#i feel like nothing interesting is happening that i can meaningfully engage with

[treesinspace]

A big reason why the Minrathos vs Treviso "choice" feels so weird to me is because I sent 3 people to Minrathos and 3 people to Treviso. So really I didn't make a choice at all except to choose where Rook specifically should go. Why is Rook singled out as the reason the fight in one city went better than in the other, and not one of the other companions?

And that got me thinking.

Why are half the companions always just sitting around doing nothing anyway? (in-universe i mean. I know the reason is gameplay.)

In the Minrathos vs the Treviso choice, we have 2 teams working at the same time in different locations, so it is possible.

Admittedly, none of these kinds of game ever give a reason a team can only have 3-4 people in it, so we take this as a given. But like. In the previous Dragon Age games it didn't feel weird that only the PC can do these quests, and the other companions just tag along.

In Origins, the PC is the only Grey Warden willing to lead a team.

In DA2, they aren't even saving the world! Hawke is just doing that stuff as a hobby and asking their friends for help. And the friends don't sit around doing nothing when they aren't with Hawke, they have their own lives!

In Inquisition, the Inquisitor is the only one who can seal the breaches, and they even put in a gameplay mechanic where certain tasks are delegated via the War Table. (Though, as I did complain about at the time, some more tasks could have been delegated. Looking at you, collect 10 elfroot)

But in DAtV? Why the hell aren't we dividing up all that work, all those quests? The companions in the Lighthouse have fuckall to do except cook and read! They could be out there!

Now, I'm not saying they SHOULD be out there, that would be ridiculous, gameplay-wise. But uhhh I WOULD appreciate it if the writing gave me a reason why they aren't. What makes Rook so special anyway??

[mythalism]

I was wondering (because I love your Solas and solavellan analyses) what do you think of s*lrook? It doesn’t work for me, not because I like solavellan, but because I just don’t like Rook and some other reasons that I’m having trouble articulating. Something along the lines of “Solas mirrors” and, as Rook, we can only ever really approach him as though he is a villain with little nuance and can never ask (the man that started out as spirit of wisdom) any questions. I think maybe it would have been more interesting to me if BioWare gave Rook more meaningful regrets and let us have more rpg elements. Anyway, feel free to disagree with me or not answer this if you think it may gain negative attention. I just like the way your brain works and was curious about your thoughts because you might have an interesting perspective!

i honestly dont think of s*lrook like ever. truly it does not occupy any space in my mind. i think its probably similar to what you are feeling, which is that rook is so nothing its like putting solas with a cardboard cut out. and maybe that is why the issue of solas mirroring rook comes in; there is nothing for him to reflect. rook is also so meaningless to solas that he has no incentive to meaningfully engage with them. with the inquisitor, solas was literally tied to them by the anchor and had no choice but to spend time with them to get his orb back. but that is a process that develops over an entire year. he gets sucked into the inquisition and cannot help himself but become part of it. even solas who hates the inquisitor is deeply involved in everything they do, every decision they make he becomes complacent in as part of their inner circle. even with an inquisitor he hates, he cannot help but develop attachments to the other members of the inquisition. he is actively carrying out the inquisition's purpose. if they do something he doesnt like, such as recruit the templars or keep the wardens or kill the sentinels, it makes sense for him to speak up, to challenge the inquisitior, to make his distaste known because he is directly involved. he is also directly responsible for corypheus gaining such power. all of this personal entanglement in the events of inquisition give him and even a low-approval inquisitor a dynamic that is interesting and complex. their erasure into a figurehead for the purpose of a cause is familiar to him at the very least. the way he reflects the inquisitor is entrenched in the plot and who they both are as characters. he reflects the inquisitor because the inquisitor is walking the same path he was forced to.

in veilguard, i think that him being trapped for so long was a mistake writing-wise. despite solas being literally integral to EVERYTHING HAPPENING, he feels completely separate. he only has a few things to say about each major plot point, we can barely ask him more than a few questions about anything throughout the entire game, we dont get to confront him on his memories, we dont get to see him react with anyone. he literally exists in a vacuum. there is nothing for him to reflect, nothing for him to engage with. he is literally in an empty room, talking to an empty character. what is there to work with in that? where is there a relationship to be had? they kept telling us that rook reminded solas of himself which is honestly hilarious in retrospect because what??? where??? how??????? because they did something rebellious one time??? but solas and rook never actually talk about that. they never actually talk about anything about rook's life. solas doesn't even pass judgement on their decisions. their conversations all have the same set end point. his goal from the beginning is always to shape them into taking his place in the prison (however the fuck that works) and all of their interactions are defined by that, and happen in the shadow of rook ruining his ritual and releasing the evanuris. compared to solas and the inquisitor, who at their core, is a manifestation of his mistakes as a victim of his underestimation of corypheus and the bearer of his anchor which will eventually destroy their body. there is an immediate thread of guilt and connection through those circumstances. for solas and rook, the opposite should actually be true; rook should feel guilt for getting solas trapped through their carelessness, but they clearly dont lol. its just so nothing. rook is so nothing. solas reflecting rook thus is also nothing. there is a reason the game picks up so much when we see him outside of the prison, talking to the companions, having a moment with emmrich, being eviscerated by harding, killing ogres in one hit, tearing into an archdemon... its pretty mutually agreed upon as the best part of the game? why would you make a character that, as a spirit, reflects his environment, and then put him in an empty room in the game named after him? and then why would you set him up with an empty protagonist who was clearly designed only to further the plot and not have a real story or arc of their own? flop.

[tobi-smp]

you know, I think the thing that made c!phil's writing kind of janky and discordant is Also exactly what makes cc!phil's Strength as a roleplayer

the best way to put it is that phil is the epitome of Yes And. wilbur tells him to kill him and it was a Choice, there was no script that told him that wilbur Had to die that night. but wilbur asked him to and so he did.

wilbur Also asked him to look after tubbo and tommy, So He Did. he fought for l'manberg on the 16th (fought Against dream and techno), and agreed to become a part of l'manberg's government as a mentor figure.

but techno was his friend and they wanted to spend time together when they were online so why be anything else in lore? of Course they're old friends, of Course they spend time together.

the problem arise when there's Conflict between these two groups. because phil Must choose what to do and say and believe at any given moment, to justify Why he would choose to do whatever it he is about to do. but at the end of the day that choice Mostly comes down to what would be cool or fun or interesting in the moment.

and I think ! that there's absolutely nothing wrong with this, and it's actually a Really good mindset to have in the context of this kind of roleplay. and it worked really well early on. it's Interesting that phil Would have a completely uncomplicatedly loyal relationship with techno right away when he Did explicitly stand against him on that first day. it Says Something about their relationship. maybe even implies that they've fought each other before, but it doesn't impact their relationship with each other.

the problem is when it starts contradicting and Twisting and being weird. mainly when it comes to characters that he Both has major conflict with And want to have a positive relationship with him. it becomes a question of Why phil would do something that would hurt them if he cares about them.

after all, it's not just hurt feelings, it's war. even if they had no Intent on killing anybody, it still Could Have ended with people dead.

and again ! that's not an inherently Bad Thing. it actually opens to the door for a lot of interesting character conflict and introspection !

phil is a Very old being, his best friend is famous for being unkillable, his wife is Actually Death who casually possesses him sometimes. having phil be somewhat out of touch with humanity in a way where he doesn't Really understand the emotional weight and Danger of what he's done would make sense ! and of course, that's just one possible explanation that could be replaced with or coincide with another reading.

but it's all complicated Further by there being a very strong ideological bend to the conflicts he's involved with. because it Feels like for him to engage with said conflict Meaningfully he must weigh in with his own take on the ideological conflicts. he's playing a supporting role to technoblade after all, and on paper his entire character Is one big ideological conflict.

but what phil's ideology actually Is shifts to suit whatever story line he needs to support at a given moment, rather than being set in stone First with his role in those story lines being chosen based on a preexisting belief.

and honestly I really Don't blame cc!phil for this, because On Paper the jump in justification for these supporting roles he's played don't look very different. and in fact, you can See where one follows the conclusion to another.

but "choose people" above all else, to the point of being Shocked that tommy might hesitate in the conflict with dream that has the weight of protecting the entire server riding on it, really Does Not gel with whatever happened on doomsday or with letting dream out of prison.

moreover, it only highlights a conflict in ideology between phil and techno. the use of violence as default Even Against active allies or people who'd been considered allies 5 minutes ago doesn't seem to gel with whatever phil had going on in the post-prison break out era.

having phil enable dream to torment tommy during doomsday feels very contradictory to phil's shocked offense that dream would torment A Child the first chance he got after breaking out.

and again ! none of this is inherently a Flaw, it could all be very interesting as set ups for character conflict and as an examination for phil's Own character flaws. having contradictions like this isn't inherently Bad writing when it can so easily be Interesting. open up the door for Richer character writing.

the problem isn't even that none of this was intentional at the time that it was happening, but rather that nobody really seemed to notice it at all. so rather than it being used as a tool to bounce off of For that character examination and conflict. it just kinda. Is.

I think ! what phil needed, and what the server As A Whole needed, was stronger Direction. it's what made the early arcs work as well as they did, because Everyone knew the what the core story Was and could figure out ways to cohesively bounce off of them.

the revolution, the elections, the civil war, they were all Strong skeletons with clear factions and ideologies at play. and so even when people were doing their own things it all Felt Cohesive.

and of course, the dream smp Stopped having a key writer for the those big plot moments with the intent of giving people more personal freedom in their writing. but I think it only served a Lack Of Identity. people who didn't already have a stake in the key conflicts that were already on the server struggled to find their way into them. and struggled to find relevancy Without them.

and I think this was felt the most in the way that people were both afraid of stepping on anybody's toes while Also getting in each other's way like a football field.

like, I Loved tommy's death and resurrection arc. and the sheer Surprise of it and the aftermath was truly incredible to see.

but it was also Weird that people weren't given the chance to react to it on their own terms. like, why did they plan the syndicate meeting months in advance just to have it dropped on them with no way to prepare for or modulate their responses?

phil and techno's reactions to tommy's death are So Weird when we consider their relationship with him both before And After. and it's difficult to reconcile because it's Understandable that the cc's didn't want to derail their planned lore to make it About tommy's story line. But It's Not Like We Can Pretend It Didn't Happen Either.

and there's lots of ways that people have tried to reconcile this, lots of ways that I've even personally Enjoyed. but in terms of what's actually In the source material It Just Kind Of Is.

phil cares about tommy, he wants to guide him and protect him because he recognizes that he's a child in a dangerous position, but he also laughs when he hears dream beat him to death in prison and he also laughed while dropping bombs on tommy's head with dream at his side. and these all just kind of Are.

I can't even tell if this is all weirder before or after canon sbi was retconned.

and so these inconsistencies tug at all of the major story beats that phil's character is involved with, all while all of them Mostly work well in isolation. and it's so easy to see how this could've been avoided with stronger direction and story planning.

in other words, It's Dream's Fault.

[burr-ell]

To expand on the previous post (with excellent addition by @kerosene-in-a-blender), I genuinely believe Laudna as a character would be a lot stronger in one of two scenarios:

1. Ditch the Whitestone stuff. I say this as someone who has produced almost nothing but de Rolo content—that is too big a part of Campaign 1 not to completely overshadow anything different the character tries to do in a long-form narrative. I think they could have threaded that needle, but that requires so much more focus and attention that a fast-paced story about a moon conspiracy just isn't built for. It's been 65 episodes and Whitestone nostalgia is all the character has meaningfully contributed to the narrative.

They put themselves between a rock and a hard place before the story even started. You can't bring in Delilah too often without inevitably treading on Campaign 1, but you also can't use her too little—not just because she's Delilah Briarwood, but also because that's the patron of a PC and your PCs need to be taking center stage. And yet there is nothing Delilah's presence has done in the story thus far that could not have been accomplished by a completely different, hitherto-unknown necromancer patron. Laudna's experiences in Whitestone could be replaced with a similarly traumatic backstory (it's not like Exandria is hurting for necromancers abusing power) and she'd have to actually elaborate on it and flesh out the worldbuilding and think about the backstory instead of being able to lean on "Hey, you guys remember that Briarwood arc? Freaky, right?"

2. Keep Laudna as she is and use her in an EXU miniseries. Set it in northwestern Tal'Dorei, where she's been wandering aimlessly for thirty years, spending half the time disassociating and half the time making her dolls. She meets a colorful group of people and they go on some adventures, and she finally decides to take back her life and do something about the voice in her head. You'd basically keep the Whitestone episodes of C3 as they are, give or take a few beats, as the climactic episodes of the series, and then the newly fire-forged friends set off for whatever new journey awaits them.

Maybe Laudna switches patrons; maybe she ditches the warlock thing entirely; maybe she ends the miniseries not knowing what she wants but excited to learn about it with her new companions. Mini-campaigns don't have to worry about that kind of thing! You can have your Whitestone nostalgia and some fanservice while still telling a pretty fun story, and it won't feel like a weird extra appendage to a main campaign that otherwise has very little to do with it. I wouldn't say it's a story I'd be interested in seeing continue, but it's perfectly serviceable for something small and self-contained.

What it has not been serviceable for is the long-form story of Campaign 3.

Honestly, I was a little concerned about all of this even before I started watching all the way through, but I wanted to give it time and judge it for myself. I don't believe in unfounded doomsaying, and I wanted to give the show a chance to do something interesting. And it has been 65 episodes, over 260 hours of content, which I think puts us well past the window of "give it a chance", and Laudna has spent the vast majority of her time not meaningfully engaging with her levels of warlock if it doesn't contribute to creepy girl vibes. (She frankly isn't engaging with her levels in sorcerer, either.) She's never even addressed potentially finding a new patron—so does she not want to? But then why is she so distressed about the idea of Delilah resurfacing? And if she does want a new patron, why has nothing actually happened in the almost-thirty episodes we've had since the Whitestone trip? If she's been "fighting Delilah for thirty-odd years", why didn't she take the chance to explicitly try to connect with, say, the Sun Tree? Or literally anyone else?

And honestly, as a Campaign 1 fan I have to say I'm also frustrated at how Delilah's presence specifically undercuts that story. Like, yeah, you have a technical reason for why she's still here, but "well she IS a powerful necromancer" is just a mechanical explanation, not a dramaturgical one. Her story is done. The chapter closed. She had ample opportunity, including when specifically asked by the Hells, to state any specific goals—any at all—and didn't. This is the woman who menaced Percy and Vex? This is the woman who permanently killed Vax? ...Really?

It could have been an interesting challenge to take on in referencing something from the past while bringing something new to the table, and it's not like they haven't done that before; they've already shown with Jester and the Traveler that it can be done. But they haven't done it here; any opportunity for Laudna to grow beyond her vague concepts—"What if Sun Tree Body...with Delilah patron? What if weird scary girl...but happy?"—has been generally ignored. Her killing Bor'dor is the first time in the entire campaign that she's done something that really got my attention, and in two episodes it's almost immediately papered over, followed by some inexplicable "must you continue to reconquer?" word salad about the gods.

Marisha explicitly refused to create a new character until she knew for sure whether or not Laudna would be resurrected. But if she enjoys her so much, when is she going to do anything meaningful with her?

[wickershells]

Something very interesting to me when watching the walking dead is its by-large refusal to meaningfully engage with sexual abuse as a topic… I’ve never read the comics, don’t really plan to, but from what I’ve heard there were several instances of rape depicted there, but very little to go on in the show — Carol reveals when praying that her husband sexually abused (or at least wanted to abuse) their young daughter (presumably + contextually her as well), something that to my memory is never referenced again; the Governor forces Maggie to strip herself half-naked and bend over, but “doesn’t actually do anything” (forceful stripping is, indeed, a form of sexual abuse) compared to his apparently brutal (?) rape of Michonne in the comics; Lydia is repeatedly raped by members of the Whisperers in the comics, encouraged by her mother, an aspect removed entirely from the show; Negan, of course, comes closest — his ‘wives’ are quite literally coerced into sexual relationships with him — and yet the show seems reluctant to address even him as an abuser.

Negan’s redemption is written only for him as a killer, a tyrant, and not as a rapist — it would have to address very difficult questions about power, patriarchy, the prominence of violence against women both historically and whenever worlds fall apart, and the ways in which any of these can be tackled meaningfully, what a society that actively prevents rape might look like. We know statistically that punitive justice does incredibly little to actually prevent it, and yet this is exactly what happens to Negan, and in the show his language when exacting power is, as always, very sexual — sexual language to humiliate, to express dominance, success, influence over a victim. One of my favourite lines of his is often seen as comedic: “I just slid my dick down your throat, and you thanked me for it”. Highlights just how Negan thinks of violence, and why his rules supposedly against rape are so sanctimonious, so two-faced.

It matters that his weapon of choice is phallic, that he named it after his wife, that he personifies it to such an extent he feels like he has lost some part of himself when it is gone; like a castration, like he’s a eunuch, only a half-man, nothing left for him to swing or thrust or penetrate with. But then none of this is addressed in any substantial way, and all we get are people telling us that he has changed, because now he doesn’t murder anyone (in this specific team), and he is gentler and kinder and starved himself in his suicidality, and doesn’t he have a soft spot for children? None of this is relevant to patterns of rapist thinking and behaviour, to rehabilitative methods. But it isn’t a topic worth exploring, and if it was, it is probably too dark for this show where there is no shortage of rotting bodies tearing apart the living, and skulls being cracked open while loved ones scream and cry and wail, and violence and its repercussions are at the heart of every action — so long as that violence has nothing to do with the existence, and subsequent examination, of misogyny

[starbuckaroo]

Sorry I know this is going around a lot rn but anyone who wants to say ANYTHING about bad parenting on this show and wants to talk about Eddie mf Diaz can eat a fucking dick UNLESS they can show me they’re not being hypocritical and can show me their posts that rip Athena apart. Fucking hell.

I will preface this by acknowledging that ofc there’s absolutely no way I can know what it’s like to be a black woman raising a black child. I never can. I do have some personal experience with raising a black boy in the US, though, so the episodes with Harry have always hit me really really hard, and usually because I always want to mcfucking scream at Athena for the way she allows her career indoctrination to harm her children.

Yeah my main gripe with this show always always boils down to “Athena quit your job” bc I can’t stand her anymore tbh. She would have stayed an interesting character IF at some point in s4-5 thereabouts she started to have doubts about the system and they did something interesting with that

OR

If they would allow the literal actual conflicts of interest to crop up and let her be a fucking antagonist. Let Bobby struggle with his ethical evaluation of a scene and his marital obligations. Let May struggle with learning and growing away from her childhood home and wrestle with what her mom continues to do. And let that storyline with Harry this season actually carry the fucking heavy and heinous weight that it truly has. It turns my stomach honestly like I had to stand up and walk away, and let me sister tell me when it was over so I could go sit back down.

But the apologism is what is so unforgivable. Like don’t get me wrong, I love the hell out of this show and it’s my full on hyperfixation and has been for years, but its top billed character has been nigh unwatchable for most of the last few seasons. The narrative trying to sell me that she’s one of the protagonists, that she doesn’t have to struggle meaningfully at all about what she does for a living or to her family, and I’m supposed to swallow that without protest? Nah. Can’t happen.

I liked her character a lot in the first three seasons tbh against my better judgment! I was expecting to hate her from day one but I was sold, actually. Michael leaving the show kind of tanked her character, I think, maybe. I think it was their dynamic that made her interesting at first, and then sympathetic later on when she really was trying to make their blended unconventional family work despite her upbringing. But honestly once Harry aged into teenagerdom and Michael left and May graduated it meant there was like…nothing left about Athena that was interesting except her job except that’s actually the worst part about her lmao woopsies.

Anyways. Let Athena be a villain or at least an antagonist. That would fix everything tbh. It would make her interesting again, it would be in character given how many ethical messes she’s caused or been party to, and would allow the show to keep doing their dumb copaganda shit that they’re almost certainly contractually obligated to shove in at least once per season. But it would finally be interesting because it wouldn’t feel like I was being asked to swallow bullshit covered in glitter spray. Maybe they could explore her toxic relationship with her mother and how engaging so heavily and perpetually with respectability politics has done damage to herself (and her parents and her ex husband and her children) over the years. Maybe her magical fairytale white lady boss at the precinct can actually act in character for once and pls god I would just like. I would sell a kidney for a real and honest Athena Quit Your Job plotline. Fuck. They could even take the coward’s way out like they did with Eddie’s military service and just have her quit for some random reason so ethics never actually has to be part of the conversation but neither would we have to deal with the copaganda all the time. You know Angela Bassett would act the fuck out of that kind of complicated character. It would be a real conflict instead of whatever contrived nonsense they’ve been putting on her this season.

Anyways this really fucking got away from me but I’m just not willing to hear a fucking WORD against single dad Eddie fucking Diaz unless the speaker has already done their bit about Athena and they’re just making their way through the line.

Except

I don’t actually want that bc We Know Why they’re saying that shit about Eddie and if they ever opened their mouth about Athena I don’t even really have to wonder about what sort of racist bullshit might fall out. Those aren’t the people I want attempting to critique Athena Grant. So actually yeah can everyone just shut the fuck up.

Myself included.

[hermitsmirror]

Deck interview: Bee Tarot

With the arrival of spring, it seemed fitting to bring a deck interview for the Bee Tarot into being (bee-ing, har har). The Bee Tarot, illustrated by Nadia Turner with a thick guidebook by Kristoffer Hughes, is one of the new decks being published by Llewellyn Worldwide, my own publisher for the Seaborn Kipper, and I asked if I could have a copy of it when I saw it. In exchange, I would show it off. So to be transparent, this is a ”review copy” of the deck, but it wasn’t foisted upon me, and this is a deck interview, not a full review per se (but if you have questions about it, let me know or read more about it on Llewellyn’s site—one of the surprising features is that it’s a linen texture). I just thought it looked fun and appropriate to my own interest in the intersection of nature magic and divination. I also just really like the idea of apiaries (Robbing the Bees: A Biography of Honey by Holley Bishop is one of the few nonfiction books I would consider reading a second time) and the concept of bees for spiritual work and community.

As it happens, the deck has a tie to Druidic traditions, which may or may not be important to readers. I’m certainly not well-versed enough in that tradition to know how successfully or meaningfully it brings in the Druid element, although I did have the good fortune to interview a prominent Druid author when I was in college (decades ago now), so I probably should know more than I remember.

But to get back to the Bee Tarot, I love how this deck interview builds off of my deck interview with the Apothecary Spirits Oracle and continues the story of reconnecting with a love for life and community, more or less starting with a journey of just being present. It really has me thinking about the Elder Futhark rune wunjo and that concept of joy that could only be found through harmonious community engagement, even as recently as a few centuries ago. You wouldn’t survive if you tried to do it all alone. Why should we not lean into that reminder of communal joy now?

As always now, I used my own deck interview spread, which you can find explained on my blog.

What major lesson are you here to help me learn? 3 of Jars

Through which divine energy can we best communicate? 6 of Wands (reversed)

In what area can you aid me to help others? Queen of Swords (reversed)

In what area could your guidance be easily misunderstood? 10 of Wands

What can I do to keep our communication clear? Queen of Jars

How can I use your guidance for the highest good? 5 of Swords (reversed)

How will I know when we’re ready for a new lesson? 6 of Pentacles

I’ll get to the first card in a minute, but I want to discuss the second card first because the reversed 6 of Wands in that second position takes on a different meaning than I would normally consider for it. In the context of the rest of the spread, the reversed 6 feels like a stark reminder of the importance of humility in spiritual work, especially with the community-oriented and interdependent concepts behind the deck. If nothing else, bees are part of a collective. Yes, there’s a queen bee, and there are distinct roles within the dance of the actual living, breathing bees, but the archetype of the bee is one of community orientation and soul work in line with serving one’s role in a bigger picture, not serving your own whims. That feels important here with the reversed 6 of Wands. I would normally associate that reversal with arrogance or pride—and yes, that’s still relevant—but in answer to the second question, it feels softer. It feels less like chastisement and more like a reminder to let oneself recede into the background. It’s a softer energy in this position of divine energy. Surrender and celebrate alongside in humility, rather than being the central heroic figure.

This of course relates to the lesson that this deck is helping me work through, the fun and celebration that comes with a close community of likeminded souls. The 3 of Jars (Cups) is that quintessential celebratory card, but as I mentioned in the office hours for my spring semester of courses not too long ago, it’s distinct from the 6 of Wands or 4 of Wands in that the celebration is through water instead of fire, a merging and blending of hearts, an expansion of the emotions and of meaningful connections. It’s a softer form of fun. Perhaps the idea of “softer” is what the bees of the Bee Tarot are offering more broadly. Honey is amelioration (and amelioration is literally the adding of honey, the sweetening of things).

This connection ties in with the 5 of Swords in reverse, a laying down of weapons (or arguments) and the blunting of the too-sharp swords. And of course it all fits beautifully with that generous spirit of interdependence and care for the collective seen in the 6 of Pentacles, the final card of the spread.

The Queen of Jars (Cups) also lends a soothing element in the fifth position to the overworking sting of the 10 of Wands. The 10 is such a burnt out card for the busy bee, hot and tired, in need of a little water and rest. That combination of the fourth and fifth cards is a nice reminder that one’s collective soul work, at least as explored with this deck, may be work, but it’s not burdensome. Returning to that first card, the 3 of Jars, it’s important that it’s not the 3 of Pentacles or Wands, cards of communal work and effortful building. If I find myself coming to this deck for tasks (for me or others), the Queen sits ready to redirect you toward the bigger picture. In her role as clarifier to the 10 of Wands, she offers the soothing and supportive effects of seeing easier flow and finding one’s place. Don’t try so hard. There is no spiritual grind, just ego pushing a path forward, wreaking havoc with the tapestry. Sure, you can do that sometimes, but why? Surrender and find that sweet nectar of life in whatever it is you do.

Sometimes readings can feel too coherent, as if the reader has forced redundancy into the cards, but that blending and layering of sticky meanings again seems right for the Bee Tarot. And it’s not quite a seamless match of hexagonal compartments.

The Queen of Swords in reverse poses an odd problem here. How is she helping me understand how I might be helping others? I’ve learned from  a couple years teaching Awaken the Court Cards that the Queen of Swords can be much more accommodating than people assume. Students who embody the Queen of Swords (Water of Air) recognize the flow more often attributed to the Queen of Cups, but it’s funneled or honed like a sword’s point or edge. It’s there, but it’s focused. In this third position, the Queen of Swords in reverse seems to hint at the Queen of Jars in the fifth: she’s inviting me to work with those who have felt the pull or the currents of their soul—a calling, as it were—but who haven’t figured out how to refine that and focus that into something specific.

Combined with the warning to not overwork things in the 10 of Wands, it seems like an invitation to those who find themselves in the problem of the embodied soul who knows what they’re supposed to do “for the collective” in some way, but perhaps they’ve overworked it and limited soul work to spiritual industry work. That’s an important and thankfully growing population—I say “thankfully” because more people are recognizing the importance of doing meaningful soul work. There is pain in trying to force soul work into the limitations of spiritual industry work given our current economic environment. We can all be doing soul-centered things without being full-time energy healers or overworked tarot readers. Teach, volunteer, celebrate, and love as you do whatever you do. Bring spirit and nature and harmony into your world in whatever way you can, small or large. That’s the dream of a mindful and soul-centered collective.

And that helps me better understand the role of the reversed 5 of Swords in the sixth spot: we don’t all need to be competing with each other all the time. Yes, there are market forces that incentivize that. But why can’t we work in collaboration and mutual support? That journey awaits me still, I think, as promised by the 6 of Pentacles. But I suspect that it will find me sooner than later. Here’s hoping!

The Bee Tarot by Kristoffer Hughes and Nadia Turner is published by Llewellyn Worldwide, who publishes one of my one decks. The deck provided here was a gift from my publicist, but these insights about and experiences with the deck are my own.

[masterthespianduchovny]

Ted Lasso’s reputation as a wholesome, nice, feel good show at times comes at its expense. This isn’t the fault of TL, but rather:

1. People who literally judge or write the show off based on these three descriptors. They think they know exactly what the show is about and how it’s going to play out and they don’t.

2. People who literally watch the show yet don’t understand it. These past weeks I’ve come to understand that some people who’ve watched the show either miss/don’t comprehend things OR fundamentally don’t understand the show.

I’m unsure if this is some type of media illiteracy for the second point, but I literally had to break down how the show works to someone who was shitting on it. Don’t get me wrong, people are allowed to dislike the show. That doesn’t bother me. However, when your criticisms either come from a lack of knowledge or the inability to understand how the show is structured, there needs to be an intervention.

In my honest opinion, I don’t think the foundation of the show is comedy nor is it drama, the genre of the show is influenced by Ted’s emotional state. It’s labeled as comedy for all intents and purposes, but observe how the tone/genre of the show largely matches Ted’s highs and lows. Some may say that’s normal, but I think there is a nuance here that’s missing.

A fan or fans pointed out that this season isn’t funny and that’s because Ted isn’t funny (again, the show is mimicking Ted’s emotional state); most of his jokes do not land. He’s trying way to hard and not at all at times, which is intentional.

He’s overdoing it and people are saying it’s bad writing when, in fact, it’s very good writing. We see more and more how Ted is missing things, behaving oddly around the therapist, internalizing shit, etc AND refusing help aka avoiding Rebecca presumably. Something is wrong and only one person notices this and Ted tried to pretend he was fine.

This show has noticeably become darker, which typically doesn’t happen to alleged feel good comedies. When it does, it’s like an episode or two, but in the case of TL, it’s steadily been doing this season the first episode of season 2. Furthermore, it introduced many of these themes and plot lines on season 1.

The show has also made us re-examine many “funny” moments and assess if there is a different context behind what we believed we knew and saw.

The show for the most part has been very internally consistent because it’s never been bound by it’s genre.

It’s quite ironic and sad that one of the most repeated and (at times inappropriately used) iconic lines “be curious not judgmental” is only applied to assholes and shit behavior rather than super nice/people pleasers, such as Ted.

It reminds me of the poem “Not Waving But Drowning”, which I’ll copy and paste at the end. The title is essentially “on the tin”, but basically it’s about someone drowning and people not going to help because they thought this person was happy go lucky and waving at them. The person didn’t have any help while they were in a crisis because people missed the signs. Which pretty accurately describes what’s going on with others see Ted MINUS Rebecca.

Lastly, the show is an examination and deconstruction of niceness for better and worse. What does it mean to be nice? What drives people in how they treat others? It’s not saying niceness is the cure for everything and that it will fix us, it’s saying we should start with kindness. We should try to understand what’s going on and be sympathetic.

Hell, I don’t even think it’s saying everyone can be redeemed (aka Rupert as of now). It’s saying that when we try to be better people, not immediately give up on someone, and understand that other people have different experiences, that is something that can help us connect and understand one another better.

But we are all flawed and it takes accountability and hard work to right out wrongs. Not all is forgiven just because we see the error of our ways. We have to actively towards forgiveness not matter how hard.

What’s interesting about Ted is that he’s the catalyst behind this change in AFC Richmond, however, he’s one of the fundamentally misunderstood people on the show, which is intentional on his end. He hides what’s really going on with him because not even he wants to see it. His kindness is driven by genuineness, but also trauma from his dad’s death and bullying. It’s gotten so bad to the point that it’s pathological for him to be nice to the detriment of himself as he suppresses his own traumas.

People (un) intentionally use him and don’t reciprocate most of the time. To be fair to them, Ted wants it that way. Except they also aren’t paying attention. Yes, everyone has their own problems, but how is no one curious about the man who is always “happy” that just got a divorce and is separated from his kid most of the time? Who flat out admitted to that he took a job across the ocean for a sport he knew nothing about to give his wife space? Or that he had a panic attack during a major game?

At this point, Ted isn’t hiding his struggles all that well, yet only Rebecca realizes that he isn’t well.

Ironically, some fans use Ted Lasso as their feel good show all while overlooking what the show is trying to say about certain behaviors and relationships.

Although it takes nothing to be nice, don’t make others responsible for your happiness whether you are the giver or the receiver. It does no one any good.

Ted thinks helping others and avoiding his own problems will make him happy and it doesn’t. Even when his marriage was good, it was a band aid for his problems. As a result, he started unraveling because he wasn’t fixing things or fixing enough things and people.

The show is saying a lot and through subtext and nuance, which is being ignored because the show isn’t what people assumed it was. This show doesn’t exist to help people escape from their own problems and/or the pandemic. Like, it’s nice that it did for some, however, we have to allow the show to tell the story it wants to tell. They never misled anyone about the nature of the show.

On the other hand, the show has helped people who see parts of themselves in Ted and either want to get help or finally understand that some of their behavior are maladaptive and detrimental to themselves.

Some people are seeing what they want to see and projecting on the show (as they do many) and are criticizing TL for what it isn’t, rather than understanding what it is.

TL has many compelling things to say, but since it isn’t behaving how people want it to, they can’t engage meaningfully with the show, which is unfortunate.

——-

“Not waving but drowning”

Nobody heard him, the dead man,

But still he lay moaning:

I was much further out than you thought

And not waving but drowning.

Poor chap, he always loved larking

And now he’s dead

It must have been too cold for him his heart gave way,

They said.

Oh, no no no, it was too cold always

(Still the dead one lay moaning)

I was much too far out all my life

And not waving but drowning.

[ot3]

i watched red vs blue: zero with my dear friends today and i was asked to “post” my “thoughts” on the subject. Please do not click this readmore unless, for some reason, you want to read three thousand words on the subject of red vs blue: zero critical analysis. i highly doubt that’s the reason anyone is following me, but hey. 

anyway. here you have it. 

Here are my opinions on RVB0 as someone who has quite literally no nostalgia for any older RVB content. I’ve seen seasons 1-13 once and bits and pieces of it more than once here and there, but I only saw it for the first time within the past couple of months. I’ve literally never seen any other RT/AH content. I can name a few people who worked on OG Red vs. Blue but other than Mounty Oum I have NO idea who is responsible for what, really, or what anything else they’ve ever worked on is, or whether or not they’re awful people. I know even less about the people making RVB0 - All I know is that the main writer is named Torrian but I honestly don’t even know if that’s a first name, a last name, or a moniker. All this to say; nothing about my criticism is rooted in any perceived slight against the franchise or branding by the new staff members, because I don’t know or care about any of it. In fact, I’m going to try and avoid any direct comparison between RVB0 and earlier seasons of RVB as a means of critique until the very end, where I’ll look at that relationship specifically.

So here is my opinion of RVB0 as it stands right now:

1. The Writing

Everything about RVB0 feels as if it was written by a first-time writer who hasn’t learned to kill his darlings. The narrative is both simultaneously far too full, leaving very little breathing room for character interaction, and oddly sparse, with a story that lacks any meaningful takeaway, interesting ideas, or genuine emotional connection. It also feels like it’s for a very much younger audience - I don’t mean this as a negative at all. I love tv for kids. I watch more TV for kids than I do for adults, mostly, but I think it’s important to address this because a lot of the time ‘this is for kids’ is used to act like you’re not allowed to critique a narrative thoroughly. It definitely changes the way you critique it, but the critique can still be in good faith.  I watched the entirety of RVB0 only after it was finished, in one sitting, and I was giving it my full attention, essentially like it was a movie. I’m going to assume it was much better to watch in chunks, because as it stood, there was literally no time built into the narrative to process the events that had just transpired, or try and predict what events might be coming in the future. When there’s no time to think about the narrative as you’re watching it, the narrative ends up as being something that happens to the audience, not something they engage with. It’s like the difference between taking notes during a lecture or just sitting and listening. If you’re making no attempt to actively process what’s happening, it doesn’t stick in your mind well. I found myself struggling to recall the events and explanations that had immediately transpired because as soon as one thing had happened, another thing was already happening, and it was like a mental juggling act to try and figure out which information was important enough to dwell on in the time we were given to dwell on it.

Which brings me to another point - pacing. Every event in the show, whether a character moment, a plot moment, or a fight scene, felt like it was supposed to land with almost the exact same amount of emotional weight. It all felt like The Most Important Thing that had Yet Happened. And I understand that this is done as an attempt to squeeze as much as possible out of a rather short runtime, but it fundamentally fails. When everything is the most important thing happening, it all fades into static. That’s what most of 0’s narrative was to me: static. It’s only been a few hours since I watched it but I had to go step by step and type out all of the story beats I could remember and run it by my friends who are much more enthusiastic RVB fans than I am to make sure I hadn’t missed or forgotten anything. I hadn’t, apparently, but the fact that my takeaway from the show was pretty accurate and also disappointingly lackluster says a lot. Strangely enough, the most interesting thing the show alluded to - a holo echo, or whatever the term they used was - was one of the things least extrapolated upon in the show’s incredibly bulky exposition. Benefit of the doubt says that’s something they’ll explore in future seasons (are they getting more? Is that planned? I just realized I don’t actually know.)

And bulky it was! I have quite honestly never seen such flagrant disregard for the rule of “show, don’t tell.” There was not a single ounce of subtlety or implication involved in the storytelling of RVB0. Something was either told to you explicitly, or almost entirely absent from the narrative. Essentially zilch in between. We are told the dynamic the characters have with each other, and their personality pros and cons are listed for us conveniently by Carolina. The plot develops in exposition dumps. This is partially due to the series’ short runtime, but is also very much a result of how that runtime was then used by the writers. They sacrificed a massive chunk of their show for the sake of cramming in a ton of fight scenes, and if they wanted to keep all of those fight scenes, it would have been necessary to pare down their story and characters proportionally in comparison, but they didn’t do that either. They wanted to have it both ways and there simply wasn’t enough time for it. 

The story itself is… uninteresting. It plays out more like the flimsy premise of a video game quest rather than a piece of media to be meaningfully engaged with. RVB0 is I think something I would be pitched by a guy who thinks the MCU and BNHA are the best storytelling to come out of the past decade. It is nothing but tropes. And I hate having to use this as an insult! I love tropes. The worst thing about RVB0 is that nothing it does is wholly unforgivable in its own right. Hunter x Hunter, a phenomenal shonen, is notoriously filled with pages upon pages of detailed exposition and explanations of things, and I absolutely love it. Leverage, my favorite TV show of all time, is literally nothing but a five man band who has to learn to work as a team while seemingly systematically hitting a checklist of every relevant trope in the book. Pacific Rim is an incredibly straightforward good guys vs giant monsters blockbuster to show off some cool fight scenes such as a big robot cutting an alien in half with a giant sword, and it’s some of the most fun I ever have watching a movie. Something being derivative, clunky, poorly executed in some specific areas, narratively weak, or any single one of these flaws, is perfectly fine assuming it’s done with the intention and care that’s necessary to make the good parts shine more. I’ll forgive literally any crime a piece of media commits as long as it’s interesting and/or enjoyable to consume. RVB0 is not that. I’m not sure what the main point of RVB0 was supposed to be, because it seemingly succeeds at nothing. It has absolutely nothing new or innovative to justify its lack of concern for traditional storytelling conventions. Based solely on the amount of screentime things were given, I’d be inclined to say the narrative existed mostly to give flimsy pretense for the fight scenes, but that’s an entire other can of worms.

2. The Visuals + Fights

I have no qualms with things that are all style and no substance. Sometimes you just want to see pretty colors moving on the screen for a while or watch some cool bad guys and monsters or whatever get punched. RVB0 was not this either. The show fundamentally lacked a coherent aesthetic vision. Much of the show had a rather generic sci-fi feel to it with the biggest standouts to this being the very noir looking cityscape, which my friends and I all immediately joked looked like something from a batman game, or the temple, which my friends and I all immediately joked looked like a world of warcraft raid. They were obviously attempting to get variety in their environment design, which I appreciate, but they did this without having a coherent enough visual language to feel like it was all part of the same world. In general, there was also just a lack of visual clarity or strong shots. The value range in any given scene was poor, the compositions and framing were functional at best, and the character animation was unpleasantly exaggerated. It just doesn’t really look that good beyond fancy rendering techniques.

The fight scenes are their entire own beast. Since ‘FIGHT SCENE’ is the largest single category of scenes in the show, they definitely feel worth looking at with a genuine critical eye. Or, at least, I’d like to, but honestly half the time I found myself almost unable to look at them. The camera is rarely still long enough to really enjoy what you’re watching - tracking the motion of the character AND the camera at such constant breakneck high speeds left little time to appreciate any nuances that might have been present in the choreography or character animation. I tried, believe me, I really did, but the fight scenes leave one with the same sort of dizzy convoluted spectacle as a Michael Bay transformers movie. They also really lacked the impact fight scenes are supposed to have.

It’s hard to have a good, memorable fight scene without it doing one of three things: 1. Showing off innovative or creative fighting styles and choreography 2. Making use of the fight’s setting or environment in an engaging and visually interesting way or 3. Further exploring a character’s personality or actions by the way they fight. It’s also hard to do one of these things on its own without at least touching a bit on the other two. For the most part, I find RVB0’s fight scenes fail to do this. Other than rather surface level insubstantial factors, there was little to visually distinguish any of RVB0’s fight scenes from each other. Not only did I find a lot of them difficult to watch and unappealing, I found them all difficult to watch and unappealing in an almost identical way. They felt incredibly interchangeable and very generic. If you could take a fight scene and change the location it was set and also change which characters were participating and have very little change, it’s probably not a good fight scene. 

I think “generic” is really just the defining word of RVB0 and I think that’s also why it falls short in the humor department  as well.

3. The Comedy

Funny shit is hard to write and humor is also incredibly subjective but I definitely got almost no laughs out of RVB0. I think a total of three. By far the best joke was Carolina having a cast on top of her armor, which, I must stress, is an incredibly funny gag and I love it. But overall I think the humor fell short because it felt like it was tacked on more than a natural and intentional part of this world and these characters. A lot of the jokes felt like they were just thrown in wherever they’d fit, without any build up to punchlines and with little regard for what sort of joke each character would make. Like, there was some, obviously Raymond’s sense of humor had the most character to it, but the character-oriented humor still felt very weak. When focusing on character-driven humor, there’s a LOT you can establish about characters based on what sort of jokes they choose to make, who they’re picking as the punchlines of these jokes, and who their in-universe audience for the jokes is. In RVB0, the jokes all felt very immersion-breaking and self aware, directed wholly towards the audience rather than occurring as a natural result of interplay between the characters. This is partially due to how lackluster the character writing was overall, and the previously stated tight timing, but also definitely due to a lack of a real understanding about what makes a joke land. 

A rule of thumb I personally hold for comedy is that, when push comes to shove, more specific is always going to be more funny. The example I gave when trying to explain this was this:

saying two characters had awkward sex in a movie theater: funny

saying two characters had an awkward handjob in a cinemark: even funnier

saying two characters spent 54 minutes of 11:14's 1:26 runtime trying out some uncomfortably-angled hand stuff in the back of a dilapidated cinemark that lost funding halfway through retrofitting into a dinner theater: the funniest

The more specific a joke is, the more it relies on an in-depth understanding of the characters and world you’re dealing with and the more ‘realistic’ it feels within the context of your media. Especially with this kind of humor. When you’re joking with your friends, you don’t go for stock-humor that could be pulled out of a joke book, you go for the specific. You aim for the weak spots. If a set of jokes could be blindly transplanted into another world, onto another cast of characters, then it’s far too generic to be truly funny or memorable. I don’t think there’s a single joke in RVB0 where the humor of it hinged upon the characters or the setting.

Then there’s the issue of situational comedy and physical comedy. This is really where the humor being ‘tacked on’ shows the most. Once again, part of what makes actually solid comedy land properly is it feeling like a natural result of the world you have established. Real life is absurd and comical situations can be found even in the midst of some pretty grim context, and that’s why black comedy is successful, and why comedy shows are allowed to dip into heavier subject matter from time to time, or why dramas often search for levity in humor. It’s a natural part of being human to find humor in almost any situation. The key thing, though, once again, is finding it in the situation. Many of RVB0’s attempts at humor, once again, feel like they would be the exact same jokes when stripped from their context, and that’s almost never good. A pretty fundamental concept in both storytelling in general but particularly comedy writing is ‘setup and payoff’. No joke in RVB0 is a reward for a seemingly innocuous event in an earlier scene or for an overlooked piece of environmental design. The jokes pop in when there’s time for them in between all the exposition and fighting, and are gone as soon as they’re done. There’s no long term, underlying comedic throughline to give any sense of coherence or intent to the sense of humor the show is trying to establish. Every joke is an isolated one-off quip or one-liner, and it fails to engage the audience in a meaningful way.

All together, each individual component of RVB0 feels like it was conjured up independently, without any concern to how it interacted with the larger product they were creating. And I think this is really where it all falls apart. RVB0 feels criminally generic in a way reminiscent of mass-market media which at least has the luxury of attributing these flaws, this complete and total watering down of anything unique, to heavy oversight and large teams with competing visions. But I don’t think that’s the case for RVB0. I don’t know much about what the pipeline is like for this show, but I feel like the fundamental problem it suffers from is a lack of heart.

In comparison to Red vs. Blue

Let's face it. This is a terrible successor to Red vs. Blue. I wouldn’t care if NONE of the old characters were in it - that’s not my problem. I haven’t seen past season 13 because from what I heard the show already jumped the shark a bit and then some. That’s not what makes it a poor follow up. What makes it a bad successor is that it fundamentally lacks any of the aspects of the OG RVB that made it unique or appealing at all. I find myself wondering what Torrian is trying to say with RVB0 and quite literally the only answer I find myself falling back onto is that he isn’t trying to say anything at all. Regardless of what you feel about the original RVB, it undeniably had things to say. The opening “why are we here” speech does an excellent job at establishing that this is a show intended to poke fun at the misery of bureaucracy and subservience to nonsensical systems, not just in the context of military life, but in a very broad-strokes way almost any middle-class worker can relate to. At the end of the day, fiction is at its best when it resonates with some aspect of its audience’s life. I know instantly which parts of the original Red vs Blue I’m supposed to relate to. I can’t say anything even close to that about 0.

RVB is an absurdist parody that heavily satirizes aspects of the military and life as a low-on-the-food-chain worker in general that almost it’s entire target audience will be familiar with. The most significant draw of the show to me was how the dialogue felt like listening to my friends bicker with each other in our group chats. It required no effort for me to connect with and although the narrative never outright looked to the camera and explained ‘we are critiquing the military’s stupid red tape and self-fullfilling eternal conflict’ they didn’t need to, because the writing trusted itself and its audience enough to believe this could be conveyed. It is, in a way, the complete antithesis to the badass superhero macho military man protagonist that we all know so well. RVB was saying something, and it was saying it in a rather novel format.

Nothing about RVB0 is novel. Nothing about RVB0 says anything. Nothing about it compels me to relate to any of these characters or their situations. RVB0 doesn’t feel like absurdism, or satire. RVB0 feels like it is, completely uncritically, the exact media that RVB itself was riffing off of. Both RVB0 and RVB when you watch them give you the feeling that what you’re seeing here is kids on a playground larping with toy soldiers. It’s all ridiculous and over the top cliche stupid garbage where each side is trying to one-up the other. The critical difference is, in RVB, we’re supposed to look at this and laugh at how ridiculous this is. In RVB0 we’re supposed to unironically think this is all pretty badass. 

The PFL arc of the original RVB existed to show us that setting up an elite team of supersoldiers with special powers was something done in bad faith, with poor outcomes, that left everyone involved either cruel, damaged, or dead. It was a bad thing. And what we’re seeing in RVB0 is the same premise, except, this time it’s good. We’re supposed to root for this format. RVB0 feels much more like a demo reel, cutscenes from a video game that doesn’t exist, or a shonen anime fanboy’s journal scribbling than it feels like a piece of media with any objective value in any area.  In every area that RVB was anti-establishment, RVB0 is pure undiluted establishment through and through.  

[beinmybonnet]

29th June 1613 - London, England

   “Remind me again why we’re doing this?

“He went to the trouble to have a draft carried all the way to Brandenburg for me, the least I can do is attend the opening night.”

Andromache rolls her shoulders into her partlet. “The least you can do maybe. Why am I doing this?”

“Because you missed me. And because you cried when we saw Othello.” Yusuf replies, looking sideways at her. Curbing the inevitable objection, Quynh squeezes Nicolò’s arm and strides forwards to overtake them. He lets himself be dragged after her, taking care not to tread on her skirts.

“I love the theatre. Plus, we’ve spent the last week sleeping in a shack in the Dales. This,” Quynh waves her free arm over the bridge rail, “is a nice change of scenery.”

London Bridge is teeming with people, the warmth of the bustle settling like cinders into his skin. The city writhes in its haste. Against the far bank of the Thames tall buildings strike against the horizon, the old Southwark Priory still reaching high in spent pride. Buildings are painted pale with dark beams striking bold across them. It is beautiful in its own way, Nicolò thinks. Inelegant, but unique.

“It wasn’t that bad. I still think we should have stayed a little longer, at least until-

“Andromache we’ve slept in nicer caves.”

Quynh glances back over her shoulder meaningfully, brow rising. Andromache shrugs. A smile, although few would recognise it. They step down onto the riverbank as one, turning east.

Nicolò nudges his shoulder into Yusuf as they pass the gardens. “You fail to mention you sent that script back with corrections.”

“Revisions. Small ones.” Yusuf’s voice is low, his expression impish. “Barely noticeable.”

                                                         *

“Ah, here we are.” Yusuf waves Andromache forward into their usual first-floor booth and steps back to allow Quynh to pass. Nicolò pauses, peering up the stairwell.

“Full house.”

“First performance. Trust me, this will be one to remember.” Yusuf is bouncing slightly on the balls of his feet, and it makes Nicolò want to tuck his chin over a bobbing shoulder.

“You’d think the city would be a bit more subdued,” Andromache settles herself on the bench tucking thick plum skirts around her calves. She happily accepts a bag of roasted hazelnuts from Yusuf as he passes her to stand at the balcony. “They’ve only just recovered from their last bout of plague.”

“Exactly! This is the power of art.” Yusuf beams, arm sweeping wide. “Look at these people.” All around them the crowd is seething with anticipation, the noise growing as the wait goes on. Children scramble in the lower level of the yard for better vantage points, clawing their way up the beams supporting the lower galleries. People are shouting and laughing and drinking, the sound cocooned tight within the impressive structure. A man swings a laughing boy up over the mass, and a small group of women pressed against the stage begin shouting a suspicious sounding rhyme, pointing across the pit. Before they can finish a man in the gallery beneath them roars his response across the yard.

Nicolò’s brow furrows. “Clot-pole? I don’t…”

“She’s calling him an idiot,” Andromache supplies, “and insulting his hat.”

“It is a bit much.” Quynh’s leaning over the balcony to get a better look. “I think she’s accusing him of, err – short-changing her. Last night.”

Still grinning, Yusuf peers over beside her. “Oh, she’s quite angry. Here we go.” He sounds delighted. What looks like a parsnip sails over the head of the crowd. “A pity, she’ll want those for the third act.”

Quynh’s now bent almost double over the bannister and Andromache reaches to steady her without looking. “Isn’t this sort of thing that made the man move half of the troupe over to Blackfriars?”

Yusuf shakes his head in fond exasperation. “Ah, William has become far too prudish in his success. The engagement of the audience is the nature of theatre.”

“Engagement?” Nicolò smirks as something below meets its mark with a splat and a shout.

“Well, you cannot deny their enthusiasm-”

Quynh reappears with a whoop of triumph clutching her prize; a browning cabbage intercepted in the air. She rotates the rotten vegetable in careful examination. “Excellent.”

Yusuf raises his hand in hopeless protest as Nicolò leans back in his seat, eyeing Quynh. “10 crowns says you can’t hit the stage from here.”

She snorts derisively.

“20 if you can take King Henry off his feet.” Andromache counters, rising slightly to gauge the distance. Done, Quynh agrees happily, settling beside her and tucking her cabbage under the bench. Yusuf mutters an exasperated appeal for help to the heavens and Nicolò quickly tugs him down into the remaining space with a hand over his knee.

The parting of the stage curtain prompts the dropping of remaining projectiles and an enthusiastic cheer from the crowd. The herald clears his throat, steps to the edge of the stage and spreads his arms.

The first and happiest hearers of the town,

I come no more to make you laugh; things now,

That bear a weighty and a serious brow,

Sad, high, and working, full of state and woe,

Such noble scenes as draw the eye to flow,

We now present. Those that can pity, here

May, if they think it well, let fall a tear;

Be sad, as we would make ye

“Oh, so a comedy?” Quynh says brightly and Yusuf shushes her.

The first actors emerge from the wings in their velvets and the tale takes flight.

                                                                                                                                                                    *

In all this noble bevy, has brought with her

One care abroad; he would have all as merry

As, first, good company, good wine, good welcome,

Can make good people. O, my lord, you're tardy:

Yusuf is mouthing the words soundlessly, engrossed.

There are many things Nicolò has enjoyed about visiting theatres over the years. He will readily admit this performance is an enjoyable one - the young man playing Buckingham is particularly charismatic, the audience viscerally immersed in his indignation. The actors proudly deliver their lines and their story to an increasingly hypnotised audience.  

But the play itself has never been what really draws Nicolò to this place. He glances sideways again and immediately, expectedly, loses the thread of the plot. In this moment the talent on the stage could never hope to hold his interest as he sits beside this man. Yusuf has lost himself entirely to the unfolding tale, gaze flitting from figure to figure calling below. Passion alight in his eyes. The arts do this to him in a way Nicolò has seen nothing else in all their time together. They have walked familiar paths in gallery halls for hours on end, Yusuf’s eyes roving walls of painted expression. They’ve sat in houses of the dying and listened to children bringing comfort with songs of naivety. Literature, dance, poetry, music; in all their changing forms they have always arrested Yusuf in his entirety.

These things give people freedom Nicolò, true freedom, he had once said. Free of limitation and expectation, in art people reveal their true selves. It is beautiful.

For Nicolò, that beauty is reflected blindingly in Yusuf’s own experience. To watch him like this for the rest of his given days would see him depart this earth achingly grateful to his God.

But Yusuf feels his distraction and leans toward him. “You’re missing it,” he murmurs, smile pulling impossibly wider. Unbridled delight is etched at the edges of his eyes, and Nicolò wants to trace his fingertips over the creases. He only realises he has reached out and done so when Yusuf captures and kisses his palm. “Watch the play.”

“It is a story still within living memory, I know how it ends,” Nicolò whispers.

Yusuf will not have it, nodding towards the actors. “Watch them tell it.”

Anne Boleyn is drifting across the stage, hand at her chest and Nicolò turns dutifully back to the performance.

Was he mad, sir?

O, very mad, exceeding mad, in love too:

But he would bite none; just as I do now,

He would kiss you twenty with a breath.

This time it’s Yusuf’s eyes that flicker back towards him and Nicolò hears silent words in the curl of his lip. Twenty kisses in a single breath. A risky venture, no?

Nicolò hums, his thoughts mirrored beside him. We shall see.

                                                                                                                      *

Good lord chamberlain,

Go, give 'em welcome; you can speak the French tongue;

And, pray, receive 'em nobly, and conduct 'em

Into our presence, where this heaven of beauty

Shall shine at full upon them. Some attend him.

You have now a broken banquet; but we'll mend it.

A good digestion to you all: and once more

I shower a welcome on ye; welcome all!

King Henry VIII emerges from the curtains with a flourish, the actor clearly taking great pains not to stumble in breeches that billow around his knees. The theatre bursts into applause as a round of trumpets sound, and they shout their approval at the blast of a canon from the rafters. The actors move to their marks to begin the scene in earnest, and Andromache leans forward with interest for the first time.

“See, I told you! With the funding now available, they’ve really spared no expense,” Yusuf is still clapping. Andromache hums noncommittally sitting back, but her eyes are suddenly bright with curiosity.

“Quynh, if you’re going to win your money, I suggest you do it now.”

“Why? I was going to wait until the trial scene,” she replies, confused.

From his place beside her Nicolò can see clearly that Andromache is struggling to suppress a smirk. “Well, there won’t be much left by then.”

“What?” Quynh looks down the bench at him. He shrugs. Andromache sighs around her growing amusement.

Seconds pass before she speaks again.

“They’ve set the roof on fire.”

He doesn’t need long to piece together what’s happened. There’s a thin plume of smoke rising from the inner curve of the roof and within, a flicker of light no bigger than that from a candle waving gently in the rafters. The canon. They wadded the canon, he realises. The little flame wafts higher in the breeze. The crowd is oblivious, too focused on the stage to be looking upwards. He taps Yusuf’s thigh.

It does take a moment. “Oh dear.” Yusuf looks back and forth between the roof and the stage, face falling. “Well maybe-

There’s a loud pop as the flame meets eager fuel. It dances up into the thatch lining the hooped roof and flares wide and greedy. Whip fast, it licks across the reeds consuming them in crunches and cracks that have people now looking skywards and shouting. Those in the highest galleries rear back as the fire completes its rapid circuit of the roof. By the time the actors have abandoned their attempts at continuing and stand dumbstruck on the stage, the theatre is ringed in an ominous halo of flame.

“Yusuf, unless your intention is a repeat of ’54…” Quynh trails off sadly, holding her cabbage.

Clumps of lit thatch are beginning to drift into the standing audience and the pushing and shoving follows in earnest. One man charges through the crowd braying, his breeches alight. Andromache stands looking decidedly more cheerful. “Come on, we’ll help them clear the pit.”

Nicolò follows suit, a hand falling to Yusuf’s shoulder. He has to work to quell an absurd urge to laugh; Yusuf is glaring at the roof with all the stubbornness of a chastised child. He squeezes gently, sympathy winning out. “I’m sorry.”

“Canons, who on earth thought canons in a wooden building was…” Yusuf trails off, glancing up. “Nothing to be done I suppose.” He holds out his other hand. “Shall we?”

Drawing Yusuf up behind him, Nicolò moves out into the stairwell twisting up into the higher galleries where people are starting to pile down in haste. An older man stumbles in the rush and he reaches out to steady him. “Careful, sir. Head out towards the river.”

The man nods and quickly hurries on pressing his handkerchief to his mouth. The next woman through the door snatches her arm up to her chest before he can move to offer any assistance. Dirty papist  she spits as she veers away. Yusuf tenses, a hard line pressed at his back. Nicolò just dips his head.

“Please hurry.”

By the time the flow of people has ebbed the flames are beginning to consume the ornate stage pillars. The curtains masking backstage catch like parchment and blaze furiously. “We should make sure the galleries are clear,” he says, “you take the east, I the west?”

Yusuf eyes the roof timbers warily. “Five minutes. No more.”

In the end it only takes Nicolò four minutes to usher the last stubborn gamblers from the gentleman’s room. The fact that the smoke has now crept down to waist level speeds this along nicely, and they hurry to the stairwell hunched and coughing. Nicolò stays low, following them down the last steep flight when his foot catches on something in the darkness, almost putting his hand through the adjacent wall in an attempt to steady himself. There’s a man slouched in the corner, limbs sprawled wide and snoring. An empty bladder clutched to his chest. The strength of the brandy fumes punch through the dense smoke to further sting at his eyes and his irritation almost threatens to outweigh his conscience. Almost.

By the time he staggers out into clear air dragging his oblivious charge Nicolò know he’s been much longer than five minutes. Behind him there’s a crash which sounds very much like the galleries have finally given in and collapsed. Sounds like, because his eyes are clenched shut, burning and watering. Pressing his hands to his knees, he tries not to gag on the tar in his throat.

A hand settles on the back of his neck whilst another cups a palmful of water to his face. Nicolò winces.

“I’m sorry,” he rasps, “He’s heavier than he looks.”

He can hear Yusuf grinding his teeth but his response is surprisingly placid. “Rinse your eyes.”

Yusuf presses a water skin into his hands and moves away. When Nicolò’s vision has cleared he spots him back near the eastern entrance, patiently shepherding two enraptured boys further from the fire as they gape at the sky. Even for one who has seen much, Nicolò must admit, it is quite a sight.

The playhouse’s cylindrical shape has moulded the fire into a twirling steeple of flame inside the structure, now reaching twenty feet clear of the building itself. The Globe resembles an enormous cauldron struggling to hold its roiling contents. It belches clouds of thick black smoke as its rim splinters and cracks under the pressure and heat. What’s left of the thatch continues to feed the furnace, keeping the flames bright and fierce.

Quynh appears, sliding her hand into the crook of his elbow to steer him away. She leads him to a grassy curve of the riverbank where people are congregating in groups and beginning to resettle on the ground. From one muse to another, the audience remain eager spectators, gasping and whooping as the bones of the building begin to break, sending up showers of sparks. Yusuf and Andromache join them just as the walls start to keel inwards.

“You were right, definitely one of his more memorable works,” Andromache announces as they sit. “Perhaps my favourite.”

“Yes, I’m so very glad you enjoyed yourself.” Yusuf’s tone is flat, but his eyes roll indulgently.

Quynh settles herself back against Andromache’s bent knees, facing the playhouse. “We can still make a night of it. We get a bottle of wine, some pastries. Watch the sunset.” Her voices softens slightly and she levels her gaze at them. “You really must go so soon?”

He looks to Yusuf, who nods. “We have passage on a ship to Antwerp. She leaves on the tide tomorrow morning.”

Quynh’s sigh is dejected. “You won’t consider staying just a little longer? We’re moving on to…” she trails off, peering up at Andromache – Devon, she supplies, “We could use your help relocating these women. The trials are becoming barbaric.”

Yusuf shakes his head, surveying the crowd. “I’d prefer not to tempt fate. London is not at its most welcoming for us presently.

Nicolò quirks his lip. “You mean for me.” Ah, he sees now. The woman from earlier is stood just a little further up the bank, clutching at well-dressed man and pointing at them. Yusuf stares back unflinchingly. Nicolò feels him shift to further block her line of sight to him.

Then he turns back to meet Nicolò’s eye and speaks firmly. “For us. If a place does not welcome you, it does not welcome me.” 

Quynh has watched the exchange carefully and suddenly sits up. She clears her throat and calls out loudly enough for those nearest to turn. “Thou art a boil, madam, a plague sore!”

Andromache snorts and the woman raises her fan to her face appalled, tugging on her husband’s arm. It has the intended effect on Yusuf though and his grin returns to its proper place. Nicolò feels a familiar rush of affection for Quynh and her unfailing ability to put people at ease.

“King Lear,” Yusuf says proudly. “I didn’t think you were paying attention.”

“Of course she was,” Andromache interjects, “It’s a magnum opus of insults.”

Quynh grins up at her. “Oh, you worsted-stockinged knave.”

The retort is instant. “Brazen-faced varlet.”

“Ancient ruffian.”

Andromache shrugs. “Accurate.”

Their laughter comes in easy unison and Yusuf’s expression is unbearably soft as he watches them. “It won’t be for long,” he promises.

Quynh pulls her eyes from Andromache and nods. “Probably a sensible choice at the moment. You do look violently Venetian Nicolò.

He wrinkles his nose, affronted. “I do not-”

Yusuf is reaching for his face, so he pauses his protest for the gentle pass of a thumb over the bridge of his nose. “It’s your profile my love.” Yusuf’s tongue darts out over the pad of his thumb before it returns to rub more firmly at his nose. “Which currently is very sooty.”

With his hands still upon Nicolò’s face he murmurs.  “Oh but what a piece of work is this man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel,” Yusuf blinks, his sincerity blinding, “in apprehension how like a god.”

It’s all Nicolò can do not to rub his flushed cheeks into Yusuf’s palms like an alley cat.

Andromache arches a refined brow at Quynh. “Nicolò gets a Hamletian ode to his soul, and I get ‘ruffian’?”

Quynh rocks onto her elbow in the grass without missing a beat. “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day? Mayhap a smouldering playhouse, ablaze in righteous flame?

“Likened to a smoking wreckage, how romantic.”

Nicolò would laugh but Yusuf is still holding his gaze and his face, everything else muting around him. He does this; bestows his love in soft declarations that leave Nicolò stunned, and then holds him steady until the words perfuse. Nicolò loves him so much he feels he might combust, with all the ferocity of the fire at his back.

Centuries before, he had allowed his disbelief to ask a question once, and only once. The intensity frightening him. Could a gift such as this truly be his eternal?

Nicolò smiles at his world and whispers.

So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,

So long lives this, and gives life to thee.

 held in the embers on ao3 at theexistentialteapot

 part one of this series can be found here

[davidmann95]

How about those JL storyboards?

In case you haven’t heard, Zack Snyder is putting on display the ‘storyboards’ - i.e. a rough plot summary accompanied by some Jim Lee sketches - for what would have been Justice League 2 and 3, or as this puts it 2 and ‘2A’. You can see them here (I imagine better-quality versions will soon be released), and read a transcript here. This is evidently a very early version: this was apparently pitched prior to the release of BvS and Justice League being rewritten in the wake of it, with numerous plot details that now don’t line up with what we know about the Snyder Cut, plus it outright mentions it builds on the originally planned versions of the Batman and Flash movies. But it’s a broad outline of what was gonna go down, and while I initially thought it was Snyder throwing in the towel, the timing - paired with the ambiguity left by the necessity for changes, including that this doesn’t factor whatever that “massive cliffhanger” at the end of the Cut is - says to me he’s hoping this’ll be a force multiplier behind efforts to will sequel/s into existence. He’s probably right.

I’ll be discussing spoilers below, but in short: with this Zack Snyder has finally lived up to Alan Moore, in that like Twilight of the Superheroes I wouldn’t believe this was real as opposed to a shockingly on-point parody if not for direct, irrefutable evidence.

Doing some rapid-fire bullet points for this baby to kick us off:

* Folks who know the subject say a lot of this is a yet further continuation of Snyder doing Arthuriana fanfic with the League reskinned over those major players, and I’ll take their word for it.

* I don’t know whether I love or hate that in Justice League 2 the Justice League are only an extant thing for the first scene, and then it’s Snyder giving everybody their own mini-movies. It’s compressing the entire MCU “loosely interconnected solo stories leading to a single big movie later” strategy into a single movie!

*  Funniest line in the whole thing: "Even Lantern has heard of the Kryptonian, worried that he's under the control of Darkseid. He heard his spirit was unbreakable." Hal what fuckin' Superman movie did YOU watch? Second funniest being “IT WILL GIVE HIM POWER OVER ALL LIVING LIFE”

* 90% of the plot I have nothing to say about, it’s generic stage-setting crap. That to be clear is the ‘shocked it’s Snyder’ element, it feels so crassly commercial in a way I can’t believe is coming from the BvS guy.

* Most of what I have to say is unsurprisingly gonna be about a handful of characters but Cyborg’s happy ending being “he isn’t visibly disabled anymore!” is not great!

* The Goddess of War battle with Superman...never pays off? No clue why it’s there.

* What I’d originally heard was that the Codex in Superman’s blood was the last key to the Anti-Life Equation and that’s why Darkseid was coming to Earth. It’s not like all of this wouldn’t have already been averted by Kal-El’s pod smacking into an asteroid on the way to Earth so it’s not as if this makes it any more Superman’s fault, and it would have at least tied all this back to the beginning of the movies, but I suppose that was either fake or from a later draft.

* I have NO idea how this was reimagined without the ‘love triangle’, it’s the central character thing and the entire climax flows directly out of it!

* Darkseid’s kinda a chump in this, huh

Anonymous said: So: Does Zack Snyder hate Superman?

Look: the hilarity of this when Cuck Kent has been a go-to Snyder cult insult towards ‘inferior’ takes on Superman for years cannot be understated, yet at the same time I can almost wrap my brain around where Snyder’s coming from with that as the end for his take on the character. He talked in that Variety piece on how his interest in Superman is informed by having adopted children himself, and Deborah Snyder is the stepmother to his kids by previous relationships, so I can see where he’d be coming from, and I can even imagine how he’d see this as ‘rhyming’ in the sense of “the series begins with Kal-El being adopted by Earth, it ends with him adopting a child of Earth!” In the same way as MARTHA, I can envision how he would put these pieces together in his head thematically without registering or caring what the end result would actually look like. In this case, Superman raising the kid of the man who beat the shit out of him who Batman had with Clark’s wife, who earlier told Bruce she was staying with Clark because he ‘needed her’, suggesting if inadvertently that this really honest to god was a “she’s only staying with Superman out of pity, she really loved Batman more” thing.

But Clark is nothing in this. He’s sad and existential because of coming back from the dead I guess, then he’s corrupted, then time’s undone and he woo-rah rallies the collective armies of the world (interesting angle for the ‘anti-military/anti-establishment’ Superman he’s talked up as) as his big heroic moment in the finale, and then he stops being sad because he’s adopting a kid. So his big much-ballyhooed, extremely necessary five-movie character arc towards truly becoming Superman was:

Sad weird kid -> sad weird kid learns he’s an alien, is still weird and sad, maybe he shouldn’t save people because things could go really wrong? -> his dad is so convinced it could go wrong he lets himself die -> ????? -> Clark is saving people anyway -> learns his origin, gets an inspiring speech about being a bridge between worlds and a costume -> becomes superman (not Superman, that’s later) to save the world, albeit a very property-damagey version, rejects his heritage he just learned about and space dad’s bridge idea -> folks hate him being superman and that sucks though at least he’s got a girlfriend now -> things go so wrong he considers not being superman but his ghost dad reminds him shit always goes wrong so he should be good anyway, which sorta feels like it contradicts his previous advice -> immediate renewed goodness is out the window as he’s blackmailed into having to try and kill a dude but the dude happens to coincidentally have some things in common so they don’t kill each other after all -> big monster now but superman keeps supermaning at it because he loves his girlfriend and he dies -> he’s brought back, wears black which apparently means now he likes Krypton again? -> he has work friends now but he’s still sad because he was dead -> evil now! -> wait nevermind time travel -> rallies the troops -> his wife’s having a kid so he’s not sad anymore -> Superman! Who gives way to more Batman.

Do I think Zack Snyder is lying when he says he likes Superman? No. I think he sincerely finds much of the basic conceits and imagery engaging. But I don’t think he meaningfully gives shit about Clark as a character, just a vessel for Big Iconic Beats he wants to hit. Whereas while for instance he’s critical of Batman as an idea (at least up to a point), he’s much more passionately, directly enamored with him as a presence and personality. So while Superman may be the character whose ostensible myth cycle or arc or however it’s spun might be propelling a lot of events here, it’s a distant appreciation - of course the other guy takes over and subsumes him into his own narrative. Of course Batman is the savior, the past and the future (though if he’s supposed to be Batman’s kid raised by Superman there’s no excuse for him not to be Nightwing), the tragic martyr to our potential. Admittedly the implication here is also that Batman can apparently only REALLY with his whole heart be willing to sacrifice his life to save an innocent, for that matter apparently his great love, once said innocent is a receptacle for his Bat-brood, but he and Clark are both already irredeemable pieces of shit by the end of BvS so it’s not like this even registers by comparison.

Anonymous said: That “plan” Snyder had was utter dogshit. Picture proof that DC & WB hate Superman. Also I love how you’re like Jor-El: Every single idealistic take you had about Snyder, his fandom, and BvS was wrong. Snyder’s an edgy hack, his fanbase just wants to jerk off to their edgy self-insert Batgod as he screams FUCK while mowing people down with machine guns, and the idea that BvS said Superman was better than Bats was completely wrong. You know what comes next SuperMann: Either you die or I do.

In the final analysis, beyond that mother of god is there sure no conceivable excuse for the treatment of Lois in this? The temptation is to join that anon and say as I originally tweeted that these were “built entirely to disabuse every single redemptive reading of the previous work and any notion of these movies as nuanced, artistic, self-reflective, or meaningful”.

...

...

...yeah, okay, that’s mostly right. Zack Snyder’s vision really was the vision of an edgelord idiot with bad ideas who was never going to build up to anything that would reframe it all as a sensible whole. He’s a sincere edgelord genuinely trying really hard with his bad ideas who put some of them together quite cleverly! But they’re fucking bad and the endgame was never anything more than ramping up into smashing the action figures together as big as he could, the political overtones and moral sketchiness of BvS while trying to say something in that movie reverberated through the grand scheme of his pentalogy in no way beyond giving his boys a big sad pit to rise out of so when they kicked ass later it’d rule harder, and all the gods among men questions and horror and trappings were only that: trappings. Apparently he’s really pleasant and well-meaning in person, but at his core his art as embodied in a couple weeks in his 4-hour R-rated Justice League movie meant to be seen in black-and-white all comes down to that time he yelled at someone on Twitter that he couldn’t appreciate Snyder’s work because it’s for grown-ups. He made half-clever, occasionally exciting shit cape movies for a bunch of corny pseudo-intellectual douchebags, folks latching onto and justifying blockbusters that at least acknowledge how horrifying the world is right now even if the superheroes are basically useless in the face of it if not outright part of the problem until a convenient alien invasion shows up to justify them, and a handful of non-asshole smart people who vibe with it but...well. ‘Suckered’ is a harsh word, and definitely doesn’t apply to all of them re: what they’ve gotten out of it up to this point and would (somehow) get out of this. But it doesn’t apply to none of them, either.

[bytheangell]

Can I request some aro ace Christopher Lightwood in this trying time please? I love him too much pls don't judge me

Nothing to Fix (Read on AO3)

Christopher isn’t sure how much longer he can keep this up. He knows that his friends mean well, and the girls they keep setting him up on dates with are all, objectively, very lovely. He doesn’t mind the time he spends talking with them, even if there’s never a second date. And there’s never a second date. It takes him a few tries to pick up on why he doesn’t want a second date, because Matthew and the others ask him every time what went wrong and every time he doesn’t have an answer. Nothing went wrong. He just doesn’t want to.

That isn’t an answer the others accept, however - surely there has to be a reason, a cause, so Christopher tries again. And again.

There’s a certain pressure of expectation upon him now that James’ engagement to Cordelia brings the two of them closer together, Matthew continues to have his fair share of romantic trysts even if nothing is serious, and Thomas and Alastair admit to liking one another. Even Lucie seems to be sneaking out to meet with a boy, though she insists she isn’t whenever suspicions arise.

Christopher doesn’t feel left out, but it’s implied that he should - that he must be lying when he says he’s not interested and perfectly content at home with his experiments while the others are out. The idea that he’s genuinely disinterested is apparently so absurd that no one even humors it.

It takes Christopher a while to realize the simplicity of the truth, and even longer to accept it, in the face of being told he simply has to try again, try harder, or find some mystical ‘right person’ who will make everything fall into place.

Once he’s certain he’s entirely content with his life as it is, no romantic or physical attachments needed, he doesn’t hesitate to tell others as much when they ask. No, he doesn’t feel the drive to go out on his own to meet new people, he enjoys the friends he has very much. And no, he certainly doesn’t have the desire to attach himself to anyone romantically or physically. It’s never felt like something he needed, or even wanted, and certainly not something he’s missing out on.

If only he could convince everyone else to believe him.

As is the recently formed routine of these set-ups, Christopher makes his way back up to their room above the pub after it’s over, greeting the eager faces of his friends with a sheepish grin, a shrug, and a shake of his head. And, as is also routine, he watches their faces fall with a sense of disappointment he doesn’t share.

Now Matthew is giving him a quizzical up-and-down. “Is it the girls? Perhaps we could find you a nice guy to date? I may know a few who would go for the eccentric scientist thing...”

“I’d rather not,” Christopher admits. “Can we please just accept this isn’t going to happen and allow me to go back to normal?”

That’s what Christopher longs for - the days when no one thought he was ‘holding himself back’ by spending his free time as he wished.

“What are you talking about? This is perfectly normal,” Thomas insists.

“Yes, normal for you. Because these things have always mattered to the lot of you, and you pursued them. But they never have for me, and that hasn’t changed. The only thing that’s changed is everyone’s insistence that they should,” Christopher points out. And it’s so obvious to him, so simple, that he doesn’t understand why the others don’t see it.

He’s never gotten upset with them about it before because he knows they have the best of intentions and are only trying to do right by him… but maybe that’s why they haven’t taken him seriously when he tries to explain himself. Maybe if he gets a little upset about it they’ll realize how frustrated he’s getting.

So Christopher adds, more forcefully this time, “I simply don’ want it. And it’d be nice to not be treated like I’m something to be fixed because of it.”

And then they do see it. Christopher can pinpoint the exact moment his words seem to register with James first, then Thomas, then Matthew. He can tell because with that realization also comes an almost immediate look of shame or guilt from each of them as they also realize how uncomfortable Christopher’s been trying to fit a role he never wanted in the first place.

“You really meant it when you said you didn’t want to date,” Matthew says slowly.

“Of course I did, why else would I say it?” Christopher rolls his eyes.

“People lie to get out of things like dates all the time, just because meeting new people can be awkward, or intimidating,” Thomas points out, but there’s a small smile on his face. “But you’re not most people, and we should’ve known that.”

“Are you cross with us?” Matthew asks. “You know we just want you to be happy, we never meant for you to feel, like--” Matthew trails off, looking to the others for help when he isn’t quite sure what to say.

“-like you need to be fixed,” James fills in, echoing Christopher’s own words back, though he seems equally unsure of how to continue. “We didn’t realize… You know we never meant to-”

“I’m not mad,” Christopher cuts in to reassure the three of them. “I know you had good intentions. And I am happy. I’m perfectly content with my life right now, and the friends and family I have. I don’t need a girlfriend or a boyfriend for that. Moreover, I don’t want one.”

“If you’re certain…” Matthew says, still sounding hesitant and a bit uncertain, like he’s trying to understand and wrap his head around an impossible concept. “And you don’t feel lonely?”

“Why would I feel lonely,” Christopher says, looking meaningfully around the group. He looks at them, and thinks of Anna, and Henry, and his own parents. He has so much love in his life that’s just as valid as any romantic or physical love. “When I’m not alone?”

“Of course you’re not,” Thomas agrees.

“Alright then. No more dates,” Matthew promises, his words paired with a firm nod.

The relief Christoper feels is so strong it catches him by surprise. He knows they don’t quite get it, and maybe they never will, at least not entirely. But they listened to him and they respected his feelings on it, and that’s a good start. It’s far from perfect and he’s certain this is only the first of many conversations on the subject, but for now, it’s enough.

As the conversation shifts to training and patrols and everything they used to discuss before all their attention focused to him and his lack of love life, Christopher gets something better than his wish that things would simply go back to the way they were before. Because now his friends look to him with a new understanding, and Christopher feels more seen than he has in a long, long while.

[armageddon-generation]

Articulating Why His Dark Materials is Badly Written

A long essay-thing with lots of specific examples and explanations of why I feel this way. Hopefully I’ve kept fanboy bitching to a minimum.

This isn’t an attack on fans of the show, nor a personal attack on Jack Thorne. I’m not looking to ruin anyone’s enjoyment of the show, I just needed to properly articulate, with examples, why I struggle with it. I read and love the books and that colours my view, but I believe that HDM isn’t just a clumsy, at-best-functional, sometimes incompetent adaptation, it’s a bad TV show separate from its source material. The show is the blandest, least interesting and least engaging version of itself it could be.

His Dark Materials has gorgeous production design and phenomenal visual effects. It's well-acted. The score is great. But my god is it badly written. Jack Thorne writing the entire first season damned the show. There was no-one to balance out his flaws and biases. Thorne is checking off a list of plot-points, so concerned with manoeuvring the audience through the story he forgets to invest us in it. The scripts are mechanical, empty, flat.

Watching HDM feels like an impassioned fan earnestly lecturing you on why the books are so good- (Look! It's got other worlds and religious allegory and this character Lyra is really, really important I swear. Isn't Mrs Coulter crazy? The Gyptians are my favourites.) rather than someone telling the story naturally.

My problems fall into 5 main categories:

Exposition- An unwillingness to meaningfully expand the source material for a visual medium means Thorne tells and doesn't show crucial plot-points. He then repeats the same thing multiple times because he doesn't trust his audience

Pacing- By stretching out the books and not trusting his audience Thorne dedicates entire scenes to one piece of information and repeats himself constantly (see: the Witches' repetition of the prophecy in S2).

Narrative priorities- Thorne prioritises human drama over fantasy. This makes sense budgetarily, but leads to barely-present Daemons, the Gyptians taking up too much screentime, rushed/badly written Witches (superpowers, exposition) and Bears (armourless bear fight), and a Lyra more focused on familial angst than the joy of discovery

Tension and Mystery- because HDM is in such a hurry to set up its endgame it gives you the answers to S1's biggest mysteries immediately- other worlds, Lyra's parents, what happens to the kids etc. This makes the show less engaging and feel like it's playing catch-up to the audience, not the other way around.

Tonal Inconsistency- HDM tries to be a slow-paced, grounded, adult drama, but its blunt, simplistic dialogue and storytelling methods treat the audience like children that need to be lectured.

MYSTERY, SUSPENSE AND INTRIGUE

The show undercuts all the books’ biggest mysteries. Mrs Coulter is set up as a villain before we meet her, other worlds are revealed in 1x2, Lyra's parents by 1x3, what the Magesterium do to kids is spelled out long before Lyra finds Billy (1x2). I understand not wanting to lose new viewers, but neutering every mystery kills momentum and makes the show much less engaging.

This extends to worldbuilding. The text before 1x1 explains both Daemons and Lyra's destiny before we meet her. Instead of encouraging us to engage with the world and ask questions, we're given all the answers up front and told to sit back and let ourselves be spoon-fed. The viewer is never an active participant, never encouraged to theorise or wonder

 Intrigue motivated you to engage with Pullman's philosophical themes and concepts. Without it, HDM feels like a lecture, a theme park ride and not a journey.

The only one of S1's mysteries left undiminished is 'what is Dust?', which won't be properly answered until S3, and that answer is super conceptual and therefore hard to make dramatically satisfying

TONAL INCONSISTENCY

HDM billed itself as a HBO-level drama, and was advertised as a GoT inheritor. It takes itself very seriously- the few attempts at humour are stilted and out of place

The production design is deliberately subdued, most notably choosing a mid-twentieth century aesthetic for Lyra’s world over the late-Victorian of the books or steampunk of the movie. The colour grading would be appropriate for a serious adult drama. 

Reviewers have said this stops the show feeling as fantastical as it should. It also makes Lyra’s world less distinct from our own. 

Most importantly, minimising the wondrous fantasy of S1 neuters its contrast with the escalating thematic darkness of the finale (from 1x5 onwards), and the impact of Roger’s death. Pullman's books are an adult story told through the eyes of a child. Lyra’s innocence and naivety in the first book is the most important journey of the trilogy. Instead, the show starts serious and thematically heavy (we’re told Lyra has world-saving importance before we even meet her) and stays that way.

Contrasting the serious tone, grounded design and poe-faced characters, the dialogue is written to cater to children. It’s horrendously blunt and pulls you out of scenes. Subtext is obliterated at every opportunity. Even in the most recent episode, 2x7, Pan asks Lyra ‘do you think you’re changing because of Will?’

I cannot understate how on the nose this line is, and how much it undercuts the themes of the final book. Instead of even a meaningful shot of Lyra looking at Will, the show treats the audience like complete idiots. 

So, HDM looks and advertises itself like an adult drama and is desperate to be taken seriously by wearing its big themes on its sleeve from the start instead of letting them evolve naturally out of subtext like the books, and dedicating lots of scenes to Mrs Coulter's self-abuse 

At the same time its dialogue and character writing is comparable to the Star Wars prequels, more childish than media aimed at a similar audience - Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Avatar the Last Airbender etc

DAEMONS

The show gives itself a safety net by explaining Daemons in an opening text-crawl, and so spends less time showing the mechanics of the Daemon-human bond. On the HDM subreddit, I’ve seen multiple people get to 1x5 or 6, and then come to reddit asking basic questions like ‘why do only some people have Daemons?’ or ‘Why are Daemons so important?’.

It’s not that the show didn’t answer these questions; it was in the opening text-crawl. It’s just the show thinks telling you is enough and never shows evidence to back that up. Watching a TV show you remember what you’re shown much easier than what you’re told 

The emotional core of Northern Lights is the relationship between Lyra and Pan. The emotional core of HDM S1 is the relationship between Lyra and Mrs Coulter. This wouldn't be bad- it's a fascinating dynamic Ruth plays wonderfully- if it didn't override the Daemons

Daemons are only onscreen when they serve a narrative purpose. Thorne justifies this because the books only describe Daemons when they tell us about their human. On the page your brain fills the Daemons in. This doesn't work on-screen; you cannot suspend your disbelief when their absence is staring you in the face

Thorne clarified the number of Daemons as not just budgetary, but a conscious creative choice to avoid onscreen clutter. This improved in S2 after vocal criticism.

Mrs Coulter/the Golden Monkey and Lee/Hester have well-drawn relationships in S1, but Pan and Lyra hug more in the 2-hour Golden Compass movie than they do in the 8-hour S1 of HDM. There's barely any physical contact with Daemons at all.

They even cut Pan and Lyra's hug after escaping the Cut in Bolvangar. In the book they can't let go of each other. The show skips it completely because Thorne wants to focus on Mrs Coulter and Lyra.

They cut Pan and Lyra testing how far apart they can be. They cut Lyra freeing the Cut Daemons in Bolvangar with the help of Kaisa. We spent extra time with both Roger and Billy Costa, but didn't develop their bonds with their Daemons- the perfect way to make the Cut more impactful

I don't need every single book scene in the show, but notice that all these cut scenes reinforced how important Daemons are. For how plodding the show is. you'd think they could spare time for these moments instead of inventing new conversations that tell us the information they show

Daemons are treated as separate beings and thus come across more like talking pets than part of a character

The show sets the rules of Daemons up poorly. In 1x2, Lyra is terrified by the Monkey being so far from Coulter, but the viewer has nothing to compare it to. We’re retroactively told in that this is unnatural when the show has yet to establish what ‘natural’ is.

The guillotine blueprint in 1x2 (‘Is that a human and his Daemon, Pan? It looks like it.’ / ‘A blade. To cut what?’) is idiotic. It deflates S1’s main mystery and makes the characters look stupid for not figuring out what they aren’t allowed to until they did in the source material, it also interferes with how the audience sees Daemons. In the book, Cutting isn’t revealed until two-thirds of the way in (1x5). By then we’ve spent a lot of time with Daemons, they’ve become a background part of the world, their ‘rules’ have been established, and we’re endeared to them.

By showing the Guillotine and putting Daemons under threat in the second episode, the show never lets us grow attached. This, combined with their selective presence in scenes, draws attention to Daemons as a plot gimmick and not a natural extension of characters. Like Lyra, the show tells us why Daemons are important before we understand them.

Billy Costa's fate falls flat. It's missing the dried fish/ fake Daemon Tony Markos clings to in the book. Thorne said this 'didn't work' on the day, but it worked in the film. Everyone yelling about Billy not having a Daemon is laughable when most of the background extras in the same scene don't have Daemons themselves

WITCHES

The Witches are the most common complaint about the show. Thorne changed Serafina Pekkala in clever, logical ways (her short hair, wrist-knives and cloud pine in the skin)

The problem is how Serafina is written. The Witches are purely exposition machines. We get no impression of their culture, their deep connection to nature, their understanding of the world. We are told it. It is never shown, never incorporated into the dramatic action of the show.

Thorne emphasises Serafina's warrior side, most obviously changing Kaisa from a goose into a gyrfalcon (apparently a goose didn't work on-screen)

Serafina single-handedly slaughtering the Tartars is bad in a few ways. It paints her as bloodthirsty and ruthless. Overpowering the Witches weakens the logic of the world (If they can do that, why do they let the Magesterium bomb them unchallenged in 2x2?). It strips the Witches of their subtlety and ambiguity for the sake of cinematic action.

A side-effect of Serafina not being with her clan at Bolvangar is limiting our exposure to the Witches. Serafina is the only one invested in the main plot, we only hear about them from what she tells us. This poor set-up weakens the Witch subplot in S2

Lyra doesn’t speak to Serafina until 2x6. She laid eyes on her once in S1.

The dialogue in the S2’s Witch subplot is comparable to the Courasant section of The Phantom Menace. 

Two named characters, neither with any depth (Serafina and Coram's dead son developed him far more than her). The costumes look ostentatious and hokey- the opposite of what the Witches should be. They do nothing but repeat the same exposition at each other, even in 2x7.

We feel nothing when the Witches are bombed because the show never invests us in what is being destroyed- with the amount of time wasted on long establishing shots, there’s not one when Lee Scoresby is talking to the Council.

BEARS

Like the Witches; Thorne misunderstands and rushes the fantasy elements of the story. The 2007 movie executed both Iofur's character and the Bear Fight much better than the show- bloodless jaw-swipe and all

Iofur's court was not the parody of human court in the books. He didn't have his fake-Daemon (hi, Billy)

An armourless bear fight is like not including Pan in the cutting scene. After equating Iorek's armour to a Daemon (Lee does this- we don’t even learn how important it is from Iorek himself, and the comparison meant less because of how badly the show set up Daemons) the show then cuts the plotpoint that makes the armour plot-relevant. This diminishes all of Bear society. Like Daemons, we're told Iorek's armour is important but it's never shown to be more than a cool accessory

GYPTIANS

Gyptians suffer from Hermoine syndrome. Harry Potter screenwriter Steve Kloves' favourite character was Hermione, and so Film!Hermoine lost most of Book!Hermoine's flaws and gained several of Book!Ron's best moments. The Gyptians are Jack Thorne's favourite group in HDM and so they got the extra screentime and development that the more complicated groups/concepts like Witches, Bears, and Daemons (which, unlike the Gyptians, carry over to other seasons amd are more important to the overall story) needed

At the same time, he changes them from a private people into an Isle of Misfit Toys. TV!Ma Costa promises they'll ‘make a Gyptian woman out of Lyra yet’, but in the book Ma specifically calls Lyra out for pretending to be Gyptian, and reminds her she never can be.

This small moment indicates how, while trying to make the show more grounded and 'adult', Thorne simultaneously made it more saccharine and sentimental. He neuters the tragedy of the Cut kids when Ma Costa says they’ll become Gyptians. Pullman's books feel like an adult story told through the eyes of a child. The TV show feels like a child's story masquerading as a serious drama.

LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA

Let me preface this by saying I genuinely really enjoy the performances in the show. It was shot in the foot by The Golden Compass' perfect casting.

The most contentious/'miscast' actor among readers is LMM. Thorne ditched the books' wise Texan for a budget Han Solo. LMM isn't a great dramatic actor (even in Hamilton he was the weak link performance-wise) but he makes up for it in marketability- lots of people tried the show because of him

Readers dislike that LMM's Lee is a thief and a scoundrel, when book-Lee is so moral he and Hester argue about stealing. Personally, I like the change in concept. Book!Lee's parental love for Lyra just appears. It's sweet, but not tied to a character arc. Done right, Lyra out-hustling Lee at his own game and giving him a noble cause to fight for (thus inspiring the moral compass of the books) is a more compelling arc.

DAFNE KEENE AND LYRA

I thought Dafne would be perfect casting. Her feral energy in Logan seemed a match made in heaven. Then Jack Thorne gave her little to do with it.

Compare how The Golden Compass introduced Lyra, playing Kids and Gobblers with a group of Gyptian kids, including Billy Costa. Lyra and Roger are chased to Jordan by the Gyptians and she makes up a lie about a curse to scare the Gyptians away.

In one scene the movie set up: 1) the Gobblers (the first we hear of them in the show is in retrospect, Roger worrying AFTER Billy is taken) 2) Lyra’s pre-existing relationship with the Gyptians (not in the show), 3) Friendship with Billy Costa (not in the book or show) 4) Lyra’s ability to befriend and lead groups of people, especially kids, and 5) Lyra’s ability to lie impressively

By comparison, it takes until midway through 1x2 for TV!Lyra to tell her first lie, and even then it’s a paper-thin attempt. 

The show made Roger Lyra’s only friend. This artificially heightens the impact of Roger's death, but strips Lyra of her leadership qualities and ability to befriend anyone. 

Harry Potter fans talk about how Book!Harry is funnier and smarter than Film!Harry. They cut his best lines ('There's no need to call me sir, Professor') and made him blander and more passive. The same happened to Lyra.

Most importantly, Lyra is not allowed to lie for fun. She can't do anything 'naughty' without being scolded. This colours the few times Lyra does lie (e.g. to Mrs Coulter in 1x2) negatively and thus makes Lyra out to be more of a brat than a hero.

This is a problem with telling Northern Lights from an outside, 'adult' perspective- to most adults Lyra is a brat. Because we’re introduced to her from inside her head, we think she's great. It's only when we meet her through Will's eyes in The Subtle Knife and she's filthy, rude and half-starved that we realise Lyra bluffs her way through life and is actually pretty non-functional

Thorne prioritises grounded human drama over fantasy, and so his Lyra has her love of bears and witches swapped for familial angst. (and, in S2. angst over Roger). By exposing Mrs Coulter as her mother early, Thorne distracts TV!Lyra from Book!Lyra’s love of the North. The contrast between wonder and reality made NL's ending a definitive threshold between innocence and knowledge. Thorne showed his hand too early.

Similarly, TV!Lyra doesn’t have anywhere near as strong an admiration for Lord Asriel. She calls him out in 1x8 (‘call yourself a Father’), which Book!Lyra never would because she’s proud to be his child. From her perspective, at this point Asriel is the good parent.

TV!Lyra’s critique of Asriel feels like Thorne using her as a mouthpiece to voice his own, adult perspective on the situation. Because Lyra is already disappointed in Asriel, his betrayal in the finale isn’t as effective. Pullman saves the ‘you’re a terrible Father’ call-out for the 3rd book for a reason; Lyra’s naive hero-worship of Asriel in Northern Lights makes the fall from Innocence into Knowledge that Roger’s death represents more effective.  

So, on TV Lyra is tamer, angstier, more introverted, less intelligent, less fun and more serious. We're just constantly told she's important, even before we meet her.

MRS COULTER (AND LORD ASRIEL)

Mrs Coulter is the main character of the show. Not Lyra. Mrs Coulter was cast first, and Lyra was cast based on a chemistry test with Ruth Wilson. Coulter’s character is given lots of extra development, where the show actively strips Lyra of her layers.

To be clear, I have no problem with developing Mrs Coulter. She is a great character Ruth Wilson plays phenomenally. I do have a problem with the show fixating on her at the expense of other characters.

Lyra's feral-ness is given to her parents. Wilson and McAvoy are more passionate than in the books. This is fun to watch, but strips them of subtlety- you never get Book!Coulter's hypnotic allure from Wilson, she's openly nasty, even to random strangers (in 2x3 her dismissal of the woman at the hotel desk felt like a Disney villain). 

Compare how The Golden Compass (2007) introduced Mrs Coulter through Lyra’s eyes, with light, twinkling music and a sparkling dress. By contrast, before the show introduces Coulter it tells us she’s associated with the evil Magisterium plotting Asriel’s death- “Not a word to any of our mutual friends. Including her.” Then she’s introduced striding down a corridor to imposing ‘Bad Guy’ strings.

Making Mrs Coulter’s villainy so obvious so early makes Lyra look dumber for falling for it. It also wastes an interesting phase of her character arc. Coulter is rushed into being a ’conflicted evil mother’ in 2 episodes, and stays in that phase for the rest of the show so far. Character progression is minimised because she circles the same place.

It makes her one-note. It's a good note (so much of the positive online chatter is saphiccs worshiping Ruth Wilson) but the show also worships her to the point of hindrance- e.g. take a shot every time Coulter walks slow-motion down a corridor in 2x2

The problem isn’t the performances, but how prematurely they give the game away. Just like the mysteries around Bolvangar and Lyra’s parentage. Neither Coulter or Asriel have much chance to use their 'public' faces. 

This is part of a bigger pacing problem- instead of rolling plot points out gradually, Thorne will stick the solution in front of you early and then stall for time until it becomes relevant. Instead of building tension this builds frustration and makes the show feel like it's catching up to the audience. This also makes the characters less engaging. You've already shown Mrs Coulter is evil/Boreal is in our world/Asriel wants Roger. Why are you taking so long getting to the point?

PACING AND EDITING

This show takes forever to make its point badly.

Scenes in HDM tend to operate on one level- either 'Character Building,' 'Exposition,' or 'Plot Progression'.

E.g. Mary's introduction in 2x2. Book!Mary only listens to Lyra because she’s sleep and caffeine-deprived and desperate because her funding is being cut. But the show stripped that subtext out and created an extra scene of a colleague talking to Mary about funding. They removed emotional subtext to focus on exposition, and so the scene felt empty and flat.

In later episodes characters Mary’s sister and colleagues do treat her like a sleep-deprived wreck. But, just like Lyra’s lying, the show doesn’t establish these characteristics in her debut episode. It waits until later to retroactively tell us they were there. Mary’s colleague saying ‘What we’re dealing with here is the fact that you haven’t slept in weeks’ is as flimsy as Pan joking not lying to Mary will be hard for Lyra.

Rarely does a scene work on multiple levels, and if it does it's clunky- see the exposition dump about Daemon Separation in the middle of 2x2's Witch Trial.

He also splits plot progression into tiny doses, which destroys pacing. It's more satisfying to focus on one subplot advancing multiple stages than all of them shuffling forward half a step each episode.

Subplots would be more effective if all the scenes played in sequence. As it is, plotlines can’t build momentum and literal minutes are wasted using the same establishing shots every time we switch location.

The best-structured episodes of S1 are 1x4, 1x6, and 1x8. This is because they have the fewest subplots (incidentally these episodes have least Boreal in them) and so the main plot isn’t diluted by constantly cutting away to Mrs Coulter sniffing Lyra’s coat or Will watching a man in a car through his window, before cutting back again. 

The best-written episode so far is 2x5. The Scholar. Tellingly, it’s the only episode Thorne doesn’t have even a co-writing credit on. 2x5 is well-paced, its dialogue is more naturalistic, it’s more focused, it even has time for moments of whimsy (Monkey with a seatbelt, Mrs Coulter with jeans, Lyra and Will whispering) that don’t detract from the story.

Structurally, 2x5  works because A) it benches Lee’s plotline. B) The Witches and Magisterium are relegated to a scene each. And C) the Coulter/Boreal and Lyra/Will subplots move towards the same goal. Not only that, but when we check in on Mary’s subplot it’s through Mrs Coulter’s eyes and directly dovetails into the  main action of the episode.

2x5 has a lovely sense of narrative cohesion because it has the confidence to sit with one set of characters for longer than two scenes at a time.

HDM also does this thing where it will have a scene with plot A where characters do or talk about something, cut away to plot B for a scene, then cut back to plot A where the characters talk about what happened in their last scene and painstakingly explain how they feel about it and why

Example: Pan talking to Will in 2x7 while Lyra pretends to be asleep. This scene is from the 3rd book, and is left to breathe for many chapters before Lyra brings it up. In the show after the Will/Pan scene they cut away to another scene, then cut back and Lyra instantly talks about it.

There’s the same problem in 2x5: After escaping Mrs Coulter, Lyra spells out how she feels about acting like her

The show never leaves room for implication, never lets us draw our own conclusions before explaining what it meant and how the characters feel about it immediately afterwards. The audience are made passive in their engagement with the characters as well as the world    

LORD BOREAL, JOHN PARRY AND DIMINISHING RETURNS

At first, Boreal’s subplot in S1 felt bold and inspired. The twist of his identity in The Subtle Knife would've been hard to pull off onscreen anyway. As a kid I struggled to get past Will's opening chapter of TSK and I have friends who were the same. Introducing Will in S1 and developing him alongside Lyra was a great idea.

I loved developing Elaine Parry and Boreal into present, active characters. But the subplot was introduced too early and moved too slowly, bogging down the season.

In 1x2 Boreal crosses. In 1x3 we learn who he's looking for. In 1x5 we meet Will. In 1x7 the burglary. 1 episode worth of plot is chopped up and fed to us piecemeal across many. Boreal literally stalls for two episodes before the burglary- there are random 30 second shots of him sitting in a car watching John Parry on YouTube (videos we’d already seen) completely isolated from any other scenes in the episode

By the time we get to S2 we've had 2 seasons of extended material building up Boreal, so when he just dies like in the books it's anticlimactic. The show frontloads his subplot with meaning without expanding on its payoff, so the whole thing fizzles out. 

Giving Boreal, the secondary villain in literally every episode, the same death as a background character in about 5 scenes in the novels feels cheap. It doesn’t help that, after 2x5 built the tension between Coulter and Boreal so well, as soon as Thorne is passed the baton in 2x6 he does little to maintain that momentum. Again, because the subplot is crosscut with everything else the characters hang in limbo until Coulter decides to kill him.

I’ve been watching non-book readers react to the show, and several were underwhelmed by Boreal’s quick, unceremonious end. 

Similarly, the show builds up John Parry from 1x3 instead of just the second book. Book!John’s death is an anticlimax but feels narratively justified. In the show, we’ve spent so much extra time talking about him and then being with him (without developing his character beyond what’s in the novels- Pullman even outlined John’s backstory in The Subtle Knife’s appendix. How hard would it be to add a flashback or two?) that when John does nothing in the show and then dies (he doesn’t even heal Will’s fingers like in the book- only tell him to find Asriel, which the angels Baruch and Balthamos do anyway) it doesn’t feel like a clever, tragic subversion of our expectations, it feels like a waste that actively cheapens the audience’s investment.

TL;DR giving supporting characters way more screentime than they need only, to give their deaths the same weight the books did after far less build up makes huge chunks of the show feel less important than they were presented to be. 

FRUSTRATINGLY LIMITED EXPANSION AND NOVELLISTIC STORYTELLING

Thorne is unwilling to meaningfully develop or expand characters and subplots to fit a visual medium. He introduces a plot-point, invents unnecessary padding around it, circles it for an hour, then moves on.

Pullman’s books are driven by internal monologue and big, complex theological concepts like Daemons and Dust. Instead of finding engaging, dynamic ways to dramatise these concepts through the actions of characters or additions to the plot, Thorne turns Pullman’s internal monologue into dialogue and has the characters explain them to the audience

The novels’ perspective on its characters is narrow, first because Northern Lights is told only from Lyra’s POV, and second because Pullman’s writing is plot-driven, not character-driven. Characters are vessels for the plot and themes he wants to explore.

This is a fine way of writing novels. When adapting the books into a longform drama, Thorne decentralised Lyra’s perspective from the start, and HDM S1 uses the same multi-perspective structure that The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass do, following not only Lyra but the Gyptians, Mrs Coulter, Boreal, Will and Elaine etc

However, these other perspectives are limited. We never get any impression of backstory or motivation beyond the present moment. Many times I’ve seen non-book readers confused or frustrated by vague or non-existent character motivations.

For example, S1 spends a lot of time focused on Ma Costa’s grief over Billy’s disappearance, but we never see why she’s sad, because we never saw her interact with Billy.

Compare this to another show about a frantic mother and older brother looking for a missing boy. Stranger Things uses only two flashbacks to show us Will Byers’ relationships with his family: 1) When Joyce Byers looks in his Fort she remembers visiting Will there. 2) The Clash playing on the radio reminds Jonathan Byers of introducing Will to the song.

In His Dark Materials we never see the Costas as a happy family- 1x1’s Gyptian ceremony focuses on Tony and Daemon-exposition. Billy never speaks to his mum or brother in the show 

Instead we have Ma Costa’s empty grief. The audience has to do the work (the bad kind) imagining what she’s lost. Instead of seeing Billy, it’s just repeated again and again that they will get the children back.

If we’re being derivative, HDM had the chance to segway into a Billy flashback when John Faa brings one of his belongings back from a Gobbler safehouse in 1x2. This is a perfect The Clash/Fort Byers-type trigger. It doesn’t have to be long- the Clash flashback lasted 1:27, the Fort Byers one 55 seconds. Just do something.

1x3 beats into us that Mrs Coulter is nuts without explaining why. Lots of build-up for a single plot-point. Then we're told Mrs Coulter's origin, not shown. This is a TV show. Swap Boreal's scenes for flashbacks of Coulter and Asriel's affair. Then, when Ma Costa tells Lyra the truth, show the fight between Edward Coulter and Asriel.

To be clear, Thorne's additions aren’t fundamentally bad. For example, Will boxing sets up his struggle with violence. But it's wasted. The burglary/murder in 1x7 fell flat because of bad editing, but the show never uses its visual medium to show Will's 'violent side'- no change in camera angle, focus, or sound design, nothing. It’s just a thing that’s there, unsupported by the visual language of the show

The Magisterium scenes in 2x2 were interesting. We just didn't need 5 of them; their point could be made far more succinctly.

In 2x6 there is a minute-long scene of Mary reading the I Ching. Later, there is another scene of Angelica watching Mary sitting somewhere different, doing the SAME THING, and she sees an Angel. Why split these up? It’s not like either the I Ching or the Angels are being introduced here. Give the scene multiple layers.

Thorne either takes good character moments from the books (Lyra/Will in 2x1) or uses heavy-handed exposition that reiterates the same point multiple times. This hobbles the Witches (their dialogue in 2x1, 2 and 3 literally rephrases the same sentiment about protecting Lyra without doing anything). Even character development- see Lee monologuing his and Mrs Coulter's childhood trauma in specific detail in 2x3

This is another example of Thorne adding something, but instead of integrating it into the dramatic action and showing us, it’s just talked about. What’s the point of adding big plot points if you don’t dramatise them in your dramatic, visual medium? In 2x8, Lee offhandedly mentions playing Alamo Gulch as a kid.

I’m literally screaming, Jack, why the flying fuck wasn’t there a flashback of young Lee and Hester playing Alamo Gulch and being stopped by his abusive dad? It’s not like you care about pacing with the amount of dead air in these episodes, even when S2’s run 10 minutes shorter than S1’s. Lee was even asleep at the beginning of 2x3, Jack! He could’ve woken from a nightmare about his childhood! It’s a little lazy, but better than nothing.

There’s a similar missed opportunity making Dr Lanselius a Witchling. If this idea had been introduced with the character in 1x4, it would’ve opened up so many storytelling possibilities. Linking to Fader Coram’s own dead witchling son. It could’ve given us that much-needed perspective on Witch culture. Imagine Lanselius’ bittersweet meeting with his ageless mother, who gave him up when he reached manhood. Then, when the Magisterium bombs the Witches in 2x2, Lanselius’ mother dies so it means something.

Instead it’s only used to facilitate an awkward exposition dump in the middle of a trial.

The point of this fanfic-y ramble is to illustrate my frustration with the additions; If Thorne had committed and meaningfully expanded and interwoven them with the source material, they could’ve strengthened its weakest aspect (the characters). But instead he stays committed to novelistic storytelling techniques of monologue and two people standing in a room talking at each other

(Seriously, count the number of scenes that are just two people standing in a room or corridor talking to each other. No interesting staging, the characters aren’t doing anything else while talking. They. Just. Stand.) 

SEASON 2 IMPROVEMENTS

S2 improved some things- Lyra's characterisation was more book-accurate, her dynamic with Will was wonderful. Citigazze looked incredible. LMM won lots of book fans over as Lee. Mary was brilliantly cast. Now there are less Daemons, they're better characterised- Pan gets way more to do now and Hester had some lovely moments. 

I genuinely believe 2x1, 2x3, 2x4 and 2x5 are the best HDM has been. 

But new problems arose. The Subtle Knife lost the central, easy to understand drive of Northern Lights (finding the missing kids) for lots of smaller quests. As a result, everyone spends the first two episodes of S2 waiting for the plot to arrive. The big inciting incident of Lyra’s plotline is the theft of the alethiometer, which doesn’t happen until 2x3. Similarly, Lee doesn’t search for John until 2x3. Mrs Coulter doesn’t go looking for Lyra until 2x3. 

On top of missing a unifying dramatic drive, the characters now being split across 3 worlds, instead of the 1+a bit of ours in S1, means the pacing/crosscutting problems (long establishing shots, repetition of information, undercutting momentum) are even worse. The narrative feels scattered and incohesive.   

These flaws are inherent to the source  material and are not the show’s fault, but neither does it do much to counterbalance or address them, and the flaws of the show combine with the difficulties of TSK as source material and make each other worse.

A lot of this has been entitled fanboy bitching, but you can't deny the show is in a bad place ratings-wise. It’s gone from the most watched new British show in 5 years to the S2 premiere having a smaller audience than the lowest-rated episode of Doctor Who Series 12. For comparison, DW's current cast and showrunner are the most unpopular since the 80s, some are actively boycotting it, it took a year-long break between series 11 and 12, had its second-worst average ratings since 2005, and costs a fifth of what HDM does to make. And it's still being watched by more people.

Critical consensus fluctuates wildly. Most laymen call the show slow and boring. The show is simultaneously too niche and self-absorbed to attract a wide audience and gets just enough wrong to aggravate lots of fans.

I’m honestly unsure if S3 will get the same budget. I want it to, if only because of my investment in the books. Considering S2 started filming immediately after S1 aired, I think they've had a lot more time to process and apply critique for S3. On the plus side, there's so much plot in The Amber Spyglass it would be hard to have the same pacing problems. But also so many new concepts that I dread the exposition dumps.

[everyonewasabird]

Brickclub 2.8.5 ‘It is not enough to be a drunkard to be immortal’

In this hearse there was a coffin covered with a white cloth, upon which was displayed a large black cross like a great dummy with hanging arms.

OKAY THEN. This book is very in favor of Christ imagery overall, but it’s sure not going to be pro-clerical today, it seems.

Now that we’ve gone over the heist plot in enough detail to absolutely ensure it will go wrong, we zoom all the way out to see it unfold.

@fremedon has already pointed out that the safety rules and regulations for the cemetery gates, whatever else they may accomplish, are designed to harm the poor specifically--in this case, grave diggers.

Last chapter seemed to raise a number of red flags for me about the meaning of Mother Innocent’s plans--her focus on the dead over the living, on tradition over progress, her reversals of the patterns of the barricade--but this chapter shows the similarities of the convent and the barricade. It is a little republic, and it believes in what is right, not what is lawful.

First the rules; as to the code, we will see. Men, make as many laws as you please, but keep them for yourselves. The tribute to Cæsar is never more than the remnant of the tribute to God. A prince is nothing in presence of a principle.

I’m thinking, of course, of Mellow’s Convent Gardener Javert and the near-heart attack this is going to give him when he finds out his conservative, rule-abiding new masters are Also Made Of Crime.

We see a bit of the gloating Slytherin in Fauchelevent, which I like a lot--I’m getting a much clearer sense of his character this time through. He starts gloating, of course, immediately before it all goes to hell.

He was a long, thin, livid man, perfectly funereal. He had the appearance of a broken-down doctor turned grave-digger.

Fauchelevent burst out laughing.

"Ah! what droll things happen! Father Mestienne is dead. Little Father Mestienne is dead, but hurrah for little Father Lenoir! You know what little Father Lenoir is? It is the mug of red for a six spot. It is the mug of Surêne, zounds! real Paris Surêne. So he is dead; old Mestienne! I am sorry for it; he was a jolly fellow. But you too, you are a jolly fellow. Isn't that so, comrade? We will go and take a drink together, right away.”

The discordant visual of Fauchelevent saying this to this corpse-faced undertaker is hilarious in a way I’m sure I’ve seen it in movies. Hugo is so very cinematic.

It’s also an interesting commentary on doctors, too, whom Hugo is usually notably positive about, for his time? What little I’ve read of Sue’s Mysteries of Paris, for instance, is dramatically negative about doctors and contemporary medical practices. Other writers seem to have other dark things to say about doctors and medical students. But with Hugo, we’re looking at Joly & Combeferre, plus a few extras who are usually forces of kindness, even when they can’t do much.

Gribier almost resembles Myriel for a moment:

“The good God," said the man authoritatively. "What the philosophers call the Eternal Father; the Jacobins, the Supreme Being.”

Except that he’s not engaging meaningfully in naming of God. He seems to be using his education to run rhetorical circles around Fauchelevent, because he can, and because he likes to feel superior.

We end at the open grave. Fauchelevent is worried.

[valley-of-the-lost]

OKAY FINAL CONSENSUS

Pros

- Songs are a bop. I WILL be looping that soundtrack please and thank you.

- Closed the classism plot better with Tori showing she was taking more direct, widespread action like putting systems in place to prevent the root issue (the drought) from happening again and implementing a social services program to further help.

- Tori and Kiera have a lot more interaction and gay chemistry. The plot setup just lends itself better to this, also yes Kiera did announce her engagement to Tori up on that stage and you can’t change my mind.

- Pets weren’t too annoying... mostly.

Cons (this is what y’all were waiting for huh)

- Augh... to be honest I think this movie is a demonstration that the people who made it didn’t understand what appealed to people about the original Princess and the Pauper. Which is obviously fine if it wasn’t trying so hard to ride off of it. Like sure, it’s trying to be the Princess and the Pauper for a new generation but the fact that it’s toting itself as that means its also trying to appeal to some extent to the ones who loved the original and ehhh it kinda fucked up in that regard.

Making the two leads both part of the 1% was the first mistake. First of all, that decision didn’t age well at all. Second of all, it kinda diminishes the point of them switching in the first place in a meta sense?? because it’s so the rich one can realize the class disparity by actually living as one in poverty. Tori literally stumbled across the poverty of her kingdom by accident, and she didn’t really reflect on learning anything by having to maintain an actual job for once as Kiera. Third of all in my opinion it makes them too similar in position. Really the only difference between Tori and Kiera is that one has an actual job.

Second mistake, Tori and Kiera really don’t embody the characteristics Princess and the Pauper fans found admirable in the original movie’s leads. Which, again, is fine if they want to tackle something different, but if they had it would show understanding of the original movie and what appealed to the audience.

Annelise and Erika are both admired for their mature resolve. “Duty means doing the things your heart may well regret”. They understand their responsibilities and what is riding on them and are ready to take appropriate action to see them through at personal cost to themselves.

Tori and Kiera in comparison are like the immature little sisters, Tori at least is approaching from the opposite angle developmentally where she has to go from immaturity to maturity and come to learn her responsibilities, which might’ve caused some whiplash in og Princess and the Pauper fans. Kiera is... well. Let’s just say she got did SUPER dirty in this movie and leave the details for the next bullet point.

- This is kinda a subpoint of Kiera and Tori being in too similar positions of class, but I literally don’t see why Kiera can’t solve her own problem, take all her money and strike out as an independent artist. We aren’t really presented a reason why she feels so chained to her job, like is someone else depending on the money she rakes in or something? Also with the increasing accessibility of tools and platforms for artists to be independent it makes her struggle more... stagnant? is that the right word?

Also I swear to god I thought the ending of the movie was that Kiera was fired from her job and starts playing independently at cafes. Apparently I jedi mind tricked myself or something but in my opinion that would’ve been a better ending for her. It’s at least a change and forces her to take more time for herself, and she’d probably be fine financially since she’s not exactly a pauper as a popstar.

- I thought the problem of the story being unbalanced was going to get resolved later on but no, if anything it kinda gets worse. Tori gets the lion’s share of development. In the beginning it’s established that she has problems taking responsibility/doesn’t see why she has to take responsibility, has a major revelation pertaining to that when she realizes that being so irresponsible played into being ignorant of the plight of her people, and then later addresses that by putting infrastructure in place to prevent a repeat of the drought and programs to address the problems the drought caused.

In comparison, Kiera’s conflict is established as feeling overworked/too busy to the point where she has lost time and pleasure for her own hobbies. It’s kinda implied she’s burnt out but any simple but meaningful exploration of this falls flat as soon as she and Tori switch places. In her parallel scene to Tori’s revelation about Meribella’s plight, she gets inspired to come up with song lyrics again... and this is about as far as her half of the story goes. She doesn’t meaningfully reflect on this in any shape or form so her whole initial conflict literally dies in the water, there’s no major revelation for her to parallel Tori’s. What makes matters worse is that this has no resolution. The movie ends with the dual concert (at least my version does). Kiera presumably goes back to her status quo as an overworked popstar and nothing changes. This is not an arc, this is a flat line.

Which is a real fucking damn shame because in my HUMBLE opinion she’s the most interesting character of the two, esp if you parse apart her section of “To Be a Princess/To Be a Popstar”.  Like come on. “No time for friends except for your dog and your guitar”? “Love every fan no matter how bizarre they are”? “To be a popstar is to never act your age”??? Guys she’s one half of the leading main couple you can’t just leave her storyline out to dry like this.

- The villain he... sorry he’s no Preminger. man needs a therapist for his chipmunk PTSD is all I’ll say.

- The prince literally adds nothing, just cut him out of the story already. Also his face looks weird.

- (edit) I forgot this part: It has the same problem as Princess and the Pauper where the royal family is still in charge except kinda worse because in this movie its implied the royal family willfully turned a blind eye to the suffering brought by the drought and pretended it didn’t exist as opposed to addressing it. Victoria may have the interests of the people in mind but there’s no guarantee her descendants will, they’re still under the whims of the royal family.

And... yeah thats it. Almost decent but they literally didn’t follow through with an arc with one half of their leading couple. That kinda impacts the movie a lot, jussayin. Goodnight, next time we might do Mariposa.

[not-poignant]

I’ve been having a lot of Thoughts while reading FFS about how there is really no space in society for people who have committed assault or rape to meaningfully rehabilitate or re-integrate, especially if what they’ve done goes public. Do you think there’s a point where holding people accountable for what they’ve done sort of morphs into not letting them grow or improve?

This is a really complicated issue.

Firstly, in some parts of the world, there are specialists and psychologists who do specialise in helping people like Efnisien integrate back into society. They usually work in concert with community housing or government departments, and there are - especially in more welfare focused countries - many programs designed specifically to offer support to people like Efnisien (and criminals in general - though Efnisien has never been to prison or even juvenile detention).

A lot of this stuff is invisible in society, because of taboo and stigma, and because like you say, if a lot of these people are identified publicly (outside of a sexual offenders register), it’s often bad news for them. A lot of people don’t know these things exist unless they a) do something terrible and encounter them firsthand or b) are a loved one who knows about someone going into those programs.

As to the issue of holding people accountable, there’s a lot of things going on in your statement. People need to be held accountable, but that is not the same as tacitly approving bullying or abusing people who have done terrible things. Holding someone accountable is not done by bullying or abusing a person, and studies repeatedly show it’s counterproductive to treat people like this when they are trying to rehabilitate. There’s a direct correlation between recidivism and how a person’s rights (including the right to respect and care) are fulfilled after they’ve committed a crime. Also, once a person has proven they are self accountable, one has to question whether it’s relevant or necessary to hold them accountable after that in a way that is designed to destroy a person’s quality of life. Self-accountability changes how we hold people accountable; but...you wouldn’t always know that with the internet these days.

We definitely live in a culture where in some parts, people are not permitted to grow, improve or rehabilitate, and are bullied or abused for things they said or did that aren’t remotely criminal, even ten or fifteen years ago, even when it’s clear that they’ve changed. This is not holding someone accountable, this is scapegoating someone you don’t like for a reason that feels righteous, and bullying them for it. Of course their target can’t grow or improve in an environment like that; because it actually has nothing to do truly with accountability.

It’s one thing to hold JKR accountable for her horrific transphobic views. But if by some fucking miracle she manages to apologise and make genuine amends, somehow, in the next few years (unlikely but whatever, a trans person like me can dream), people bullying her after that won’t mean ‘holding her accountable.’ That’s just bullying under an umbrella of ‘this is justified, right?’

One of the reasons I actually write Falling Falling Stars is actually to explore the often very left-wing perspective that people who are morally grey, or who have done bad things, should be treated like scum, or like the worst of the worst and - as Efnisien knows - deserve to be killed or tortured or treated terribly etc. But all humans deserve human rights; that’s why they’re human rights. And it’s been interesting watching people...become very defensive in the face of what this story challenges. It hasn’t happened nearly as often as I expected, but it has happened.

My story at the end of the day is just a story, no one has to read it if they don’t like Efnisien or don’t think he deserves good things; but it’s been heartening to see so many people sort of...supporting him because he’s trying. It’s been great to show how consistent support and positive regard can actually create positive knock on effects.

Because like, we know that happens in reality too.

(Also, because you (the proverbial you, not you specifically, anon) would be surprised how many people who haven’t done criminal things still sometimes feel like reprehensible people who don’t deserve forgiveness for things that they’ve done in the past; because we’ve created a culture that...perpetuates this. A lot of people really identify with Efnisien, not because they’ve molested people, but because they feel like they might not deserve forgiveness for something in the past, or might not deserve to live a full or happy life because of something in the past.)

But the world is also far more complicated than Falling Falling Stars. Efnisien is a unique case, and not everyone who has committed crimes or been abusive can recover, and may only ever be interested in exploiting the system (Crielle is a great contrast to Efnisien in this sense; as Efnisien says ‘does this mean Crielle is human too?’ - whatever applies to him, also applies to her, and yet we know Efnisien can rehabilitate; and Crielle can’t. It’s a tough world out there, not everyone will stop committing crimes or atrocities in the face of support; and yet they still have a right to be supported. Human rights are complicated sometimes, and very challenging.) Also, a general caveat, no victim of an abuser ever has to forgive their abuser, no matter how much that abuser has changed. Ever. Ever ever ever.

But many people act like victims of other people, when they never have been, and use that to excuse the most horrific rhetoric (we see this when antis treat people who write taboo content like scum, they act like they’re being victimised, when they’re not; they’re choosing to engage in that content, with those authors and artists -> if they feel like a victim, it’s because they’re victimising themselves. They don’t believe in self accountability).

Anyway, lots of rambling, this is incredibly complex and you could write many books on the subject and still not be done. I’m not against callout culture, but I am against condoning bullying and abuse of ‘people who have never done anything to me but who are still shitty and it feels good to not manage my anger and just dump it on them instead’, especially under the umbrella of supposed ‘righteousness.’ I’m a big believer in rehabilitation, education and support programs for many types of criminal acts, as well as early intervention (i.e. spotting criminal behaviour in youth and acting early). 

Ultimately one of the most important things in these situations is self-accountability. This means holding someone accountable, but it also means offering support so a person can safely learn to be self-accountable, and process what that means. It’s scary to go ‘I’ve been abusive’ or ‘I have treated people badly and that’s on me’ - it’s scary to do that even just in an argument with a friend, let alone criminal acts. It’s naive and callous to assume that people who engage in behaviours we deem terrible, to be capable of confronting these kinds of truths without support. Like we don’t want to offer them tacit support, but we don’t have to!!! Of course we don’t have to be the ones who support them, but it’s important to support programs and facilities of people who are trained to support them.

Some countries are a lot worse than others. The USA, obviously, is pretty bad at offering this kind of support. Some European countries and some parts of Australia are getting better at it, etc. For example, we know that ‘prisoners and pets’ programs are actually really amazing for reducing recidivism and improving outcomes.

In the absence of support, all you can do is protect yourselves and sometimes, yes, publicly point out the people that aren’t going to change in the absence of support, so that everyone can be as potentially safe as possible.

Anyway it’s complicated. There are lots of caveats and disclaimers, it changes country by country, crime by crime, condition by condition, person by person, situation by situation. But yeah I think there is a radical difference between holding someone accountable, and just bullying and abusing them publicly. And I think that is something basic, that a lot of people on the internet have forgotten over the years, in these times of polarised, black and white thinking. 

I don’t know what the right answers are. I support Efnisien, but there are criminals I’ve known personally who have impacted me directly that I hate, and I struggle to view them as human beings worthy of human rights. This story challenges me too. Will I change my mind about those criminals? Maybe. Maybe not. Sometimes I change my mind, sometimes I don’t. I generally support programs that help reduce recidivism, and repeatedly, those programs are ones that offer support, counselling, community and friendship, and connection to others. I think any program that reduces recidivism is a good one. But you’ll never eliminate recidivism entirely, and that makes the subject complicated. People will point to the failures, to justify getting rid of programs that have successes. They cost a lot of money, it’s...complicated. :/

But it’s sometimes hard to wrap your head around that when people who have never done anything wrong in a significant way struggle to get any kind of support themselves, but that’s a greater government welfare issue, and... well...

Now my brain is breaking and I have to stop talking, lol.