was the omnipresence of very, very uncomfortable and weird s*x scenes. Every 5 seconds you get these scenes that serve no purpose to the plot whatsoever, it feels like they’re there just for the sake of making people uncomfortable and satisfying whatever perverse desire Ryan Murphy has. Now, I’ll say that American Horror Story is fictional and that, at the end of the day, no matter how disgusting these scenes are, they remain in the fictional realm.

BUT the problem is that RM has clearly brought his weird and obscene fantasies into the world of what I can only think of calling “True Fiction” (a show or movie based on real events, and that wants itself to be accurate). It’s something that you can so clearly see in each and every episode of the show, and while watching it, I remember thinking how disgusting it was that this almost 60 years old man was just forcing his perversion into a representation of literal victims of incestuous s*xual abuse. And I genuinely cannot express how sick to my stomach it makes me.

Furthermore, I think that it is also very clear whose side Ryan Murphy seems to be on, and in my opinion and based on the way he decided to portray the brothers, I think that he clearly thinks that the boys are liar. Which okay, he is of course entitled to his opinion on the matter, even if I (along with a lot people) strongly disagree with it. The problem is that he should not bring his opinion into the show and make his opinion seem like the real and factual events.

On that same note, I’m sure most of you are aware, but Erik released a statement through his wife about the show, I’ll put it below :

And I’m so glad he spoke up and said how much fake things, inaccurate portrayals and misinformation this show was spreading. Unfortunately, Ryan Murphy responded to this statement, in the worst manner possible, here is his response below :

I find it absolutely insane to tell people, whose life you tried to recreate on screen, that you did an amazing job at it while these persons themselves tell you that you failed to put in light the truth that they spent their whole lives trying to be heard.

In conclusion on this whole part about Ryan Murphy, I was just really disappointed in the way that he produced and realised the whole show as well as the way he handled the aftermath of its release, this man even had the audacity to say that he had no interest in talking to the brothers so that tells us everything that we need to know about him. And I think that he should just stick to fiction and stop trying to film true crime shows if he’s gonna ignore the facts and just build the show on his opinion instead.

II. THE PORTRAYAL OF THE BROTHERS

The issue with the portrayals of the brothers is obviously directly linked to Ryan Murphy but I wanted to dedicate a part about it and not it be a sub part to the RM problem.

When I was watching the show, the first thing that struck me was the portrayal of Lyle. I was familiar with the Menendez case way before the show because, like a lot of people, I had watched the trials on YouTube. And while I cannot claim to know what Lyle is like, and none of us can, because we don’t know him, I was still quite shocked to see the way they made him act on the show. I guess that this arrogant, angry, violent and spoiled rich kid act just wasn’t what I was expecting, along with a lot of people. And we were right to find this representation to be odd because Erik, himself, talked about how inaccurate and defamatory this representation of Lyle was in his statement that you can read above in the Ryan Murphy problem.

So there's already that. And then, the worst part in my opinion, is the way that Lyle and Erik were, first of all, highly s*xualized and also represented as if they were in some kind of incestuous relationship with each other. If we focus for a second on the s*xualization of the brothers, the first example that comes to my mind is the shower scene with Erik in prison. What purpose does that scene serve in the telling of Erik and Lyle's story? I cannot help but think that this is just another manifestation of Ryan Murphy's perverted mind. On that same note (I'm gonna try and explain this next part as best as I can) but I think we all know now that RM has a tendency to cast attractive actors for these type of roles (ex: Evan Peters as Jeffrey Dahmer) to later s*xualize them non stop. And words are failing me to express how wrong that is, because in Dahmer's case he was literally s*xualizing a serial killer, and in the Menendez' case, victims of incestuous s*xual abuse. Again I fail to understand how this man doesn't see any wrong in that.

Now, about the representation of the brothers' relationship. As I was watching the show, I remember noticing all these little things that were insinuating that something romantic was going on between them, again I cannot express how uncomfortable it made me, I can only assume that it was the case for everyone else watching. And again, I cannot find the words to say how disgusting and sick this is. Because here is the thing, so we know that Erik was m*lested by Lyle, because Lyle was himself being abused by José Menendez, he was child and he didn't know any better than to try and recreate what he though was an act of love. BUT knowing that and willingly deciding to subtly portray these brothers as if they were in a consensual incestuous relationship is digusting and sickening.

And I want to clarify that this critic of their portrayal is aimed at Ryan Murphy and in no way at the actors, I will be talking about the actors' work in the second part, in another post.

Alright guys that's it for the first part of my opinion on "Monsters", I hope that maybe some of the points I addressed will help you see the show in another light if you didn't share my point of view. And if my post didn't convince you of anything and if you disagree with me on certain point, please leave a comment so we can discuss it :)

The second part will be focusing on the portrayal of José and Kitty Menendez as well as the work of the actors.

See you in the next post!

[rocketyship]

What don't you like about the '' i have no mouth but i must scream'' game versions of the characters? ( except ellen's story because that's understandable …)

OH HONEY LET ME TELL YOU!!!! As you said like most people I don’t like Ellen’s and it is understandable. But besides her I strongly dislike what they did with Gorrister, Benny, and especially Nimdok.

Gorrister: In the original text before AM took him he was a peace activist, a rights marcher, he was a man with intense morals that AM broke. That concept alone is just so fascinating to me. Our morals are what shapes as a human being, they affect every aspect of our daily life and AM took them and broke them and he ruined this man with a great sense of justice and turned him into just another shoulder-shrugger. Whilst what the game did to him was not that outrageous, I just don’t like him being a truck driver red-neck type. Personally I imaged Gorrister as someone very educated, well-spoken, and likely someone who may have played a role in the war which would add so many more layers to the story if that was the case.

Benny: This man was the biggest missed opportunity, and what they decided to do to him in the game just breaks my heart. In the og story and the radio adaptation there was the idea of Benny being a brilliant scientist, well respected, world renowned, he was handsome, and he was gay. AND AM TOOK ALL OF THAT FROM HIM. AM literally broke and blended this man so much that when you put his life during the war and the one after it, it’s like to different people. And then there is this opportunity, this idea that game missed out on. In the book Ted called him luckily because he’s had everything taken from him and doesn’t even know it, but like what if he does? What if he is still conscious and trapped in his head and literally unable to do anything about it. And when AM decides to turn his eyes to jello, then Damn!!! He is just stuck in this dark void where he feels this pain, hears it, but can do nothing about it. AM turned what seemed like a cool dude into a horrific animal and that’s so fascinating to me. The problem with game Benny being “a monster” before AM took them, also kind of defeats the horror of the whole twisting him into one. Like I don’t care that this terrible war person has been forced to devolve, he kind of deserves it, like what is he gonna learn about himself? What is he gonna confront? “Oh I’m such a bad person!” I’m pretty damn sure he knew that already and just didn’t care. Where’s the tragedy? What reason do I have to be entertained, horrified and sympathetic to this dude? No reason. He just sucks

Nimdok: Why the actual f*ck is he a n@zi?!?! Like I like the idea of all the survivors being from all over the world and not just American, but why in every damn piece of media are German characters always n@zis?!?! In fact, since he is one I don’t care what happens to him, I don’t care about his regrets, or the “nice” things he decides to do in the HOLOGRAPHIC WORLD. HE DESERVES TO SUFFER AND THAT IS THAT. I HATE IT. I HATE IT. AM’s hate and torturing of humanity is meant to pointless. He picked these humans cause they were either everything he desired to have and be, or by possible chance. Normal people, perhaps even good people, he twisted into this way. In the og story it was so vague what was up with Nimdok, the only clue to him being German was Ellison’s dramatic reading of the story where he puts on a accent for him. The horror is that this older man has been given a speed run on Alzheimers, which in itself is Damn scary in real life, he has this fake childlike bravery, this way to aimless believe whatever AM tells him. He doesn’t know his name! His identity is gone! No one is there to help him figure it out, cause the other survivors can’t, there is nothing he can and that’s just that. (I’m actually getting very frustrated right now, so I’ll just stop here).

So yeah. There. That’s my hot takes. Maybe someone will disagree with me, but never in my life have I seen anyone like Nimdok or really his story in the game.

[innocentimouto]

Do you think the show/franchise should acknowledge that Jet Is one of Iroh’s victims?

Do you mean because the Rough Rhinos were under Iroh's command (or at least their leader was)?

At first I thought no, just because the show moved on from Iroh's flaws and never gave us anything in terms of his victims. I don't see them doing it, let alone doing it right. Also Jet would get even more hate.

But say they could do it right. Then yes, it would be incredible. Even if Jet still died, so long as it was made clear to characters like the Gaang or Zuko and Iroh that he was one of Iroh's victims, I would be happy.

Whatever opinions there are about Jet's actions in war, he did something. He was resourceful and strong; he could have fled somewhere else or survived on his own (however long that would last considering the war). But he chose to help others.

Iroh never did that. I don't think Iroh helped Zuko either, but say he did. One, that's not great when Zuko was invading Sokka and Katara's home or when capturing the avatar. Two, Iroh still never helped anyone in the war against the Fire Nation until the very end.

It makes sense for a character like Jet to be the one to hate Iroh and make it clear that just because the man is elderly and kind doesn't mean he didn't do horrible things in war and then became content with doing nothing to fix it.

It even fits within the storyline. They met on the way to BSS. Zuko's arc needs to go somewhere. Iroh's arc has been stagnant for a while. Jet's trauma hasn't been properly conveyed. Having Jet bring up what Iroh has done, in detail, possibly with victims from Iroh's siege against BSS, would be a great way to force Iroh to be confronted with his actions and forced to give his thoughts on it.

Does he care? Does he care beyond feeling remorse? Has he ever thought about helping people against the Fire Nation?

It also helps Zuko's arc. He's still on the Fire Nation's side, but he's seen the other nations are just regular people. Would having Iroh state whatever his views are on this affect Zuko? If Iroh just brushed it all away with a small shake of the head and some words about letting anger go, would that make Zuko uncomfortable? Because now he has faces to possible victims. And Jet is great with words and can definitely hurt people with them, so I doubt he would stay quiet at whatever Iroh would say.

Or would Zuko simply not care and side with Iroh because he's always known what Iroh had done? Zuko burned a village down himself. Only thing he's done lately is complain about poverty.

It could go either way for them, but I think things would be clear with the Gaang. If confronted with Jet's words, and neither Zuko nor Iroh care or offer much in return, I don't think the Gaang would be that receptive to accepting Zuko later.

The Gaang has never heard Zuko say the Fire Nation propaganda he was fed all his life. I doubt they would forget it if he somehow justified the Air Nomads being massacred. I doubt Sokka, Aang, or Katara would be okay if he justified waterbenders being killed.

Calling someone a peasant or trying to kill them is one thing, but hearing someone explain to you why your people were wiped out and that it was right is not something most people will forget.

(Also we can get development with Toph and her thoughts on the war. And Suki wouldn't get her words about her village being destroyed turned into a joke. Also Haru, because fellow earth kingdom kid who most likely heard terrifying tales of the Dragon of the West.)

And seeing their reactions---horror, grief, rage, pain---no matter how behind Zuko could be on his arc, that would stay with him. He's a teenager. He's hotheaded and selfish and entitled. But he's not a monster. He feels emotions. And while I disagree strongly that he had a good redemption arc, by BSS, he at least had some doubts about some things.

It's an established way to bring Iroh's character back to morally flawed, which is good. Too many things are canon for Iroh to be anything better than that. He learned firebending from the dragons, but still continued killing innocent people? He stood by while Zuko got burned? He let Ozai take the throne without ever challenging him despite being the rightful heir and supposedly realizing the war was wrong?

Iroh had the best chance to at least slow the Fire Nation before Aang appeared. The thing about Iroh is that he's always been content to sit back and not do anything. He wanted Zuko to make tea with him within the walls while the war was coming to a close and we're expected to believe he cares about the wellbeing of other nations? About the war itself? Iroh was one of the strongest firebenders in the world. He had a responsibility to at least atone for the deaths he caused, if not outright confront Ozai.

If you meant that Jet got brainwashed because of Iroh and then eventually killed?

I don't really blame Iroh for Jet's death. I strongly side-eye Iroh for acting completely innocent about what Jet was rightfully saying despite Iroh supposedly regretful for his actions in the war and yet not caring at all that he got an innocent kid arrested by police that everyone knew were capable of making people disappear.

[willothewispwisteriadawn]

My head is hurting after Secret History inner ramblings.

I think the one thing that’s difficult about this book is that EVERYTHING is a little true and a little false at the same time? It’s weird because sometimes I go to make a statement on something or post a thought, and I just can’t get the nuance right ever. All my opinions have a bit of a “but here’s where that thought ends” aspect to them. Here’s what I mean:

1. Henry and Camilla: I think someone kind of disliked something I said once when I said I was skeptical about Henry’s relationship with Camilla. And I tbh had strongly worded my thoughts. But here’s the deal. Henry, based on what we know of him, likely doesn’t have a good concept of love. And Camilla feels safe with Henry. Due to this, I think Henry views Camilla as something to protect. He sees her as aesthetic and wants to pursue her because he has clearly been taught by Julian and his own long history with many books and few human interactions that what’s important is what is ethereal and arcane and pretty. Camilla is going through a lot with Charles and she knows all the other guys are, in varying ways, terrified of Henry. Bunny was a jerk but his obsessive attitude toward Henry was indicative of his fear and his needing to know what Henry is up to, an attitude which makes increasing sense as the novel progresses. Richard has slips about Henry all the time but the most memorable to me is when he almost says “What if it’s Henry” instead of “What if it’s the cops?” when Charles knocks. Charles is so blatantly frightened of Henry and for good reason: Charles never seemed to want to kill Bunny, was was pulled into the murder (but it was still his choice), not taken seriously when he tried to lament Bunny, and then put into a situation where he had to just keep talking about it while minding his every word. Then there were strong indications Henry was trying to kill him. Camilla isn’t dumb. I’m sure she sees things that the guys see. She’s certainly disturbed when Henry made her douse herself in pig blood. But she allows Henry to have what he wants so she can be safe. 

Now, I don’t even think Camilla is wrong to make this choice. In fact, Richard’s attitude towards her decision was uncalled for. That said, we now have a relationship built on a man who is buried in fanciful ideas about things and a woman who is fully aware of everything wrong with him and just goes with it because she’s scared. But it’s weird because saying that this relationship is entirely destructive isn’t perfectly true either. It’s true for the above reasons. But I also see Henry and Camilla do having some semblance of a positive relationship too. He does treat her kindly and, whatever the reason, he does help her when she’s struggling with Charles. We’ve seen signs of Henry looking out for Camilla throughout the whole book. And, you know what? We even get tiny indications that she really believes in some of his nonsense. But, by the end of the novel, I was so skeptical of anything Henry did and so wary of how emotionless he’d gotten that I couldn’t really believe he wouldn’t ever hurt her (my goodness, this guy could read some ancient myth arguing that some random, toxic action is somehow akin to love and he’d take it seriously). But bottom line is that this isn’t an easy thing for me to voice my opinion on without immediately disagreeing with my own wording. 

2. Francis being untruthful about Charles. When I say Francis’s story about Charles isn’t correct, I mean that there are indications Francis is twisting facts. I’m saying it makes too much sense that he bore blame too, based on what we know of Francis. But what I’m not saying is that he spoke nothing but lies. This book is about illusions and things hidden in plain sight. Francis saying that Charles and Camilla being pretty makes it hard to see that they aren’t good does ring very true. It’s similar to Richard’s statement that he has a tendency to view interesting people as good (he says this about Julian). I do believe Francis when he says that Charles, even Camilla in a more subtle or different way, is jealous and manipulative— and the twins have been that way for a long time. We can pick that up ourselves throughout the novel. And he’s probably right that the bacchanal brought the worst of it to light. He definitely tries to tell Richard about something awful Charles did that night and can’t bring himself to. 

That said, Francis is also clearly framed as being illusionary himself. He’s compared twice to a fox in this scene. His reason for why Charles won’t admit to having been with him is flimsy. It’s an odd understanding of Charles who won’t speak of his drinking when personal details aren’t involved. And alcohol was involved every time Francis and Charles hooked up (in the story about the first time it happened, when they left Richard’s room, and at the funeral). Francis even admits that was a driving factor in their relationship. At the Corcorans’, we also see Charles say Francis attempted to coerce him into something only for Francis to cut him off. So it’s just that, knowing alcohol was involved, knowing Francis has tried to take advantage of an inebriated Richard, and knowing that he’s trying to cover up truths… it just doesn’t give us a picture of a Francis who was entirely innocent in the matter and who didn’t at all take advantage of his friend. 

A few things can exist at once because I think Francis’s big deal is being something of a doormat. He balks in the face of anything scary from doctor visits to certain social interactions; he goes along with others. He can be sharp-tongued and he does have strong desires, but he is often scared back into place. He clearly wants something with Richard (he goes for it twice) but won’t attempt to push when Richard is lucid. He asks permission, is denied, and accepts it (good!). But when Richard is vulnerable, Francis is more aggressive (fair point to Francis: this is not all the time. He’s seen Richard drunk and sleeping and been normal about it). Francis does get pushed back into place by Charles as well. Camilla states this when she tells Richard why she can’t move in with Francis rather than Henry. We also see Francis mock Richard’s speech patterns then immediately become really meek and apologetic when he sees that Richard is actually angry. And I’m kind of wondering if Francis knew all about Henry potentially setting up Richard and kept his mouth shut while Charles perhaps attempted to save Richard by taking him to the bar the night the police came. I say this because Charles says he knows Francis would betray him to Henry. And this moment seems more that just drunken rambles, based on Francis’s reaction. Francis’s suicide note even apologizes for NOT doing things. This fear does seem likely to cause him to merely take advantage of people when they’re vulnerable, to push until bitten back. (By the way, I think the alcohol he has during the funeral bathroom moment was purchased by Charles when he went out since it was in the glove compartment? The rest is vague but, to me, Francis is taking advantage of a weakness. To be honest, I like to think even Francis realized this. He payed Charles’s rehab bill. I think he knew that, in encouraging the drinking or, at least not stopping it, that he’d failed Charles— and Camilla who was directly affected.) 

This is a lot of things. So I think me having moments of “OK FRANCIS WAS CLEARLY MANIPULATIVE HERE” is not the same as me saying he was totally wrong. Just like me saying he’s likely right about Charles is not me saying Charles wasn’t a vulnerable and mistreated party too. 

3. Bunny being more morally aware than others. This one is the TRICKIEST. Because Bunny is really bad too. He’s such an awful friend. But my big-hard-to-capture-thought is that I do not believe Henry when he says Bunny’s reaction to the farmer-slaying was purely feelings of being left out. And I think Bunny was aware of and disturbed by the things going on in the group in a way the others largely weren’t. Richard says Bunny was a bloodhound for insecurities and that’s true. But I also got the sense that he was actually seeing his friends flaws and going, in some deep part of himself, “wait, this is really bad.” Julian mistakes Bunny’s behavior for a possible religious conversion. I think that’s very close— it was a moral crisis, I believe. But Julian is onto the same principle which doesn’t align with what Henry said (that it wasn’t at all moral). Furthermore, I think Henry (and Francis) was wrong about Bunny’s feelings of jealousy and hatred towards Richard. Again, this line between partially true and partially false is light because maybe Henry did note real feelings of inferiority (Bunny did harass Richard despite him not being at the bacchanal and there’s that mean moment where he tells Charles to give Richard a drink without washing the cup). But this is all thrown in to question with Bunny’s letter to Julian which doesn’t mention Richard at all. I just wonder if Bunny, despite all his rampant -isms and blatant mistreatment of his friends, was the first to wake up. And he was killed for it. Similarly, Charles starts to wake up in ways. He, in the midst of all his own crimes, was getting impacted by having helped take a life. And Henry’s reaction repeated itself; he went to silence this person who, within all his madness, was right about something. AND YET AGAIN. This is only true in some manners because Henry was also thinking of Camilla.

Revisiting my whole thesis: It’s like anything I could possibly say about this book has limits and other considerations. Many things are true to a point and false at a level. So I look back at every post I make and am like “well I still think I was right, but I wish I could shine a flashlight on every little detail and exception.” I just want to be fair about everything all the time!

[gunkbaby]

rambling abt how i used to feel abt shuu in TG’s ending and why i think i was wrong (+ part of what he means 2 me)

I remember back in 2021, i was into this idea that Shuu didn’t get a happy ending at the end of tg:re, because the characters that got ‘happy’ endings were shown to be in heteronormative relationships - married, with a child or multiple - whilst characters like Shuu didn’t have that.

I think at the time, myself - maybe other ppl - took this as being kind of queerphobic, or at least unsatisfactory to the queer characters. The ‘Shuu Tsukiyama deserved better’ of it all.

And whilst yes, Shuu Tsukiyama did indeed deserve better; in hindsight I do so strongly disagree with this idea I had. I think it relies on a particular interpretation of the story, which I don’t think I agree with. I think maybe, some of this idea did come from people who maybe didn’t like TouKen being canon - and whilst I don’t necessarily like how TouKen became canon, I think maybe I got swept up in this interpretation too.

It wasn’t so much that I wanted Shuuneki to be canon or anything - it was much the opposite. I thought that Shuu should not have been so unwillingly faithful to Kaneki after the Tsukiyama Extermination, that he had earned a moment of scorn, he had earned the right to ‘split’, you could say. This isn’t necessarily an idea I wholly disagree with, but I was going about it in the wrongly. I thought about the ending in a very black and white way - Shuu not having that moment, to me, meant the ending was void. He was living in false happiness - forced to watch the man he loved be happy whilst he was still a glorified dog. I thought he needed to be away from Kaneki to be truly happy, and I think that was the issue with my idea.

I think the reason I so strongly resonated with this interpretation of the ending as being subpar and Shuu not getting his flowers was also very much my projection onto Shuu. I think my anger was still very much aimed at how the ending came, but I misplaced it.

At the time, I myself was experiencing my first ’BPD moment’ I suppose? I’d come online and actively engaged with a fandom for the first time in my life outside of Wattpad. I didn’t know what I was doing or what was happening, my social skills were (and are) nonexistent - I left school at 13 and the only person I’d really interacted with since was my abuser and doctors. I was awful at it all. When I started to get mutuals and the like, I was really quite inappropriate - clingy and unaware, unstable and nuclear. I fucked up a lot of myself because of it, and I still have to recover from it even now. So, with that in mind, as someone with BPD, who was that inappropriately co-dependant person - and who is now aware of that fact - nowadays, I look at Shuu’s ending with less comtempt, and a lot more optimism.

I think now that Shuu’s happy ending would never have been to be with Kaneki - only in an ideal world that serves our illnesses. Him learning to grow past this limerence, to see Kaneki in a way that isn’t so ride or die, and to maintain a healthy, platonic relationship with him, feels perfect. It gives me hope as someone with BPD, that I might not be doomed to always be quite a toxic person in regards to having any kind of relationship. You can argue that I’m arguing abt the ‘single is better’ trope or whatever terminally online thing it is now, but I don’t see it like that.

When I think about it now, I think Shuu’s ending was perfect for him. Now, I look at him through my ‘BPD gaze’ (eurgh) and see this ending as something very hopeful. The idea of being able to exist with this person you’ve been so obsessed with, in a way that does not create a detriment to yourself, and to exist and have a seemingly normal, healthy friendship with that person - it’s kind of the dream. For me, at least - personally I dream to have relationships that don’t lead to me embarrassing myself on the internet and in public and ending up relapsed and on a ward. Just me, maybe.

I take his ending nowadays as something quite hopeful.

Shuu’s arc in :re, to me, has always been symbolic of recovery. When I first read it, I was in therapy, specifically in an eating disorder clinic - Shuu’s own recovery from anorexia meant I could do it too. His softening of his depression meant I stood a chance too. His seeming abandonment of his ‘Gourmet’ persona I compared to myself, in learning to let go of my idea of myself as an anorexic. Him learning to possess and lean into his own empathy, to embrace feelings and ideas of himself that contradicted this idea of a civilised, ferocious man-eating predator, to love with less shame - to me it appeared as a story of learning to embrace that possessing humanity is not a weakness. To be human is so confusing, but it can be so ethereally freeing.

Shuu’s story has felt like a lot of things to me. It’s learning to abandon the adoration one possesses for the idea of the self, understanding that to continue living in such a way leads to self-destruction. But also, that to self-destruct is to rebirth. We are constantly self-annihilating and rebuilding ourselves from our ashes.

I’m reminded of the Fire lily - a flower that exists in fire-prone areas of the cape of South Africa. The lily is unique, lying dormant for many, many years, and particularly difficult to cultivate; as it relies on smoke from surrounding wildfires to bloom. So it requires a level of destruction and ravage to bloom, and it is so, so beautiful. In the process, the lily becomes the only source of pollen in the area, so it becomes crucial for the other species in the area. As the other plants in the area return, the lily dies, and returns underground, until the next fire.

To me, Shuu’s story feels like a cycle of nature and destruction. He goes from this idea of the apex predator, through an annihilation, to a rebirth.

His story - his character - despite itself, has felt painfully human. The fear of aligning yourself with humanity, the pain of existing within a species that has become little but an arrogant pest. Which feels so ironic. It’s hard to speak on this, maybe I’m not smart enough, and though I don’t feel like one, I have only ever lived as a human, and that is my only perspective. So maybe him feeling so human is major projection, and I’m wrong, but I see it in Shuu. How he denies things like friendship and kinship with humans, how he tries to put himself on a pedestal - I read this as a side-effect of alienation and loneliness. He doesn’t quite fit in with ghouls where he should, but to accept that you do not fit in because you are strange - there is something wrong with you - is very painful, so it’s much easier to become arrogant. He feels so in denial of his loneliness, of a need for companionship; and that, to me, feels very human. He wants to fit in, maybe he wants to be something other than othered, but he’s in denial of this, and he’s in denial of his flaws - the flaws that alienate him - so he remains stagnant, waiting for the inevitably of self-destruction. Shuu was never going to stay as he was, if Kaneki hadn’t threw him off course, he would’ve fallen anyway.

Living things need to experience a pain or discomfort to grow back stronger. Winter is a necessary season of life that none are spared. Shuu’s story feels like that - a season cycle.

There’s a lot more I could say about him, his story and what it means to me, but I am rambling and getting all purple prose-y.

Again, I stress that I do still feel dissatisfied by Shuu’s arc in re - he did indeed, ‘deserve better’. Much like myself at 17, I do wish this journey of limerence to a healthy, platonic relationship had been better expanded upon. Shuu questioning Kaneki, experiencing a moment of scorn - I do think of that idea often, just not like I used to. His ‘deserved better’ isn’t the ending, but the progression to it. My problem with Shuu’s writing is post-Tsukiyama extermination arc - so it links into my problem with most of the Tsukiyama Family characters, and Chiehori - there is very little attention given to Shuu post this arc. When there is, it’s good on paper, but this aspect of his arc is not shown consistently strongly enough. We don’t see this sort of ‘journey of self-improvement’. Shuu kind of comes back and he’s just, better. Personally, I think there should have been more nuance to this arc - and I think I thought that back in 2021 too, but I was angry at the wrong thing.

I think Tokyo Ghoul’s flaws often come from the fact that the idea behind it is so huge - there is so much stuff you can do with it. For worldbuilding and character ideas alone. The plot it considers sometimes feels too small to be satisfying for the world it exists in. The characters are so often written too richly, and there are too many of them - this is both a highlight and a hinderence of it. It has too much stuff, implied and not. I do believe a lot of the dissatisfaction I was experiencing with TG in 2021 was because I didn’t quite understand that fact. I think I kind of resented the series, and Ishida, for it. Nowadays, I don’t really care. I’ll just pose my own ideas and write what I would’ve - fanfiction is wonderful in that. Maybe I understood what my issue with TG truly was, finally, or maybe I’m just not 17 anymore.

[tyrantisterror]

You've said that you love TOH's message that the collector for all his powers and amoral behavior "is still just a kid" and only needs some guidance from adults to learn how to behave appropriately, but there are children and teenagers who've done truly messed up things, like murder and abusing other kids (incl sexually).

Do you think that it's still worth trying to reach out and rehabilitate those kids? There are many people who react to cases of violent crime committed by juveniles with calling for violence and revenge, which honestly disturbs me, or stating that rehabilitation is useless because supposedly"some people are just born evil" which I strongly disagree with.

That is a very heavy question to ask with a children's cartoon show as a lead in.

I am of the general opinion that all people who've done horrible things deserve rehabilitation if it's possible to do so without putting innocent people in danger. I'm also aware that it's very easy for me to believe, since, you know, I don't routinely deal with murderers in my life or whatever. I'm also of the firm opinion that a little magic boy who turns people into puppets and makes folks re-enact Pac-Man is not really an equivalent to, like, an emotionally disturbed child who stabbed their sibling in the head with a fork.

[loving-family-poll]

ok hold on lemme elaborate. first and foremost lemme preface this by saying that on a personal level the resemblance is superficial at best. when I say "parallel" I mean "there is a narrative parallel" not "stewy is similar to logan as a person". the second statement is truly nonsensical. HOWEVER... both stewy and logan represent an image of an american dream of a self-made man, and, more than that, seek to embody this image and Become it (to the detriment of their respective moral characters). logan is an immigrant that has built his business empire from nothing, he is the archetypal Self Made Capitalist. Stewy is an immigrant that has built a Perfect Life for himself from nothing, and HE seeks to embody spirit of a Newer capitalism (his area of work is not a part of the "real" economy, his job is to exercise the most predatory form of market pressure). both have fundamentally abandoned their humanity in the process, logan is supposedly "doing everything for his kids" while. not spending any meaningful time with them for the sake of the Business, and stewy is "always honest", but. his name is STEWY. this man has buried every aspect of his cultural identity for the sake of success. he kills the man he was yesterday every time he wakes up in the morning.

additionally, stewy is Positioned in the narrative as a mirror to logan. he is a mirror to tom (outsider to the family, metaphorial groom for one of the siblings), and, well. we all know about tom. additionally, we have the whole... dinner for winners thing. which positions stewy above kendall in the hierarchy of logan's approval, but, well, that will never mean anything because stewy is not white. nevertheless, stewy is a winner.

ADDITIONALLY, i strongly believe that kendall's love language is being led. he has to have someone giving him pointers and directions, we see it obviously with logan, when logan isn't there he asks rava for it, etc etc etc. logan himself recognizes it (through the words of brian cox), by describing the situation in the end of s1 as "kendall is under this corrupt influence of stewy" (yet another case of logan being a jealous jealous old man btw).

there is ALSO the aspect of food. stewy and logan are among the few characters that in this show eat, and eat confidently, whenever they want (another notable specimen is TOM). there are approximately 5 thousand essays written about food in succession, so I won't delve very deep, but. it's about a show of power. and about being able to take have and enjoy whatever they want.

returning briefly to the "kendall's love language is being led": all of kendall's relationships are in some way influenced by his relationship with logan. they are either a way to validate himself In Front of logan or they are about filling the logan-shaped hole in him. I strongly believe that stewy "I think you should do cocaine with me, despite the fact that you are very much in recovery right now" hosseini is capable of filling that hole.

anyway. I love stewy. I could talk about him forever. muah.

love, succ anon

Yeah I guess I just disagree with your analysis. For one, you're just incorrect about Stewy's origins - he isn't an immigrant, or if he is, his family must've immigrated when he was a young child. He certainly grew up in the U.S., we know he and Kendall were in at least university and high school together, and possibly knew each other even younger. And Stewy isn't self-made, he, like Kendall, was born into immense wealth. They are two rich boys who met as teens, did a ton of coke together, blew daddy's money (and each other 😉), and became lifelong besties and worsties. Also Stewy is positioned not as a mirror to any of the Roy's or Tom, but in contrast with them. He is neither a patriarch nor under the thumb of one, he couldn't give less of a shit about Logan, he is as far as we see a functional if shallow human being who's capable of normal relationships with others. Stewy doesn't really control or direct Kendall, he enables him, which the cocaine thing is an example of. I also disagree with the idea that Stewy is dishonest bc of his assimilation into white hegemony? That's not reflective of Stewy's character, but of the necessity of erasing personal identity and conforming to white supremacy in pursuit of weath. If anything, Logan and Stewy are opposites - the self-made industrialist patriarch of a bygone era vs. the new born-rich investor generation

[lunar-years]

Curious on your thoughts about Taylor and the Mahomes if you care to share?

well. I certainly find it pretty deplorable to be a Trump supporter! not knowing one single other thing about Brittany Mahomes I strongly dislike her for using whatever platform she has to endorse that man, and I would never choose to be friends with her.

of course I wish Taylor would not closely align herself with Trump supporters. in an ideal world she would not be all bestie-bestie with shitty people. It unfortunately does not surprise me that she takes a "I can be friends with people who do not share my beliefs nor align with all of my values" approach.

It's wild to me that fans try to justify this with a "well we need to be able to have a dialogue with people who disagree with us or else how will we be able to educate them to change their minds!" type of discourse because whilst I do believe this is true, I can also acknowledge that there is an extremely slim chance Taylor is inviting Brittany over to her multi-million dollar mansion for a party and pulling her aside to discuss u.s. politics...like. if we're being honest with ourselves, this group of people are quite likely not spending their time together debating politics at all. they get to be neutral regarding one another's beliefs and "respect different opinions" because they are all coming from a place of incredible privilege where political outcomes rarely effect them or their lifestyles on a grand scale.

As swifties we obviously care most about Taylor and thus frame everything around her, but I find it sort of interesting that no one seems to be holding the same kind of "hold them accountable by association" mentality for Travis or Patrick Mahomes. I do not follow any of these people but there are certainly fans who are all affectionate about travis and patrick's friendship and cheering on patrick at the same time they're (rightfully) slamming his wife on their social media fan pages.. Not to go out on a limb but um... I'm gonna guess there is a non-zero chance patrick and brittany are politically aligned! But nobody much seems to care about that, it's just brittany [and Taylor by extension] they have a problem with? And actually I've seen a lot of weird twisted justifications about why travis and patrick should "clearly" be allowed to continue to be friends but taylor needs to cut brittany entirely out of her life or else she's cancelled. ...just interesting!

it sucks that the more we talk about brittany the more we keep her at the forefront and give her and her terrible beliefs extended visibility and exposure. It equally sucks that trump has latched on to her support and is promoting it with the obvious and barely masked motive of claiming Taylor's support by extension. it sucks that Taylor is being used as a pawn in that way. I certainly wish she would make the choice to stop hanging on with brittany and be more politically outspoken to combat this tactic, but I'm also realistic that she's probably not going to. At the end of the day, I still like her anyway.

Taylor has previously befriended and interacted with people I find equally unsavory. obviously matty is exhibit A. she's also longstanding friends with L*na D*nham, which I continue to find questionable! This sort of discourse has been going on for a decade in the fandom and as a result I've made the personal choice to be here at the end of the day for Taylor alone and not her friends. I basically pay no attention to any of them unless I have an interest in them independently of her, which would be very very few of them. I do however understand and respect if other people feel differently on matter.

going off of that, everyone's got to have their own hard line. my personal hard line would be if Taylor herself ever started endorsing Trump or republican & MAGA values. However, at the moment I still feel I know enough about to her and the values she has repeatedly upheld over the years to conclude that Trump's values are not her own.

this is a very long, not articulate mind dump to basically say: I don't like that she's friends with brittany/the mahomes. i wish she wouldn't be. yes it's a bad look for her. but i am still going to remain a Taylor Swift fan.

[astolfofo]

Dazai and chuuya relationship analysis that I apprently wrote in march and was rotting in my drafts ig. Enjoy this i guess. Or not if you don’t like hot takes. I don’t want my blog to get too too dead. 

friendly reminder that this is my own opinion about things, and you’re welcome to disagree, but don’t be an asshole. please. 

Okay. Here’s a (un)commonly written hot take. In my opinion, I don’t ship Chuuya and Dazai. Like honestly. I don’t think they’re in love with each other, and they actually do strongly dislike each other. Not enough to call it hate, but they don’t like each other. But they do have a different realtionship of hate that you could almost call, “friendship”. They’ve worked together, probably lived together, and obviously theres a fundamental respect for each other. But to call it love would be extreme. 

Like, I’m being completely honest with you, if someone emotionally manipulated me to leave my friends, join the mafia, and I was forced to work with them for serveral years where they’d only be an annoying ass shit to me every day and use my skill every damn time to get something done? Man, I’d be fucking pissed. I’d hate them so much too. Also, to set a bomb under my car when they resign? Man. I wouldn’t even succumb to stalkholm syndrome from someone like that. Anyways I digress. Dazai and Chuuya don’t love each other, in my opinion, however, they still hold a weird friendship hateship thing for each other. 

SO. Edit after reading stormbringer because this was sitting in my drafts since march. No, I still don’t think that Chuuya and Dazai love each other, but their realtionship is fucking complicated. It’s not love, but on the surface level it seems that way. and I think that’s where a lot of BSD viewers kinda fall short, because... BSD is not a black and white thing. It goes pretty deep if you want to dig. Now, I’m not saying you shouldn’t ship or you should... you do whatever floats your boat. But the point I’m trying to make here, is that Dazai and Chuuya are basically like Asagiri (i think?) said, that they’re part of the same person. But they’re two very conflicting sides of the same person. It kinda goes to say almost, how you can fight and hate yourself, but without the other part of yourself you cannot live. Dazai and Chuuya are weak alone. Chuuya will die without Dazai, and Dazai cannot fight simply with his own ability. However when they work together, anything can be done. 

Yes, indeed, Chuuya and Dazai do hate each other. I will forever stand by that statement. However, Chuuya is only alive thanks to Dazai for saving his life, and Dazai only found the will to live because of Chuuya. Despite this, they hate each other in a way that’s complicated, but I’ll try to explain it because I guess this is a dazai chuuya analysis post now (wow tumblr 2016 animecore ig)

Dazai and Chuuya are a part of each other. Initally, when they first met, they hated each other. However, there’s a lot of trauma in both of them, invidually, but also traumatic things they’ve went through together for two barely adult people. They’re entangled, but they still repel each other no matter what. They dislike each other because of their highly conflicting personalities, different methods of thinking, different approaches to issues, and different levels of sympathy for people. 

No, it’s not an opposites attract case, you can tell how unwilling they are to see each other in that one episode. No amount of masking and acting will change that. But that’s why so many people enjoy the dynamic. Because it’s perfectly made so that it looks like your classic enemies to situationship to lovers where one bullies the other, but it’s really not like that. But it’s only because they hate each other that so many people like it. They’ll fight and “hate” each other, but they’ll also come to each other’s aid when it’s expected.

That’s what makes Dazai and Chuuya so special. They have a really strong bond together, born out of basically, mutral suffering in a sense and a strong dislike for each other. But they’ve become basically, two pieces of one body. One that needs the other, but will continually fight the other. Not because they’re falling in love with each other, no. But because they’re pieces that aren’t destined to fit perfectly together, nor will they ever, similar to an invidual that fights and hates himself all the time, but is whole. Without one side or the other, they will cease to exist. 

[sergeifyodorov]

Connor for the send me a character ask 👀

FIRST IMPRESSION

Have to preface this with the fact that I was really into baseball six or seven years ago when mcdavo was winning art ross number like. One or two. This was about 2016 or 2017 and i had the thescore app and I was looking at their simple ranked stats because i was bored, and instead of staring at the baseball ones over and over again I poked around on the other sports. I was not yet a leafs fan (born and raised in toronto so like, you support the leafs, but i wasn’t what i am now) and i looked at the points rankings and there was this annoying little orange background man in first. He had a nice 100 points and nobody else had that. And I was annoyed because I didn’t like that this Edmontonian fucker was doing better than anyone else. In retrospect it is very funny that my Oilers Hate Campaign is older than my actual hockey fandom.

IMPRESSION NOW

I have a lot of thoughts about Connor. I strongly disagree with the boring-sayers. He is not boring; he’s stiff and bland on camera out of both intention and The Tism and clearly has a lot actually going on once the panopticon is looking away (oxymoron statement but u know). Obviously he’s best in the world type whatever beat but thats like. The least interesting thing abt him. Dude is SO haunted it’s like you took a good portion of the sort of hockey curse an entire team typically develops and then dropped it right on his head like some sort of cartoon piano. But he is blissfully oblivious to the genre and is tragically determined to power through. 

I think he’s kind of spineless ultimately and this is what makes him say such vanilla things and let himself get so thoroughly and obviously managed by lk1 and stuff. but also that he is very single-minded and knows what he wants and is unafraid to pursue that at the cost of neglecting everything else in his life. Which is a pretty self-destructive habit when you have curses and whatnot but again, completely unaware of that, so he’s just barreling head-on towards the void, head down skates pumping

His edges are decent but he’s a speed skater by trade far more than a figure skater… jason brown could win 5 art rosses but connor mcdavid could NEVER do riverdance!!!

Completely unrelated to my thoughts on connor at all but the endless font of ohl bodies and the churning mill of eteri girls. It’s the same it’s all the same

FAVOURITE MOMENT

don’t say mccheatgate it’s not worth it--

In all honesty. Either Connor mc lukewarm gay rights statement, the adorable little standbyme video at the draft where it’s him n mitch and dylan and none of them can really sing and they’re all so obviously terrified but trying to cheer each other up bad, or that one ad where they’ve dolled him up and made him act. And he’s like beach chair lounging in the middle of the ice and stuff

IDEA FOR STORY

i think the most ideal thing narratively to happen to davo is Catastrophe. like we all know he has this very rigid and unquestioned worldview because he has never bothered to really look outside what the nhl straighttrack/lauren kyle has planned for him it’s most compelling to just. completely upend that

mccareer changing injury is a good one but ive already seen that one said. i do have this scrap of 9734 floating around thats like. leon gets fridged and he cant live with oilerhood after that so he goes the 1 other place he can stomach himself being (torono) and then falls in deeply toxic-homoerotic-codependency love with am34. and obviously is forced to reconsider his entire worldview about the ticking clock and the impermanency of life and grief and curses and haunting because damn leo you’re supposed to be dead why do i keep seeing u everywhere etc. it is important for my NARRATIVES that mcdavid is widowed and/or divorced

UNPOPULAR OPINION

i realize this one in context to the last sentence makes it look like i hate drai. I do not hate drai drai is the best oiler and his only competition is nuge. That being said.

I had a friend (knows nothing about hockey) and she thinks that connor is hotter than draisaitl. And like. I don’t completely agree. But i mostly do agree. very shallow of me yes i know but davo is CUTE and his cringefail ghost swag is kinda HOT and the long hair/mcjesus flow was SEXY

FAV RELATIONSHIP

bobby orr is a family friend and he knows wayne gretzky quite well because of oilersness and stuff. so im going to say his relationship with All That Came Before is my favourite

2997 close second tho. Get more divorced

FAV HEADCANON

the tism is kind of verging on the nebulously canon but like. Im not going to formally diagnose a man i dont know and enjoy sexualising on the internet so it’s getting put in here

[thesweetestclementine]

They Should Have Killed the Kids

Superheaven this and coffee theory that. The part of GOs2 that made me angriest was the Job minisode. I’m seeing people say that this was the strongest of the three, and I am here to strongly disagree with them. The writers missed the point of the entire book, and they turned what could have been an incredible study on the human condition into, like, a Doctor Who episode with Bible Flavor™. Buckle up. This got very long. 

Forewarned is forearmed: I’m coming at this from the perspective of a lapsed Calvinist Protestant. Come shout at me in my DMs if you have also been traumatized by conservative Christianity :D

Part 1: In the Beginning

The first order of business is to understand the text they are adapting. A Companion to Owls is the only minisode that’s pulling material directly from another source, so it’s easier to scrutinize by merit of there being something you can compare the adaptational differences to. For me, being able to go back and forth between the minisode and Job made the issues with Companion much easier to spot, whereas I had a harder time pinpointing exactly where the other two went wrong. Point being, I re-read Book of Job for the first time since high school, and I’m here to report back with my findings.

The Book of Job is a 42-chapter poetic cycle that covers the worst week of Job’s life. It is a beautiful reflection on the cruelty of existence and the capriciousness of God. There are several, several moving passages that get really existential and take a pretty interesting stance on God’s mercy that you don’t really see in the rest of the Bible. I’d recommend reading it - it’s not super long, and there are some passages in it that people reference constantly.

Here’s what happens in Job as Good Omens tells it: Job is the most blameless man on Earth. Because, or maybe in spite, of his righteousness, he’s absolutely loaded. God and Satan make a bet that Satan can/can’t cause Job to sin by dragging him by his hair through the desert (metaphorically. Maybe). Satan holds up his end of the bet. Job, sheep-less, camel-less, child-less, and covered in sores and ash, fails to forsake God. God talks to him and tells him that he knows jack about all, and that it is not his place to question the Lord. Job passes with flying colors. He gets his stuff back even better than before. The end.

The moral of this story is that God lets bad things happen even to the most righteous, and there’s not a whole lot you can do about it. 

Oh, wait. What’s that? My analysis is incomplete? You’re telling me I’m missing an entire thirty-five chapters of this 42-chapter book? 

Part 2: Where are Job’s friends???

If you’ve never had to sit through multiple, multiple sermons about Job, you might not be familiar with Job’s friends: Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite. Job calls them ‘miserable comforters,’ and a lot of Christian sources give them a pretty bad rap, but they are genuinely Job’s friends and want the best for him. They hang out with him after he’s lost everything and try to get him to fess up to whatever he did wrong so that he can get God’s forgiveness. They leap to God’s defense, which you’d think for the time and place is the right thing to do. But in their desire to see Job restored to his previous position, they don’t hear Job’s protests that he has remained blameless. They argue with him about this, over and over. In fact, the argument Job has with his friends is most of the Book of Job. It’s the heart of Job. To cut his friends out of an adaptation is a fool’s errand, because it means you’ve misunderstood the point of Job.

When you add the friends back in, Job’s story then becomes a discussion (a literal discussion, because of the arguing) about how God’s will for the righteous includes hardship, and your loved ones, well-meaning as they might be, will be unable to truly grasp your suffering and cannot possibly interpret God’s will for you. Job was bang on the money when he said he hadn’t done anything wrong, and yet his friends talk over him in an attempt to help him. Being offered useless or even harmful help when you’re in serious pain is an incredibly relatable, human experience. 

I don’t know why they cut the friends. Maybe it was too expensive to hire the three actors needed. Maybe the minisode was too short to flesh out a good friends plot. Maybe COVID restrictions fucked it up, I don’t know. Any way you slice it, Companion would have been a hell of a lot stronger had they taken time to actually include them, instead of making a stupid joke about shoemaking. If Good Omens is really a story about humanity, there is no more human experience than having your friends talk over you.

If you’re adapting Job, then, and you’re not going to talk about his friends, what is left in the story to focus on?

Part 3: Job’s Kids: Hotter, Blesseder, Faster, Stronger

So the writers of Companion decide to focus on the morality of God okaying the destruction of Job’s kids. This is such a weird decision. I understand why you’d want to adapt this; harming children should prompt a strong, visceral, horrified reaction from your audience, and it also asks some thorny questions about God’s divine will. It’s a great story for showcasing the callousness of God without having to do a lot of heavy lifting.

But the kids in the Book of Job aren’t even kids--they’re adults with their own households and land. While it is tragic that Job’s entire family dies, Satan is not going after helpless children, but instead markers of Job’s power and wealth. God probably would have told Satan to hold off on killing the kids if they were small, like She told him to hold off on attacking Job’s health initially (key word here is probably. God doesn’t have a good track record there. Hold that thought). This is a huge oversight on the writers’ part. Again, it makes me feel like they’ve missed the point of the book, almost substituting the original message for one they’ve created themselves.

If you wanted to retell a Bible story where you can just tear into the idea of God killing little kids to test someone’s righteousness, you have your pick. The story of Abraham and young Isaac is right there. Hell, the additional complexity of Abraham going along with it and not simply being taken along for the ride would have reflected the themes of Good Omens a lot better. There is no point in adapting Job for that reason.

Ooh, actually, adapting the story of Absalom would have been super cool. I’m getting off topic.

Job works best as a story showcasing the callousness of Man, rather than God. She is peripheral; She’s a side character; She only appears in the framing device and the divine smackdown. Her lack of concern serves as a mirror to the friends’s lack of concern: they are all trying to push their own agenda on Job, who is just trying to weather a cosmic pissing contest. It is not the focus of Job. The Book of Job does not care about the kids, and no adaptation worth its salt is going to care about the kids, either. It’s going to care about the friends.

Also, I couldn’t make this fact fit in cleanly, but the Bible goes out of its way to point out how hot Job’s new daughters are. Anyway.

Part 4: John Finnemore Giveth, and John Finnemore Taketh Away.

This is the part of the screed post where I veer into speculation and armchair screenwriting. If you’re locked in to an adaptation of Job and you want to focus on the kids, how do you make that more narratively satisfying?

You don’t resolve the main conflict by staging a goofy resurrection and returning everything to normal, for one.

When I say that Companion feels like Doctor Who, this is what I mean. A boiler-plate Doctor Who episode introduces a cool sci-fi concept & its complement ethical conflict and aims to resolve it in 45 minutes or fewer. Therefore, the concepts are interesting but not technical, and the conflicts are serious but not complicated. Despite its reputation, the resolution is usually hopeful and upbeat. The minisode has all the makings of a Doctor Who episode - it follows the same formula. Your concept - Job - is something a person who isn’t Biblepilled and Christocelled is probably vaguely familiar with, and, like, you can argue that killing small children for sport is not a conflict with a clear right and wrong, but you would be both incorrect and also a bad person.

To say that this makes me irrationally angry is to underestimate my rage. I realize I am not an average viewer, because I am Biblepilled and Christocelled against my will. BUT it makes me SO MAD that they treat Job like a black and white scifi adventure that they can neatly tie up in 25 minutes. At the end of the original story, Job’s original kids are gone. He may have gotten his health and wealth back, but there are ten people who were very dear to him that he will never see again. It ends in this weird, happy-ish gray space that the original Good Omens book also closes on - the conflict has just been kicked down the road, not fully resolved, and the story ends before we explore the consequences of that.

So, if I was the writer for this minisode, how would I suck the Doctor Who out of the episode? 

I think the thing they should have done was have the kids survive that thunderstorm, and then have the Archangels destroy them before Aziraphale and Crowley could do anything about it. 

Would it be tonally out of wack from the rest of the season? Absolutely. I still think they should have done it. Actually killing the kids gives Heaven teeth and makes the Apocalypse of last season seem like an actual threat. It would also force Aziraphale to have a different, more impactful crisis of faith than the one he had at the end of the minisode. Lying to your superiors is uncomfortable, but the thing that really rocks people’s faith in any system is seeing it fail unnecessarily and catastrophically.

I’m not expecting Paradise Lost, here. I just want something that hits at least half as hard as the original book. And saving the kids just doesn’t do it for me.

Part 5: Oh God, There’s More?

If you’ve read to this point, you are braver than any US Marine. I hope it made sense and that you are now as angry as I am about the Job minisode. I have issues with the other two minisodes (WHY WERE THERE LIGHTS ON DURING THE BLITZ?????) but they did not inspire a 2,000 word Tumblr post that was mostly written in a fugue state between the hours of 3 and 6 a.m. on a work night. A Companion to Owls, to me, missed the main points of both the Book of Job and the original Good Omens. 

Because what Good Omens is is a story about knowing humanity in all its multifaceted ugliness and choosing it anyway because the good and strange bits are good and strange enough to outweigh that ugliness. The Book of Job highlights a little part of the beauty and horror of humanity in a deeply relatable way, and instead of working with the themes of both works, Companion works against them.

Also...Job never had goats. He had sheep, camels, donkeys, oxen, and children, but not goats. Details, motherfuckers.

[0liver-hope]

character ask game :) for cassian? (and whoever else you want): 4,8,17,23?

Ohh man thanks so much for asking!! :D

4. If you could put this character in any other media, be it a book, a movie, anything, what would you put them in?

Ooo, well, my other main obsession is Tolkien's legendarium, so I'd be very interested to see what Cassian would get up to in that world, lol! I think he might fit in surprisingly well, actually. Tolkien loves his scruffy, brooding, dark haired heroes, and Cassian absolutely fits that type.

Will put the rest under a cut for length :)

8. What's something the fandom does when it comes to this character that you despise?

I don't like how cynical people are about him, sometimes! Like, I've seen people come away from season one thinking that that's the last time he's ever gonna see Bix and the other Ferrix refugees, that he breaks his promise to her, and I completely disagree.

I think he's absolutely committed to finding them again, I don't think that was a promise he made lightly. A big part of his growth over the course of season one was learning to trust and take responsibility for other people's wellbeing, he learned that on Aldhani and again in Narkina. It might take him some time depending on whatever Luthen has him getting up to in season two, but he'll find them.

And I think I'll be proven right on this given that Adria Arjona is in season two!! I really hope we get some moments of Bix and everyone just on their own, that we keep checking in on them and get to see what they're up to independent of Cassian, but I have a very hard time believing that that reunion won't be happening given that they are in the season. If for some insane reason it doesn't happen, I WILL WRITE IT AND THAT IS A THREAT, TONY

17. What's a ship for this character you don't hate but it's not your favorite that you're fine with?

I know some folks ship Cassian with Brasso, as well as Nemik, and whilst I can understand the appeal of both ships for different reasons, I feel pretty strongly that what he has with both of them is platonic. I loooove his friendship with Brasso so much, I think he's very much like an older brother to Cassian, and feels very responsible for him.

If they'd had the chance, I think Cassian might have felt very similarly towards Nemik as Brasso does towards him.

23. Favorite picture of this character?

Agghh that's a hard question... I don't know if I can pick a single favorite.

Gotta love this one of him covered in goo, though!

Also, I forgot that I didn't have asks turned on for my Andor side blog, but I've done that now!

Thanks again for asking, this was fun!!

[ceilidhtransing]

Something I really don't like in the social dynamics between trans and cis people is what I'm going to call “Don't Worry, Local Tran Can Reassure You Your Beliefs Are Fine And You're A Good Person”.

(And I'm very sure this dynamic also absolutely exists in other minority/majority situations - POC/white, disabled/abled, etc - but my specific experience is as a trans person so that's what I'm talking about.)

There's this weird thing some cis people do when they know you're trans, which is veer conversations into issues of trans rights or gender more broadly (and the lack of understanding from some cis people that trans people likely do not want to be randomly dragged into conversations about how people hate us and are trying to make our lives worse is a whole other can of worms) so they can state a view they hold and then look to the trans person for reassurance that yes this view is in fact good and fine and reasonable. (Even when it isn't.) (In fact, especially when it isn't.)

It's often phrased broadly in terms of “basically agreeing with trans rights” but thinking that some aspects of trans liberation (gender-neutral bathrooms, informed-consent access to hormones, calling people whatever they ask to be called, etc) or indeed something that isn't even really happening at all (think 'transitioning children' or 'forcing people to be attracted to trans people') is “going too far”, and that surely real trans people - subtext: “not those crazy activist freaks” - agree.

“I mean I'm basically all for trans rights but like if someone clearly looks like a man and isn't putting a lot of effort in I don't really think I should have to call them a woman, right?”

“I'm not transphobic or anything but I just don't get the point of gender-neutral bathrooms? And what if I was peeing and someone who doesn't belong there came in?”

“It's not like I'm against trans people but surely we need some kind of control over the medical stuff - like what if someone does something they regret? Or what about kids?”

And then they look at you with the clear social expectation that you will play along and totally agree with them and reassure them that they're A Good Cis and that they don't have to do any work at all to change their beliefs.

But what I think a lot of people don't get here is that in situations like this a huge amount of pressure is exerted on the trans person to agree - not only because most people are pretty conflict-avoidant and don't like having to say “no, actually, you're wrong about that”, but also because there is an existing stereotype of “the crazy angry easily-offended SJW freak who always takes things too far”, and we know that openly disagreeing, sticking up for our rights and dignity, and explaining why the person is wrong is likely to get us seen as exactly that stereotype.

Plus, they're not genuinely looking to see whether you agree or disagree; they're just using you in a very “I have a trans friend”-type way to reassure them that their views are fine. Exceptions do of course exist but people seriously looking to be educated tend to ask questions in an attempt to actually learn what the trans person thinks (“why are gender-neutral bathrooms important?”), rather than state a position and then beckon the trans person to agree with them.

This kind of thing is one of the casual conversational ways in which trans people are strongly encouraged to betray their community (and their own personal dignity) in order to be seen by cis people as “one of the good ones”.

“You know, Jack isn't like most trans people; you can actually have a conversation with him and he doesn't get offended by everything” - and their idea of “having a conversation” is just them repeatedly stating casually transphobic talking points while Jack feels awkwardly obliged to agree so as not to make a scene

I guess I don't have a grand thesis statement to make here other than “this is a pattern that happens” and “if you're a cis person who does this please recognise the social forces at play and stop”. The problem here isn't the socially-vulnerable trans people who respond to these deeply awkward and highly pressured situations with “mmm” and “yeah”; it's the cis people who, however unknowingly, put us in these situations in the first place.

If you're going to engage trans people on the topic of trans rights (or indeed engage any minority you don't belong to on the topic of their rights) maybe think about doing more listening than talking, and not treating the whole conversation as just a way for you to be reassured that you're already right about everything.