#i feel like people want alternative perspectives on theories

[notherpuppet]

Do you think there's a right and/or wrong way to handle QPR? I know it's a tricky relationship, but it feels like most/some people kind of just slap the label onto a ship while depicting the ship as just romantic/having no difference with a romantic relationship. (this is why I was a little surprised when you said you do radioapple qpr when it reads a lot more like normal romance). Not meant as an attack or anything on anyone, just genuinely curious more than anything. Again, tricky relationship

So Imma put this link to info at the top of this post: https://taaap.org/2022/07/16/qprs-part-one/

Alright, so please take what I say with a grain of salt, because that's exactly what it is. One small bit of perspective in a mass of many people who experience QPRs in their life and/or are on an aro/ace spectrum. I also have NO QUALIFICATIONS on gender/sexuality theory, so my opinions are shaped by what I've learned and experienced personally. While people may identify with the same term, we are all still individuals with our own experiences. Words can help describe a phenomenon, but it doesn't make everyone who identifies with the word into a monolith.

So I've stated a few times that I navigate shipping Alastor similar to my own experiences as an aroace person. (I guess I'm sharing about myself with this post, but I think that can be helpful to just spreading awareness of an "alternative lifestyle"). So I'm romance-repulsed and sex-repulsed LOL but I'm also "positive" about those things. Like I view romance and sex as lovely, fun experiences people can have, but I've never been into it personally. It's fun for me to consume media about romance/sex, but yknow, it's also fun for me to consume media about violence or isolation. Doesn't mean I want to experience or engage in any of those things lol.

Anyway, I'm a huge people person and I love to party and yknow it seems most people are really wanting to fall in love or fuck or whatever pretty much all the time, but especially at parties hahaha. Normally, I'm pretty touch-averse, but I love dancing so much and it's a blast to dance with a partner (salsa especially!! i don't care for grinding for probably obvious reasons). And to connect the two previous sentences, people (whatever gender they are) would be very kissy-touchy on the dancefloor. Which i honestly dont really give a fuck about hahaha. I don't really get anything out of kissing but I also don't mind it. I just like to dance. It's all a pretty superficial--but still genuinely fun--experience for me.

When it comes to my deeper or more intimate connections, I have had friendships that have felt SO on the line of what was viewed as a romantic relationship. They were exceptional friends and we connected on a level that was deep and true, but it wasn't romantic. Sometimes we'd slow dance, sometimes we kissed, and it rocked. But it wasn't more than that, it was all that it needed to be. I didn't want more and neither did they (except one situation and so we had to stop being friends lol whoops). From the outside, people would even refer to us as partners in a half joking way, but we really were just friends. And I love those friends!! And a huge part of what made those relationships (which at the time were described as 'situationships' because we didn't know any of these terms haha) was their convenience. We either lived in the same building, worked together, or were neighbors LOL. I'm still friends with those absolutely lovely folks, but we don't live around each other, so our QPR just appears a lot more like any ole regular friendship. But it's not like there was a feeling that we transitioned into something different than before. It twas what it twas! (Had to take a pause while I was typing to reminisce fondly for a second, okay back to hazbin hahaha)

SO, whenever someone asks or it comes up, MOST OF THE TIME I do ship alastor through an aroace lens and experience with QPRs (specifically, MINEE because they were fun and I've never felt like doing this before I met a character like Al). And my XP is: "this isn't gonna be a partnership and we ain't fucking" LMFAO. so yeah!

When it comes to using a queer term like QPR, I just hope folks are considerate in their writing, but I also am inclined to just believe them if they say that's their intention because QPRs can look very different. Again, aroace and ace folks are not a monolith. The terms help to describe a human's experience. I'm inclined to think people are writing in good faith.

And all this being said, I want to just emphasize that I really don't think it's necessary to consider any of this shit if you want to ship a fictional character. I understand wanting to be protective of a character who shares an identifier with you (I personally don't wanna see romance/sex with Al in canon). But shipping is a fun thing a fandom does that often does ignore canon. Tale as old as time. I don't think anyone needs to be beholden to canon when they're writing fanfiction or having fun. If we did, I would have like--5 artworks on this blog hahaha. These characters are like dollies, do whatever you want. It's cool if people don't like it and I think it's cool if people do. It's just not that serious. There are ships I'm not particularly into or dynamics that I am not enchanted by, but whatever. I can just scroll or close my eyes.

TLDR; shipping in fandom doesn't need to be taken seriously at ALL. It can just be fun way for someone to play with fictional characters they like. That being said, I think it's good practice to use queer terms thoughtfully.

[handweavers]

Cab you elaborate a little on that post about artists of color not having a good understanding of materialism? Like, do you mean that they are unknowingly perpetuating capitalism by being materialistic or something else?????

( This is a genuine question because I misunderstand long posts easily, sorry if it sounds rude ).

when i say 'materialism' i'm referring to dialectical materialism, the marxist theory that political and historical events result from the conflict of social forces - people's access to material needs like shelter, food, healthcare, etc. and their relationship to the means of production. these events can be interpreted as a series of contradictions and their solutions. it is the scientific method for understanding politics/economics and history, and the basis of marxist analysis and of marxism leninism as a framework.

i'm saying that many artists of colour in the west speak a lot about capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, war, etc. from a vaguely 'leftist' but ultimately still liberal perspective, and thus they are not actually challenging anything with their work. they will talk about anything But class, and fall easily for bourgeois politics as long as it's concealed in social justice or "leftist" or antiracist sounding language

and it's because they won't engage directly with marxism leninism, they won't engage with learning materialist analysis, and having this understanding would prevent them from falling for these attempts and allow them to do work that actually has some kind of meaningful impact on these systems they claim to be against. so they are trying to talk and write and make art and organize about capitalism and colonialism without understanding how these things actually function in a literal, material sense...

simply existing as nonwhite people in the west doesn't inherently teach us these things, otherwise all people of colour in the west would be communists. we have to actually do the reading and be open to another framework of understanding the world, to having our worldviews shifted. but i think some people don't want to do that because of their relative class position. it makes them uncomfortable, or they don't want to admit that they benefit from imperialism in some ways. they can't - or won't - decouple an awareness of their class position from morality or their personal feelings.

without a marxist framework for understanding what capitalism is and how it functions, whatever work they claim to be trying to do to challenge capitalism or colonialism or whatever At Best doesn't do anything, and At Worst continues to serve bourgeois interests. the confusion between colonialism and imperialism in particular is easily exploited, so that with the language of anti racism and decolonization people end up agreeing with and promoting US/NATO foreign policy on imperialized nations - these buzzwords can sound pretty good if you don't know better. all this talk about decolonizing our minds and art practices and being anti capitalists but no one can actually explain what capitalism is or how colonialism works or the material role of racism under capitalism, nor do they want to talk about their own relationship to capital, so the talk is just empty lol. all these artists trying to figure out "alternative, embodied ways of thinking and being" and it's all just more liberalism

[jetskisonyourmoat]

Alex and Alt J (2018)

An old interview I’ve always loved and wanted to transcribe ☺️

Transcript below ☺️⬇️

Transcript:

Begins with host preamble

Richard: Hey Linda

Linda: Hey Richard

Richard: I've gotta ask you what did you think of this record the first time you heard it?

Linda: Hmm, it was surprising wasn't it? It was so different to AM that I remember hearing the first songs and going no, oh no, this is indulgent, oh no what has happened here. Then I kind of got more songs into it and I feel like I fell into this very cinematic, almost this vampire, hotel sounding world. That I then really liked.

Richard: I feel like it's very Los Angeles, and I kind of feel like he's looking at this like an outsider, being an Englishman, looking at this world. I find Los Angeles a very alienating place and I think, not to speak for Alex, but he's looking at it from an outside perspective as well. So he creates all these characters. Even the artwork reminds me a lot of the architecture of Los Angeles as well, so he's really kind of gone into a world of his own with this record and it really reflects in the music that he's made. It's so different to AM and it's really interesting to hear what Arctic Monkeys fans make of it.

Linda: Here's something that I'll say about it in terms of it following on from AM. I feel like there is this almost typical trajectory where a band will push that even further when they get to the next album where you imagine these stadium shining choruses. So, if the alternative to this album is that they would have made a stadium shiner album, I'm so glad they made this record. I'm so excited that they did something a little bit wacky.

Richard: It's very brave

Linda: Yeah (laughs)I don't know how people are gonna feel about it

Richard: Which usually record companies don't want. We don't want a brave record we want a hit record.

Linda: Yeah

Richard: But listen I'm really curious to hear this interview. You basically hung out with Alex Turner, you got to spend some time with him. He's not an easy person to interview. I've interviewed him twice and I've found him pretty awkward. How did you find him?

Linda: I think it was one of the hardest interviews I've ever done. Honestly, he was there we had a great amount of time together. We were there for about an hour sitting in the Capital Records Studios. So we're sitting where they record the Rat Pack albums and he's using the same microphone as Frank Sinatra and he's ready to go in the morning. And he I don't think has talked about these songs before or talked about the album before.

Richard: I reckon this is one of the first interviews he's done for this record, Tranquility Base Hotel and Casino. It's out now so lets have a bit of a dive into what this record is all about.

Start of Interview with Alex

Linda: Tranquility Base Hotel and Casino, what is it?

Alex: Well it's the record yeah

Linda: Where did that idea, and that model and therefore the album come from?

Alex: The model you mean the record sleeve? That model. I think the title come from, I liked the idea that the record would have the name of a place, because records and songs that I love, when you really fall in love with it it does seem like a place like you go and you can keep going back there and you sort of sometimes me move in there for a while I think.

Linda: Yeah

Alex: I started work on this in my studio in the basement at home and this zone became known as the lunar surface amongst friends. The reason for that, you know there's like the conspiracy theories about Stanley Kubrick faking the moon landing and I think there was this idea I was going in this room on me own and working with these machines on this music. I think there's just this idea of like what's going on in there and there's this idea of like faking a lunar landing. Sort of became synonymous with what we were doing in there. Tranquility base is the site of the first like, the moon landing and I just saw those words written down on these cups that I've got, glassware. And (laughs) and I wrote the line because it seemed to make send to name the record after this place.

Linda: All of these, kind of like you say, records, they are a place and they are a world that that artist has created

Alex: I think so, possibly more than anything else I've done, and that sort of working by me self might have something to do with why it is the way it is.

Linda: Can I talk a little bit about how you not only created that world in the musical sense but that you physically created it too?

Alex: Emma, who works with Ian and I, we were having a meeting when everyone started to hear the music and she's like, I don't feel like- it doesn't feel like we can just cob a picture of the band on the cover and lob it out with the music. And that like stayed with me, that was when we were in London like before christmas and I came back here and just started like becoming quite obssessed I think with the idea of making the artwork. I quickly got to this place where i thought , well if that's the name of the record, an architectural model seems like what should be on the cover. So then I started hinking about how you do that, cause I suppose you can get someone to do that and I don't know. Eventually I just fucking got a load of cardboard and like a knife and started hacking it up.

Linda: Did you know what you were making or did you kind of…

Alex: No it was like a-no not to begin with. I started off, I drew a, it was as simple as it's the sixth record so i drew a six sided shape and it was like- made a right mess from there.

Linda: How long did this take you?

Alex: Couple of months I was at it. It's funny we're having this serious conversation about this cardboard.

Linda: Yeah, i'm kind of picturing you holed up, almost obssessed, like being out at dinner but thinking about using a razorblade

Alex: It's much worse than that, its- yeah it was a strange time. Where it all came together, what do you call that the denouement was. There's this restuarant called house of pies and I was driving back with a car full of cardboard one day. And the house of pie sign revolves and I was like when I'm working on this stuff it's in the studio where I'm working on the record and the machine- the 8-track machine that i recorded some of the stuff on in the beginning, this revox reel to reel A77. I'm driving past house of pies and I'm thinking how can I make a revolving sign, and it's like you obviously turn the revox on its side and stick the sign in that. Cause I think- I remember when I was finished I was thinking we probably don't need to tell anybody that that was me- then cut to me now (Linda: It's so good though) spilling the beans

Linda: Well we can talk about music

Alex: I don't know, we can continue talking about cardboard. I suppose the thing with it- I suppose. I was looking at some of the stuff and I read something or saw something where somebody had said, there's really no course you can take in doing that. You know you just have to try and you learn how you're gonna do that by doing it. Which is like quite a few things I imagine like that.

Linda: Let's talk about the role that the piano plays on this album.

Alex: The piano was a gift from me manager Ian for me 30th birthday. Yeah so that became the centerpiece in the studio and I've pretty much played it every day since it showed up there.

Linda: Had you been drawn to playing piano a lot in the past?

Alex: When I was an 8 yeat old kid, me dad took me to have lessons and it may have lasted a year but I never really took to it. I never remember enjoying it that much be I had. I remember realising that I could hear the difference between the notes. I knew when I was doing it wrong is what I could remember from that. When I were a 15 year old, he brought us a guitar home and I got really stuck into that and didn't put it down. The piano thing I had like, I could play a couple of chords and give the impressiont that I could play it better than I actually could.

Linda: How did that feel, writing in terms of freedom as an artist, or a point of difference. How did it compare?

Alex: I don't know what I would have done without it, I had no ideas and through that suddenly I started to have ideas. I just knew everything I was about to do when I pick up a guitar. And then so you change that, so there's that side of it, I feel like I've heard people say plenty of times. It brought out this character. I like the idea of, it made me like thinking in a different way. I think the lyrics were different as a result of the chords my fingers had fallen on.

Linda: It ends up sounding like a diffeernt and kind of surprising and herefore wonderful album in the end. How did it feel when you brought it to James Ford or to the band and stuff?

Alex: Better than I expected to I think. Jamie came and we worked on stuff together for a couple of weeks. And it was during that time that i was encouraged that i was barking up the right tree. It did seem different to what we'd done before, but his enthusiasm I think for it, was like lets go this way then.

Linda: It feels like it would have been so fun after doing something like AM to do something that just kind of turns off and changes direection.

Alex: Which I think it does in some ways. But then sometime parts of it I hear a quite-

Linda: Theer are some parts that feel quite groove driven in the same way AM does.

Alex: Exactly, I think we've gone a bit deeper down in that direction (Musical break) I think like lyricaly there aren't to many similarities. But to a degree that's always been how we've felt going into these things. I honestly don't know like how we would have done something like that, the AM record I mean. I don't know how thinking about it, we would have done anything other than this.

Linda: When you were mentioning lyrics just then and saying that they're different to AM, are they autobiographical or are you kind of just thinking in a character when you're writing those songs.

Alex: I think it's both of those things and it sort of drifts in between them. Some lines in it are just totally, almost me having a word with me sen, more so i think than before really. I think it was a friend of mine that said to me, you've done the love songs, I'd love to hear you do something that's not that. Or the type of lyrics on AM and what that's all about. There's kind of no more ways I could say that anymore and I think that's what my friend was getting at and it did come across to me. I was like yeah I would like to do that, but I think any time I'd tried to go to some of these places in the past the poetry just wasn't there for me in the past and this time it I think I managed to find it.

Linda: Yeah maybe the piano tapped into it (Musical break) There was a point where I was thinking about this album and I don't know how conscious of this you were when you were doing it, but it feels interesting to listen to it now because we're consuming it in this world that almost feels like it's plummeting towards kind of technology and the future whereas sonically this record feels like it harkens back to something quite art deco, but a the same time it's talking about current things that are going on.

Alex: The battle between the future and the past.

Linda: Exactly, were you concious of that when you were doing it?

Alex: I think that's what- I suppose that's what I'm talking about when I say, I'd struggled to find poetry in that before and I didn't know how to write about that. I feel this way about our first album like the types of things we were writing sbout there a lot of other people were writing about at that time and have done before that. But there's something about the style that makes it work. Hopefully it's the same with this.

Linda: There's such a visual stance with this record because you know, are you going to be making a film that goes with it or?

Alex: There's no plans to make a film with it because it's supposed to be what it is. We're not coming out in space suit or anything or like pretending there's zero gravity.

Linda: You could probably do it.

Alex: Maybe I'll do that.

Linda: You could make it happen.

Alex: Yeah just (Linda: Band in space) Moonwalking subtle.

Linda: The Lunar, what did you call it?

Alex: Surface?

Linda: The lunar surface tour

Alex: Yeah that's it (Linda: This could be the one) Well Bowie had the 'Serious Moonlight Tour' didn't he?

Linda: He did.

Return to hosts

Richard: That is actually interesting Linda, I've been wondering how on earth they're going to represent this record on stage.

Linda: I know and how it would fit in with the back catalogue as well.

Richard: Yeah, I mean obviously the back catalogue is not going to be forgtten but they're gonna have to squeeze this knew world of the Artcic Monkeys in amongst the live performances of those big tracks off AM. I like bands being brave and I think this is a record that by years end all the UK critcs will be claiming how brilliant it is and it'll make a lot of top 10 lists. I think fans will be divided, I think anyway.

Linda: I think that's a good thing.

Richard: Thanks for the sharing the interview with us on the 2018 podcast.

Linda: Hey look I'm glad that I got to do it even though you know i was saying it wasn't the easist interview to do, it was certainly a real one.

[meear]

umineko fans are the original "if you don't like it you just didn't understand it" people. I genuinely cannot think of anyone more annoying and obnoxious, except SNK fans, except not even them, because in Umineko's case that behavior is enabled by the author himself. It's crazy how a story that spent hundreds of hours discussing the value in several coexisting interpetations will have both characters and fans turning around and tell you that actually you're completely wrong for thinking a certain way

The crazy part is they don't even realise how their smug attitude about being part of R07's very special club of people who "have love" and the superior way they act about holding the true answer are EXACTLY the Erika traits they criticise in readers who don't think like them. "He spells it out but you still cannot see it? Lol" "are there still people who can't accept the literal canon answer? lmfao" "you know you're exactly the goats r07 wrote about right?" (Because r07 is a god who cannot possibly be contradicted, this is supposed to be the worst insult somehow) (these fans cannot seem to decide who the goats are an analogy for, considering they'll scramble to say they only represent the story's witch hunters as a criticism of true crime fans when you call out r07's arrogance, yet they'll smugly tell you you're just a goat when you question the story itself. Thank you, it's nice to know that Ryukishi wrote about me, but that doesn't answer the fucking question, Brian)

It's incredibly ironic. How did a story like Umineko create and encourage so many people to sanctify one "official answer" and taking any other attempt as an insult?? Like is anyone feeling how ryu07 completely fucked up at what he was trying to do?

"So I won't open the catbox and reveal what actually happened on the island." oh, that's cool, I actually really like that! I agree that ultimately the true events of that day are a pretty trivial part of the story, and it's way more interesting not to know - "anyway it's Rudolf and Kyrie and it happened exactly like so and so, and Shkanontrice did this and that".

... Okay, well I really wish that had remained a mystery forever, since the point was that any truth would've been anticlimatic, and the choice to reveal that genuinely kills a lot of what made Umineko's appeal to me, but I guess we can still have fun with EP1-4 and try several alternative theories for the sequence of events- "here's the manga explaining everything in detail and if you didn't get it have you tried maybe having some more love? It would be sooo clear if you had love lmfao. you literally cannot comprehend my work unless you have"

... I really wish that guy would stop making assumptions about the inner mind of complete strangers who read his work, but I do enjoy getting to choose an ending! it really fits in with Umineko's theme of choosing the truth for yourself and making your own path that you can be happy with, as long as you keep thinking- "the Magic ending is meant to be the true end btw. if you prefer the other one you pretty much have no heart lol, it's obviously framed like a bad ending and there's only one acceptable choice and one way ange can find happiness"

... man, I'm so bored. Why write a game like that and then make it so that some choices are better than others instead of letting people think for themselves? Why would you force an interpretation on people/Ange when I've been led to believe that the narrative was against that sort of things? You want to highlight the value in your vision of "magic", fine, but why am I the heartless bitch for disliking that perspective and even trying to see things differently?

Why would you write a whole game around the really fun concept of several tales happening at the same time and the existence of endless truths inside the same catbox only to open the catbox and tell me "NO, you need to think a certain way, and if you don't like my answer FUCK YOU"

I understand that maybe he just had a specific answer in mind but I'm sorry the way he write the ending simply does not match the vision he seemed to have in the earlier chapters.

I genuinely respect Umineko as a work, I think it's one of the most ambitious stories I've seen and there is some amazing writing in there, but if Ryukishi wanted to allow for people to keep thinking and discussing what it means, he has failed miserably and I'm not talking about confession of the golden witch, I'm talking about the way he and his minions have shut down any possible discussion under the guise of "you just don't get it" (rephrased to "you don't have love" to make it sound more enlightened) and it's soured my enjoyment of something that should've been an amazing story. What is even left to discuss here when everyone has pretty much already made up their mind?

[yourheartonfireblog]

So, I've been thinking about The Locked Tomb as a whole, particularly about how Tamsyn Muir pulls off the trick of making a dramatic tone and perspective switch with every book, yet it still feels cohesive as a story and a series.

Something that just clicked for me after a reread of Harrow the Ninth is noticing that a motif obviously present in HtN is actually running through all the books, in a way that supports this constant resetting at the beginning of every novel. And that is Alternate Universes. As in, like, the fanfiction concept of AUs.

Massive spoilers ahead for the first three books of The Locked Tomb:

Probably the biggest link between the books is the structure. All three books of The Locked Tomb roughly follow the same narrative pattern; the narrator/protagonist starts the story hopelessly outclassed and the least informed person in the situation in which she finds herself. At first she is passive or blocked from action, but there's a realization/revelation that she is not as helpless as initially thought. She builds in power and action (and this is rewarded with exposition dumps to catch her and the reader up on what is actually happening). The final act is a fight to the death and as she is dying the narrator makes a sacrifice of her own body in a way that manages to preserve at least part of her consciousness outside herself.

(The secondary narrative in Nona the Ninth -John's confession- loosely follows this pattern too. Except of course John makes a different decision in the final act of his story.)

More than just the structure, each story is a variation on the same themes. Some of them are obvious. Power and how people use it/ abuse it. The narrator's relationship to their own body and how it becomes an expression of trauma.

But another less obvious theme, right from the first chapter of Gideon, is the narrators all have some connection to an Alternate Universe version of themselves/ their lives.

I'll admit this theory is weakest in GtN. But I don't think it's a coincidence that Gideon's entire life plan is inspired by military-themed porn mags - a smut AU, if you will. She's also the only one of the narrators who regularly indulges in daydreams that give her the strength to fight and struggle forward. Also not, I believe, a coincidence.

In HtN things start getting more on the nose - unlike Gideon, Harrow has magic. Rather than accept reality, Harrow uses her power to lobotimize herself into creating and living in an alternate reality, while retelling an alternate version of the prior book. This of course is the book with the infamous role swap/ Regency ball / barista AU sequence, just in case you didn't get what's going on.

But NtN is equally about AUs - Nona is the story where the universe conspires to give Harrow and Gideon the alternate universe of the life they both wanted. Gideon (or at least her body) does turns out to be the daughter of the emperor and the crown prince of the universe. Harrow (or at least her body) gets a found family who love her and a brain that is 100% free of the horrible truth of her abominable origin. We spend most book wondering just who is in that body, Harrow or Gideon, and that's part of the point. The trauma is so deep Harrow and Gideon are unrecognizable as people if their slate is wiped. So of course Nona turns out to be a secret third option.

More to the point, NtN is the book where we learn that the Nine Houses are, in fact, John's shitty self-insert AU. Harrow had a little power a and lobotimized herself, John had more and lobotimized all of humanity he could get his hands on, remaking them into this bizarre and baroque universe centered around worshipping him as a god-emperor. The planet of New Rho, outside John's direct control, is bursting with life and chaos and mess and humanity that is missing entirely from the glimpses we get of John's universe. It's no wonder the other survivors call everyone in the Nine Houses zombies - they are, in fact, brainwiped slaves to John's whims whomever he will pick up, put down, resurrect, and murder exactly as he thinks is best.

I'm very excited for Alecto the Ninth and how this is going to play out now that we've met all three of the people in this relationship, and everyone is in the same place in the right body.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

the shroud parents

Okay, so I’ve been thinking about this for a while 🤔: “Why are the Shroud parents so warm and loving when the impression we had of them from Idia are so... negative?” And then I realized it’s very obviously because CHARACTERS CAN BE UNRELIABLE NARRATORS.

Like. That does NOT mean that what happened to the characters didn’t actually happen. The events very obviously DID happen as described (especially as it pertains to post-OB flashbacks), but it’s how the characters tell the information that paints the perception of events and how certain elements are presented or omitted entirely.

***Content warning: I briefly mention a few dark topics under the cut (including suicidal ideation and depression) and link to a related post on those topics!!***

As an example, let’s look at the Shroud parents. Idia previously described his grandma and dad as being very gloomy and negative people. He also says his parents as being the types to value results over their children’s feelings. We also notably do not see Mr. or Mrs. Shroud in Idia’s backstory flashback when he was going through a difficult patch of coping with Ortho’s death. This all led to us having an impression that the Shroud parents were cold, distant, calculating, and just overall not very good parents. Then we meet the parents in book 7 and Mrs. Shroud is SUPER bubbly, and both parents readily welcome Ortho as an official member of the family. It’s a huge juxtaposition which completely recontextualizes the information Idia previously gave us.

Idia is Mr. Doom and Gloom, a huge pessimist. It could be possible that he was greatly exaggerating elements of his parents’ personalities, usually when it pertains to them asking him to do something he doesn’t want to (ie pulling him out of school to research on his classmates). Alternatively, it’s implied that he barely left his room for two years following Ortho’s death. The lack of the Shroud parents in Idia’s flashback could indicate that as their own method of coping, they distanced themselves or they gave Idia space to heal on his own. Or maybe Idia was even the one who actively shut his parents out? It’s extremely possible, especially given that there are theories floating around that Idia’s memories and thoughts are greatly impacted by grief, depression, and/or suicidal ideation.

This makes me kind of want to go back and reevaluate all the other OB boys’ flashbacks and see just how much of the information could have been colored by the bias and the perspectives of the storytellers 🤔 POV actually adds a LOT to whatever is being told!! Like you can tell in Riddle’s flashback that even though he now knows his mom’s parenting has fucked him up, he doesn’t appear to hold any ill will toward her. He’s moreso confused and unsure how to proceed, feelings which are perfectly encapsulated by Riddle asking why his chest still hurts, even though he has followed every rule his mom has set for him. As a result, Riddle is shown to be a lot more hesitant and charitable to his mother compared to other people.

Interestingly, fans are quick to bypass Riddle’s own neutral telling of his story and demonize his mother (I think maybe because his circumstances are more relatable?), whereas with Idia he tells us the worst of his parents and it paints our ideas about the Shroud parents in accordance with Idia’s telling.

I also wonder if the fandom’s assumption that Leona’s whole country despises him or that Azul’s mom didn’t know about him being bullied is true at all??? Because if you think about it, Leona’s flashbacks only ever depicted palace servants talking badly about him, which are not representative of all of the Sunset Savanna. We don’t meet locals that speak badly of Leona in his hometown event either??? Then for Azul’s flashback, you can’t really take omission of information as confirmation of anything.

This line of thought also applies for the information the boys relay to us; how much of it is embellished or slightly altered in order to project a certain outward image to their peers? Especially considering how NRC is teeming with (mob) students ready to pounce on you if you seem weak??? It’s really interesting stuff to think about.

[sapphire-weapon]

So, in light of recent events, I've been doing a lot of thinking. People ask me a lot how to get into analysis and where to start if they want to analyze characters and media -- and, historically, my answer has always been "start with the themes."

But there's actually a point 0 place to start. I never mentioned this, because I thought it went without saying -- but that was stupid for me to do, because people are coming to me with nothing and I'm expecting them to have something by default. That's dumb.

The real place that you start?

Is with the writer and the target audience. Who is writing this story, and who are they writing it for?

This is the exact reason why I've also said, in the past, that not all readings of a text are valid. The only way to make all readings of a text valid is by invoking Death of the Author.

So, what is Death of the Author?

Very plainly, Death of the Author is defined as: a literary theory that argues that the meaning of a text is not determined by the author's intention, but rather by the reader's interpretation.

A lot of queer media analysts and scholars, for example, invoke Death of the Author in their work, because they know that an author did not intentionally set out to write a story that was reflective of the queer experience -- but their argument is that there's a way to read the text that is reflective of that experience. They're not saying "this is what the story means." They're saying "this is what the story means to me."

And this is a very valid form of literary analysis, because it provides extra meaning to a work beyond what the author intended and makes it more accessible to a broader audience.

But the thing about Death of the Author is that you need to acknowledge that you're invoking Death of the Author. Because if you don't, then you're making a completely different argument, which is: "the author/work intends for us to take this meaning from it." And you can't say that in good faith for all readings of a story. There is no way to make a claim that there's a positive allegory for the trans experience within Harry Potter, because that is most certainly not what JK Rowling set out to do. However, you could make a Death of the Author argument in favor of that -- which would be great, because it'll piss her the fuck off.

That's what I mean when I say that "not all readings of a text are valid." When I say that, what I actually mean is "that is absolutely not what the writers intended for us to take away from this scene/character/relationship/line of dialogue."

So, if you're someone who's coming to me, personally, and asking "how do I do what you do?" -- I don't make Death of the Author analyses. That's not what I do. So, my step zero to writing meta is to consider who is writing the story and who they're writing it for.

And there's a few reasons why I do this.

First and foremost, I'm in the business of theorycrafting. In order for me to try to accurately predict where a character arc or storyline is going and how it's going to manifest in future titles, I need to try to hone my focus on the writer's actual intentions. Because if I can't see things from their perspective, I'm never going to be able to chart out a course for where they might be going. And I'm not always right -- but sometimes I'm really right. Like, really super right. And I can't stop being right. And that feels really good.

The second reason is because acknowledging the writers' intentions opens them up to criticism. It's hard to criticize a writer for a lack of inclusivity if you take the stance that all readings of a text are valid and therefore any of the characters could be XYZ marginalized group. It's hard to criticize a writer for a sexist narrative or a sexist framing of events if you make the argument "but it's possible this completely alternate interpretation is also valid."

Like, I love DBZ. I love Akira Toriyama. I cried openly when he passed. But DBZ has some sexist bullshit going on in it. And you can't criticize it or him for turning all the female characters into housewives and babymakers while also supporting a reading of the text that says "but this is the happy ending that the characters are fighting for in the first place, so it's actually empowering."

So, in the case of Resident Evil...

Resident Evil is being written and developed by Japanese men in their 30s, 40s, and 50s for a group of Western cishet male gamers between the ages of 18-35. That is their target demographic. They are not talking to my coworker who's a 24 year old afab bi enby who desperately loves the series; the series just happened to reach them despite that.

And while everything in RE released prior to 2005 is pure survival horror meant to make you constantly feel like you're on the back foot, everything from RE4 onwards is a power fantasy. There are still horror elements to the games and movies, but RE more turns into a monster-of-the-week series about cool characters doing sick wrestling moves on cool monsters.

The devs and also the majority of their target audience project onto the male protagonists of the series to a certain extent -- which is why there has only been one title released since 2005 with a focus on a female protagonist, and that's Revelations 2 -- and, even then, Claire had to share the spotlight with Barry. Women have been playable here and there and been considered "main characters" -- but they've never really been the focus of any new titles that have come out. Sheva is considered Chris's partner. The RE6 campaigns are primarily about Leon, Chris, and Jake. Revelations 1 is seen as a Chris and Jill game in equal measure. And even though Death Island was supposed to be about Jill -- it wasn't, really. Because every other character had to be there with her, too.

So, when I get shit for taking a "heteronormative perspective" to my RE analysis -- there's a reason why I'm doing that. It's not because this is how I inherently view the world. It's because that is the intention with which the games are being written. That is who is writing the games and who the games are being written for.

Let's take RE4 Remake as an example, here. Capcom had to mash three different women together in order to create Ashley and turn her into an idealized fantasy woman so that she had the perfect face, the perfect body, and the perfect voice.

And the games are being developed by and for men who project onto Leon and see him as a power fantasy.

That is why it's absurd to me for people to say that Leon and Ashley never flirted with each other in the game. Of course they fucking did. Capcom created the perfect woman with giant tits and a small waist and a huge ass and a supportive personality and put her into close quarters with a male power fantasy protagonist. They put the flirting in so that their target cishet male audience could live that.

What people don't understand is that the eagleone romance wasn't created for the sake of the ship. It was made because of:

dudes who want to fuck Ashley and

Yoshiaki Hirabayashi's love for fairy tales.

(What makes me say that Hirabayashi loves fairy tales? He wrote RE5, which has a shitton of fairy tale elements surrounding Jill and Wesker specifically and even an alternate costume for Sheva that's called "fairy tale." To find that he turned RE4 into a fairy tale wasn't surprising to me at all, considering what the source material was. But the RE5 thing is for a separate post.)

Capcom doesn't care about your ships or our ship wars. They didn't create a Leon and Ashley romance because "we ship these two characters together." They created a Leon and Ashley romance so that guys who want to fuck Ashley can feel like maybe they could.

And because Hirabayashi fucking loves fairy tales.

And I also love fairy tales, which is why I love the ship. But I also do recognize that there's a sexist element behind the construction of Ashley's character and am capable of criticizing the ship for that reason.

So. Yeah. Start there. Start with the writers. Start with the intended audience.

I know that RE isn't being written for me. So I have to look at it from the perspective of the people who it is being written for. And if you want to analyze media, you have to do that, too.

[m4rveys]

why i think harvey specter and louis litt are bpd coded (to an extent)

this is just harmless headcanon based on what i noticed while watching, don’t take me too seriously. i’m pretty sure aaron korsh has never even heard of bpd and no one in that writers room knew enough about psychology to actually write a borderline character…

i could make a way more in depth analysis of their mental… situations… but i haven’t rewatched the show in a while so these are just my most basic observations

louis

aside from his uh.. obvious emotional instability and anger issues. i think the most tangible proof i have of this one is when he was described as “loving, hating, and wanting to be harvey at the same time.” now, i’m pretty sure that was just a movie quote… but Very Telling imho…

also the way all his romantic relationships play out in the show (TARA!!!!)… idk y’all… that tara thing was textbook limerence in my eyes.

side note, i’ve seen people call him bipolar quite a bit but i’m pretty sure most of that is just the colloquial (see: wildly incorrect) usage/misunderstanding of the term and not actual concrete evidence of any bipolar theories.

harvey

this one is a little less obvious, so bear with me. but i think the way he started having panic attacks so severe he had to see a therapist (!!!) because donna went to work for someone else at the same damn firm… i’m sorry but the abandonment issues are wild. also the scene when he sees lipschitz one on one and he’s basically complaining that everyone leaves him and louis is gonna forget about him once he has a baby…? which uh, has he ever met louis before? also, that scene gets extra funny when the writers had him and donna leave for seattle like the day after lucy was born… who’s leaving who now?

also, his anger issues got pretty bad too… and his whole “i don’t care about anyone, caring makes me weak” shtick from the earlier seasons isn’t necessarily giving mental illness, but it certainly doesn’t paint a picture of perfect mental stability… i mean, he does change throughout the show (see: the whole situation with anna) but i’d argue that was directly a result of mike’s presence in his life.

ACTUALLY, DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THAT ONE. SECRETLY KEEPING MIKE AND RACHEL’S OLD APARTMENT JUST IN CASE THEY MIGHT COME BACK??? but that deserves a whole separate post bc that’s not related to bpd… just homosexuality.

there’s honestly way more than that, but i’d have to rewatch the whole damn show and take notes to properly make an analysis, which i am not currently willing to do.

Also in my mind mike is slightly autistic coded (strong sense of justice, eidetic memory, hyperempathy (actually just normal empathy tbh but he just looks really emotional compared to Harvey “I Don’t Get Attached To Clients, I Win” Specter)) but that’s not an actual theory i have nor is it at all supported by canon, pure projection by me on that one.

Uhhh again don’t take this too seriously, this is just my brain ramblings. i just thought bpd coded suits deserves more love than 4 unknown reddit comments (one of them being me), 1 tumblr post from half a decade ago, and 1 paragraph in a “tv series that portray bpd” article… i was seriously spoiled in my previous fandoms with the mental disorder hcs (see: adhd denki, bpd goro, autistic izuku/shoto/bkg/ren/saiki/everyone hcs being wildly popular).

also, this is in no way meant to be insulting/demeaning to any characters mentioned, just to share an alternative perspective/interpretation, i’m literally the ceo of borderpolartism… (and made up words!) feel free to disagree as heavily as you’d like, this is nothing but my own personal opinion.

Uhhh, i also have no formal education in psychology, just years of lived experience w bpd/autism and their dsm-5 criteria memorized… (Not that the dsm-5 is great in itself, that book is wildly problematic all on its own, but that’s a subject more fitting for a formal research paper and not a tumblr post made by a generally uneducated moron who only finished school up to the 9th grade…)

one day i’ll write up a proper analysis/explanation/character study, but for now this is the best you’re getting outside of the mildly implied but never explicitly stated autistic mike ross WIPs rotting in my notes app rn, never to be finished.

[tokiro07]

UU Appreciation Week Day 7

Anything Else You Appreciate - Four Years And An Anime

When Undead Unluck started, I had no idea what it was going to develop into. For such a long time, it seemed like I was the only person who knew about it, and I was resigned to that fact. All of my favorites end up being really obscure, and more often than not end up getting canceled by the end of year 2 if they're lucky

I started #fouryearsandananime as a prayer, practically a joke, never really expecting that I'd see it come to fruition. Even if it made it that far, I never dared imagine a scenario where there were enough people reading it to organize community events like UUAppreciationWeek, much less that anyone in such a community would give me the time of day

But here we are

Nearly at the end of year five, with an anime special that will hopefully usher in season 2 on the way, and an honest-to-goodness fandom banding together to celebrate it as it approaches its natural, intended conclusion

These past five years have been such an amazing and inspiring time for me. Even at the height of my previous favorite, Medaka Box's run, I never read this closely or wrote this in-depth. My skills as a reader and writer have grown and changed so much thanks to Undead Unluck, to say nothing of how I've actively tried to improve my outlook on life

In the very beginning, I was just making small observations here and there, a theory or two when inspiration struck, but nothing consistent

Then I started doing that week-to-week, trying to always have something to say just so there would never be a week of silence in the fandom

Then it became a game of I Spy, trying to identify every hidden detail and bit of foreshadowing that I could, seeing what Easter Eggs were hidden in the background or what threads were being tied up and when. This became pretty exhausting, not very fun to write and I imagine not very fun to read

Then I started examining the themes, the narrative choices, the character arcs. The things that actually mattered to the reader experience. No longer bound by the chore of going over every panel with a fine-toothed comb, suddenly I felt inspiration rushing over me every week

With time, my reviews got longer and longer, diving deeper and deeper. I started having fun with it, giving each review a silly little title to differentiate them for anyone reading over them later. I started making previews of the topics as a sort of summary of what each chapter had to offer. I started breaking up the reviews themselves into sections to make them easier to read

Undead Unluck has helped me discover and develop both my creative voice and my reader's eye; the skills I've developed here have deepened my capacity to appreciate not just UU, but manga as a medium, enabling me to better understand what it is I'm looking for in manga and articulate when I find it

I've always wanted to write my own stories, and I've dabbled in the past, but I've never been satisfied with what I had because it always feels empty. I've never had a theme I've cared enough to dissect and analyze, no message I've been so passionate about that I wanted to share it with the world. I don't believe that's necessary for every story, but it is a standard I hold myself to. I wouldn't say I've found such a message or theme yet, but what I have found is a guideline for how to go about it when I do

Reading Undead Unluck, I have a much richer understanding of how any given character can analyze a facet of an idea, represent a different perspective, propose an alternative, or reach a deliberately incorrect conclusion. That's the kind of story I want to be able to write, and I'm so grateful that it was the kind of story I got to read

So thank you, Tozuka

For lasting over four years

For writing something so inspirational

For allowing an excellent anime to come into existence

For helping me to enjoy life

I appreciate you

[vykker]

Oddworld Headcanon 5/?: Vykkers Labs is Hot and Sweaty

I was gathering pictures of vykkers for drawing references when I noticed something. Why are their outfits so threadbare and nasty? And how come some of the vykkers we see in-game are ass naked? Their most valued business partners are, I assume, the Glukkons, and the Glukkons take fashion & clothing extremely seriously.

Pictured: My Favorite Boys in their tattered rags

Well, what do we know about vykkers? From an evolutionary perspective, not much. We know they're descendants of some arboreal prey species, that's about it. If we extrapolated on this, we can assume they're jungle dwellers. Jungle = big tree.

Jungles are [generally] hot and humid. A creature that evolved to live there would probably not need to wear clothes to keep warm. They might even find the sensation of clothes unpleasant if they're unaccustomed to it. If you were used to swinging around naked in the tree tops, you'd probably find clothes to be smothering and itchy.

Thus, I postulate that vykkers keep the Vykkers Lab thermostat at a comfy 80 or 90 degrees, which is about the temperature of the Amazon in spring. Not only is it a comfortable temperature to them, but it allows them to do work without having to wear clothes, which they apparently hate. I mean, look at Headley the Auctioneer and his stupid little haircut. He wants to look refined, he's dressed in his finest attire, and it's still just shirt cuffs and bow tie.

Now, there IS an outlier to this idea, and that is our beloved Doc Vykkers from Stranger's Wrath. He's dressed a little more conservatively. That being said, his outfit is still just a body-wrap type thing with a hat. He's not wearing shoes or gloves, and his legs and forearms are bare. I guess you could say that his body wrap is air-tight and made to conserve moisture in the dry desert climate, but that's basing a speculation off of another speculation to try and make my theory fit, it could be as simple as he just likes wearing clothes. [Or my theory is wrong.]

Speaking of humidity: I believe the vykkers prefer their environments nice and humid. However, I don't think they need to do anything specific to keep humidity where they want it. As we see in the first levels of Munch's Oddysee, a massive area of the ship is dedicated to a hydroponic spooce farm.

This massive flooded system, combined with the vykker's preference for warm places, would practically turn the Labs into a sauna. I imagine a human entering the labs would feel disgusted by the air in the Labs, and if a visitor were wearing glasses, they'd immediately fog up.

Having Vykkers Labs be an unexpectedly hot and muggy environment would increase the discomfort of non-vykker workers and experiments, making the Labs even more unbearable to work in, probably even nauseating. The whole place would also stink. High humidity and temperatures are the preferred breeding grounds of bacteria, mold, and funguses. If you walked through Vykkers Labs, I think you'd alternate between smelling whatever slime is growing in the walls, and the extremely toxic chemical cleaners they use to disinfect the place, trying to keep said slime from taking over. That's not even including the smell of blood and medical waste. Vykkers don't seem to have nostrils, but I think I recall Humphrey complaining about "the smell" after Irwin leaves a fuzzle on the burner. Maybe you just get used to it when you're so dedicated to pursing science.

When wealthy visitors hop over to Vykkers Labs, I imagine they're taken to special quarters of the ship that are dehumidified and nuked with air freshener.

There's more. Vykkers Labs is not exactly air tight. Aside from all the rusty paneling we see in the labs, we're also shown massive bay doors on the outside where people can exit and enter. There's also the Poop Chute, where they dump waste, and in the concept art, the bottom center of the ship seems to be hollow.

I think Vykkers Labs consumes a LOT of water. The hydroponic vats keep dehydrating, and the vykkers aren't exactly about resource conservation. I imagine that Vykkers Labs will periodically lower close to the ground in order to collect water. They probably drop a massive hose from the middle of the ship and suck up entire lakes at a time. Ecosystems have died just from them topping off the tank one Tuesday. Not only that, but on summer mornings, when the sunrise first hits the side of the ship, you'd probably see a massive cloud of steam rise from it, like when the sun hits the pavement after a rainy night. A mudokon on the ground, looking up at the sky, would see a trailing white cloud approach, something massive and dark spinning inside it.

[moongothic]

Here’s something interesting! Read back to Marineford arc and consider what Whitebeard might have meant to Crocodile. It was only after the witnessing WB getting stabbed and talking to his adopted son that Croco did a 180 to protect Luffy. I try to read WB’s dialogue to guess what he said affected Croco so much. My favorite theory is that WB is Croco’s bio dad and thus Luffy’s other grandpa! The family tree would be so entangled lol

This is one of those things which makes me feel insane because, I swear to god, around like 2011 I remember Oda saying in an interview that he based Whitebeard on a gay friend he had, which was like part of the reason why Whitebeard's crew WAS his family, instead of him having like a wife and bio-kids. That Whitebeard was gay. But like, no matter how I try looking that up I can't actually find any information to confirm this?? Like no interview or as much as a mention of an interview like that ever existing??? DID I IMAGINE THAT??? IT'S SUCH AN OLD, CORE MEMORY, I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW I WOULD'VE IMAGINED IT UP??? OR WAS IT JUST AN EARLY 2010S TUMBLR HOAX?????? I FEEL DERANGED

Honestly, considdering the way Marco of all people found it unimaginable WB had kids, let alone that Weevil was the son of Whitebeard and Stussy (the current running theory being that Weevil is actually like a clone of WB with Stussy's DNA mixed in), I do personally find it unlikely Whitebeard has any bio-kids at all. Like, that felt like the implication there to me, that Marco doesn't believe WB had bio-kids with anyone, and I would be inclined to believe Marco there as he's kind of meant to be seen as an authority figure in a way (at least on this subject)

At most, if the "Xebec is Croc's dad" theory did turn out to be true, it would actually make sense if Whitebeard had adopted Crocodile after the God Valley incident-- whether the kid stayed is debatable, since WB did still betray his dad so he might've ran away, but regardless, at most I could see WB being Croc's adoptive father. At most. (Alternatively, as Oda has stated in an SBS, Whitebeard didn't believe women belong on a battlefield so it could be plausible he didn't want to keep a 9 year old child on his ship either. So he could've picked up Baby Croc until he found a safe place to ditch him in, kinda like how Franky ended up)

I have been feeling tempted to do a re-analysis of Croc in Marineford because, when I did my first analysis, I was too Lost In The Sauce and far too excited about the mere idea of Crocodad to form coherent, even semi-objective thoughts. But now that it's been a few months, I feel like I could really look at it with a more fresh perspective

But let's just look this exchange Crocodile and Whitebeard had really quick

As far as we know, the only person Crocodile has ever lost to (aside from Luffy) was Whitebeard, and that loss was the thing that crushed his spirit and dreams. Whitebeard, the most powerful man in the world. He who humbled Crocodile and taught him his place in the powerscaling of the world, that Crocodile was at best a silver medalist and could never catch up to him.

That must've been Crocodile's entire worldview, for so many decades. That WB was #1, an absolute fact nothing could change.

But time comes for all.

Whitebeard has become old. He is no longer in his prime.

"I can't remain the strongest forever"

Even if Whitebeard didn't say that outloud, I'm sure in this moment Crocodile understood that deep inside. That the absolute he had believed in wasn't an absolute after all, that a new era is approaching and the kids (Luffy and Ace) on this battlefield are going to take their places (his and WB's) sooner or later, whether they like it or not.

And of course; this isn't the same Whitebeard who beat Crocodile's ass over 20 years ago. Taking his head would not give him the satisfaction and catharsis he wanted.

Trying to get past Jozu and Marco and the rest of WB's crew, some of whom might be more dangerous than WB himself at this point, would not give Crocodile the revenge he wanted. It wouldn't even be worth the effort. If anything, taking WB's head here and now would just give the World Government exactly what they'd want.

Like, putting aside all the theories, your Crocodads and Whitebeard's bio-kids aside. ('Cause sometimes you need to look past the rose-tinted theory glasses even if you don't want to) (And I need to remind myself to do that more often tbh) I do think the main reason Crocodile ends up assisting Luffy, is simply because of that. Whitebeard isn't worth it anymore. He's just an old man. Crocodile could kill him, without a doubt, it just wouldn't change anything.

So he just moves onto the next thing on his list of priorities; not letting the Government get what they want, out of spite.

[marymalone]

How do you navigate relationships and shifting?

Oh... I guess the answer is... I don't (?

Even in real life, I don’t do relationships—it’s just not something I seek out or feel drawn to. I like the idea of relationships, the concept of lovers bound by some invisible thread, but in practice, I don’t really engage in that culture.

It feels distant, almost foreign, like something I can admire from afar but don’t truly want to dive into. I’m more captivated by the thought of love than the reality of it, more enchanted by the fantasy than the commitment.

Relationships are beautiful in theory, but for me, they’re simply not essential.

So, when it comes to shifting, I usually don’t have a partner. I know that sounds odd, especially since most people in the shifting community do it to experience being in love with their favorite characters.

For me, that’s just not the draw. I’m more interested in the worlds, the stories, the freedom to explore alternate lives and perspectives without getting tied down.

Love stories are captivating, sure, but I’d rather lose myself in the adventure, the mystery, the endless possibilities that shifting offers. Relationships feel secondary to the thrill of existing in another reality, where I can be entirely myself—without any attachments.

So, the answer is no—I don’t engage in relationships.

I do form sentimental connections with others when I shift, but they’re not what I’d call relationships. They’re more like deep bonds or unique affinities, connections that don’t fit neatly into the traditional framework of romance. They’re intense, meaningful, but they exist without the weight of commitment or expectation.

In these worlds, I connect on my own terms, free from the typical constraints. It’s a kind of closeness that feels more fluid, more aligned with the way I move through those realities.

[crayolacolor]

simon infinitytrain?

send me a character and i'll list the below things about them | accepting!

HELLO ANON. i do not know if you'll ever see this because it took me ten years, but here i am, answering you.

FAVORITE THING ABOUT THEM:

fun fact: simon infinity train is the reason i have a disclaimer about me getting attached to tragic antagonists in my pinned post. so you can probably make an educated guess what i like about him.

he's just. such a well written character. i love how his negative character development was contrasted against grace's positive character development. i love how the writers did a really good job of making him infuriating and sympathetic at the same time.

i'll go more into my thoughts on him in a later section, but yeah, the tl:dr is he really just is my character type hahaha.

he's just a really complex character and imo the writers nailed that.

LEAST FAVORITE THING ABOUT THEM:

okay well, this answer changes depending on if you mean from a writing perspective or a 'him as a person' perspective. from a writing perspective, 100/10, no notes. i can't think of anything i disliked.

from a PERSON perspective. episode 6 makes me want to murder this man <3 i want to put tape over his mouth every time he speaks in that episode. it's somehow WAY worse than when he's just straightup being an over-dramatic anime villain at the end of the season.

FAVORITE LINE:

oh there are many. i need to rewatch again. but the ones that live in my brain rent free are ALL after his downward spiral begins:

"teamwork begins with two people trusting eachother. but you? you're no person." dramatic effect. extremely traumatizing for everybody who's ever watched this show. 10/10

"i liked what we had, but you made me do it! you betrayed the apex. and you betrayed me." again, dramatic effect. really gives you a feel for what's going on in his head, i think. 10/10

"why would i ever want to change if i'm always right!?" iconic. i think this is the one people remember the most from him, along with the one from ep 5.

BROTP & OTP (combining because my answer is the same for both):

grace. lol. full stop. hopefully i don't have to explain that i am VERY AWARE that their relationship was unhealthy in many, MANY ways. that is what i like about it. i'm a huge fan of messy relationships in fiction. i am a self proclaimed angst fiend.

the tragedy of it all is 100% the appeal of it for me, from either a platonic OR romantic standpoint. i love that. and yes, i do ship them to an extent- but NOT in the "i think they should have gotten together in canon" way. again, the angst is the appeal!!

i admit i do also enjoy aus where they fix their relationship, but not INSTEAD of the canon, more so in ADDITION to the canon. i think it's a fun alternate route to explore, but i deeply adore what the infinity train writers did with them in the show and that will not be changing.

NOTP:

literally any of the protags from the previous seasons. y'all, simon and grace are 18. you can't be shipping them with the 13-14 year olds. please stop. (nobody here! i mostly see this on ao3, honestly.)

RANDOM HEADCANON:

i think simon has been back to the cat multiple times in secret.

i really like the theory that he got some of the apex's tech from her. the main thing i have to support this is this line from the episode where he returns to her cabin in book 3:

"i knew you'd have something. you always do."

particularly i think there's a good chance he got the unmodified gravity boots from her (and likely modified them himself) and possibly also the number tracker.

UNPOPULAR OPINION:

oh i'm sure a lot of what i've already said has been an unpopular opinion, haha. i'm one of those people that's so in the middle in a debate that both sides of it have reasons to disagree with me.

i really like simon. he and grace are my favorite characters in the show. there are parts where i feel really bad for him, and parts where i want to yell at him and hit him over the head with a very large stick.

i see his death as a tragedy in universe, but also a really good writing choice on the part of the infinity train crew.

i don't think they secretly had a scheme to make us dislike him. i think it was written in such a way that it makes sense that some people would have a viscerally negative reaction to him, and others wouldn't. he's a very complex character and that's good writing!!!

i think the tragedy was the point, which is something both people who like him and people who hate him seem to completely overlook in a lot of cases. it's either "woohoo! simon died!" or "killing simon was bad writing he should have been redeemed >:/" not "oh this is really sad but i love it from a story perspective."

i don't think he was "irredeemable", per-say. the fact is, he was faced with a pivotal choice in episode five, and he picked the wrong one. he chose to double-down. i love that. i really do. i love the downward spiral. it's painful in the best way. i would not change the canon show for the world. again, 100/10, no notes.

but i can also see a universe where he made the right choice. i was writing a fic about that, once. (which admittedly has some characterization issues which i would fix if i tried it again.) i think it was possible. and i think that's a fun route to explore too. not a better route from a writing standpoint, but a good one.

i have so many more thoughts but this has already gotten really long, and i have two more questions to go, lol. but if you want to hear anymore you're free to send me another ask about it!

but, for now, moving on.

SONG I ASSOCIATE WITH THEM:

someone else on tumblr pointed out that "the moon will sing" by the crane wives is a good fit for simon @ grace and now i can't unhear it.

and, finally, FAVORITE PICTURE OF THEM:

anime villain simon my beloved.

[campgender]

been thinking about how when writing stone sex scenes i in some ways “default” to the top’s pov; the only piece with a stone bottom pov i’ve actually finished was very focused on pain sensation. & this became particularly evident with my current wip where the perspective alternates, & my first thought was to have the chapter break right after they fuck bc for some reason it felt less “right” to write the sex scene from the high femme character’s pov. like wait, back up baby, what?

(kennedy & davis with an old-school slide projector in my mind reminding me fem narrators didn’t discuss their internal lives, their lived sexual perspectives, rather community dynamics & needs—)

it’s complicated because in some ways reading “the fem tapes” assuaged some of my shame & in other ways spiked it, because obviously it’s fine if someone’s personal journey includes ““giving”” more when they’re older, but i wish that were balanced in my life by depictions of people who moved to “just laying there” as a middle-aged or older adult, etc. so that it seems my life is less an inevitable line but open to a variety of possibilities.

so yeah. the shame. on one end writing a stone top pov is validating because it’s like, the easiest if not only way to see myself as permissible, & then maybe beautiful. it’s a common butch/fem tactic in & outside of fiction: your desire is a vehicle through which i can understand myself as okay. (maybe part of why so many queer people, too, freak out when someone doesn’t want to fuck them, but i digress.)

& on the other end like. to write about my sexual practices & experiences, or something close, without that lens of external validation, ‘yeah i swear i like this even though she’s not doing anything’ — that scares the shit out of me‼️ because as much as i love amber hollibaugh’s descriptions of this semiconscious sublimation of desire & theory on reception & etc — ultimately i very rarely feel like any of that’s what i as an individual am doing. i feel (fear; know) that the vast majority of my sex is very self-centered. sometimes i’m able to believe it isn’t wrong, but not long enough or strongly enough to write it down.

[itsclydebitches]

You know I don’t have a problem with the relics in theory but maybe they should have been naturally displaced items from the…(I forgot the name) “Wonderland”. I think one of the worst things in the course of the story was the introduction of the god brothers. Not looking forward to the team saying a whole speech between the four of them being holier than thou with the deities. Also the Maidens shouldn’t exist. Not without some true purpose cause semblances are already plenty strong and better

I feel that, anon, and I personally hate how none of this fits together now. RWBY keeps adding more worldbuilding that just complicates an already underdeveloped world:

Characters have aura that protects them/heals them from physical harm. At first it seems like everyone's got that - and they technically do - but it needs to be unlocked to work and after showing that once around episode 3, it's never relevant again.

Aura is distinct from Semblances, special powers that let you do cool things by controlling some natural force.

This is distinct from Dust which is substance that also lets you do cool things by controlling some natural force.

Not everyone has a semblance and not everyone has access to Dust. What determines - from an individual and class perspective - who gets what? Not important.

Oh, also one semblance is randomly inherited, but no one cares to unpack that.

Oh, also, also one semblance is randomly The Worst Thing Ever, but no one cares to unpack that either.

Semblances can also evolve! This will happen at random points and will only be tied to the narrative structure in the loosest sense.

Now, semblances can evolve again... maybe. If you're Ruby, anyway.

All of this is how Remnant naturally functions. It's a magical world.

Sike! Actually there's real magic and it's distinct from Semblance magic because... uh. Idek anymore.

Four women are able to wield real magic because a singular magic user gave humanity that ability generations ago.

He got that ability by being a part of Humanity 1.0. Why did the Gods drastically change the skills humanity had access to the second time around? Unclear.

Oh yeah, there are Gods too with their own shapeshifting/creation magic, completely unlike the magic they gave to people.

They did, however, give four random, real-real magic objects to help ("help") one guy with the worst group project in existence.

So at least we've got this settled then, yeah? For however messy everything else is, the Gods are the top dogs who dispense real-magic/semblance-magic to everyone else.

Sikex2! They're actually from another world that functions completely differently from the one they created. They're the product of a third type of magic, which is even more convoluted than what Remnant's got because it functions under Wonderland logic -- AKA, no logic at all.

This includes the real top dog (for now): a Blacksmith/tree lady we meet for a grand total of 10-ish minutes, making miniature people and letting go off into the multiverse to wreak havoc.

That's too much worldbuilding with too little development! Once upon a time a nonsense world birthed two super powered beings who decided they wanted to be Gods. They go off and create a group of people with magic distinct from their own. Then they wiped them out, creating a second group with another distinct magic structure (that supposedly isn't really magic), but remnants of the first group remain. So the world is now populated by everything from "I'm an NPC with nothing going for me" to "I have a super power" to "I have super powers, but not the cool individualized kind" to "I have the real magic super powers" to "I'm a device from a literal alternate reality" and all of it is mushed together without rhyme or reason so that fights are impossible to get invested in now due to the lack of consistency. Are you fighting another normal super powered person? A weaker version of that without a Semblance? A god-like being wielding real magic? A transforming cat possessing the most powerful character on screen? The answers don't matter because Ruby is going to win regardless by swinging her Normal Fighter Weapon around.

Meanwhile, I miss when wielding Crescent Rose was actually SUPER impressive against the grimm, rather than a "How are you even winning nowadays?" puzzlement against the new backdrop of elite forces and magic and godhood.

[gayleviticus]

There’s a lot of negative feeling about the penal substitutionary atonement model of the crucifixion (that Jesus chose to take the punishment humanity were due), especially among progressive circles, and I think there are a lot of valid criticisms of it: it’s often framed very barbarically, it can pit Jesus against the Father, it can over-emphasise the sinfulness of human beings and over-literalises ‘the wrath of God’ in a way that makes God seem like deep down he hates us but begrudgingly chooses forgiveness instead.

But there are at least 3 redeeming features I think this motif can have, provided it’s not understood as the rigid be-all-and-end-all it often is.

1) Whatever way you slice it, whatever alternative lens you want to use, even if Jesus’ death wasn’t ‘penal substitutionary atonement’, it was still probably penal (he died horribly as ‘punishment’ by the Romans), it was still substitutionary (in the sense it was to save human beings from death), and it was still atonement (it had some kind of salvific effect). I find it hard to get too precious about PSA when the broad elements are all there in the other classic theories of atonement. At its core the cross is a scandal because it’s about God wrenching resurrection and hope out of a violent and horrific death; I feel like some criticisms of PSA in favour of Christus Victor etc are just trying to de-scandalise an inherently scandalous concept.

2) In a twisted sense I think the horrifying nature of PSA supplements the horrifying nature of being crucified to death very well – and mistake PSA advocates often make is that they not only miss this but try to frame it as the only truly just solution. PSA advocates will say that Jesus’ death was necessary for God to maintain his mercy alongside his justice; he has to punish someone for humanity’s sins, so Jesus steps up to take his place. And rather than this becoming another fucked up thing about the situation, about the depths of horror happening in the crucifixion, PSA advocates frame this as a mark of divine justice. God is so merciful he gave Hitler a stay of mercy and then because he’s so just let Mother Teresa get executed in his place. The very concept of Justice becomes extremely muddled.

When PSA becomes a commentary on the nature of what justice is and what mercy is and how to satisfy both, I think it becomes extremely muddled. But what I think is valuable about PSA is this idea of God taking upon himself a punishment he didn’t deserve for the sake of human beings and hence destroying the very notion of ‘deserved’ punishment. Ideas that woe is a punishment for sin and happiness a reward for virtue are destroyed by the crucifixion of God.

3) I think it allows us to reinterpret a lot of the judgment and violence God promises or enacts throughout the Bible (including the OT, yes, but let’s not forget Revelation as well). All those punishments God threatens or dishes out? All that wrath he pours out in plagues and famines and destroying angels? He took it upon himself. God doesn’t dish out what he can’t take; and indeed, he’s not just willing to take it, but to take it so we don’t have to. He is the Judge judged in our place.

There’s an article by the Catholic priest and theologian James Allison (https://jamesalison.com/creation-fulfilled-and-the-book-of-revelation/) where he makes the interesting suggestion that the point of the extreme divine violence in the Book of Revelation is to convey this idea that the wrath of God is ‘exhausted’. Rather than just saying ‘oh well God doesn’t punish people after all,’ the author has God throw absolutely everything at the wall to show God ‘getting it out of his system’. All the promised curses of Deuteronomy are finally fulfilled, and thus exhausted, and beyond this cataclysmic judgment lies mercy and restoration.

Now, Allison writes about Revelation, not the crucifixion, and ironically does so from a Girardian perspective that is much closer to ‘moral influence theory of atonement’ where Jesus’ death exposes the unethical systems that undergird our societies. Allison is not endorsing PSA.

But I think PSA can convey a similar kind of idea to what he’s talking about here. The judgment of the world has taken place, and it took place on the cross; the much-feared wrath of God has been exhausted.

Now, I don’t know that this necessarily means all talk of wrath is defused – as I’ve said before, there can be much value to notions of divine judgment (which =/= eternal conscious torment in hell) as a cleansing of injustice and oppression. But at the very least we cannot read biblical threats of future judgment and wrath without a serious detour by the foot of the cross.