#i don't exactly agree with Good vs Bad endings anyway

[zoneofsmites]

Just saw someone refer to the veilguard endings as Kind/Unkind endings instead of Good/Bad endings. And idk it makes me laugh a little. Not that they're wrong for doing so but it creates a very funny image in my head.

[super-paper]

If you had to say, do you think this past few arcs of MHA, including the this final one, are rushed? I know many, many people have said it is so far, but like I just don’t see?? It seems that the pacing has been quite good, and the important moments are given impact, But the common complaints I see are that the story isn’t given enough room to breathe or it feels like it is going off a checklist. Do you think so too?

Yes and no. I do think some plot points have been expedited, but not out of lack of consideration for the story/characters or out of a desire to rush the story to an ending (or because Hori "secretly hates mha and just wants to get everything over with," or whatever absurd and insensitive nonsense redditwtter believes).

Rather, I always get the sense that Hori's always frustrated that he can't do even more for the series-- and recent interviews only cement this impression. MHA is his passion project and it's clear that he loves it deeply, but the constraints of this medium and his health problems sometimes make it difficult for him to fully realize that passion. Like, I don't want to overstep my boundaries as a fan and make insensitive assumptions, but-- as someone who also loves storytelling and art, I imagine it must be so unbearably frustrating to not be able to tell your story exactly the way you want to because of those aforementioned constraints. Despite that, he doesn't give up-- and as much as I want him to rest, I also can't help being in complete awe of his art/composition and how he delivers this level of quality on a near-weekly basis. He has an absurd level of talent.

Anyway. I feel that overall, act three has been paced just fine. The final act started out a bit rough with the dark hero and starnstripe arcs feeling mildly disjointed from each other-- but Hori found his rhythm again by the start of the war and thus far has managed to tie the themes and arcs of his core cast together in a satisfying way. I feel like people who claim that the pacing has been bad are kind of letting the cold, unrelenting march of real time cloud their judgement (MEMENTO MANGA AND MEMENTO MORI BROSKIS 🤘)-- but if you go back and binge read from the start of act 3 to now (306-405), it's easier to see that the final act has been paced well imho.

I've also mentioned this before, but, I feel people need to take the fact that Horikoshi introduced a lot of MHA's characters and plot elements when he was healthier into consideration with their critiques. Ongoing manga should not be critiqued the same way that one would critique a finished book-- understanding of the medium and its constraints are absolutely factors that need to be considered before you start bashing things like pacing or arguing that things have been "retconned," I feel.

And I also feel that as fans, we do have a responsibility to be aware of the grueling work conditions of this medium and the effects it has on the author, and then temper our expectations accordingly instead of expecting Horikoshi to neatly resolve every single subplot or minor character arc (For example: "Why aren't Momo, Denki, and Kirishima getting their moments in the final war?" bc they all got their big moments during the first war; "Why didn't we -see- Izuku and Toshinori developing their relationships with ALL of the 1A kids, Class 1A vs Deku and IronMight felt so forced!" *afo voice* BECAUSE THEY'RE EXTRAS-- bc this would be an absurd request even If Horikoshi didn't have health problems. It's perfectly fine to narrow the focus of Izuku's relationships down to certain key members of his class to emphasize the effect he has on people and narrow the focus of Toshi's relationships down to two or three other students to show his growth as a teacher-- the story would become excessively bloated & lose focus if we tried developing *every single side character/relationship*. This is literally basic writing 101).

I do agree that glossing over certain emotional beats in the aftermath of the first war was unfortunate and unlike what we'd come to expect from Hori (Midnight's death being treated like a footnote instead of a chance to explore the concept of personal loss in the students is the most egregious example)-- but for the past year or so we've seen a return to form in emphasizing/exploring the emotions of the core characters, so I do have high hopes for the finale/epilogue of Act 3!

[eri-pl]

Silm reread 15: Sudden Flame

The 15 is a good number for it, as Melkor was 15-th Vala (before Feanor's curse kicked him out from being a Vala, somehow) so I hc this as an unlucky number.

So, Fingolfin has a lot of army and plans a war. And with the language of it, I'd bet that if he managed to convince everyone and attack Morgoth, the result would be exactly the same (he would lose terribly).

Why? First: "he saw how numerous the Noldor were and how strong his allies were" makes my Bible-sense ring with "oh, he will lose this so hard" (the whole "betting on your power" vs "betting on God" thing. sorry, I forgot the proper word, so "betting" it is today). Second: "the plan seemed wise". seemed. Which very much feels like "but was not".

Oh wait, it's even explicitely said later that the war was hopeless.

Anyway we don't get to see it, because most Noldor disagree with Fingolfin anyway, they think the siege works perfectly well and why would we go to a battle, which is inconvenient and somebody may even die.

Especially the sons of Feanor don't like this idea. Sorry, what? The "we swore vegnence on Morgoth" guys? the "we must reclaim our Silmarils" guys? they don't want to fight? I don't get it at all.

Only Angrod and Aegnor agree with Nolo, which, of course, has the added irony of "Aegnor will die on this battlefield" (I don't remeber what happens to Angrod, probably dies too.)

Morgoth gathered army and grew even more evil, somehow. And kind of dumb, because he was too inpatient and that's why any Eldar survived that battle. Yea, he's the worst, but anyway.

Iron Mountains "spew fire in various poisonous colors" is such a cool description. I imagine itt as Disney-villain-green + magenta, mostly.

Glaurung debuts as an adult + volcano + Balrogs, generally it is bad and many die.

the Noldor get split and lose communication, Thingol grows in power. dfw is sad ;)

Yep, Angrod the angry dies too. But Finrod does not die and we have the Barahir situation. C&C go to Nargothrond, the narration comments on this.

Maedhros is ultra cool and the orcs fear his face and generally he is awesome. The Feanorians generally have to regroup (run away).

Fingolfin decides that this is the end of the Noldor and gets so upset that he goes to get killed by Morgoth. I don't think it's an overstatement.

"Nobody listened to me, so now we are destroyed. I'll get killed and they'll understand that they should have listened to me. Then we would surely win the war!" — that's how I imagine his decision-making process here.

But he is cool nonetheless, looks like Orome, is so angry, disses Morgoth enough to get him out of his castle. Morgoth is still the most powerful being (says the book) but regardless the only reason he agrees to fight Nolo is that otherwise he would lose face in front of all his minions. This is so… he's so cowardly that it's cringe.

Also, Nolo has a gem-incrusted shield. Peak Noldorin style.

He hits Morgoth 7 times, and each time Morgoth screams like a baby and his soldiers are so scared that they fall down. And the foot is the eight hit. Wow.

Everyone is sad. Maybe Turgon is a bit less sad because he gets to build his dad a grave.

Especially Morgoth, who has permanent pain in all those places + Thorondor messes up his face.

Another scary forest is made.

Beren's mom is really cool!!!! Her name is Emeldir and she is brave and fights with the reast of her family, only later she leaves with the other women (many plot-relevant ones)

Sauron makes the Werewolf Island, also gets a description. He is the mightiest and scariest of all Morgoth's servants. And warps everything he touches (that sounds interesting!). Also his skill at torture is explicitely mentioned.

Also, he starts by cursing the island. Which, I guess, makes it more habitable for evil forces?

Doriath is surrounded. Many elves are captured and enslaved and investigated and sometimes send back as sleeper agents.

Also, an explicite mention of Morgoth's spies who shapeshifted and lied and manipulated Elves and Men this way. Spies. Plural. So sauron was maybe like, a chief of the "shapeshifting spies" division, but by far not the only one. (I imagine him making courses on "how to lie more subtly" — especially for that one guy from that one scene. Yes, I will keep making fun of that.)

Morgoth is apparently not as dumb as it seemed, because he pretends to pity Men and tells them it's all because they listen to the evil, disobedient Elves, and they should listen to him instead. Unless it is just Sauron doing the PR… Morgoth canonically stayed in Angband. No, wait, it mentions the Men not buying that even when tortured in angband, so he did say that. Maybe Sauron wrote his speeches. Or maybe Morgoth was less dumb at this point than I assume.

Easterlings appear. Excuse me, professor, but this part is pretty racist. Even if you tell me that "not all" of them served Morgoth, you clearly show the three tribes as superior. Anyway, let's move on.

We get Bór!!! My favorite Easterling.

We get many family trees, also edain seem to have a thing with "two sisters amrry two brothers", ok, why not if both pairs are ok with marrying. It was a thing in some cultures, iirc.

Sirion is a very Ulmo-infused river.

And, speaking od Ulmo, he does sent Turgon a lot of messages, telling him that things are getting worse and to treat Hadorians well. Micromanagement continues.

Also, the relationship between Turgon and Ulmo confuses me. Ulmo giveshim detailed manuals for some things (historically relevant, mostly) but no advice about "maybe don't kill all the trespassers?" (unless there were really no legit trespassers there before Eol). Turgon listens to him (mostly), but doesn't go "My lord Ulmo, please protect my siter / can you tell me where my sister is / generally anything about that stuff". And no "My lord Ulmo, I am really angry at this Dark Elf who killed my sister, any advice what to do with him?"

Anyway, Hurin and Huor visit Gondolin, because Eagles. Turgon likes them, but Maeglin does not. Maeglin doesn't like Men in general (Why? Too loud?).

Also Maeglin gets passive-aggressive at Turgon for, idk, forcing him to stay in Gondolin? But he seems to like to be there? OK, I think he gets passive-aggressive at Turgon for putting Eol in a position that resulted in him killing Aredhel, but tbh it's unfair. Turgon wasn't the one who killed Aredhel.

Also, Turgon sends people in secret to try to sail to Valinor and ask for help. And, as with most cases of "secretely", it doesn't help. Also, Turgon, my guy, Ulmo talks to you, coulnd't you at least check this with him??? (Iirc, Voronwe was one of those guys. So don't blame the Valar for his death. Blame Turgon's strange mental process.)

He's starting to get into the "tall as a birch, stupid as a goat" mode. Which we'll see more of later.

At least Morgoth is afraid of him.

Also, Hurin becomes the ruler of Hadorians, and he is short. Yay, finally a short heroic character! (He will end badly but anyway)

[thebreakfastgenie]

Just out of curiosity, if you feel like it, what's your critique of the "war is war and hell is hell" line (outside of it being a bit corny to modern viewers).

Okay!! So I left some nuance out of that post for the sake of brevity. I do have critiques of that scene, but I also like it. It's emotionally effective and it has a nice rhythm to it and "War isn't hell. War is war, and hell is hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse." is a good bit of writing. It's always fun to refute a saying. I agree with the conclusion, here, but my reasoning would be that war is worse because war is real and hell is not.

Before I get into Hawkeye's reasoning, I do want to say that since the first time I saw this scene in the full context, I've felt it was one of the less elegant set-ups for a long Hawkeye speech. The way Frank blurt out "Oh, everybody knows war is hell." feels a bit awkward to me, and not in his usual way. Mulcahy is in full "tell us more" mode and it's not bad but I've seen this show do a lot better.

"Tell me, who goes to hell?"

"Well, sinners, I believe."

"Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in hell. But war is chock full of them--little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for a few of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander."

I like point about almost everyone involved in war being an innocent bystander. "There are no innocent bystanders in hell" sounds great but when you stop and think about it... is that true? Who or what determines who is a sinner? God? The standards of Christian theology? I've had conversations about this scene with a couple of people, and something that's come up is queer people. A lot of Christians believe queer people are going go hell (Mulcahy probably would, historically speaking). Are those people not innocent bystanders? What about adulterers? Thieves? Whose theology are we following, anyway? Different denominations have different ideas about who end up in hell and how.

It's sort of tangential, but I start to wonder from where Hawkeye is invoking the concept of hell. Is it just a metaphor? An abstract philosophical idea? Hawkeye is agnostic and doesn't seem to be a particular believer in sin. He could be attracted to the idea of cosmic justice, and imagine that people like the generals he meets, who enjoy killing other human beings, will go to hell and deserve it. But that speaks to a dark side of Hawkeye we only rarely see. I don't know that I see him endorsing a system of objective morality that sends some people to hell. I mean, I think the one thing we can say for sure Hawkeye believes is immoral is killing. But most of his patients have taken lives. I don't think he believes they belong in hell.

MASH in the early seasons also takes a sort of pro-sin slant, where Hawkeye and Trapper as well as most of the supporting characters are shown freely enjoying sex and booze while being our moral champions. There's a sense of hedonism as life, I think, vs strict obedience to the institution of the army as death. It just seems a bit at odds with this to invoke the Christian concept of hell.

I'm definitely overthinking this to get here, which is why I think the scene works fine.

[retphienix]

I am in a weird place with this game where I think I'll have no trouble accomplishing what I said would be my end goal (Dragonlord) buuuuut I feel like I was right about the orb quest. So my concerns on being too drawn out are both right and wrong- it's busy work- but I think I can probably get through it :)

The color orb quest is busy work for the sake of maxing out your team, which if this was DWM or DWM 2 I'd probably be happy about that because I enjoy their mechanics surrounding team improvement enough that I've naturally dedicated hundreds of hours towards doing that just for fun in those games.

I don't have fun in this game's version of it.

I don't think it's objectively bad exactly- and random posts from a decade ago on like gamefaq can prove that some people really do enjoy that, but for me it's super not feeling good.

Monster improvement is lame in this, I've rambled on it but basically I don't enjoy reforming vs breeding- it's extremely generous in what you carry over each breeding session but it's far less enjoyable since you don't get to "play" with the system half as often since you can't just mash hearts together for fun while you level your main team (and background monsters don't level up etc).

And perhaps more annoyingly because this facet of progression is UNIQUE to this post game grind, the caravan grind sucks eggs man lol

In the base game they are too afraid to give you any meaningful options for your caravan which makes the system feel like a failure in implementation, but then THIS part of the game is SUPPOSED to emphasize actually playing with the system...

Except it sucks lol

Because it's RNG to find people, it's tedious busy work to re-roll the RNG (you have to do another orb dungeon to get a chance at spawning new people), it's more RNG to get a class you want it's more RNG to have them actually be tier 2 or 3 instead of just another worthless tier 1 it's RNG RNG RNG RNG RNG

AND it's built around you doing tedious globe trotting with no (given to you by the story) meaningful tools to improve that globe trotting because you have to visit every town to check for these recruits and if you didn't luck into a TIER THREE SAGE then you just don't have any meaningful travel tools.

I SUSPECT there is a ship which would be nice, but I haven't found it, so it's not a "native tool" and might as well be considered similar to the tier 3 sage- if you have it great! If not, enjoy tedium.

The only new tools I've found are the wings which are nice but still make me interact with the dumb docks to get anywhere, skill issue, I should just look up the ship or an exploit for a sage since everyone keeps saying the T3 sage is practically necessary (I AGREE!).

Anyways- What I wanted to say is I feel I was right- this post game is built for people who want to grind for max stats because they enjoy the systems in place.

I don't enjoy them quite enough for that, with a lot of my feelings being "It's serviceable, but it's not fun or better than x y z etc" and that's fine, preferences and all that :P

Anyways! I plan to see how far I get before I decide I've had enough. The orbs themselves aren't /that bad/ with my current travel tools.

It's not /that bad/ getting 4 of a color even if it is RNG (BTW, I've opted to get 4 of the color and not risk my luck like last time- I was LUCKY that 4 random colors got me the flame orb, I'll stick with 4 of the same color now lol).

It's not /that bad/ beating the dungeons with non-grinded stats, as a matter of fact beyond some instant death nonsense it's been really pleasant with the orb dungeons being my favorite part of this busy work!

If the "spirit dungeon" or the "final dungeon" or even the dragonlord turn out to be tuned up to 11 because they want me to grind another 100 hours, I'll probably throw in the towel.

I'm 100% throwing in the towel on grinding a caravan team, screw that noise! Without a T3 sage it's busy work! No thank you!

But the globe trotting for orbs is /fine/ so I'll see how far I can get :)

[vintageleatherdean]

"The Story So far..."

I am rewatching (hi hello hi dormant spnfamily 👋) I am rewatching Supernatural from Season 1. I just finished season 1 and i'm like a few episodes into Supernatural Season 2. John Winchester is already dead, and Dean just repaired Baby. Anyway its my second time watching this since i watched it from the beginning the first time 15 years ago. (fuck! time flew!)

I have some thoughts. i was always a #DeanGirl from day one. and I'm realizing this now because when i first watched I didn't really put much thought into it. I used to say that the episode that confirmed for me that Dean was my favorite Winchester brother, was "Fear" or whatever the title was, where Dean is scared of everything. but more specifically the end credit blooper where Jensen let his dork flag fly and played his leg like a guitar while lipsyncing to "eye of the tiger." I USED to say that moment was when i fell in love with Dean, but actually it was when i fell for Jensen.

The REAL time i fell for Dean Winchester, was season 1 "Faith" because ot was the first time i saw him be vulnerable. and honestly, if you're a #DeanGirl, i think you can agree, seeing the usually tough brother let his guard down was really touching. —Jensen, i love you for bringing this character to life.

There are characters i miss from season one, Meg being one, and honestly the Yellow Eyed Demon being the other. Like Meg was fun. and The Y.E.D was a good Big Bad.

I also want to address something. John Winchester vs. Sam Winchester. Their bickering was so annoying to me. Dean being in the middle of all that was so holding things together. like the emotional toil their constant back and forth left on poor Dean? Ugh. John making them into little soldiers was bad enough, Sam constantly trying to pick a fight bothered me too. Okay, I'll excuse this a little bit bcuz it was a way for the family trauma to be addressed, so prior to season 2 it was okay. however, in "In My Time Of Dying" i was so annoyed by Sam picking a fight over Dean's deathbed at ghe hospital. like he couldn't have kept the peace a little for Dean's sake? Am i being unfair? IDK. I will admit though, that even on my first watch through all those years ago, Sam wasn't exactly my favorite character on the show.

Now before the #SamGirls attack me. I started liking Sam better a few seasons later. I don't remember exactly when, but i definitely wasn't as annoyed with his attitude sometime after John's death, but before he becomes Lucifer's vessel. Okay. I don't hate him, just don't love him like i do Dean. OKAY. More Sam for y'all anyway!

I miss Ellen Jo and Ash. My heart aches knowing whats gonna happen to them. Ugh I can't.

Sam's love interests so far have been Jessica and that art gallery girl from the "Provenance" episode. (Ruby/Genevieve hasn't shown up yet). For a moment there I really thought Art Gallery girl could have joined the Winchester team?? anyone else think that? Like I'm rewatching it and she just seems to have a Winchester like vibe... Dean was right, Sam should have married her.

[shadowsong26x]

W - A trope which you are virtually certain to hate in any fandom.

X - A trope which you are almost certain to love in any fandom.

Y - What are your secondhand fandoms (i.e., fandoms you aren’t in personally but are tangentially familiar with because your friends/people on your dash are in them)?

Z - Just ramble about something fan-related, go go go! (Prompts optional but encouraged.)

Yes, all four. XD

Lol, fair enough XD

W - A trope which you are virtually certain to hate in any fandom.

Hm. The main thing that comes to mind that isn't something Specific (or like a kink/smut thing which...I don't read a lot of smut fics anyway?) would probably be amnesia plotlines [she says, fully aware that that's a key part of one of her own original verses].

I guess it's not so much the idea of amnesia in and of itself, and more the way it tends to be used in fics, especially in a shipping context, it gets weird and uncomfortable and while I'm generally super into H/C tropes, something about the way amnesia storylines tend to play out just. Does Not Do It For Me.

Oh, omegaverse, I guess. Have never really understood the appeal of that.

Not a fandom trope, exactly, but the obligatory arc in team-based properties where everyone's fighting each other? Hate that. No thank you. Most of fandom also tends to hate those arcs though, lol, so it's mostly a thing I have to deal with in canon.

I'm also generally not into soulmate AUs, unless it's something baked into the structure of the fandom from the beginning (i.e., lifebonds in Valdemar) but there are exceptions to that (sometimes SW, particularly BSG).

X - A trope which you are almost certain to love in any fandom.

Lately I seem to be invested in surrogate parent/child dynamics a lot? Or actual parent/child dynamics but involving adoption or otherwise connecting later in life rather than Raised From Birth.

Also, most whump/H/C tropes, though I tend to be picky about who gets hurt.

I tend to get invested in characters with Complicated Loyalties and/or Alignments, as well.

Y - What are your secondhand fandoms (i.e., fandoms you aren’t in personally but are tangentially familiar with because your friends/people on your dash are in them)?

Several people I follow seem to be very invested in some very aesthetically pleasing C-dramas/Chinese dramas, so I tend to reblog those even though I have No Idea what's going on.

OFMD and WWDITS pop up on my dash a lot--I'm not interested in watching them for genre reasons, but I enjoy the enthusiasm of the people on my dash for them.

Also Batfam/DC comics stuff.

Those are the big ones, I think? Especially in terms of things I probably won't ever get into directly.

Z - Just ramble about something fan-related, go go go! (Prompts optional but encouraged.)

Lol, you left it so open-ended where do I even go from here XD

Uh, okay, a blitz through some of the things that have floated through my head lately:

I've been thinking a lot about Zarek lately, actually, for a variety of reasons (including a backstory/character profile fic that I swear will materialize someday). Watch him also take on a bigger role than I planned in The Other Battlestar, lol.

Also thinking about adaptations, and what makes a good one vs. a bad one; both because the Les Mis brainrot is still strong (I still need to do my rewatch of the 2012 movie, maybe this weekend), and in talking about the WoT TV series with my dad (he doesn't like it, thinks it takes things too far away from the source material; I agree that it's doing some Very different things to the point where it's borderline a different story at this point But the touchstones I like are still strong enough for me, even with the Heavy nostalgia goggles)

Crossovers! Crossovers are a lot of fun; there are still a handful of BSG/SW crossovers I want to write someday, plus the BSG1 crossover AU outline I started...like...two years ago, lol...

Always sort of in the background thinking about redemption arcs/morally grey characters and/or storylines (see above re: complicated loyalties and alignments being a Thing for me, lol). I haven't written anything on the subject in a while, but sometimes go back and reread old essays.

...there's more, I'm sure, but that's what's popping into my head as having been fairly Present lately XD

Ask me a question!

[thecoolerliauditore]

I... cannot agree less, if I'm totally honest.

For the starters, the team-ups this season I'd argue aren't any more unexpected than any other season. In fact, most of the discussion following episode 1 was regarding the repeat team-ups of dynamics we'd seen dominate previous seasons -- tuff guys (ethubs, team BEST/TIES), GGGG (literally named after GGG), Renwood Mound (treebark) and, while grumbo wasn't exactly the force of nature the previously mentioned groups were, they did previously team together in LL through the Southlanders.

This is not a bad thing, and most of us were very excited to see some of our favourite dynamics team up when episode 1 dropped, but they are definitely "what usually happens". I think the fact that Pearl explicitly made a community post about people saying "not them again" about her team says enough on its own.

The creators themselves also make more than just a handful of callbacks this season, I'd even say much more than usual. Bdubs referencing what happened between him and Tango in LL, even including a clip, Scott directly saying Pearl villainizes him for DL, Gem and Pearl referencing the end of SL and murder camel, Cleo I don't think directly mentions LL but her calling Bigb untrustworthy and bringing up "grudges" certainly feels like it's carried over from the Fairy Fort, Scar literally ends his series IN SL, etc.

(^ just saw your additional reply to another set of tags re: this. I think it really comes down to a matter of opinion what constitutes as a callback vs a "continuation", I personally don't see a difference. Every "storyline" is interpreted anyway. Although I will say Pearl at least very much came off to me as purposefully trying to tell a story, judging by her continued dedication to her character as well as literal mention that she had "plans" early on in the series)

I don't think? Many of us expected the CCs to follow the same plotlines we saw, in fact most people I know are the types who would they much rather not over-reference fandom.

The dissonance between the series and the fandom's interpretation of it has always existed -- that post where fanon is depicted as liberty leading the people and the actual series is a scooby doo screenshot comes to mind.

If the series getting too goofy for the fandom's angstier tastes was an issue, I don't think it would've formed in the first place at all, 3L was distinctly unserious right from the get-go. I don't think anything in WL is any goofier or more """out of character""" compared to say. the Clocker family shenanigans during LimL (ethubs shippers certainly weren't leaving en masse when they decided they were father and son) or Martyn's property-value-decreasing heart house in DL or any of the many sillier final deaths -- one of the permadeaths I saw spawning the most angsty fanart/fics was Jimmy in LimL who did not have the most. dramatic exist lmao.

I'm not asking for everyone to have purposeful, narratively compelling storylines. I'm not asking for dramatic, heart-touching performances. I certainly am not "crushed" by the "realization" the CCs care less for the dramatics. I've always seen that as the fandom's job, to work with what we get, and to put it simply, I felt disappointed with what we got which felt to me forced and uncomfortable to watch at points.

And that's great that you liked WL! ALOT of people liked WL! It's not objectively incorrect to like WL!

But I do think it's a bit. troubling to me that we've been observing a shift in Grian's approach to the life series since SL and now we're turning it around and saying it's the fandoms fault for being too invested in the wrong way, or blaming the disappointment we feel on our own investment in the series rather than the fact that the series is very clearly making an active decision to move away from its roots and thus what made a lot of people like it in the first place (which is -- once again -- fine and good, just disappointing if you're one of said people it's moving away from).

And if I'm totally honest I do feel a bit? peeved that we are on my non-maintagged vent post where I talk about moving on from one of my favourite things. I understand you somehow happened upon it but I'm not here to convince people WL was objectively bad, I'm just a bit sad.

on one hand, very glad my suspicions of burnout and gimmicks as a result of fear of losing viewership were wrong at least as far as we know. im glad the CCs are having fun and their enjoyment is being prioritized, even if i am still not entirely convinced everyone's on the same page.

on the other hand, it's melancholic but this is pretty much the nail in the coffin in me having any interest left in future installments of the series. for those of you concerned: I am forever haunted by my brain diseases and will be continuing to post, write and draw 3L - SL for the rest of my forseeable life (plus completely disconnecting from any need I feel to interact with WL and beyond leaves me with more time to work on. certain larger scale projects I have had plans for)

i respect grians decision-making and he would know better than me how to run a youtube series, however I do question how much of an oxymoron it is to not care about viewer feedback for a youtube series run on viewership (and when so many of the recent behind the scenes decisions we've been privy to - such as Scar and Grian's hesitancy to team up based on comments calling them "boring" -- imply the opposite regarding the cast's mindset). it makes me concerned for the longevity of the series going forward, since those not happy with the direction that I've seen have all been very passionate and old fans, but I've also seen an equal if not louder support for this season, so I digress.

Part of me wonders how much of the "we want last life 2" sentiment (<-- something I've previously spoken about how I don't agree with) the cast has been exposed to, since it felt strange to me that it was even bought up. I have had a thought about this and the consequences of "don't maintag your negativity" e.g. the reasonable people know to hide their critical posts, and what that leaves a creator with are the unreasonable people, and if it's only that feedback that gets processed, then inevitably things tend to go in weird directions. Were any of us actually "tired" of Desert Duo interacting? Were any of us mad at Gem for killing Grian in SL?

It's frustrating to see crit posts get flagged down with accusations of disrespecting or attacking the CCs, or "we don't want you here anyway, just leave," when myself and all the people I've spoken to being not avid haters but rabid fans who feel frustrated and actively want to continue liking the series. Not to mention most of the people also being active members of the fandom ontop of that -- we claim that fanart is important and makes the series even more special than it already is, yet people seem more than happy to sacrifice that just for the sake of not seeing critical opinions.

t-shirt that says blah blah blah. but I reserve the right of feeling disappointed.

[faded-florals]

what’s your opinion on phantom 25th dvd release vs livestream 1 vs livestream 2? my friends have finally agreed to watch it with me and I wanna get a hot take from the resident hadley stan on which version to show them

I am jealous that you are getting to share POTO@RAH with your friends for the first time! All of my close friends and family have seen POTO with me at some point before and are very politely done with me carrying on about it. 😂 I'm sure whichever version you end up watching together will be a good time, but of course I'd be glad to give you my opinion. (With gifs exclusively from the broadcast versions to keep you entertained! 😍)

A little context for those who don't know, The Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall had 3 performances back in October 2011, and all of those shows were filmed. Of that footage there are 3 full 'versions' of the show floating around that we know of - the DVD version, and 2 versions of the broadcast that were aired live in theaters and on TV.

The DVD version is the most edited of the three, and is a mash up of the video and audio from all performances. Ramin was dubbed pretty heavily in the version on the DVD, with different audio played over the same video we see from the live broadcasts. Off the top of my head, Stranger Than You Dreamt It is where it is the most noticeable, as well as some parts of the Final Lair. Ramin is known to have a very passionate and unhinged Phantom, and I honestly would call his vocal performance we hear in the broadcast version "messy", but not really in a bad way. He has a lot of feelings, okay? 🥺 

and anyways, I like my Phantom messy 🤷‍♀️ But I get why they decided to swap out the audio for the DVD. It's all still Ramin performing, of course, and it's never been officially said if Ramin came back to record additional vocals for the DVD. Most likely it was audio pulled from another night when he had settled down a bit. The video you see in the DVD is just slightly out of sync with what you hear, but it's not distracting and definitely not something a new viewer would notice.

The broadcast versions are much more raw than the DVD. It’s worth noting here that that while there are 2 full video files that we call the broadcast versions, they are only different up through Angel of Music, at which point the rest of the video and audio of the show is exactly the same. I personally prefer broadcast version 1, but how could I pass up the opportunity to share this glorious shot of my favorite lovesick dork up in his box, only seen in v2 of the broadcast:

There are a lot more wide shots of the whole stage in the broadcast version, as well as a number of close ups that linger beyond what we see in the DVD. A few of those close ups are some of my absolute favorite shots of this production, a selection of which I’ve featured here in gifs. I think the broadcast has a “watching it in the theatre” vibe too, where you’ll get a better view of the stage overall in some scenes, but you’ll miss the focus at points as the camera switches to catch up on the action. It also has a couple of flubs (see Hadley backing into the bench below, and another being Sierra’s very wet kiss after returning The Phantom’s ring). The DVD is much more polished, and makes a point to use only the shots that focus directly on the action of each scene, the downside being you can miss the subtleties that the rest of the amazing cast brings in each moment.

It’s also worth mentioning the difference in actual video quality between the versions. The DVD has the best quality, though it has some strange color filters at some parts. (All I Ask of You and the Final Lair are weirdly blue?? WHY??) The broadcasts are watchable, but the audio can be not as clean at parts, a little more difficult to hear the leads and way more heavy breathing, snorts, and sniffles. I’m not sure if there are subtitles out there for the broadcast version, but that is something else to consider.

Overall I would recommend watching the DVD version with your friends, and for any other first timers. It was edited to make the performance accessible and easy to follow for a home audience, and I think it does a good job in that. If you’d like to think it over some more, I have a few videos that directly compare the DVD and broadcast V1 side by side, you can find them linked below. 🥰 Happy watching, I hope your friends fall in love with POTO too!

Side by Side Videos: All I Ask of You - Masquerade - Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again - Final Lair

[inhuman-obey-me]

On Simeon and what it means to be an angel

The beautiful, gentle angel who can smile through just about anything. But what's underneath the ever-present smile of his? Is he really just pure, sweet, and kind?

Not at all. Simeon can be very mischievous at some times, and scarily wrathful at others. Some of you may be thinking, just what kind of angel is someone like that? Well, let's talk about that.

(includes spoilers up to lesson 52)

Starting with the idea of what angels are supposed to be like - the common, pop-culture characterization of angels is that they are pure, merciful, peaceful beings who can only do good and are horrified by anything dark or bad.

And admittedly, Simeon doesn't seem to quite perfectly fit that mold.

[Disclaimer: Neither mod of this blog belong to the Abrahamic religions, so this is purely from our own research]

In terms of how angels have been described in various scriptures, however, this isn't actually what they are like. Angels act on behalf of God, and are usually not meant to have any free will of their own. The thing that separates angels from demons is not a tendency towards kindness and purity, but that their actions are aligned with God's desires rather than their own. What this means in effect is that, both in actual scripture and in the game, angels can and will do things that are a lot less pure and peaceful than their modern mainstream depictions would suggest.

For example, there is a part of the Bible (at least in various versions) where it is mentioned that an angel was ordered by God to kill one hundred eighty-five Assyrians, leaving their camp full of dead bodies in the morning.

The poet Rainer Maria Rilke states in his The Duino Elegies - "Every Angel is terror".

Seraphim - which is what OM!'s renditions of Simeon and Lucifer both formerly were - are basically six-winged snakes. Cherubim, as OM!'s Beelzebub formerly was, are actually multi-faced humanoid-lions with wings. "Do not be afraid," is a line angels often say when they meet humans because they are just as scary-looking as demons - just they're, you know, the "good" ones.

Actual descriptions of angels aside, even in-game, we are presented with example after example that angels are not perfect "pure and good" beings either. The game itself emphasizes this point at various times - if you upset Simeon during Surprise Guest interactions, one of his displeased lines is: "Just because I'm an angel doesn't mean I'm all forgiving." In lesson 51, though he initially says he left Satan to be with the Angel versions of his brothers for Satan's benefit, if MC actually agrees that he was just being kind, he is surprised that they really believed him.

It's not just him, either. Similar to Simeon's upset reaction, if you give Luke a present he doesn't like, he says, "I know I'm an all-forgiving angel and everything, but even so, this is a little too much..." When MC briefly lands in the past, the brothers actually describe Simeon as the least intense of the seraphim. Back when the brothers were angels, Lucifer was still known for being strict and arrogant. On the more extreme end, Raphael was known for keeping the angels in line via the pointy end of his spear, as Asmodeus fears will happen to him as punishment for going to a party. And Michael himself, the top-ranking leader, who one might think should be the most angelic of angels, is described as a sadist. In the Angelic Demons event, Michael even gets Simeon to give the demon brothers cursed bracelets that temporarily turn them into angels. It's not a very nice prank to pull on them, as it makes the brothers miserable to be converted back to their old forms, not to mention that the curse goes so far that they are turned into the caricature of overly nice and polite angels - but as it could be considered more in line with pulling them towards "God's will," this would actually be considered a good angel thing to do.

As the game points out, being the least intense doesn't exactly make Simeon easygoing, either. In fact, we have seen at this point quite a few examples of Simeon's rage. As a play director, he berates the brothers so much over any mistakes that they call him a dictator. Not to mention, the reason they are in the play in the first place is because the entire previous cast quit because they couldn't deal with him.

Later, when he and Luke are running the Angel's Halo, he drags the brothers into helping out. Though he is shown still smiling, everyone agrees because they are terrified of his menacing aura. Even Diavolo, when on the home screen, remarks about hiding because he made Lucifer mad again, but it's Simeon who he calls "the one person in this world I don't want to anger."

On a much lighter note, some of his less "angelic" behavior also comes from his playful, mischievous side. As referenced earlier, he is surprised if MC believes he was just being nice, but if the player says they thought he was pranking Satan, it gives intimacy points with him, and he says:

He also joins in on the teasing of Luke, having his name as "Luke (Chihuahua)" in his D.D.D. contacts. Multiple of his home screen lines also show how much he loves messing with Luke in general:

"I'm free right now, so I think I might go and tease Luke."

"Luke is like a Chihuahua who thinks it is a German Shepherd. Cute, huh?"

"I'm back! I was so excited to meet you that I left Luke behind."

"If you don't eat enough breakfast, you'll turn out tiny like Luke."

Plus, in dance battles, one of his chibi poses is him teasingly scaring someone, while Luke has a corresponding scared pose, suggesting that he may be meant to be scaring Luke in particular.

He also gets MC to mess with Belphegor when they are looking for him, instructing them to kick the tree that he knows he's probably asleep in as hard as they possibly can.

However, while none of those things make him any less of an angel, there is evidence to support that he is, in fact, a "bad" angel in a different sense.

As the two Celestial Realm exchange students, Simeon and Luke represent two opposite ends of a spectrum of angel attitudes. Luke, having still been very young when the Great Celestial War happened, has been taught to have very uptight views of the demons, insisting that they are evil and should be avoided at all costs. When he first arrives in the Devildom, he is terrified at the idea that the two of them could get corrupted by the demons and fall. This is the prevailing attitude taught in the Celestial Realm: that demons are wicked, and that angels are inherently better than them.

By contrast, Simeon does not hold this view at all. He is happy to spend time with the demon brothers, and doesn't look down on them for falling. On the home screen, Luke complains, "Simeon is too sweet to demons! He's sweeter than a cake from Madam Scream's!" In the Rain, a Fire and Simeon Devilgram story, Simeon even talks about how he actually prefers the hustle and bustle of the Devildom, feeling that the Celestial Realm feels too quiet now.

This difference between him and Luke is not only expressed in his fondness for the demons, either. Simeon understands the nuances of good vs evil, and he himself seems to operate in shades of grey at times, rather than being perfectly aligned with Michael's (and by extension, it's implied, God's) wishes. More than once, he displays quite a flippant attitude towards following the rules, such as his very hand-wavey dismissal when MC asks about his lying.

Luke also calls him out on his disregard for rules, saying that Simeon is just too loose about following them:

However, this glib attitude should not be taken to mean that Simeon doesn't know exactly what he's doing. When it seems the only solution to restore stability to the three realms is for MC to sever all their pacts with the demon brothers, he quickly realizes that the other option, the Ring of Light that used to belong to Lucifer, must be hidden among Michael's things rather than lost to time as everyone thought. He tells Luke that he needs to go back to the Celestial Realm to take care of something, but he is firm that Luke should not come with him - because he is going to steal the ring from Michael, a risky, rebellious move that he doesn't want Luke to get involved in. He is perfectly aware of what he's doing, and actively chooses to do it anyway, consequences be damned, because he wants to do what he feels is right.

When Michael does confront him about it, he's not the least bit sorry, either. In fact, he sasses him and talks back, unafraid to show disrespect to God's top angel.

We also know that he's been demoted at some point. Luke tells MC that Simeon is an archangel, making him one of the Celestial Realm's warriors, or as Simeon himself has jokingly described it, a "low-level grunt" who is overworked by higher-up angels like Michael. However, during MC's time travel back to the Celestial Realm, we learn that Simeon used to be a seraph right alongside Michael and Lucifer. It is again referenced during the fairy incident, when he makes the low-level grunt joke again but is then reminded that he was a seraph at this point in time. We're not sure yet why he was demoted - there's a lot of speculation on this point, and we can't draw any definitive conclusions yet - but if we take that being a "good" angel means being obedient to Michael and God, we start to get a far less rosy picture of Simeon's good standing as an angel.

What does this mean? Is he a "bad" angel? Kind of, but not for the reasons some may think. His mischievous, devious, and playful side is not what makes him less angelic. It is his more rebellious, nonconformist way of doing things that actually opens up the possibility of him gradually getting further and further away from being an ideal angel, and potentially putting him on the path of falling from grace.

[my-one-true-l]

Hey Asraella. Sorry to bother you with my message. It's about a discussion I had in Reddit.

We all know L isn't a person he'd be considered good because of the things he's done to Misa, etc. He's presented as bad as Light which is a taboo topic for me to talk about.

I can't understand either fandom or my own feelings towards L. Like if we say he's as monster as Light, then we should stop loving and appreciating him as a character. And yet most people root for him. I personally believe he's gray when it comes to justice, but that doesn't mean he's a monster or something. He just tries to get his job done like any other detective. It's not like he'd be abusing in a relationship.

I don't know... Maybe I should stop liking L. I mean, he's my comfort character. I wouldn't want a comfort character to be evil or worse a monster. And to admit it, I'm generally a crybaby and a genuine soul when it comes to my personal life. It seems to have represented it in my fics or my headcanons.

Hello Dear Anon,

You are never a bother.

I have so many thoughts on this. I will say that you can like whichever character you want and see them however you choose. Fandom does not dictate that, so let’s just get that out of the way.  You do NOT need to stop liking L or having him be your comfort character.

I feel like I talk about this so often that I’m becoming a broken record, but let’s go anyway.

I think L is often mischaracterized, mainly because he is working with the police and therefore is the good guy and if that’s the case he should act like the stereotypical hero. People forget though that he and Light are supposed to be opposite sides of the same coin, both taking extreme actions to get the result they want. It’s supposed to be two people equal in wits and intelligence going against one another to get to their end goal…not storytelling stereotypical good vs evil. The entire idea behind Death Note is grey. What is Justice and how far will you go just to win?

Whether you think what L did was wrong or not, I think if he was any different, the story would have suffered. Light needed a foil willing to take him on on his level and that is exactly what L was. Fans feel far less inclined or pressured to defend loving Light despite everything he does that is horrendous. That same curtesy should be extended to fans of every character, don’t you agree?

[smilepebble]

my thoughts and interpretations on nuzleafs arc because if i don't talk about leaf dad for long enough i explode.

darkness vs negativity kinda stuff and my guess on why he got possessed in the first place. also me going insane over the themes of this game

i think the reason why a lot of people don't like him as much as the other twist villains is because he isn't really focused on enough to truly get a grasp on what's going on with him, to the point where his character kind of gets dropped in the postgame (which sucks!!!! im very sad about it)

anyway, similar to dusknoir and munna's arcs, nuzleaf's arc is supposed to be metaphorical for something else. unlike dusknoir and munna, nuzleaf's arc is much more on the metaphorical side than the other two.

we don't get too much regarding how dark matter's possession exactly works, however it seems evident that those possessed by dark matter are at least somewhat aware of what they are doing, and can remember what they did while possessed after regaining control over themselves. this is evidenced by beeheeyem in the prehistoric ruins saying "i don't want to remember what i did while possessed" and not wanting to reveal why hero was targeted, and also by nuzleaf and yveltal saying that they "did horrible things" under dark matter's influence.

the game points out that dark matter easily possesses those with "darkness in their hearts". i definitely agree with @defendglobe 's post that there is a notable difference between negativity and darkness, and since the main theme of the game is about self-forgiveness and self-acceptance, my best guess is that "darkness" refers to self-loathing. i can give a pretty good guess on why yveltal, the pokémon god of death might hate themselves, but we don't really get anything about nuzleaf and the beeheeyem before they were possessed, so i can't say anything for certain. my best guess is that they were depressed or something bad happened to them before the main story.

what i can say for certain is that they had hit a low point just before getting possessed, which makes me think about what this whole possession thing is supposed to represent, which is manipulation. which sounds really obvious when i say it like that but lemme go into detail lol.

you kind of see this a lot in shows and movies: a character hits a low point and gets easily influenced by the bad guy to join their side. however its not usually taken to such a serious degree as psmd tried to do here. nuzleaf and the others hit a low point and were vulnerable, mentally, and were extremely loathsome of themselves. perhaps they felt that they would hate themselves less if they weren't themselves.

and psmd brings up an interesting debate at the end of the game: if you did something terrible under the influence of another, does it make it your responsibility? unfortunately this gets dropped along with most of nuzleaf's arc in the postgame (punches a wall ú_ù) but i think it's still worth exploring.

a final thing is that despite all of this, nuzleaf still seems to find it hard to forgive himself. when partner comes back to life, nuzleaf says "we actually did something right for once" (not the exact wording but whatever. i remember he says this) so basically what im saying is that if we ever get a remaster of psmd i want nuzleaf to get a special episode and be psychoanalyzed to the voidlands hell and back

[therealvinelle]

Hi! I was reading through your meta (which is reeeeally interesting) and noticed you said you don't like Eleazar? I was wondering why that was?

Tumblr ate this ask when I had almost finished it and I hate everything. Also, thanks for the compliment, I’m really glad you like my things.

Now to try and remember what I wrote about Eleazar…

I think Eleazar is a disagreeable person whose gift wasn’t useful enough to warrant a place in the Volturi guard, and Aro jumped on the Carmen-shaped excuse to give him an honorable discharge.

To start with the gift, we see him use it twice and neither time is particularly impressive.

Siobhan Siobhan has the power of reality manipulation. Her gift is noticeable enough that Carlisle is certain she has it, so when he gets Eleazar and Siobhan in a room together he pulls Eleazar over to see if he was right. Eleazar squints at Siobhan. And he squints. Finally he says, «I’ve got nothing.» Now, gifts are an iffy, complicated matter everyone has their own theories about, but I think that at the end of the day we can all agree it’s a binary, you’re gifted or you’re not. Some gifts may be weak, but those are still gifts. And maybe someone will touch the gray zone of «is it a gift or is Johnny the vampire just really good at juggling?», but Siobhan has the power to manipulate reality, and she must do it a lot for Carlisle to have come to suspect it in the first place. She has a definitive and powerful gift. And even if I’m wrong about gifts being binary, if Eleazar wants to be useful to Aro he should still be able to say: Yes, this person has a gift, or no, this person does not have a gift. Sadly, he is not. When brought before Siobhan he says «She could have a gift, she could also not have a gift.» This means he hasn’t detected her gift, which is bad enough by itself. Being able to tell if someone has a gift or not should be a dealbreaker. The way he answers, though, that she could very well have a gift he doesn’t know about, makes it clear that people having gifts he couldn’t detect has happened enough for him to be open to the possibility that the gift there, and he can’t see it. In other words, Eleazar isn’t reliable for detecting gifts and will give Aro false negatives.

Bella This is an aside but as it’ll inevitably come up later in my blog I’ll just drop here that I think Bella’s gift is something more complex than a shield. She has prophetic dreams, hallucination!Edward, and there’s a weird inconsistency as to who is blocked by her and who isn’t. I think her gift is self-preservation, and the shield is one of its manifestations. Anyway, onto discrediting Eleazar. (I’ll be pretty closely paraphrasing what happens in chapter 31 of Breaking Dawn, but since the interaction goes on for several pages I’m not going to clutter this post by pasting all of it.) To his credit, he does notice Bella right away, and he identifies her as a shield based on the fact that he gets this sense of nothingness from her. This is all he can do, however, and I can’t stress that enough. He assumes that she can block Edward, but he’s shocked to learn that she can block Aro. He’s just as surprised that she can block Jane and Alec. He has to interview her to deduce exactly what her gift does, which again has nothing to do with his gift. Anyone could ask questions, in fact Aro found all this out two books ago, without the help of Eleazar. Eleazar then starts musing aloud about who-would-win in a Renata vs. Bella showdown (more on that later), which is as tactless as it is revealing. The guy genuinely doesn’t know, and it’s because he doesn’t understand their gifts well enough. Eleazar’s power means he can tell Bella that she has a gift, and he knows roughly what it is. He muses that usually he can’t even tell that much, which again is quite damning. He can’t tell her exactly what she does without a game of 20 questions first. She gives him more information than he gives her, which he then regurgitates back to her with slightly different wording, and everybody claps. «My god, Eleazar, you’ve done it again!» (No, really, this is pretty much what happens. Eleazar brought no new information to the table, yet he blew Bella and Edward’s minds.) It’s all fun and games to do this for Bella and Edward, as they for various reasons genuinely didn’t realize she had a gift. For Aro, who figured this one out on his own, one begins to wonder what Eleazar was bringing to the table.

Carlisle Bonus bullet point! I’ll make this one brief. I believe Carlisle in canon has a gift he’s unaware of (Yes, I have a post planned, but it will get ugly long so god knows when it’ll come), which makes him another one of Eleazar’s gift detection fails. In short, I think he’s extremely charismatic, able to win over anybody. To list a few examples - he has an extremely diverse set of friends who in Breaking Dawn are willing to lay down their lives for him, Jacob muses how his instinctive hostility around vampires doesn’t apply to Carlisle, and vampires are terrifying to humans (don’t be fooled by the movies, people) yet Carlisle is able to work as a successful doctor, meaning his patients don’t mind being exposed to a killing machine even when they’re at their most vulnerable. He’s able to keep his family of sociopaths in line. There’s not a single person in the Twilight ‘verse that dislikes him. (Billy and Caius excepted, but Billy has no direct exposure to him until late Eclipse, and Caius is responding to a coven that’s potentially threatening the Volturi) People are free to disagree with me on this one, but if I’m right (and I have a lot of book quotes as well as a theory on what gifts even are to back me up on this one. I’m right, damnit!) then Carlisle is another gifted vampire Eleazar failed to detect.

So. We’ve established that Eleazar’s gift will yield false negatives, and that he can’t tell you much about the gifts he does detect.

I think his power is to point out the obvious.

Which means that Aro’s eyelid was twitching slightly, but alright, Eleazar could still be useful.

Unfortunately, there is the matter of weighing up your pros with your cons.

The Volturi are, at the end of the day, a group of people who live in a commune together. Coven, guard, evil minions, call them what we like but they’re exposed to each other and some sense of agreeability is required. And Chelsea is not omnipotent.

More, I imagine that in a coven as large and old as the Volturi, they’ve developed a culture of their own. This means that newcomers will need social awareness and a willingness to fit in.

Eleazar, from what we see of him in Breaking Dawn, appears to lack both.

It’s in the way he speaks of the people he used to work with. It’s utterly impersonal. He tells us how their gifts work, no more and no less. When he speaks of Aro, he speaks only of actions Aro took and orders he gave, nothing about the man’s personality. Now, considering the context, he was speaking in a context where Jane’s thoughts and feelings were far from relevant, but it’s still notable.

Also notable is the fact that he has no issue contemplating a Renata vs. Bella scenario, even though this would mean the deaths of two people he worked with for years. Perhaps it’s a thought exercise, but it’s not a thought exercise I would have gotten into when it was days away from becoming reality. If Renata can’t deflect Bella’s power, she and Aro die.

I’ll put it this way - I don’t think he’d do a «who would win» like this involving Carmen.

At no point in the book does Eleazar show any concern for the eventuality that members of a guard he used to be a part of may get killed.

It seems he didn’t form personal relationships with the rest of the guard. I suspect he considered himself... if not quite above them, then still someone who could evaluate them. Their gifts is what he looked at in them. I also think it’s likely he asked Aro not to use Chelsea on him, which in turn would have made him stick out even more as there’s nothing making him and Volturi Guard Member X just click in the way I imagine Chelsea can be very helpful with. Which in turn means that the other guard members will feel close to one another in a way they’re not close to Eleazar.

Also… he’s just a douche. I’m sorry, but I don’t make the rules and the whole guy radiates douche. I can’t even point to a specific quote in the book, it’s just is.

I don’t think this guy never really fit into the Volturi guard, and his gift wasn’t useful enough to keep him. Aro was thrilled to have him at first, but as time went on and Eleazar proved to just not be all that, he eventually realized he had to get rid of him.

Because as others have pointed out before me, the Carmen excuse makes no sense. There would be no problem in one more vampire in the castle, yet Aro wouldn’t let her in and Eleazar had to choose.

It was a solution that sent Eleazar on his way with his ego intact, and no hard feelings towards the Volturi. More, Aro is on record doing this with it’s-not-you thing with at least one other vampire. Laurent wanted to join the Volturi, had nothing to bring to the table, and Aro used past association with the Romanians as an excuse for why Laurent couldn’t join rather than tell him to his face that he was useless. With Marcus, Aro, and Chelsea around, the Romanian connection isn’t a problem, meaning Aro was bullshitting.

TL;DR: Aro is the kind of person who’d lie and say his grandma died if he doesn’t want to go to your party, and Eleazar is the kind of person who’d say «My condolences».

[ssa-steverogers]

black widow reviewish? but it’s just my thoughts™️

i just watched black widow thursday night and i am shook. i'm going to do two separate reviews; one WITHOUT spoilers and another WITH spoilers. the one without spoilers will be here and the one with spoilers will be beneath it.

SPOILER FREE REVIEW:

here are some stuff i guarantee to you:

you will miss nat

other than that? it was really good. i think it'll be in my top 5 marvel movies. obviously, it takes place before she dies lol and she deals with her past. it was funny, action packed, and the COMPLETE opposite of boring. literally the shortest 2 hours of my whole entire life. there was no scene where i was like 'damn this is taking a long time', like i said, ZERO BORING PARTS.

i would so recommend this movie, although, for people who haven't really watched the mcu or care for it might not enjoy it as much as they should but this movie really connects into the mcu timeline. we learn so much about her past and things are starting to make sense again. black widow definitely answered a lot of questions about her past which made me feel so happy because nat has been treated as a 'sidekick' for so long and to see her finally have a black widow centered movie? wow.

also, yelena????? (aka florence pugh's character) i am in love with her. i love her so much. i hope you will too because she's really funny and relatable.

also, keep in mind that this movie is supposed to explain natasha's past because i feel like a lot of reviews that criticize the movie are forgetting that

damn, well all that is left to say is that i cried and that i hope you love the movie <3

•

•

•

•

•

REVIEW WITH SPOILERS BELOW:

omfg guys this movie shook me. i cried multiple times. i have so many things to say!!!!1!1!

first off, critics that are saying that the whole idea of a villain in this movie is weak. i somewhat agree??? taskmaster seemed to be a lot less important than portrayed in the trailers. then again, this movie wasn't supposed to focus on hero vs. villain i think? like it literally takes place after civil war because marvel needed to have a redo on their misogynistic take of nat. but also this movie is to show us her past. if anything, the movie was hero vs. their past. taskmaster was there just because but was not the main villain.

it's cool if you disagree with me because i haven't read the comics and whatnot. i do wish that they used taskmaster better but the movie obviously had a purpose to focus on (nat and her family/backstory) so too much could've just been a distraction.

also thought it was cool that taskmaster could copy the fighting style of everyone. as i was watching it i was like 'oh, wakanda forever! captain america shield throw! black widow pose! winter soldier knife throw!"

anywhooooo, i cried the most when yelena was at the table with the fam fam and they were hurting her feelings without even realizing it. and then when she was like 'the best years of my life was fake and you didn't even tell me' i was so gone. i was dead. i really understood her in that moment and i wanted to hug her so bad omfg.

also????? i just want to know... did they teach the girls how to braid their hair in the red room? was there a class for that? everyone's hair was so fucking good lol

parts of the ending also gave me super captain america: the winter soldier vibes. like when nat lets taskmaster out from the room and she's like ya know don't fight me pls it's like steve with buck in tws. and the fight being the sky just reminded me of the helicarriers from tws. but then again, steve and nat were cool buddies so it's not weird that they became similar.

FIGHT SCENES. oh my god, action packed amazeballs. like i wasn't even expecting that. mcu has great action/fight scenes but in black widow? DAMN. what specifically amazed me in this movie is that in the past, they've downplayed the aggressiveness of fighting. but they didn't hold back for black widow. every punch, kick, and throw emitted so much power and rage, which is exactly what you'd expect coming from a bunch of russian spies. i loved that aspect so much.

THE CREDIT SCENE OH GOD. throughout the 2 hour long movie, i fell in love with yelena and i'm not even kidding. i love her so much. i just want to hug her (as stated before lol). to see her there at nat's headstone. i started crying then fricken valentina showed up. i was shocked while at the same time i was fricken like jesus then could've been a sad and touching moment for yelena. i also wonder if they meant for valentina to be introduced in black widow first or tfatws first? like which one was the original original idea? because of the bonk bonk release dates. i seriously want to know.

more onto the credit scene, the time in between yelena whistling and what SHOULD’VE been nat whistling back? longest like 5 seconds of my life. the silence was deafening. i fucking cried.

black widow is fucking great but i still wish we got to have her funeral :(

omfg i can hardly think of anything else, i am just so overwhelmed by how good that movie was. i'm going to miss natasha so much but at the same time i'm so happy that we are SO definitely going to get more of florence pugh as yelena. and yelena is such perfection i love her :) anyways, when it comes out on disney+ for free i will rewatch it a million more times :)

[just-bible-musings]

I agree with everything you're saying, it's the absolute truth, it is exactly what the Bible says. But I just want to expand a bit on the "nothing good about me" point of view (and by the way, I suck at witnessing).

I came to Jesus 7 years ago, but as someone who came from a background where I was frequently told that I was [insert word of choice here] and should have never been born, I still struggle with "why can't I just be good on my own?"

(Long post, the rest is under the cut.)

The word "deserve" carries such a negative connotation for me that I had to reshape my way of thinking. There was very little in my life (heck, even food and clothing) that I wasn't told I didn't deserve. Most Christians describe salvation as, "No, you don't deserve it, but God gives it to you, anyway." And I get what they mean, they mean we can't earn it, and YES, that IS the absolute truth, you can't EARN salvation, you can't EARN the right go to heaven. But in my life, I was told the exact same thing about, for instance, dinner: "I'll let you have a bowl of ramen, but you don't deserve it, you haven't done a thing all day."

So, the message that Christians give, while it does have a place and a purpose, isn't right for every situation. The exact same words that are used to lead people to Jesus were used to rip me apart.

I have to look at it in a different way. Yes, I do deserve love, even God's love. Yes, I do deserve to go to heaven. Because that was what God intended for me before He ever created the world.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

Revelation says several times that the Lamb's Book of Life was written before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8 and 17:8), and Revelation 21:27 says that all those who are written in the Book of Life will go to heaven- meaning that our names were written in there before the universe was even created. We can get into discussions about pre-destination vs. free will, but the point is, God wants us to go to heaven, and He knew before he made the world which of us would and would not accept salvation through Christ.

It's what He always wanted for me, therefore I deserve it. Not in a way that I can earn it or demand it, but because He wants me to have it. Because God thinks I should have it, He wants to give me the gift of salvation, if I'll just accept it in the package He's wrapped it in.

This, to me, is both beautiful and terrifying. It's everything I always wanted to believe in, but it feels too good to be true. I have to act on faith just to even believe that that kind of love is even real.

Even today- like, literally, this day, this very minute that I'm typing this- I'm struggling so hard with the concept of God's love, of just giving up my own desires to be good on my own. I accepted Jesus years ago, but a part of me still hates that I can't get everything else on my own. That I can't just be "good enough" or I can't just "work hard enough." The only way I can get past that mindset is by saying, "God says I can have this. He says I can accept love and forgiveness because He wanted them for me." And I have to work and fight to even believe this, because I am acutely aware of my flaws, and Satan is constantly telling me all the reason why I shouldn't be loved.

Conversely, when things are going bad and I'm looking for someone to blame and I end up blaming myself and wondering where I screwed up and what I should have done, I only ever get out of that mindset by saying, "I don't deserve this. God didn't want this for me, but He knew it would happen, and He's planned for it, and He's still here."

I don't know, maybe I'm the only person who uses this mindset, or maybe other people would take a mindset like this and turn it into some prosperity gospel thing. All I know is, this is what works for me, this is the only way I can keep from curling up in a corner and telling God to go away, I don't want His love, I'm not good enough and I just want to die. Because that's exactly what happens when I try to view it as "I don't deserve God's love." I just can't do that without falling to pieces.

So, there is no "right" or "perfect" way to tell people the truth. Truth is truth and does not change, but the words we use to describe or explain it can have so many different meanings that they're not gonna mean the same thing to everyone. And I think a lot of that is because you simply can't put God into words, He's just too big for any human language to describe.

There's a point where words end and faith begins- we can explain and apologize and describe in all the pretty, poetic ways we want, but at some point, you just have to believe. And most people won't. They just don't want to. I mean, Jesus Himself taught and preached and told parables and did miracles, and how many people in His lifetime believed in Him? Even one of His own 12 chosen didn't believe! It's hubris to think that we can do any better, or accomplish any more, at explaining salvation than the literal Son of God.

I think the problem is when you say "nothing about you is good" is that a lot of people, young people in particular, afraid admitting leads them to think "Why am I even alive then? If nothing is good about me, maybe I should just die", it leads to despair and sometimes even suicide and the only solution they see is self-love and self-compassion.

Not only that, the powers that be which is modern secular society make it where those who admit this are punished for it. Especially on social media.

You admit you're wrong or not perfect, another person will use that as justification to bully you or use your faults flaunt their supposed moral superiority, not unlike Jesus's parable about the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. Only the Pharisee is more rooted in secular beliefs.

Modern society has made it that if you admit your no good and be selfless and self-sacrificial, then they get to exploit that to punish you relentlessly and call you a hypocrite when you fight back.

It's kinda social coercion and its despicable when you think about

But too many people just gloss over all this and just try to lecture someone in once again, moral superiority

Not saying you're wrong or what you're doing, but I think understanding the current circumstances, personal, cultural, and societal can help address the issue in a way young people can understand and know what to do.

Could be. I agree with what you’re saying. The thing is, figuring out how to say it in the right way only has so much power. Truth is truth; even if you say it in the perfect way, at the perfect time, there are still people who are just not going to like or accept it no matter how well or carefully it’s presented. My post about Wish got a reblog where someone said, “I like how this person is tiptoeing up to saying they wish Disney was Christian without actually saying it.” Because it’s like, yeah, that is what I meant, and no, I didn’t come out and say it exactly like that—but someone still saw what I meant, and they disliked the truth that was there. No matter how I couched it.

I mean, we can agree that everything Jesus said, He said perfectly, at exactly the right time, in exactly the right way. But people still rejected it. And I certainly can’t do better than He did.

So at some point, it’s not how you say it; the problem’s not with how it’s said. At some point, the problem might just be with the person you’re talking to. It’s like a bridge. One end (speaking truth in the exact right way and right time for the audience you’re speaking to) goes halfway, and that’s great, but the other end has to meet it in the middle (the audience has to accept the truth when they realize it is there) or else the bridge doesn’t work.

But please note; both sides are equally important. I agree with you that the truth has to be spoken in the right way, in the right place, at the right time (and I certainly don’t do that well all the time, or even most of the time.) That’s what the Bible means when it says, “speaking the truth in love.” It’s got the power of a hammer but it’s supposed to be used with the precision of a scalpel.

Anywho, as far as people not wanting to admit they’re broken or wrong or have no good in them—welcome to the human race.

(I’m going to say some potentially triggering things below the cut, but it ends hopefully, so if you’re reading and you’re someone who struggles with suicidal thoughts, proceed with caution ((I know what it’s like, it can be too slippery a slope to chance at certain times in life))—but it ends hopefully, which is why I’m saying it at all.)

And actually, going from “there’s nothing good in me” to “why am I even alive? What’s the point of me, then?” is scary because yes, it can lead to suicide…but that is logical. It is natural. If you stop at “there’s nothing good in me,” then yeah, the conclusion of that thought, alone, is hopelessness. Of course it is. Of course that’s why we shy away from it.

But you’re not supposed to stop there. You’re not supposed to stop at “there’s nothing good in me.” And really, you’re not even supposed to begin there either.

That’s just the middle part.

The beginning part is, “there was supposed to be something good and worthy about me—I was made in the image of God. He bothered making me, and loved me and wanted to make me, when He didn’t have to. He set humans apart and gave them dominion over everything else He created; we were special, we were chosen, and even now we get to have something His other heavenly supernatural creations, angels, don’t have. I was made as His “very” good creation—everything else was just ‘good.’ I am special to Him; He made me special.”

Then the middle part is: “And it’s ruined. And there’s nothing good in and of me, because I reject the very source of Goodness, and I reject what I was made to be, which is good. And I’m not special—because I reject the One who invented “specialness” and gets to decide what that is. And I’m not worthy—“

Then the best part, the conclusion is: “—except that GOD GETS TO DECIDE WHAT “worthiness” IS, and what “worthiness” is for, and HE said having a right relationship with me instead of leaving me as an evil empty corrupt creature of the dirt was worth the ultimate sacrifice. The ultimate sacrifice is what I’m worth, and the ultimate purpose is what I’m worthy for.”

If I didn’t have that last part, that part that has nothing to do with me and everything to do with God, I wouldn’t be here to type this, about ten times over.

There is no hope, no light, no truth, no life, inside of you by yourself. It’s only outside of you. It’s only in God.

But there’s a third point of view here. We’ve established Point of View 1) “I’m worthy because God says I am,” and we’ve established the one that gets stuck halfway, Point of View 2) “I’m evil and there’s nothing good in me.”

But then there’s Point of View 3) “Yahweh doesn’t get to decide what makes me good or worthy or anything because if He did, that would make Him God—in charge—and I don’t want Him to be in charge of me, or to say anything about me; therefore the only thing that matters is what I say and how I feel about myself. Hope, hopelessness, worth, unworthiness; it’s all defined and felt by me, for me, nobody else…(which makes me God.)”

Point of View 3 is the one that most people are actually stuck on. So they reach for it and condemn anyone who has Point of View 1, and meanwhile try to encourage Point of View 2 people to get to Point of View 3 with them.

But Point of View 3 is going nowhere. It’s empty and hollow. Because once you decide you can define good for yourself, and worthiness for yourself, both “good” and “worthy” change to be whatever you want them to be moment-to-moment, and therefore…lose all objective, real meaning. And even if you can fool yourself into thinking that Point of View 3, which does not line up with reality, isn’t as hollow as it is, you’ll still have to deal with the consequences of that eventually.

Read the book of Romans, or the book of John. It’s all there.

Romans 2:11-12:

“…Remember that you were at that time without Christ, alienated from the citizenship of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”

[vampish-glamour]

The ask about radfems being right made me want to rant. The sheer vitriol against TERFs (including graphic rape threats which automatically makes them look sympathetic) made people forget some important points

1) radfems, and people who believe in radical ideologies, are very good at presenting the milder points of their philosophy. No radfem is dumb enough to go to someone like "men should be castrated before puberty for the safety of women", they'd start with something much milder like "I hate how teen boys get sex ed from porn at a young age" or something like that

2) the same line can have different meanings depending on the person. "We must protect vulnerable ethnicities at risk of genocide": a normal person might mean, I don't know, indigenous people being erased, and you might agree. But what if it's a white supremacist saying that, and he meant white people being replaced by mixed race people and immigrants? Very different context. Radfems employ similar strategies: "a dress doesn't make you a woman" can mean "gender is not tied to gender expression" or "trans women aren't women"

3) a broken clock is right twice a day. Just because a radfem says that the sky is blue, doesn't mean it's actually green. Just because she denounces Jessica Yaniv (because no one else does), doesn't mean you have to defend that person. Just because she says that the number of AFAB enbies who say "I'm nonbinary because I hate common women experiences like pregnancies" is worrying and might hint at internalized misogyny, doesn't mean she isn't right about that. Again, it's the entire context that makes radfeminism repugnant, but you can agree on some points for very different reasons.

And besides, we all know the woke left loves almost every radfeminist points except "trans bad" and "queer is a slur", so they don't get to complain :V

Mad agree (also I want to clarify that the ask wasn’t about radfems being right—it was about their base level claims often being right and easy to agree with, as well as easy to understand where those claims come from. And that’s how people go down the road of getting into the radical stuff, and ending up being batshit crazy radical feminists/terfs).

Your point about starting with milder takes is exactly what I was trying to get at with my response to the ask—and you gave a great example. On the surface, the take “I hate that teen boys get sex ed from porn” is an overall agreeable one. Porn is a terrible place to get sex education, in the same way medical shows are terrible places to learn what it’s like to be a surgeon, and cop shows are terrible places to learn what it’s like to be a cop. It’s all incredibly unrealistic.

So arguably, radfems are right when they make that surface basic claim, as it’s not a radical feminist exclusive claim. But then they manage to twist “teen boys are getting sex ed from porn and that’s bad” into “we should just castrate teen boys because men are inherently rapists and porn makes you a rapist”. And I would hope most rational people would go “holy shit wtf” to that claim.

And with the flexibility of lines, I see that a lot. I mean… it even happens with far right vs far left. Remember that post that said “white people shouldn’t adopt non white kids”, and a bunch of far leftists were agreeing because they believed white people adopting non white kids was racist… and it turned out the post had actually been made by a far right white supremacist, who believed that non whites were inferior to whites.

Terfs definitely take that into consideration. To myself, “a dress doesn’t make you a woman” means that dresses aren’t necessary to womanhood, and the lack of dresses isn’t necessary to manhood. To a terf, “a dress doesn’t make you a woman” means “trans women are men in dresses”.

And yes, thank you for pointing out the broken clock thing. Because obviously a radfem can say something sensical. Not everything that comes out of a radfem is necessarily radfem beliefs… so trying to act like anything a radfem ever says must be terf rhetoric is ridiculous. It’s just that most of the stuff radfems are “right” about are those surface level claims (again, like “a dress doesn’t make you a woman”) that aren’t actually radfem belief. It’s when you put that statement into the context they see it in, when it becomes radfem belief. That still doesn’t make the base claim wrong or radfem, though. Just the context radical feminism gives it.

Even “queer is a slur”… that’s not radfem belief. Do a lot of radfems believe queer is a slur? Yes. But something tells me that’s less about them being radfems, and more about many radfems being wlw (or at least claim to be wlw). The ones who aren’t claim to be allies (despite likely supporting political lesbianism). So is it really that surprising that a group largely filled with wlw, people who think they’re wlw, and people who think they support wlw, is against a homophobic slur being treated as if it’s not a homophobic slur???

I also agree that terfs are able to rack up a lot of sympathy from the constant hatred thrown their way. I know we all dislike terfs. But aggressively hating them is exactly what they want!!! Because then they can say things like “they’re silencing us because they don’t want to hear the truth”, or claim victimhood because clearly everyone hates them because something something patriarchy misogyny sexism. I’ve seen so many terfs take pride in the hatred they get, and it only solidifies their beliefs and turns others towards them. So no, constant “fuck terfs” posts don’t do any good. They just fuel the fire of the radfem oppression complex.

And it’s completely true that a lot of progressives actually would agree with radfem beliefs in full context, as long as it didn’t have “radfem/terf” attached onto it. And as long as it had nothing to do with trans people. Mainly anything talking about how evil men are.

Anyways, great points!!