#i get it i feel conflicted too but my principles are still that murder is bad and murdering someone with a gun is hideously easy and common

[wordsforrain]

Catharsis and joaks aside, we do all remember that guns are a plague in this country and that one candidate wants to make it harder to murder people with guns, and the other doesn’t fucking give a shit, right? And we’re all going to get off our asses and actually VOTE accordingly in November, right? We’re not going do give in to fucking doomerism, we’re going to vote so hard we win in a landslide, right???

[witch-and-writer]

Ek passe tu babbu, ek passe hai jag saara

-You on one side, my beloved, the entire world on another-

[About Ch-3 of Something is Wrong with A-Zhan!]

Remember the morally grey Wei Wuxian tag? Yeah, that line at the top is what I meant by that. I don’t think Wei Wuxian would ever be morally grey, he’s the most morally upright character I have ever come across, but just for this fic, as long as it’s Lan Wangji vs the world, Wei Wuxian would always choose Lan Wangji, even if it conflicts with his moral and principles. Putting it simply, Wei Wuxian would condemn murder and harming the innocents, but if it’s Lan Wangji committing these crimes, he wouldn’t be able to bring himself to condemn him, instead, he’ll come up with possible justifications for Lan Wangji and defend him.

I hope I was able to capture an inkling, an essence of this in the chapter.

Also, is anyone surprised that no Lan elders except Lan Qiren are furious at Lan Wangji's wantonness? I just think that after the whole Qingheng-jun fiasco, they will think Lan Wangji much more tame, especially since Wei Wuxian, unlike the Madam Lan in my head, doesn't seem too bothered by their second heir's behavior. Maybe they are even turning a blind eye to this because of how much they love Wei Wuxian and his genius.

My thought process behind their thought process is that- since Wei Wuxian is a once in a lifetime genius and he is here (in cloud recesses) because of Lan Wangji and he is staying because of his obvious love for their second heir, and they know this. They can see this. So, just for the sake of keeping Wei Wuxian in their sect as their prized disciple who is famous all around for his no-less-than-miraculous inventions, they all collectively decide to overlook Lan Wangji's shameless behaviour that is definitely not befitting of someone holding the title of the Second Jade of GusuLan.

Of course, no one added Lan Qiren to the group chat and that's why he's still bitter about his nephew's changed behaviour.

Mini Theater:-

*lwj acting shameless, holding wwx by the waist and kissing him publicly* Lan Elders: I can't see, I'm blind~ blind~ Lan Qiren, who was not added to the chat and thus was not informed that they have to ignore all this: *qi-deviates* Lan Xichen, who now has to deal with his dramatic uncle: Wangji, if you could just get a room, I would be grateful. You know uncle can't handle this much pda. Lan Wangji: *too busy sucking wwx's soul out through his mouth to hear, further sending his dramatic but weak-hearted single uncle into a qi-deviation* Lan Xichen: ... I love you, didi, but I feel like I should not. When did you become such a menace?!

I don't even know why I'm babbling, but I am and I refuse to suffer through the on-goings of my mind alone, so here we are~

Sofia out~

[the-crimson]

I always love reading your takes and insight on q!bbhs character, you put what I keep thinking and see into words and is SO WONDERFUL to see someone get it :'). But speaking of which what do you think of q!bbh whole thing with anarchy rn?

Thank u so much :D I’m glad u appreciate my incoherent ramblings about a block man XD

Minecraft politics - and politics in general for that matter - are whole can of worms I usually try not to touch too closely. There is too much opportunity for misunderstandings and pointless arguments that discussions usually just feel like an excuse to get mad. So take all this in good fun, I’m not saying if q!bad is right or wrong to think this way, it’s not that serious lol

The thing we first need to understand is that - before the election - the islanders were essentially living in an anarchist commune. The federation existed but mostly left them alone and let them rule themselves, which they did. Everyone lived as they pleased and they all had an unspoken agreement: live and let live.

When someone became a problem, the islanders came together and dealt with it themselves. When Slime tried to kill all the eggs after Juanaflippa’s death, bbh, Jaiden, and Roier were able to talk him down. They held a trial - federation sponsored- but the islanders were the ones calling the shots. When Quackity plotted to murder the eggs, the islanders came together again and stopped him. When they were threatened by the code, the islanders came together to defend the eggs.

What is the point of a governing body? To create order and resolve conflict. The islanders were already doing this without a governing body. They didn’t need it.

What do most governments actually do? They consolidate power and oppress. Even the most benign progressive government is going to leave someone in the gutter. By creating a box to put society into, it is the very nature of the box that some things are not going to fit or are going to be forgotten.

This is what bbh is afraid of. This is why he dislikes government. Why should anyone have the power to decide that a few chairs going missing is a bigger threat to the island than land mines that cause ten times as much destruction? The actual principle of who is right is irrelevant. Why should someone have this power to decide for others what is an is not okay. Why should someone else tell you how to live your life if you aren’t hurting anyone.

Bad’s been saying this since the day the elections were announced. They don’t need this. A President is going to create unnecessary restrictions and is the gate way to federation overreach. Some people have said bbh is a hypocrite for running for office but it’d be even more hypocritical to do nothing. If you see a train barreling towards you and there is a lever within reach to change the tracks, would you not pull it? You could just step off the tracks but then everyone who is unaware of the danger behind you would still be struck.

I think q!bbh’s anarchism is one of the most misunderstood things about his character - partially because I think the common perception of anarchy is intentionally misconstrued by the media but that’s not a conversation to be had while I’m talking about block men XD

Thanks for the ask and I hope I answered ur question :3

[thelaurenshippen]

I absolutely love TBS, and I got my uncle to listen to it : from all the podcasts I rec'ed to him, this is the one he prefers! I really appreciate how complex (yet coherent) all of your characters are, and how real their relationships seem. The way you write flaws is really inspiring and incredibly comforting as well. Do you maybe have any advice on how to write believable romantic relationships? I've never had one and thus struggle to write it, especially the process of starting to build one.

ahhh thank you SO much! and omg, I'm so glad your uncle likes it!! uncle approval!!

I also really appreciate the kind words about character flaws - I love writing complex and imperfect characters, so its always nice to know when they resonate!

in terms of romantic relationships....that's SUCH an interesting question. and I absolutely do not think that having a romantic relationship in your real life is a precursor to writing compelling romantic relationships. when I wrote TBS, I'd only had one serious romantic relationship and used exactly....zero of it for inspiration. I'm in a serious partnership now (only my second serious relationship) and I don't think I ever really directly draw on it - it's a relationship that's taught me a lot about myself and helped me grow (as great friendships do too), which of course makes me a better writer (and I hope a better human too), but when I'm writing romance, I feel like I'm building it from an entirely different set of blocks, if that makes sense.

I think a big part of it is that I love romance. I love love love it. and there's so much I love in romance stories that I would never ever want in my real life! which I think gives me the flexibility of (hopefully) being able to write different types of relationships.

okay, so, then, where do I turn for inspiration if not in my real life? well, a few things:

read romance! a few favorites from the last few years - anything by Alexis Hall (Rosaline Palmer Takes the Cake and Boyfriend Material are two faves and I'm reading and loving A Lady for a Duke right now), The Charm Offensive, The Ex Talk, One Last Stop, Spoiler Alert

read Romancing the Beat by Gwen Hayes! it's a book all about how to structure romance novels, but I think all the principles apply to all mediums

watch and rewatch your favorite romances in tv/film and take notes on what works for you and what doesn't. I can't tell you the number of times I've watched the 2005 P&P. I've thought seriously about why Rachel/Joey works for me in Friends more than Rachel/Ross. I've watched how they pull off the will-they-won't-they in New Girl and Chuck a million times (both are a masterclass in timing - they get the two people together within the first two seasons (VITAL!!! you can't take too long!) and then maintain tension and conflict while giving you reasons to always keep rooting for them). Hannibal is one of my favorite tv shows of all time specifically for the way it unfolds its central romance - how do you make a story a love story when it is primarily about murder and losing your mind? what does that love story look like when consummated? (bloody, the answer is bloody)

and then I love reading fanfic of these love stories! what does Jonah/Amy from Superstore look like if they get together earlier and other parts of life don't get in the way? what happens if you pair a character with their canon partner versus a non-canon partner? a big thing I've been doing recently is diving into the tag for popular ships on tumblr that I don't personally ship. there's lots of ships in things I watch where I'm like "I get it, but I don't feel it" and I think it's so valuable to read a few beloved fics to try and understand it. even if that understanding is "nope! still don't like it!" that's so valuable too!

which brings me to - keeping notes. I have a running list of themes/tropes/archetypes/romance arcs that I like and dislike (sometimes this is a real list, sometimes its mental). it's just as important to know what you don't like as it is what you do. especially since, if you come across a trope you don't like in something but it doesn't bother you as much in a particular ship, you can learn so much from how that person wrote that trope in a way that didn't bug you! for instance, both cheating and accidental pregnancy are two big turn-offs for me in terms of ships, but, like, Sense8 with Kala/Wolfgang/Rajan tracked over some cheating elements but did it SO elegantly (and then solved the problem of love triangles the way I wish ALL love triangles were solved lol).

let all this stuff stew and marinate and when it comes to building a romance, start with the things you know you like! for instance, with Caleb/Adam and Max/Ross (The Bright Sessions and Maxine Miles respectively) I knew I wanted to start with a kind of enemies-to-lovers, because that usually compels me more than childhood-friends-to-lovers. BUT because they're teenagers and teenagers can be very cruel, I wanted to make sure never to veer into the bully/bullied getting together trope, because that's veryyyyy hard to do well imo. so Caleb and Adam were more slightly estranged/not friendly rather than enemies and Max and Ross had the history of being friends and then just growing up and starting to annoy each other bc deep down they wanted to kiss. that's another thing I love - mutual pining. and with that, it can't just be that each character is pining equally and equally aware of it - Adam knew he was pining for Caleb but Caleb had no idea until all of a sudden he did, and then his ability created a nice complicating factor for the pining. for Max and Ross, it's the same thing - Ross knows he's pining and Max is pining but oblivious about it (for now). for mutual pining in general, there has to be a reason why they can't just get their acts together, and one of them being an idiot is usually a good one lol. or, I'm writing a cowboy romance right now, and both men know they're pining but there's so much baggage in their past (enemies to friends to pining to enemies to reluctant partners to lovers) that they're shoving it down

practice on fanfic! I did this so much last year, and worked out a lot of different strategies - fanfic bingos are great for practice because they can force you to try out tropes you wouldn't ordinarily

okay, gosh, this got so long and I'm not sure it was helpful at all, and also I'm pretty sure I'm several years late on answering this ask, so I hope this is at least somewhat interesting! thank you for the question!

[nobuverse]

@miraruinada ( Plotted )

Loyalty. That was the principle she was raised under. The part of the shinsengumi she took the most seriously. To serve all orders absolutely and without question.

It something that induced comfort rather than fear in her; as Okita was not one who liked to get lost in complex moral conflicts. At all times, she'd developed the habit of avoiding the process of making her own decisions altogether; lost with her childhood self. To be trapped in her own mind, unable to speak of the horrors she'd witnessed for fear of shaming her murdered father, had been too terrible a fate to endure. So instead, she had emptied it. Her goals were never again her own, her own desires ignored.

This part of her - the ability to follow a leader so unconditionally - was unsurprisingly brought with her as a servant. She would never betray her master. Lay down her life to protect them. Such was the way of the noble samurai.

Even if she was summoned outside of a grail war - she would serve. Even if he had no intention of letting her enter the battlefield she had made her home in, she would listen. Even if he commanded her to never leave this laboratory, full of men and women with soulless eyes, she would obey. The fairly nervous man seemed ready to use the first of his command seals when someone asks her to stay still for the first time. She barely flinches, however. Though the feeling of the needles and electric wires is far from pleasant.

But it it's fine- she tells herself. She's been through worse. Nothing can be as bad as the last year of her life, when consumption had taken every nerve and joint in her body hostage. Leaving her in crippling agony, taking her ability to move bit by bit.

Never once did the thought of betrayal cross her mind. Even when it started to become obvious her presence here was for nothing more than the advancement of science's marriage with magecraft and heroic spirits.

I must endure it if it's what my master wishes.

She doesn't ask questions, even if she has some vague idea of what's happening. Instead, she keeps that though running her head as her mantra, as her mana circuits are fried and reconstructed, again, again ...and again.

Now, her will is as strong as that of any other Wolf of Mibu - but weeks into it, it starts to become too much for her to want to endure. Maybe it's these white, empty walls that are driving her mad, the pain wracking her body, or her solidarity with her own thoughts but she begins to have her own selfish thoughts.

I don't want to be here.

It's not a thought consumed by anger, an emotion she was occasionally privy to in the past, but rather a painful longing she's not familiar with.

I want this to stop.

But the thought of turning against them - it's not in her capacity to think of such things. So she endures. She lives and continues to endure it.

Time starts to blur in on itself - and Okita attempts to continue and empty her thoughts to rid herself of the knots growing in her stomach at the start of every new day. ( Was this what fear felt like? She'd not felt it in so long ). She almost forgets who and what she is - so when her duties as a servant are requested, she can barely remember how to hold her sword.

( Defend us. Kill the outsider. )

It feels strange to be on her own two feet - to move forward of her own free will. She does so slowly, despite their protests, her arms and legs filled with too many scorches and pinpricks to care about the shove she gets.

She doesn't give acknowledgement to the servant as she steps outside, eyes instead focused far away over his shoulder.

"I don't think I've ever noticed how beautiful the sun is before now..."

[annyankers]

hi train! you're sucking me back into your lore too (it's soooo good and i'm invested) so tell me more about your version of darla?

dkfghkls Sorry this took a bit to get to I've been in the Pit with some other stuff that kept making me forget this was in my inbox rip

LET'S TALK DARLAAAAAAAAAAA [AIR HORNS]

Darla My Beloved, My One, My Only. My changes to Darla are honestly super minimal on like, a base level. I love Julie in the role and I think she builds a truly Iconic Character.

Mainly my thing is that it's Fucking Dumb And Stupid that she dies. In one s6 btvs/ats crossover/combination fanfic I swear to the GODS I'll finish plotting and writing I use an oc to help make sure she survives the pregnancy but honestly I don't care how you do it. She Just Does.

I like to keep Connor and her pregnancy because I think it creates a really interesting and unique conflict for Darla that plays well with her utterly heartless and self-centered character. Sharing Connor's soul is the second brush she's had having with one in under a year after 400 years without one. That's super duper fun and interesting to work with. It's fun to have her be conflicted about still being a heartless bitch and maybe caring for at least 1 (one) person just on the principle that they're helpless and cannot survive without someone who cares.

I don't really like the idea of "motherhood makes her better" because that's uhhhhh.... that can be ummm....... but I think there's something to be said for "jerkoff takes some responsibility for her actions and the lives of others". At the end of the day, Darla is still a vampire and still soulless but now she's got some Complex Feelings about stuff and also things. She's more in the Spike Zone of soullessness and how to deal with it in the face of doing shit like giving a fuck about people compared to Angel's whole vibe about the topic or the Master's -- which is her previous stance.

Connor is Her Baby, he's an extension of Her which is important to the douchey narcissist in her. Even after some brushes with having a soul I don't think she'd even CONSIDER a change of heart or just an adjustment to her lifestyle for anyone who's not somehow "Hers". Darla is about Darla before she's about anyone or anything else. Connor being From Her forcibly extends her circle of Self Interest and cracks open the Padora's Box of Possibly Giving A Shit About Others.

The things she felt while she shared his soul also have a big impact on her, she does care about him and his well being. Her stance on the rest of humanity's wellbeing? Less concerned lol. She's not interested necessarily in ~becoming a better person~ but she DOES realize she has to make some change, some life choices, and get better at covering some shit up because Connor WILL look to her as a role model as he grows up and she'd like to minimize the damage she does to him lol. Also recognizes she needs to make some lifestyle changes so that she's got more than just Drusilla helping her raise and protect Connor or WORST SCENARIO IF SHE DOESN'T-- have that asshole Angel STEAL HER SON FROM HER AND DENY HER ACCESS because she's "A Psychotic Heartless Murderer" or whatever dumb shit he's wanking about now. Loser.

She's TRULY the Vegeta or the Hiei she IS the Regina George and you DO have to bribe her into helping. She's a barely domesticated villain she's only here because all these numb nut goody two shoes can't muster up the spine to say no when she asks them to babysit. She and Spike actually end up having much more familial relationship because they're both working through all this Weird Shit about being vampires with no soul who're also grappling with doing weak ass pansy nice guy shit like losers but also it's weirdly fulfilling??? tf???? Since when tf did they like kids-- and not just as dinner??? what happened here???

She's fond of Cordelia because she's Mean, they bully Angel for sport. She and Buffy probably end up with a weird chilled out vibe eventually as two very sexy narrative foils of each other. Shadow selves Baybee. Darla and Anya would be ride or die let's just be real about that they're both unhinged. Illyria is the only person Darla is afraid of lol. Darla and Angel have the most CURSED on and off again sex relationship that torments everyone around them.

Basically Darla is the Cassandra Truth in a lot of ways for ATS. She's the Greek Chorus pointing out all the flaws and issues with Angel's dumbass plans and how X is a trap and OBVIOUSLY So-And-So is upset you ninny. She doesn't listen any of them she's the oldest person in the room she's not taking orders from CHILDREN. Angel is 100000x more competent with her around, it's almost like she was always the brains of the operation lol. Basically she and Drusilla are the muppet critics who're also raising a baby and sometimes help fight crime but only because if they don't they'll have to pay rent.

[cleave-and-plough]

well said, ruben's apparent inner conflict seemed like a rich source of tension and drama, but yeah, i guess it was more a result of his rage-spawned emo persona? which could also be a fun idea, but in either case kind of underexplored - like you said, there's a lot that we have to read into here from the finale (e.g. kipperlily being the only person who wasn't killed and resurrected - an interesting reveal/twist that still feels like only a piece of the whole picture)

it's funny you mention the carlos thing because i just watched that this evening lol and i think you're totally right! though 5e can work for mysteries, it can't be too rigid or it's basically just un-interactive, which seems like an issue they ran up against here (e.g. the haunted mordred manor/baron encounter kind of coming out of nowhere due to an unexpected nat 20). this was something that impressed me about mice and murder, which still probably could've benefitted from a different system, but the theater of the mind / funhouse setting made it really conducive to just letting the players run around and figure out pieces in what seemed to be a fairly organic, adaptive order. generally a season i liked a lot, even despite the zoom setting (and the… infamous... ending)

agreed on the good balance of fanservice and independence/development - i think the whole fake triumphant final battle in the premiere really set the tone well for the season's relationship to callbacks, and while i missed them, i understood the choice to make gilear/ayda/aguefort basically AWOL for the season to make room for new NPCs. i'd have liked a little more detail to some of the bad kids' arcs, but the general ideas were solid, and the scope of the plot/this being a third season sort of necessitates them not having huge dramatic journeys on the level of the previous seasons, so all that made sense to me. i absolutelyyyy think a college years thing sounds more appealing than a full senior year season (or i think i've seen people floating the idea of like, jumping ahead to when they're like in their 70s which would also be fun) - either that or like, maybe make it like a 4-episode special? simple, tight, and wrap it up with a bang, calamity-style

seconding the endorsement of WBN but also totally understand your principle - i've had the same thought about prioritizing podcasts using other systems since i want to learn some and demo them with my group (my current project is Eidolon, which also has a great AP featuring the designers). are there any series you've particularly enjoyed that you'd recommend? (besides your streams, of course :) ) the big caveat with WBN is that you have to be psychologically down for intraparty conflict cause they really lean into that at times, and brutally so - otherwise, it's a rich world, almost fantasy novel-like at times, the audio production is great, they don't overuse rolling, and it's nice that it isn't limited by set design… but part of me still wishes it wasn't d&d. they're almost 30 episodes in and i think there have been 5 combats? if that? if that tells you how much they're engaging with the core rules of the system, haha

i've tried naddpod a couple times and bounced off, but more due to life stuff getting in the way than not liking it, and it still sits at the back of my mind as something to return to - do you feel like there are good starting places (besides the very beginning)?

starstruck is so, so good… what a fun mix of a really rich setting, the cast trying out new character types, and a story with enough flexibility that they could push it around without feeling too boxed in, and some truly unforgettable moments (battle of the brands forever, plinth forever). also features one of my favorite d20 quotes of all time - some moment at the Rec Station i think where UTP is questioning gunny and barry, who deny their knowledge of anything the party is doing, and brennan as this very professional npc is very politely like "alright then, thank you for your time, and um… get them? get them." just perfect combo of a archetypal villain line delivered so nonchalantly, it killed me. absolutely one of the best seasons for me too - if the cast were all up for it, i'd love a second season of it (maybe with some new PCs a la unsleeping city 2), but it's also nice as a standalone.

coffin run was a lot of fun, jasmine's aesthetics and presentation ruled, and i really like the short, focused seasons (and izzy and zac's interactions were golden). revisiting bloodkeep has been on my list forever, i think it was actually the first d20 season i tried after getting started with actual play shows via critical role c2 and i just found brennan's energy so intense that i dropped off - very funny to think about that in retrospect now having seen almost every season. totally feel you about ACOFAF (again, there were what, like two combats? why use d&d? the rumors and letters were the best part!) and i likewise wasn't the biggest fan of wuvvy other than when she helped stir the pot - for me it was so much more about the setting and the players' interactions than the big picture story for sure.

i'm unfortunately in the other camp for crown of candy, haha - there's so much to like and some truly iconic moments to be sure, but following up on the thread of like, the series' strength tends to be comedy, i think the comedy wasn't enough (for me) to balance out the atmosphere of like, continual dread and the players seemingly slowly getting ground down by it. i'd actually say i found it more psychologically gruelling than neverafter, weirdly enough. but that said, i'm glad they did it for the same reason i'm glad they did starstruck - branching out and pushing themselves to find new modes, and how can i turn away from the season that gave us "slammed down big style"?

finally finished the season and was curious if you had any thoughts on the junior year finale?

Yes! I watched it when it came out and I'm kind of bad at remembering what happens in shows, haha, but I do have some thoughts (these will probably be more "entire season" thoughts rather than JUST the finale thoughts).

Overall, I really enjoyed this season. It was really funny, and maybe one of the seasons I laughed at the most, and since I view Dimension 20 as a comedy show first, that's a big selling point to me.

I don't know how I feel about the down time mechanic. On the one hand, I think it's the only way they could have done this season, since it seemed like they were pretty set on it taking the whole year. On the other hand, there were quite a few rolls that Brennan said we'd come back to that I don't think were fully addressed (I could be wrong about how many, I'd have to go back and re-watch.) When they first introduced the mechanic, I thought it was basically a way for time to quickly pass while establishing how the school year was going, so each roll wouldn't involve too many scenes or roleplay, which I thought was smart. But then they did involve a ton of scenes and roleplay! So I have mixed feelings.

Similarly, it did feel like some things that could have been fun were underexplored because there was SO much jammed into this season, plot-wise. That's partially the medium of Actual Play, and partially being ambitious with how much they included. I love the idea of character foils or "dark reflections" of characters, and I wish we would have gotten a little more time with the Rat Grinders. We ended with a lot of implications about them, but I kind of wish there would have been a "this is what happened with them exactly" kind of moment. I guess they were all killed by Porter while on an adventure? Maybe I'm forgetting stuff and there was a more clear answer. I'm usually playing Power Wash Simulator while I'm watching Dimension 20 so sometimes I miss things.

Specific finale stuff! Gorgug and Unit and Gorgug and Mary Ann were both so funny. Zac is one of the funniest people alive. Brennan cannot keep his NPCs from flirting with Zac, and Zac cannot say no to a funny bit. I thiiiiink the finale was also the "Say it don't spray it" moment, which was incredible. Murph using Hold Person to take out Kipperlily was great, so tactical, so timely.

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion but I think the finale episode retroactively made the infamous "blimey" moment less funny. I wish Brennan wouldn't have gone back on having K2 destroyed. His rationale was that she actually did have access to Divine Intervention but also he gave advantage on the roll which isn't how the ability works, so I think having K2 be destroyed was fair and also really funny.

I was a little underwhelmed by the Bad Kids reactions to Ankarna's scenes with each of them. It felt like none of them knew exactly what was going on, and even though they had some good character moments, it felt muddled and I wasn't sure what was supposed to happen or honestly even what *did* happen there.

I liked Buddy's new god and Kalina showing up. I don't think she's evil, I think she just knows that Ankarna wants to kill her, so she's hitching her wagon on a new star.

Brennan said something during the final Adventuring Party about how if people would have laughed more at Gilear saying they were getting a dog that Fabian's mom wouldn't have been pregnant, which confirms something I've always thought! Obviously a lot of Dimension 20 is planned in advance because of the sets, but I've always felt like sometimes when things don't make sense it's because they decide something on the fly because it's funny. Even Porter being evil was decided because it would be funny (although that obviously wasn't decided on the fly). It makes sense why sometimes the pacing and plot of the shows are a little weird, because they're actual plays, and they're comedic APs at that. It's kind of heartwarming that it seems like even though they're making a show, they're all mostly just trying to make each other laugh, because if they make each other laugh, it'll probably make the audience laugh too.

Thanks for the ask! There's probably a lot of other stuff I thought that I've forgotten, haha. Would love to hear what you thought of the finale, too!

[fractualized]

Why do you think batjokes is such a good ship? Don’t get me wrong, I myself am a shipper, and I’ve recently wondered why i love this ship so much? I’ve also felt guilty about the fact that Jarley is obviously a toxic ship, so doesn’t that mean batjokes is a toxic ship too? What do you think? I’d love to know your opinion on the batjokes ship as a whole! 😁

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, there's a lot to this question! Therefore my answer is loooooooong.

First off, I'll say right out: of course batjokes is a toxic ship. And that's fine! Being interested in intense interactions between two fictional characters is not unusual. Look at these two traumatized overgrown theater kids! They cannot healthily cope for the life of them! They are obsessed with each other! Most iterations cannot have a sustainable relationship! Who can look away from this trainwreck? The flames reach the sky and there are bodies everywhere!

Look, I am an Old, and I'll tell you that when I was a youngin', I shipped jarley. (Gasp!) But the toxicity isn't the reason I don't ship it anymore. It's because, even at the time, I acknowledged that Joker cared more about Batman than Harley. In the end, I personally found batjokes more compelling. That's the overall reason I've shipped either pairing: I found the narratives compelling— not because I see them as model relationships.

There's been a lot of talk asserting that if a person engages with toxic themes, they are supporting and endorsing toxic behavior, which is a wild thing to say. That's like saying everyone who enjoys horror movies must have no problem with murder. Toxic behavior in fictional characters is not a concern; toxic behavior by real people is a concern. It's not like people who consume only morality plays are never assholes. People are molded by more factors than fandom!

Feel guilty about actual bad things you do, not about exploring unwholesome relationships in fiction. Worry more about how people treat you in real life than about the intriguing interplay between two fake people.

And speaking of two fake people, let's move on to why batjokes is an enjoyable ship! (Oh yeah, flawless segue.)

Enemies to Lovers

Let's start with the basecoat: a hero and a villain being attracted to each other is one of the most obvious and clear-cut sources of tension you can have. They should feel nothing but loathing! But there's something about the other person that they don't want to let go of! There's so many possibilities for storytelling. What these two see in each other, the compromises they might make, the possibility that one might go to the other side… or sometimes nothing really changes and it's just hatefucking. But still: drama! Especially if other people find out. Yeesh.

Joker

The interest on Joker's side has always been more explicit. He enjoys challenging Batman and being chased by him. He not only regularly enjoys flirting with Batman, but goading the vigilante into physically dominating him, because Joker often enjoys pain. He also has selective self-preservation, particularly with how he'd be thrilled to be the person to break Batman's no-kill rule. Getting Batman to forget the supposed value of his principles is part of their conflict, after all.

And that conflict holds a lot of interest for me, Batman's belief that we can fight for a better world versus Joker's professed nihilism. Nothing really matters, Joker says, so Batman's fight is a big joke— except Joker's actions show that deep down he does not actually feel that way. It's not true that nothing matters when Batman means more to the Joker than anything. Joker is obsessed with proving his flawed point to Batman, and Batman bringing his family into their conflict elicits murderous jealousy. Sure, Joker has indicated that he sees other people as nothing more than shadows, but he still raises his encounters with Batman to the level of grand battles between archetypes, with huge performances for the whole city. Uh yeah, a whole lot matters to Joker. His whole "nothing matters" schtick is a giant "I WANT TO MATTER SO MUCH" neon sign.

And that sign flashes most at Batman, because Batman was there at the start, when an unknown crook in a red helmet fell into acid. There have been variations of this origin: Red Hood jumped in to escape Batman, he was dangling and Batman couldn't hold on, he purposely let go of Batman's hand… In any case, Batman spurred him from unknown to Absolutely Fucking Known.

Batman

Bruce is a bit harder to pin down. He's typically more reserved, except when he's being dramatic as hell to strike fear into criminals. Plus fighting criminality is his whole mission, to stop that awful night in Crime Alley from happening to anyone else. He should feel nothing but hate for Joker.

But Bruce, when he's written well (subjectivity alert!), is able to see criminals for more than their crimes. The best example of this is the Batman I grew up with in BTAS, which features multiple episodes that show him empathizing with villains. He throws plenty of punches, sure, but also wants to give people second chances. He sponsors rehabilitation efforts. He fights to stop mistreatment at Arkham. He pleads with villains to let him help. This is not just a soft-hearted thing. Preventing people from falling into crime, from using other people's wrongdoings as excuses to do more wrong, and from relapsing into villainous lives is perfectly in line with Batman's mission. It's practical. A superhero who is also an acclaimed detective is not going to ignore other effective methods for achieving his goal, even if compassion can be a struggle to maintain when you see so much of people at their worst.

And wow is Joker the biggest, most actively aware challenge to Bruce's compassion! Yet Bruce still tries to bring him in by the book and returns him to Arkham. He does not break his no-kill rule even when Joker openly provokes him. If Joker is mortally injured, Batman saves his life, including clearing Joker's name when he's wrongfully accused of murder and given the death penalty. Persevering through the worst odds is what Batman does, and I think that despite everything, even in the times when Bruce feels overwhelming hate for Joker, he retains a kernel of hope that some day, somehow, even the brutal jester might change. Batman can't give in and kill Joker, because then that chance is gone. Batman operates on the hope that he will make a difference, and he doesn't want to concede to no hope.

Oh, and the guilt! Can't forget that. (Bruce doesn't.) Batman wasn't able to stop Joker from falling into the acid, from going on to do so many terrible things, and he feels responsible. I think for him, killing Joker would also feel like eliding that responsibility, no matter what other people tell him.

Swinging back to empathy, it's also been shown that Bruce understands Joker's philosophy even while rejecting it. You don't watch your parents' murder in front of your eyes and not have a period of wondering what the hell anything matters, to say nothing of when you dedicate your life to fighting crime years later and watch other loved ones end up dead. Joker may have taken that worldview to a much darker place than Bruce is willing to go, but that doesn't mean Bruce doesn't relate at all. And having felt that rejection of the world, Bruce may feel it's still possible, against all likelihood, for Joker to pull back from it too.

Multiple Choice

Of course, that's all the general appeal for me. There are many versions of batjokes that detour from the above in particular ways. 

If you know my AO3 account, then you know that Telltale is one of my favorite versions. There, John is more on the cusp of nihilism, with Bruce struggling to keep him in the light. John doesn't necessarily have to be a villain, but he's obsessed with Bruce regardless, and Bruce may not have lost hold of John over an acid tank, but he still has guilt when he can't stop John from crossing the line. (If you play it that way, at least!) Plus with Telltale, the simpler universe spurred me into finally writing batjokes fic. I don't feel intimidated by 80 years of storylines with inconsistent characterizations, or an endless cast of characters to integrate. As a bonus, Bruce and John's relationship is a few degrees less wrought when Vigilante John has "only" killed a dozen people as opposed to hundreds (Villain John) or several thousands (many other Jokers). It's easier to find a path for these two to get their version of settling down, instead of staying locked in that ideological battle.

Well, when that's what I'm in the mood for.

Sometimes I do want the angst of Batman and Joker's eternal battle, or nonsense fluff, or straight-up darkfic, or goofy comedy, or whatever else. And the flipside of those intimidating 80 years is that we have multiple takes on these characters that can go in all sorts of directions: the comics with their different eras, Telltale, Nolanverse, Batman '66, Lego, Arkhamverse, BTAS, that vague fanfic version not set in a particular 'verse but feels on-point, and many more… all with varying degrees of that forbidden toxicity. ;)

Because sometimes, sure, you want character growth and reconciliation and all that nice stuff… but sometimes you just want a good story, whatever it is, whatever fantastic or terrible facets of humanity it delves into.

[feralphoenix]

a thing that i really love about hollow knight is that part of its incredibly strict Show Don’t Tell policy means it works a lot in juxtapositions. comparisons and parallels.

like, rather than Telling us what makes for a good and responsible ruler, we get to know about various different heads of state in the various nations of the crater, and we can observe how they handled international relations, public policy, etc and the consequences/effects of their choices, and draw conclusions by ourselves.

there are lots of different parent-child relationships, and sibling relationships, so that we have many examples to compare ghost and their family to.

there are also a number of higher beings around and you can compare them to each other to understand their different approaches to godhood, how they handled being the center of a culture & the responsibilities that entails (radi, unn, tpk) or the ways they sidestepped those roles (white lady, grimm). in addition to forming our opinions of these characters this also contextualizes what ghost does when they attain godhood in the godseeker endings & after the delicate flower variant, in godseeker mode.

like you can use these points of reference for a lot of different analysis topics!!! but one of the things that always Gets Me In My Emotions is the direct juxtaposition between herrah, radiance, and tpk and how differently these three characters handle the cost of fighting Existential Crisis.

the pale king’s policy is officially No Cost Too Great, but just like the hunter says in hollow’s bestiary entry, for tpk “cost” was a thing for other people to pay, and he was not willing to risk any sort of harm to his own person. his plan to deal with the infection involved sacrificing the dreamers & the hollow knight, and his plan to create a hollow knight involved birthing hundreds of thousands of children who were designed to be expendable - they were there so he could experiment on them, select a candidate, cull the failures, and then sacrifice said candidate.

the worst tpk might have experienced through all this is emotional turmoil, and it’s left ambiguous in-game whether he was actually conflicted about the child sacrifice/felt attachment to hollow or whether his personal low point throughout all this was being butthurt about his wife walking out rather than birth a second batch of vessels for the slaughter. (he must’ve been pretty darn butthurt to have lied to the kingdom that the white lady was dead.)

as soon as his plan failed and he had no other recourse, tpk fled rather than expose himself to any potential harm. he was willing to - perhaps desperate enough to - expend any number of chess pieces if it would save hallownest, but his own life and safety was NEVER on the table.

just like tpk, radiance is trying to protect herself and her people. just like tpk and herrah, she too is willing to go to any lengths necessary to get the settlers to fucking step off, give her children back, and leave her alone.

for her this entails being willing to bend her own principles - i’ve talked about this in depth before so you can find all that in my essay tag if you’re interested, but in-game evidence points to radiance having been a pacifist like the rest of her tribe pre-hallownest. and the infection is a curse that’s only sometimes fatal, but it causes extreme amounts of harm and fear and chaos to inflicted parties. and this level of harm is something she’s willing to do just to threaten/pressure tpk into backing down.

her method also causes a large amount of collateral damage (including lateral harm to other indigenous bugs!), suggesting that she either doesn’t have the emotional wherewithal to worry about who might get hurt, or just plain doesn’t care. if you squint, it’s possible to make the argument that radiance might have warned unn before her counterattack against hallownest, but even then forewarning was the only mitigation she was able and willing to provide. if this is what it takes to protect herself and her tribe, then so be it.

so, compared to tpk, who chose to actively sacrifice the lives of individuals to protect the institution of hallownest, and radiance, who doesn’t care about splash damage to bystanders as long as she can save her tribe... what i find extraordinary about herrah is that when she determined that sacrifice was necessary to protect deepnest, she took all that sacrifice upon herself.

most obviously herrah accepts the role of dreamer in hopes of ending the plague, sacrificing her life. in order to keep tpk from taking advantage of that to conquer deepnest, she also negotiates that he has to provide her with an heir, thus ensuring deepnest’s sovereignty... but this means she has to have sex with the very creature who has been trying to commit genocide against the spiders for generations. she has to let her lifelong worst enemy who she’s been fighting alone since the death of her husband impregnate her. this decision had to have come with some form of emotional distress for her, and yet herrah shoulders it and soldiers through it.

and then even through this, it’s implied in the white lady and midwife’s dialogue (+ posed in the dev notes/style guide) that tpk snatched up hornet when she was a child to raise her in the white palace. it’s unclear whether he did this to keep hornet as a hostage to make sure herrah couldn’t renege on their treaty now she’d got what she wanted out of the bargain, to ensure his offspring would be raised in the culture he created rather than in deepnest, which he clearly believed to be barbaric and uncivilized, or both.

yet instead of calling bullshit and flouncing on the deal or trying to steal hornet back, thereby exposing deepnest to the threat of both the infection And aggression from hallownest once more, herrah stuck with it. midwife says that herrah paid dearly for her involvement with this plan, but herrah valued deepnest’s survival over her own individual life, and saw it through to the end no matter how tpk’s plan caused her to suffer or hurt her dignity.

there’s an incredible amount of nobility and integrity herrah shows here. she refuses to let any harm come to her country, and insists that any and all sacrifice required of her as a leader be her sole responsibility. her courage, her political intelligence, and her strength of character as a leader are all nothing short of awe-inspiring.

at the same time, there is still a downside to herrah’s spirit of self-sacrifice. as anyone who’s ever watched steven universe can tell you, self-sacrifice is actually kind of a shitty solution to one’s problems because self-destruction hurts the people who love you.

we get glimpses of hornet’s intense emotional torment over her mother’s fate and her understanding that it’s necessary to let ghost murder herrah to change the status quo; similarly we can understand the crushing amount of personal responsibility hornet feels towards the whole crater comes from knowing the cost of her own birth, and having front row seats to her parents’ political power struggle.

we hear from herrah herself that everything she does is done for hornet, so hornet’s pain is probably the last thing herrah would have wanted, but ironically what hornet goes through in hollow knight is a direct consequence of herrah choosing to martyr herself.

anyway all of this speaks SO much for herrah and radi and tpk’s individual priorities and problem-solving strategies and also their blind spots... plus, there’s a lot about herrah’s character that goes underappreciated and this is one of those unsung aspects. fandom... fandom blease be SAD about SPIDER MAMA with me

[theravenclawrevolutionary]

i'm not a frev expert. and you seem to be approchable enough and to have read enough. i had a question, or kind of a question. i just. i think that if robespierre wasn't against all the deaths by guillotine, he wouldn't have written that quote about virtue and terror. maybe i'm getting you wrong, or i'm not understanding the sense of that quote. could you explain?

Oh dang. I'm kinda surprised that people think I have any real authority on the subject of the Frev since I'm not an actual historian or anything and I'm surprised people find me approachable but of course I'll try my best for you Anon! And if anyone else has a better interpretation or anything else to add please, go ahead. I'll also try my best to keep it in as simple language as I can. But I digress.

⚠ This post is quite long so be prepared for that ⚠

First of all, Robespierre has more than one quote talking about terror and virtue. I'm assuming that you're thinking of the one that goes, "Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country." since that is the most common one. However, if you're talking about the one that goes "Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country." Let me know and I'll write about that one. The former is definitely a quote that, in my experience studying the Frev, gets misinterpreted from what it was originally meant to say fairly often.

To start with, it's very important to know what connotation and definition the words 'virtue' and 'terror' had in revolution-era France. Modern-day definitions may not be the same ones that were used in the past. According to my research, which of course isn't infallible, virtue was used to refer to someone's disposition and the way it would lead them to choose good over evil whereas where terror was seen simply as great fear. At the time there was no connotation of our modern-day terrorism to associate with the word. Nowadays we associate terror with terrorism which brings to mind murder, mindless destruction, oppression, and unchecked authority in which someone's ideals are forced upon large groups of people. Because of this many people assume that this is what Robespierre had in mind when he referenced terror when really he meant to describe the use of intimidation tactics to seize power from those who oppressed the lower class people and the general fear that was felt by the commoners.

Essentially the Reign of Terror meant 'a time period where everyone felt a sh*t load of Fear over all the bad stuff happening at once while the regular people try to overthrow the oppressive ruling class with intimidation tactics.' It does not mean 'a time period where loads of people were purposely committing widespread acts of terrorism to push their agendas'. And really, it was the only way to give everyone the chance to get rid of the old government, the monarchy, and allow a fair democracy that would be beneficial to the future of France to be built.

Next, it's important to know the context in which this quote was originally said. The speech where Robespierre said it took place on Feb 5th (?) of 1794. By this point, the revolution has been well underway for several long years and, as I said, a lot of sucky things are happening at the same time. The republic was in a war with a massive part of Europe and they're kinda getting curb-stomped. The country is in a state of civil war between the people that still supported the monarchy and all the different groups that had different views of how the country should be run. France's economy was complete sh*t too, so all this really radicalized the people and made the whole revolution situation so much worse than it already was.

At the time there were two factions, so to say, in the National Convention that were hella pissed at each other and really at odds. the Hébertists (who, to make things easy, wanted to escalate the Terror, go on the offensive with the military, and the overthrow and replace some of the existing government structures at the time) and the Dantonists (who wanted to sorta get rid of the revolutionary government, negotiate for peace in the war, and chill out on the whole Terror thing). And remember that these groups of people were very loose and like people in today's politic didn't agree with every stance their 'faction' took.

By the time Max made this speech, which was addressing these two groups, the situation between them was escalated big time. The Hébertists, with their views of 'more terror all over! That'll help us win everything,' or 'terror without virtue,' were pushing for a system that would quickly prove fatal. By contrast, the Dantonists with their, 'we just need to kinda chill and things will work out,' way of thinking or 'virtue without terror', would only lead to them (and the rest of the country) getting walked over by everyone else.

Throughout the entire speech, a speech I haven't recently read all the way through, Max comes back to the idea of terror and virtue, stressing that both are necessary. What I think he meant to do was talk about how the revolution couldn't survive without both terror (fear and the aggression that causes it) and virtue (the choice of good over evil) being applied. He's trying to explain to both groups that a little bit of both ideals is the most beneficial way to go about things. In reality, it has nothing to do with whether he personally believed in or advocated the death penalty/ the use of the guillotine. Instead, Robespierre is emphasizing that at that particular moment in time doing what is right and good (virtue) will most likely end up causing some bad things that will make people afraid for a while (terror).

What Robespierre is not saying is that terror, and by extension the violence that is causing the terror is virtuous. There are several easy-to-find sources that prove his personal disapproval of the death penalty from a moral standpoint. As a young lawyer in his hometown in Arras, he became physically ill at the idea of having one of his clients sentenced to death, even though he was found guilty of the crime he was on trial for. He made a speech agreeing with the abolition of the death penalty on May 30th of 1791 (?) arguing that there is no place for the death penalty in a civilized society because the law needs to be a model of what is good. He attempted to save the lives of Georges Danton and Camille Desmoulins, two friends/coworkers that he is commonly charged with sending to their deaths when the opposite is actually true. Additionally, he did the same with other more controversial people including the king's sister of all people, Madame Elisabeth. Even when voting for the death of the king he reiterates his own opinion on the death penalty saying, "For myself, I abhor the penalty of death that your law so liberally imposes, and I have neither love nor hatred for the King; it is only the crimes that I hate…. It is with regret that I utter this baneful truth…Louis must die in order that our country may live." Though it conflicts with his personal views, Robespierre makes the decision based on the needs of France as a country, something that many politicians need to relearn how to do today.

Long story short, he was not supporting the use of the guillotine with that quote, but rather trying to get two opposing factions to realize that both intimidation/fear and making sound, beneficial decisions would keep France on the right track to building a successful democracy for the people. Hopefully this helped and I explained it in a way that was easy for you to understand. If you ever have any more Frev related questions feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer or I'll send you in the direction of someone else more knowledgeable if I don't know.

Also, can someone tell me if I did a good job of explaining this? I can never tell if things I write about the Frev make sense to me because I actually know exactly what I mean to say so everyone else kinda goes along with it or if I actually say helpful things of substance. Thanks guys! And if anyone else knows more about the subject or if I've made a mistake please help me out.

~Dara

[problematic-faves-appreciation]

Problematic Faves Cliffs Notes: Harvey Dent/Two-Face

Batman (1980) #329

Summary: Once a crusading district attorney that worked alongside Batman and Jim Gordon to fight crime – now the duality-obsessed super criminal known as Two-Face.

Harvey Dent also serves as a dark reflection of Batman's own struggles living a dual life with conflicting identities.

Main Goal: To enact his own justice whilst committing crimes.

Fears: Uncertainty, himself in general [the things he's capable of, specifically], losing control, his loved ones dying, his darker half discovering Bruce's secret identity [Detective Comics (2016) #1021], Renee Montoya's rejection [Batman: No Man's Land, novel], and the Joker [Joker (2008), only].

Mindset: Sees himself bound by fate and its will. As a result of Harvey's black-and-white worldviews, he considers his two-headed (scarred on one side) silver dollar a truly objective instrument of justice due to it only yielding two simple, 50/50 outcomes at the end of every coin toss.

"Some people go to the beach to forget their problems. They can watch the waves for hours. I understand the fascination.

There's a pattern – then there is no pattern.

It's the same with the coin. We want it all to mean something – we want to find the pattern – but in the final analysis, it's just waves."

— Harvey Dent, Secret Origins Special (1989) #1

•••

"He was always interested in the law – some might say obsessed. Man's law gave order to Harvey's world – they delineated the parameters of right and wrong, good and evil. They gave him something to believe in."

— Gilda Dent, Secret Origins Special (1989) #1

•••

Hugo Strange: Let's go back further, you were a rising star, a beacon of light for this city. A white knight riding in to save it with the Dark Knight not far behind.

Harvey Dent: You can leave him out of this. He is wrong. They all are. No one understands the beauty of fate's hand. I am grateful to Falcone. He gave me a clarity; a purity that few will know. Everything boils down to a simple choice, this way or that way, good... or bad.

Hugo Strange: Do you really believe that?

Harvey Dent: How could I not?

— Batman: Arkham City

•••

Batman: If you pull the trigger, how are you different from the Roman?

Harvey Dent: That's Jim Gordon talking. You know the system doesn't work. That justice can be decided like the flip of a coin.

— The Long Halloween

•••

"You thought we could be decent men in an indecent time... but you were wrong! The world is cruel. And the only morality in a cruel world is chance. Unbiased, unprejudiced, fair."

— Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight

•••

"Life's a lottery, Holman. It's chance that decides who lives and who dies. Who gets cancer. Which kid is born with spina bifida. Who gets run over by a truck.

This [the coin] is what decides whether or not I blow your wife's brains out."

— Harvey Dent, Joker's Asylum: Two-Face #1 

Teen Titans Spotlight (1987) #13

Character Traits:

🌗 Loving • Idealistic • Genuine • Principled • Resolute • Focused • Driven • Workaholic • Passionate • Eloquent • Wrathful • Obssessed • Brooding • Self-loathing • Black-and-white thinking • Dauntless • Fair • Honest (generally) • Man of his word • Learned helplessness (regarding the coin and his choices) • Self-destructive • Unpredictable • Hair-trigger temper • Can be persuaded • Charitable (depends on coin toss) • Takes his pain out on others • Self-enabling • Serious • Harsh • Intimidating • Vengeful • Physically violent • Self-aware • Conflicted • Feels remorse • Tries, but fails to improve as a person • Too Dependent on his coin • Fatalistic • Suicidal • Forgiving • Self-centered, but not selfish 🌗

Key Facts:

Harvey Dent...

• Had mental health issues long before his disfigurement [Batman Annual (1990 #14, Batman: The Animated Series - Episode 10, and Batman: Arkham City].

• His father physically abused him every day as a child. Christopher Dent used a double-headed coin to make Harvey believe he could "avoid" the beatings if the coin landed on the non-existent "tails" [Batman Annual #14].

• Bruce Wayne was his childhood friend [Rebirth universe & Batman: Nightwalker].

• Harvey "Legal Eagle" Dent was the top of his class [Secret Origins Special (1989) #1].

• Paid for his father's nice apartment [Batman: Two-Face (1995) - Crime & Punishment].

• Half of Harvey wanted to love his father, while the other half wished him dead. Despite everything, he tried to make peace with Christopher prior to the acid attack [Batman Annual #14].

• Never stopped loving/thinking about Gilda Dent when she disappeared from his life following the events of the Long Halloween [Batman (2006) #653 & Batman (2011) #712].

What's more, Harvey continued loving Gilda so much that he wound up murdering her second husband's killer in a pre-Long-Halloween continuity [Batman (1980) #329] because the man's death left Gilda grieving.

• Fun fact: The Power of Love helped him resist Poison Ivy's pheromones in the Dark Victory #11!

Begone, thot!

• Blamed Batman for what happened to him with Salvatore Maroni Carmine Falcone and the acid attack that scarred his face [Batman: Arkham Knight].

• Uses his coin to determine whether he should kill or spare his victims. Also, he has been known to perform acts of charity [Detective Comics (1942) #66 & Batman: The Silver Age Newspaper Comics Volume 3 (1969-1972)] sometimes.

• Loves and hates Gotham [Batman and Robin (2013) #23.1].

• Dislikes hypocrites [Batman: Two-Face (1995) - Crime and Punishment & The Spectre (2001) #5].

• Developed strong feelings for Renee Montoya in the Batman: No Man's Land storyline.

• Continued caring about Renee deeply, despite the events of Gotham Central (2003) #10 [Convergence: The Question #1-2].

Received training from Batman [Batman #653] and Deathstroke [Deathstroke (2018) #38].

• Has tried growing better as a person, but he keeps failing [Batman Annual #14 & Batman and Robin Adventures (1995) #1-2].

• Has re-scarred himself more than once [Batman Annual #14, Batman #653, and Batman: Black and White (1996) #1].

• For all his faults and crimes – such as nearly beating Dick Grayson to death in Robin: Year One – he has helped people [The Batman Chronicles (1999) #16], defended Jim Gordon from himself as Jim's defense lawyer [Detective Comics (1999) #739], cares about the women in his life, and keeps his word when the coin comes up good.

He is a complex character, period.

Other Facts:

• Has seen Cocteau's "Beauty and the Beast" [Batman (1986) #397].

• Knows how to sculpt [Detective Comics (1986) #563].

• Owns a "thememobile" like Batman [Batman (1987) #410]!

• Likes baseball [Batman (1987) #411].

• Likes symmetry [Batman (1989) #442].

Smokes, but also doesn't [Batman (1994) #513].

"My own version of the literary reference mark known as a diesis – more commonly known as a double-dagger! My next pair shall strike to the heart of the matter!" — Harvey Dent, Batman: Two-Face Strikes Twice #1 – the words of a man who certainly reads a lot!

Batman Annual #14 & Teen Titans Spotlight #13 – A himbo he is not!

• Reads classic books such as "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" [Detective Comics #66] and "A Tale of Two Cities" [Batman: Two-Face Strikes Twice #2].

• Still finds putting criminals behind bars fun [Batman Gotham Adventures (1999) #12].

• Can speak Spanish [The Batman Chronicles #16].

• Doesn't mind hitting women at all. There are so many examples of this; Harvey confirmed it himself [Batman: Streets of Gotham (2009) #7], and beat up Jim Gordon's wife in Batman (1999) #572.

• Made a self-insert comic book in an art therapy program. Yup, he wrote and drew it himself [Detective Comics (2001) #753]!

Called it "The Adventures of Copernicus Dent and His Best Girl and Plucky Assistant R'Nee!" 

• Plays chess with Batman [Gotham Knights (2002) #32].

• Has watched Star Trek [Nightwing (2008) #150].

• Fought and killed a werewolf [The 2008 DC Universe Halloween Special]. Yes, really.

• Was a cult leader [Detective Comics (2020) #1020].

• Rebirth!Harvey is now working as a jailhouse lawyer in Blackgate [Detective Comics (2020) #1024].

• Understands how binary code works, but computer geeks make him sick? [Robin (1994) #11] Yeah.

• Has kids. Twins! [Batman: Two-Faces Strikes Twice]. It looks like they're irrelevant.

• Remembered Renee's birthday and sent her tulips [Detective Comics (2000) #747].

• Has been a judge before [The New Batman Adventures - Episode 24 & Arkham Unhinged (2013) #11].

• Hates odd-numbers [Robin: Year One #2].

[shewholovestoread]

Fear Street Trilogy Review

Beware, spoilers ahead.

I love horror movies but good horror movies are so hard to come by. Fear Street grabbed my attention as soon as they released the first trailer, it looked like a call-back to the slasher films of old, back when they were still good. And the best part was the apparent presence of lesbians, count me in!

Fear Street is based on the books by the same name by R. L. Stine, a lot of us remember Stine for another horror classic, Goosebumps. The Fear Street novels were aimed at older audiences and were way more bloody than Goosebumps- lots of teenagers dying. The films don’t adapt any particular book but rather the tone and rough setting and I think that works to its advantage.

The Setting:

Fear Street is based on the fictional town of Shadyside, the poorer and more unfortunate twin of its sister-town Sunnyside. Sunnyside is sunny, wealthy and where nothing bad ever happens. Shadyside in contrast is poorer, the homes more run-down and where, every few years, some resident snaps and goes on a murderous rampage, killing their own friends, family or whoever they can get their hands on. There are those who believe that Shadyside is cursed by Sarah Fier, a witch who was hanged in the 1600s when she cut off her hand and used it to curse the town.

Fear Street Part 1:

1994 functions like the introduction and set-up for the trilogy. It introduces us to the characters, Deena (Kiana Madeira), Sam (Olivia Scott Welch), Josh (Benjamin Flores Jr.), Kate (Julia Rehwald) and Simon (Fred Hechinger). They unwittingly trigger the curse when they stumble across the bones of Sarah Fiers, soon killers are chasing them, killing-machines powered by the curse and who can’t be killed. Deena, Sam, Josh, Kate and Simon have to put aside their differences and work together to survive the night.

Fear Street Part 2: 1978

1978 opens with the survivors of 1994 going to C. Berman (Gillian Jacobs), the lone survivor of the Camp Nightwing massacre. It provides insight into the massacre that saw dozens of Shadyside kids being killed. 1978 takes us back to the day leading up to the bloody night. We meet the Berman sisters, Ziggy and Cindy (Sadie Sink and Emily Rudd respectively), Alice (Ryan Simpkins) and Tommy (McCabe Syle) When an axe-wielding murderer starts butchering the camp residents, Cindy and Alice, while trying to escape, stumble into the cave system that runs under the camp and discover Sarah’s hand and that the only way to break the curse is to reunite the hand with her body. However, they are unable to break the curse when they realise that the body is not buried where they thought it would be. Alice, Cindy and Ziggy are killed by the cursed murderers with only Ziggy being revived thus being labeled the lone survivor. In the present day, Deena and Josh dig out the hand from where Ziggy and Cindy left it, when Deena reunites the hand with the body, she sees visions of Sarah Fiers, leading us into the third and final film.

Fear Street Part 3: 1666

1666, the year it all started. We see the events play out leading up to the hanging. Deena is inside Sarah’s body, seeing and experiencing her life as if it were own. We learn that it was never Sarah’s curse, but in fact it was the Goodes who had made a deal with the devil, securing power for themselves (their descendants are the mayor and sheriff in 1994) Sarah Fiers was just the scapegoat. Every time someone saw a vision of Sarah, she was trying to show them the truth and un-dead killers hunted them to keep them from exposing it.

The films work individually but their impact really hits home once you’ve watched all 3. Leigh Janiak crafts such an intricate story and links 3 time periods, weaving them through each other seamlessly. With 3 films, she also has the time to invest in these different time periods and the characters that inhabit them.

The story, both in terms of individual films as well as the trilogy as a whole, is engaging and engrossing. It keeps the audience on their toes and the edge of their seats, waiting and dreading as the bodies pile up. Janiak also grounds the story so that it feels real even as the characters are fighting off un-dead killers, adding to the nail-biting tension.

There’s plenty to admire for a horror film buff, from the Scream reference in 1994, to Friday the 13th in 1978 and The Witch (or VVitch) in 1666. There’s also a good amount of gore to be found along with some really inventive ways of killing, who knew bread cutters/slicers could be so menacing.

There’s so much attention to detail in terms of costume and production design that you really feel like you’re in 1994, 1978 or even 1666. All of these work to draw you in as the viewer, adding to the authenticity on screen. The clothes and places feel lived-in. The song choices are amazing with popular hits from 1994 and 1978, the soundtrack definitely elevates the visuals. The original score in 1666 was absolutely gorgeous, especially Deena and Sam’s theme.

The sequence of the films with 1994 being the first, followed by 1978 and finally 1666 was a great choice with each film revealing a little more of the puzzle till all the pieces are revealed in 1666. It keeps the tension alive and keeps the characters and the audience constantly guessing. It also allows Janiak to sprinkle just enough subtle clues that become apparent when rewatching the films.

The characters are one of the best things in the trilogy, they are so well written, and I mean that for almost all of the main cast which is rare. One of the best things that Janiak does is repeat actors, especially the principle cast. For instance, a lot of actors we see in 1994 and 1978 appear in 1666 playing different roles but with a similar dynamic. It helps tell the story without worrying about too many new faces and worrying about whether or not the audience will be able to keep track of them. The return of old faces also ensures that the audience is already a little invested in them and their well-being.

Small side-note: I really appreciated that there was no sexual violence. It always worries me when I start a horror show/film and it was such a relief that they did not go that route. There is a lot of violence and a lot of people and kids die but it’s always just slightly campy enough that keeps it from being genuinely disturbing.

One of the things that always irk me with slasher films (especially the old ones) are how white they were, no characters of colour and if there were any, they always died. There were also no queer characters. Fear Street undoes that beautifully, all of our main characters are outsiders, they are people of colour, they are queer. In another film, they would have been nameless characters, among the first to die. Here they are the heroes. I loved all of them and I hated that Alice, Kate and Simon died, to be honest, I expected the core group to survive, Kate especially.

Fear Street is also unapologetically feminist and Janiak does this without it being too obvious. The central conflicts in the story are between women (sister/ friends/ ex-girlfriends) but they also band together and fight for each other. It’s worth noting that most of the core relationships are between women (Deena-Sam, Ziggy-Cindy-Alice, Sarah-Hannah) and those are not coincidences.

I loved how gay this trilogy was, Deena and Sam’s love for each other was the driving force and was at the heart of the story. Even in 1666, Sarah’s crime was not so much witchcraft as it was daring to love someone you’re not supposed to and fighting back against the proprietary nature of the men who sought to control them. Sarah and Hannah loved each other fiercely and we see that same love reflected hundreds of years later in Deena and Sam who fight for each other relentlessly. I also appreciated that Deena and Sam were exes instead of a new relationship. It meant that they already had history, they shared a familiarity and comfort with each other that a new relationship would have had to build onscreen.

The Fear Street Trilogy is one of the best horror trilogies I’ve seen in a while, each film is consistently great and delivers gore and violence coupled with immense heart. It has one of the best queer relationships I’ve seen on screen and spoiler alert, they get a happy ending. I’m sick and tired of lesbian women dying or separating because of realism. Damn realism, give me happy women loving women and who live through their traumatic ordeal. Watch Fear Street for them if for nothing else. Now excuse me as I prepare to rewatch the trilogy.

[kendrixtermina]

Appreciating the Range of Type 6, or, one stereotypical example, and three that aren’t.

I want to tell you about some type 6 ppl that I know in my personal life.

Exemplar #1: F. B.

Complete Stats

Wing: 5 p or cp: largely phobic – lots of safety worries, outright authoritarian follower personality Instinct: sp/soc Trifix: 613  - 6w5 1w2 3w2 (“The Taskmaster” or “The Middle Manager”) jungian: ISTJ / SLI-Te oldham: Conscientious & Aggressive Essence Type: Mars Temperament: Pure Choleric

What he’s like:

Not pleasant.

Every “strict conservative middle aged guy” stereotype in the book. Control freak, makes a mountain out of every molehill, sees the world as full of axe murderers, judgemental as fuck, horrible temper and yet completely impersonable, all his opinions are copypasted from right-wing news sites. When they say war is good he’s for war, and when they say war is bad he’ll be like “At least Trump did not start any more wars” without perceiving a contradiction. Despite this, he believes is very hot, principled and funny. He is none of these things. He puts people down nonstop. My knowledge of neurochemistry tells me that he must have emotions somewhere or he couldn’t function, but I ain’t ever seen a single one of those emotions. They’re all for his job and a few trusted mentor figures. And his mom. At least he loved her.

If you say anything he doesn’t like, he “throws the sofa out the window” as his wife once put it.

How he’s a Type 6:

Well, he’s pretty much every negative stereotype in a nutshell… other than distrusting his partner. But that might be cause hes sx blind, or cause the wife is big on monogamy & wouldn’t ever cheat.

The one positive trait of 6 that he has is that he does his research. Before moving anywhere he googles the crime rates and if you need a doctor he might find you the best one. But even that can be overriden by ideology (hydroxychloroquine!). And if you don’t take his exact advice, there goes the sofa out the window again…

And I guess the work ethic from all 3 parts of the trifix really comes through – he hasn’t had a single bad grade in his life and always keeps collecting new certifications, and will make sure you hear about it...

Exemplar #2: I.

Complete Stats

Wing: 5 P or cp: pretty much an even mix of phobic and counterphobic Instinct: sp/soc Trifix: 614 - 6w5 1w2 4w3 (Would prolly call herself “The Big Pain” rather than “The Philosopher” ^^°) jungian: INTJ / ILI-Ni oldham: Serious & Conscientious Essence Type: Saturn Temperament: Chlor-Mel

What she’s like:

I’d describe her as serious, mature, discerning, focused and passionate about her friendships, if perhaps somewhat forceful at times, with a dry, sarcastic sense of humor.

Comes across like someone who knows what she’s talking about, with well-articulated points.

Often the Responsible Sibling, Designated Sanity Checker or Bullshit Detector.

Prefers to plan everything in advance in typical Ni dom fashion, even amusement part trips. Gets somewhat anxious without a future plan or shedule.

Often mistaken for a whole lot more sociable and confident that she really feels inside. (even I kinda bought it and got her whole darn trifix wrong on my first typing attempt, though that was when I was new to typology) She can act the boss act temporarily to get the situation over with, but she actually hates making decisions.

She does however have the occasional cute/pure moment where that lower function block comes out.

How she’s a Type 6:

She has saved our family from many a terrible restaurant by making sure to check the reviews. The preparing for all possible dangers is very 6, the acting tough outwardly when youre inwardly anxious, the intellectual problem solving & some tendency towards organization/responsibility/ “logistic” intelligence.

One online test she took gave her 5w6 instead of 6w5 but that’s probably just the ITxx-ness leaking in. I remember this one time we were discussing this artsy-fartsy theater play to which we’d had fascinatingly different reactions, and at one point I half-jokingly said something like “But does anyone ever really feel connected to others, or is that a myth?” to which she wrote, “[Name], what the fuck? Yes I do.” and then immediately deleted it. That’s more of a 6 reaction innit?

Nonetheless the wing does feature in significantly – for example she got very well informed about a lot of topics because she researched them to assuage a random survival-related fear, like, “How to make sure I have enough retirement money”

Exemplar #3: M.

Complete Stats

Wing: 7 p or cp: largely phobic Instinct: sp/sx Trifix: 692 - 6w7 9w1 2w1 (Fortunately very much a “Good Samaritan” rather than “The Stockholm”) jungian: ISFP / SEI-Fi oldham: Sensitive & Devoted Essence Type: Lunar-Venus Temperament: Pure Supine

What she’s like:

Precious! Sweet, nice, good listener, friendly, gives all the best gifts. But also perceptive and good at understanding people, eg. mediating to the parents when one of the younger sisters is having An Emotion™ or winning the trust of problem children.

Unlike I. Who has some soc that helps her keep track of a larger circle of friends despite her introversion, M. tends to enjoy the closeness with her family and have just a few very close friends. Excellent friend material all around! The sx and Se also come out in enjoying art forms involving the body like theatre or dance.

She can be a bit shy, conflict-avoidant and occasionally a lil bit panicky though.

As a small kid she used to be super duper shy but then a wise english teacher encouraged her to play a big role in a play, and since then she’s a lot more confident and doesn’t let ppl push her around without limit, though she’s still a quiet, helpful person. There you see the difference that a good teacher can make.

How she’s a Type 6:

For one thing she moves and emotes faster than a core 9 would, and she fits the body language – big eyes that move around a lot, stands a bit lopsided, talks in a shrill voice on the rare occasions where we exhaust her patience etc. As a xSFx and a w7 she shows mostly the “warm, friendly, likeable” side of type 6. She also has a very 6-ish tendency to very frequently ask people’s opinions & feedback before making decisions. (the other fixes probably add to this)

Alas, she also has a little bit of of the fear/insecurity.

Also she has a social/care job which might be seen as 6-ish desire to serve the community.

Exemplar #4: J.

Complete Stats

Wing: 7 P or cp: largely counterphobic Instinct: sx/soc ?? definitely not sp first. Trifix: 638 - 6w7 3w4 8w9(?) (Shall she be a “Justice Fighter” or a “Kyle”? Only time will tell.) jungian: ISTP / LSI-Se ?? Oldham: ? some Dramatic & Serious, perhaps ? Essence Type: Definitely Mercury Temperament: San-Mel

What she’s like:

The first adjective that usually comes to my mind is ‘cool’. Sassy, energetic & a little bit tough, but also affectionate when she wants to be. (though in admiring way rather than a mushy one)

She says the coolest things, has a certain sly sort of cleverness, and an astonishly good poker face. Bit of an occasional prankster. Hilarious. Knows all sort of cool science facts. Avid gamer. 

Not especially popular or over the top sociable, but she gets sad if no one pays attention to her a while. Will act visibly moody where ppl can see sad or worried and can catastrophize a bit in such situations.

How she’s a Type 6:

I first though we might be getting an ExxP type 7 since she was a pretty energetic child, but once puberty hit and independent thought manifested, she turned out a whole lot too reactive and ‘edgy’ for this, and more on the ‘moderate introvert’ side of things.

Since then the sisterly dynamic has been like one fluffy golden dog and 3 hissing black cats. Hissing Cats #1 and #2 are very proud of her, but cat #1 was forced to conclude that she’s probably not a positive outlook type.

Out of all the reactive types 6 fits best because she does broadcast group identity (like wearing merchandise of her favorite media and wearing buttons in solidarity with ppl she likes.) & has a big case of Big Sibling worship for M, I, and someone else who isn’t on this list due to being a 9. (a 4 or 8 might like their older siblings but probably wouldn’t constantly stress the admiration.), but she can also show lasting, pouty displeasure with authority figures who have slighted her. (Like that one time I went too far in teasing her...)

I’m just assuming the 8 fix because that tends to make 6s more bold, louder & more shameless.

Basically she is the “punk teen” type of 6. She can be a bit dramatic & over-the top but still come to her family on advice (even advice on pranks!) in ways that xSTPs of other enneagrams prolly wouldn’t.

She also tends to use self-deprecating humor in tough situations and deflects compliments to present herself as ‘ordinary’.

...

This may sound like I’m really getting down on my first example (I won’t pretend that I’m not) but the point in bringing him up is that the reason he’s like this is: He was subject to really bad parenting that put a lot of fear into him, there was no good parenting to teach him broader coping strategies, he lived in a crappy environment that crushed his dreams, in a sense ‘confirming’ those fears and making him double down, resulting in a person who is just always rigidly following the same predictable pattern or jumping from one automatic reaction to the next with very little pausing and thinking. That goes for the other types too: A ‘stereotypical’ person is a desperate person ruled by fear, who cant stop or soften up even for an instant cause they constantly feel this fire of threat under their arse.

A lot of descriptions say that 6s ‘Follow authority’ but most would balk at the notion – ‘I do the research!’ they might argue ‘I don’t just trust anyone’ or ‘I’m actually a rebel’. There is of course such a thing as denial  that’s more like the extreme case.

But with a more average, functional 6 it’s not so much ‘obedience’ as that they just like to bounce their ideas off of others to get feedback, or that they feature in other’s viewpoints. So you might get someone who can naturally use feedback (something other ppl may have to learn first) or who is very considerate of others (which others might have to consciously remind themselves to do.)

Those are sometimes pretty good traits actually.

On the other hand this is probably part of what makes decisions hard cause they consider all these possible scenarios of how things might displease or cause harm to everyone involved.

Being able to naturally snap into Action Mode under stress looks a bit enviable from the outside, but I. assures me that it’s actually super stressful & exhausting, even for someone who doesn’t get to a point of just being unreasonably aggro at you.

Though even an extreme case like F.B. would probably claim that he ‘did the research’ even as he’s 1:1 quoting the Pope at you, and then saying that you ‘have to be respectful’ even if you don’t even believe in Christianity. Hence why you get a lot of authoritarians talking about “disrespect”. You didn’t “fail to obey”, you “disrespected the flag” or  “hurt the feelings of the Chinese people”. Because they’re still trying or inwardly thinking that they’re doing the consideritation & considering other’s PoV thing when they’ve long since crossed from respect and consideration into mindless obedience, all while still thinking that they’re very sceptical and discerning cause after all they really distrust the other political party or whatever.  

In a way you get this obsession with ‘mind control’ cause they’re not unaware of & very much looking to guard the blind spot. They’re adults trying to do adult things.

For example, if I voiced an opinion to F. B. which he didn’t like, his reaction was often to ask “who told you that”

That’s just how he seems to think opinions work, somebody tells them to you.

Makes one wonder how he thinks new opinions start.

Yeah - Nobody told me that. I concocted it myself in some corner of my head. And in the interest of objectivity, I should stress that you can also end talking out of your ass that way, if you’re not basing it on enough outside data. Making up new shit has more of a quadratic than a linear learning curve – at least with copying you get something semi-useful right away. In making up your own you might be really off a long time before you stumble on something useful.

Also, I was young at the time and it’s not wholly unreasobale to think that an inexperienced person might be duped. I reacted really badly in part cause he hit my own ego buttons cause I was of course proud of this epiphany that I had concocted by myself, and now he says (or so I perceived it, being sensitive to accusations of incompetence) that I’m too dumb to form an opinion, so of course I launched into full Obnoxious Reddit Dude Mode.

In I. It manifests more on a reasonable useful level like “Oh wait, should [young cousin] be on TikTok? I don’t want him to get sucked into some cultish BS.” which is at least something the parents should have on the radar/ warn him about even if they do let him use TikTok, because for all that it is vital for him to get his experience with independent socializing & experimentig with sel-presentation, people do sometimes get suckered into cults or goaded into unsafe tests of courage.

And in a sense… maybe they overamphasize it but to some extent they’re also simply consciously aware/ mindful of it. The rest of us are not immune to propaganda after all, solong as it’s presented in a way pleasing to our egos. Any type structure can become a ‘hook’ if you’re not careful.

[tothatmanonthebridge]

Review: Star Trek - The Original Series 'The Squire of Gothos' (S1 Ep18)

Trelane obviously has done his homework on humans, but he failed to learn the most sacred rule of human civilisation:

You don’t get to pick your own nickname.

It is a depressing thought that an outside vision of Earth would see war as our primary pastime, our way of being. But while Trelane gets the pattern right, he definitely misses the substance. War is not a feeling. It is something that happens to us, but it’s not the complex web of love and fear and hope and anger that constitutes our experience, whether in wartime or peacetime. Even when Trelane gets angry, it’s ultimately a shallow imitation. He says he experienced genuine anger, but for all his dramatics he never accesses the ‘real thing’.

Still, even as the episode positions the crew of the Enterprise as morally superior to Trelane, it does serve to poke holes in the ideology of the Starfleet. The phasers are notable for having a non-lethal setting, but they *can* kill. And Trelane’s demonstration of their power is chilling. Of course, the most disturbing element is Trelane’s giddy enthusiasm as he murders helpless creatures for no reason, when we have seen much more restraint from our heroes even when in direct conflict.

Every episode, the show announces that ‘space is the final frontier’. This statement evokes feelings of adventure and discovery. But, the American frontier was a violent conquest. The mission of the Enterprise, and its calm thoughtful realisation, might seem completely opposite to the lawless brutality of the wild west (that is to say, how it is depicted in film, the real history as I understand it, while very brutal, was much more complicated). However, the essential principles are similar: they are colonisers, never questioning their right to be cover new ground, and to settle wherever they please. Even if it’s relatively bloodless, I’d argue that it’s still violent.

Of course, a frontier does not have to be spatial. The frontier in the Star Trek universe is more one of knowledge (especially as the show so far can’t seem to decide if the ship is exploring mapped or unmapped territory). Acquiring knowledge about other species and planets is sort of gestured at half-heartedly within the plot, but really just like any good science fiction work, Star Trek deals with problems of human nature.

Even in the ostensibly ‘sillier’ episodes such as this one.

Some more thoughts:

I fully expected Desalle to bite it in this episode, he just exudes deadshirt energy and somehow he survived? Somehow everyone survived?

(Well, everyone human. R.I.P. Plum’s ex-girlfriend).

Actually wasn’t that creature the last of its kind? Did Trelane commit genocide??? It certainly fits the theme of the episode.

I noticed that Spock seems more comfortable in his position of authority here. It’s a nice continuation from Galileo Seven.

I love that this show seems fixated on two things: finding any excuse to dress up the women in period outfits, and undressing Kirk as much as possible…

The ending is obviously very similar to Charlie X, thank the PTB for deus ex machina eh? I do think Squire of Gothos is a better episode, although I did actually manage to have sympathy for the highly unlikeable Charlie at the end, who seemed genuinely terrified at going back to a life without love or affection, whereas with Trelane it was just a tantrum at playtime being over. It was appropriate of course, but by that point I was ready for it to be over tbh. I did love the spotlight focussed on Trelane and then slowly disappearing. It was a very appropriate artistic choice for our dramatic antagonist.

Queer Trek Corner:

How does this show keep getting gayer??? I realised I needed a dedicated section to keep my thoughts straight.

Not that my thoughts are ever ‘straight’ of course...

While Spock’s turn-on is obviously Kirk beating him at 3D chess, Kirk’s is evidently Spock delivering sick burns – which he does several times to Trelane in this episode. Here, Kirk gives Spock the most adoring look I have ever seen on a human being I MEAN COME ON THAT IS NOT A HETEROSEXUAL LOOK

And when Trelane attempts to force Kirk’s compliance, from a room full of onlooking crew members, he chooses to threaten Spock.

I’m sorry, it is a truth universally acknowledged that the villain will threaten the hero’s love interest. It’s a tale as old as time.

Now, Spock may not be a helpless damsel

-- I mean except in certain fun role-play situations… too much? --

but the effect is the same.

I think this could easily be one of my favourite episodes of season 1, but time will tell!

Next up: Arena

[sylvies-chen]

Chicago PD's Characters and the Role of Reform: an Analysis (???)

Hi everyone! The finales of One Chicago aired a couple of weeks ago by now but I've been preparing this post in my head ever since PD's finale aired. I wanted to talk/write about each character's (and maybe even the writers') interpretation of police reform and how it affects the plot. This will also talk about police reform in general. Before I start, I'd just like to state that this will be a bit long and probably biased since a lot of it is influenced by my own views on reform. I'm not interested in debating people on the internet, just putting out interesting perspective on an interesting TV show. Anyway, I hope you enjoy this and feel free to add thoughts of your own— as long as they’re respectful!

Chicago PD's handling of reform in this season was far from perfect but I did enjoy a few things they did with it. We had Kevin, a POC, stand up and fight back when even the people closest to him tried to shut him down. I did have some issue with the way they reduced Kevin's entire set of beliefs/morals to something so trivial and disrespectful as a "woke card" but I think the writers chose to do that on purpose to show how blinded white people can be sometimes. It's more the characters using that term, not the writers, which I thought was a good move since in both situations— Kevin v. Voight in 8x02 and Kevin v. Adam in 8x16– they made sure it's clear that Kevin is in the right. Voight may have been frustrated and Adam may have been spiraling over losing Kim (love me some #Burzek), but Kevin was still in the right. If only we could have some more varied representation on this show! That way, Kevin wouldn’t have to be used as the emotional punching bag all the time for these white characters and their misplaced frustrations with the system (added onto their personal frustrations which fluctuate on a episode-to-episode basis).

Now, onto the view on reform because this is where it gets interesting. I'm going to go ahead and say something that might be controversial: I think the majority of conflicts in this season have come from a gross misinterpretation of the concept of reform. This is especially highlighted in the finale when we see Adam saying he should be able to change/bend/break the rules to save someone he loves. It's also shown in the case with Miller's son Darrell and how they need to break the rules to save him, the case in 8x11 that Hailey considers breaking the rules for. It could even be loosely applies to 8x06 when Jay feels the need to break the rules only slightly in order to serve proper justice for their victim's father. Proper justice, in this case for Jay, being mercy towards the father and doing what's right in Jay's mind. Notice a common theme? These characters who are against reform (I know Voight was so good most of the season but he still falls into that category because of the first and last two episodes) all have one thing in common: the way they view reform. Voight, Hailey, and Adam, somewhere along the line (in my opinion), have all come to think of reform as a social push to get police officers to adhere to the proper guidelines when in reality, that's only a small fraction of an otherwise complex concept. Reform isn't all about getting police to follow the rules-- reform in and of itself is recognizing that the rules that are set into place aren't always effective. There are rules that are discriminatory, rules that are bureaucratic nonsense, rules that disproportionately affect specific groups of people, and rules that create roadblocks to solving real problems. Hell, the original police systems in North America especially were created to persecute minorities and maintain military power over citizens. The need for reform is referencing a larger systemic issue and getting police officers to follow the most basic procedures is just the tip of the iceberg. I don't want to get too much into the principles behind reform here because I am no expert. I recognize that because I am white I benefit from these rules/systems put into place so my voice shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but I do think the majority of the tensions in this season of Chicago PD stem from the extreme oversimplification of reform. It surprised me too when I thought about it because they've managed to explore the grey areas/more complex aspects of it, but I think the writers are intentionally making that decision which makes it really interesting.

Throughout the season, I couldn’t help but feel that these characters considered reform as the push from the public to adhere to guidelines-- as they should, obviously-- but while ignoring the more nuanced principles of reform such as asking themselves questions like: is what I'm doing truly helping the communities we've sworn to serve and protect? Are the solutions us cops in Intelligence are offering permanent solutions? Should we be rethinking our principles of justice to be less retributive and more procedural-- or even more restorative?

This is all in reference to the characters, of course, not the writers. We have Voight, Hailey, and Adam resisting reform because they don’t see value in following the rules. But reform, in its purest form, is recognizing that the rules need changing, which is why it’s so interesting to see the “opposing side” against it even though they also believe the rules aren’t helping them. So I think it's really good and interesting how the writers have written these characters as having very complex and layered discussions/arguments about reform and about justice while still doing that. Because their contempt for the rules comes from a place of wanting to carry out justice, just like Kevin and all the others who push for reform, but they’re motivated by ideals closer to retributive justice and using their position of power to exact a more personal form of justice. Because of Hailey, Adam, and Voight’s more personal and intimate views of justice, their solutions always feel short-term. For example, Voight murdering suspects, bashing in cars, etc. This is all stuff that creates a temporary fix but their passion towards justice makes them care more about the personal, emotional release that kind of justice brings than the actual, long-term change. This is especially shown in that one scene where Hailey tells Jay the story about how a clerical error made an offender walk, which she sort of views as a reason why breaking the rules should be allowed whereas Kevin would view that as a reason why the rules need changing. Again, short-term vs. long-term.

This is not to say that Hailey, Voight, and Adam are evil, obviously. They're complicated, but they're far from evil. (Well, the jury’s still out on Voight. Haha!) What this show is portraying, however, is how the ideas of reform can be fleeting and temporary and all-around fickle in the minds of these characters when they reach a certain breaking point. They're able to throw this aside because they're all white, so it doesn't affect them personally. But right off the bat in season 8 we've seen it affect Kevin professionally AND personally in every single way. Others are almost viewing it as a social trend or a push to be a rule-follower though which is why both Adam and Voight, when put under emotional distress, are so easily able to downplay Kevin's push for doing things the right way. (Even though, really, he's asking for the bare minimum here of following the rules and not killing people.) Kevin, ever the conscience of the group, doesn’t put up with it and keeps people in check which can be extremely aggravating when you’re in a very emotional state and want to let your emotions lead you on a rampage. Hence, this is the root cause of the majority of tensions between the unit— in season 8 especially.

Anyway, this is all to say that I think this season of Chicago PD has done quite a lot in terms of portraying reform and the need for systemic change while still staying true to their characters and delving into how their privelege has led to them misinterpreting reform. Which leads to the portraying of some fairly corrupt policing, but never condoning it. At the very least, they show how it's less important for these characters since they all have a breaking point where reform becomes moot whereas for a black man like Kevin, it's more firmly ingrained into him. That’s a concept that is all too common in the real world, and one I appreciated that they represented even though some things weren’t so great.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Vivant, il a manqué le monde ; mort, il le possède.

- François René de Chateaubriand (1768-1848), Vie de Napoléon, livres XIX à XXIV des Mémoires d’outre-tombe (posthume)

Of course we don’t have any photograph or film of Napoleon’s death on 5 May 1821 on Saint Hélène. But we do have the next best thing: a painting. Charles de Steuben depiction of Napoleon's deathbed and his faithful entourage that served as witnesses to his dying moments became the one of the most important paintings of the post-Napoleonic era but then faded from modern memory.

I first came across it by accident when I was in my teens at my Swiss boarding school. There were times I found myself with school friends going away on hiking trips around the high Alpine chain of the Allgäu Alps and we would drive through Lake Constance to get there, or we would hike around the Lake itself through the Bodensee-Rundwanderweg.

Perched high above Lake Constance and nestled in large parklands, stood Schloss Arenenberg which overlooks the lower part of Lake Constance. At first, it appears a relatively modest country house. But this was no usual pretty looking house. Arenenberg was owned by well-heeled families before it was sold to Hortense de Beauharnais, the adopted daughter and sister-in-law of the French Emperor himself, Napoleon Bonaparte. She had it rebuilt in the French Empire style and lived there from 1817 with her son Louis Napoleon, later Emperor Napoleon III, who is said to have spoken the Thurgau dialect in addition to French. This elegantly furnished castle then was once the residence of the last emperor of France.

The alterations made first by Queen Hortense and later by Empress Eugénie have been carefully preserved and the house still bears the marks of both women. Queen Hortense's drawing room is perfectly preserved and visitors can still admire her magnificent library (all marked with the Empress' cipher) containing over one thousand books. Likewise, in the room where the queen died, every object has been maintained in its original condition: pieces of furniture and personal belongings are gathered here to evoke her memory in a very touching manner. As for Empress Eugénie's rooms, they too have been very carefully preserved. Her private drawing room is a perfect illustration of the Second Empire style with sculptures by Carpeaux and portraits of the imperial family by Winterhalter.

After 1873, the Empress and the Imperial Prince brought the palace back to life by making regular summer visits, which they continued until 1878. However, on the tragic death of her son in 1879, Eugénie found it difficult to return to a place so full of painful memories. And so in 1906 she donated the estate to the canton of Thurgovie as a testimony of her gratitude for the region's faithful hospitality towards the Napoleon family. And in accordance with the Empress' wishes, the residence was turned into a museum devoted to Napoleon.

In what is now the Napoleonic Museum, the original furnishings have been preserved, and the palace gardens had been fully restored. This in itself might be worth a visit for the view over Lake Constance which is stunning. For Napoleonic era buffs though its the incredible art collection which is its real treasure. It houses an important art collection including works by the First-Empire artists Chinard Canova, Gros, Robert Lefèvre, Gérard, Isabey and Girodet-Trioson, and by the Second-Empire painters and sculptors Alfred de Dreux, Winterhalter, Carpeaux, Meissonier, Hébert, Flandrin, Detaille, Nieuwerkerke and Giraud.

But what caught my eye was this painting, ‘La Mort de Napoléon’ by Charles de Steuben. I didn’t know anything about it or the artist for that matter, but one of my more erudite school friends who, being French, was into Napoleonic stuff in a huge way, and she explained it all to me. Of course I knew a fair bit about Napoleon growing up because my grandfather and father, being military men themselves, were Napoleonic warfare buffs and it rubbed off onto me. I just knew about Napoleon the military genius. I never thought about him once he was beaten at Waterloo in 1815. So I never really engaged with Napoleon the man. And yet here I was staring at his last breath of mortality caught forever in time through art. Not for the first time I had mixed feelings about Napoleon Bonaparte, both the man and the myth (built up around him since his death).

On 5 May, 1821, at 5.49pm in Longwood House on the remote island of St Helena, in the words of the famed French man of letters,  François-René de Chateaubriand, ‘the mightiest breath of life which ever animated human clay’ came no more. To the British, Dutch, and Prussian coalition who had exiled Naopleon Bonaparte there in 1815, he was a despot, but to France, he was seen as a devotee of the Enlightenment.

In the decade following his demise, Napoleon’s image underwent a transformation in France. The monarchy had been restored, but by the late 1820s, it was growing unpopular. King Charles X was seen as a threat to the civil liberties established during the Napoleonic era. This mistrust revived Napoleon’s reputation and put him in a more heroic light.

Fascination with the French leader’s death led Charles de Steuben, a German-born Romantic painter living in Paris, to immortalise the momentous event. Steuben’s painting depicts the moment of Napoleon’s death and seeks to capture the sense of awe in the room at the death of a man whose legendary career had begun in the French Revolution. It was this, ultimate moment that Steuben wished to immortalise in a painting which has since become what could almost be described as the official version of the scene.

There is no question that Steuben’s painting became the most famous and most iconic depiction of Napoleon’s death in art history. In another painting, executed during the years 1825-1830, Steuben was to give a realistic view of the emperor dictating his memoirs to general Gourgaud. This same realism also pervades his version of Napoleon’s death, and it is totally unlike Horace Vernet’s, Le songe de Bertrand ou L’Apothéose de Napoléon (Bertrand’s Dream or the apotheosis of Napoleon) which, although painted in the same year, is an allegorical celebration of the emperor’s martyrdom and as such the first stone in the edifice of the Napoleonic legend.

And what a legend Napoleon’s life was turned into for time immemorial. Napoleon declared himself France’s First Consul in 1799 and then emperor in 1804. For the next decade, he led France against a series of European coalitions during the Napoleonic Wars and expanded his empire throughout much of continental Europe before his defeat in 1814. He was exiled to the Mediterranean island of Elba, but he escaped and briefly reasserted control over France before a crushing final defeat at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815.

Napoleon’s military prowess earned him the fear of his enemies, but his civil reforms in France brought him the respect of his people. The Napoleonic Code, introduced in 1804, replaced the existing patchwork of French laws with a unified national system built on the principles of the Enlightenment: universal male suffrage, property rights, equality (for men), and religious freedom. Even in his final exile on St. Helena, Napoleon proved a magnetic presence. Passengers of ships docked to resupply would hurry to meet the great general. He developed strong personal bonds with the coterie who had accompanied him into exile. Although some speculate that he was murdered, most agree that Napoleon’s death in 1821, at the age of 51, was the result of stomach cancer.

By contrast, Charles de Steuben was born in 1788, his youth and artistic training coinciding with Napoleon’s rise to power. He was the son of the Duke of Württemberg officer Carl Hans Ernst von Steuben. At the age of twelve he moved with his father, who entered Russian service as a captain, to Saint Petersburg, where he studied drawing at the Art Academy classes as a guest student. Thanks his father's social contacts in the court of the Tsar, in the summer of 1802 he accompanied the young Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1786–1859) and granddaughter of Frederick II Eugene, Duke of Württemberg, to the Thuringian cultural city of Weimar, where the Tsar's daughter two years later married Charles Frederick, Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (1783–1853). Steuben, then fourteen years old, was a Page at the ducal court, a position for which the career prospects would be in the military or administration. The poet Friedrich Schiller was a family friend who at once recognised De Steuben's artistic talent and instilled in him his political ideal of free self-determination regardless of courtly constraints.

At the behest of Pierre Fontaine in 1828 de Steuben painted La Clémence de Henri IV après la Bataille d'Ivry, depicting a victorious Henry IV of France at the Battle of Ivry. De Steuben's Bataille de Poitiers, en octobre 732, painted between 1834 and 1837, shows the triumphant Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, also known as the Battle of Poitiers. He painted Jeanne la folle around the same time and he was commissioned by Louis Philippe to paint a series of portraits of past Kings of France.

Life in the French capital was a repeated source of internal conflict for Steuben. The allure of bohemian Paris and his military-dominated upbringing made him a wanderer between worlds. As an official commitment to his adopted country he became a French citizen in 1823. However, the irregularity of his income as a freelance artist was in contrast to his sense of duty and social responsibility. To secure his family financially, he took a job as an art teacher at École Polytechnique, where he briefly trained Gustave Courbet. In 1840 he was awarded a gold medal at the Salon de Paris for his highly acclaimed paintings.

The love of classical painting was a lifelong passion of Steuben. He was a close friend to Eugène Delacroix, the leader of the French Romantic school of painting, whom he portrayed several times. Steuben was also part of this artistic movement, which replaced classicism in French painting. "The painter of the Revolution," as Jacques-Louis David was called by his students, joined art with politics in his works. The subjects of his historical paintings supported historical change. He painted mainly in sharp colour contrasts, heavy solid contours and clear outlines. The severity of this style led many contemporary artists - including Prud'hon - to a romanticised counter movement. They preferred the shadowy softness and gentle colour gradations of Italian Renaissance painters such as Leonardo da Vinci and Antonio da Correggio, whose works they studied intensively. Steuben, who had begun his training with David, felt the school was becoming increasingly rigid and dogmatic. Critics praised his deliberate compositions, excellent brush stroke and impressive colour effects. But some of his critics felt that his pursuit of dramatic design of rich people also showed, at times, a pronounced tendency toward the histrionic.

The portrayal of key moments in Napoleon’s dramatic military career would feature among some of Steuben’s best known works. But it is this death scene that Steuben is most remembered for.

Using his high-level contacts among figures in Napoleon’s circle, Steuben interviewed and sketched many of the people who had been present when Napoleon died at Longwood House on St. Helena. He wanted to attempt o give the most accurate representation of the scene possible. Indeed, the painter interviewed the companions of Napoleon’s captivity on their return to France and had them pose for their portraits. Only the Abbé Vignali, captain Crokat and the doctor Arnott were painted from memory. The Grand maréchal Bertrand made sketches of the plan of the room, noting the positions of the different pieces of furniture and people in the room. All the protagonists within the painting brought together some of their souvenirs and in posing for the painter, each person can be seen contributing to a work of collective memory, very much with posterity in mind.

Painstakingly researched, Steuben painted  a carefully composed scene of hushed grief. Notable among the figures are Gen. Henri Bertrand, who loyally followed Napoleon into exile; Bertrand’s wife, Fanny; and their children, of whom Napoleon had become very fond.

The best known version of “La Mort de Napoléon” was completed in 1828. French writer Stendhal considered it “a masterpiece of expression.” In 1830 the installation of a more liberal monarchy in France further boosted admiration of Napoleon, who suddenly became a wildly popular figure in theatre, art, and music. This fervour led to the diffusion of Steuben’s deathbed scene in the form of engravings throughout Europe in the 1830s. As Napoleon’s stock arose within French culture and arts, so did Steuben’s depiction of Napoleon’s death. It became a grandeur of vision that permeated Steuben’s masterpiece of historical reconstruction.

Initially forming part of the collection of the Colonel de Chambrure, the painting was put up for auction in Paris, on 9 March 1830, with other Napoleonic works, notably Horace Vernet’s Les Adieux de Fontainebleau (The Fontainebleau adieux) and Steuben’s Retour de l’île d’Elbe (The return from the island of Elba). The catalogue noted that the painting had already been viewed in the colonel’s collection by “three thousand connoisseurs” – which alone would have made it a success -, but its renown was to be further amplified by the production of the famous engraving. The diffusion of this engraving by Jean-Pierre-Marie Jazet (1830-1831, held at the Musée de Malmaison), reprinted and copied countless times throughout the 19th century, made the scene a classic in popular imagery, on a level of popularity with paintings such as Millet’s Angelus.

A / Grand Marshal Henri-Gatien Bertrand. Utterly loyal servant of Napoleon’s to the last. His memoirs of the exile on St Helena were not published until 1849. Only the year 1821 has ever been translated into English.

B / General Charles Tristan de Montholon. Courtier and companion of Napoleon’s exile. Montholon managed to ease Bertrand out and become Napoleon’s closest companion at the end, highly rewarded in Napoleon’s will, which Montholon helped write. Montholon’s untrustworthy memoirs were published in 1846/47.

C / Doctor Francesco Antommarchi. Corsican anatomy specialist. Sent by Napoleon’s mother from Rome to St Helena to be Napoleon’s personal physician on the expulsion of Barry O’Meara. Napoleon disliked and distrusted Antommarchi. Antommarchi’s untrustworthy memoirs were very influential and published in 1825.

D / Angelo Paolo Vignali, Abbé. Corsican assistant-chaplain, sent by Madame Mère from Rome to St Helena in 1819.

E / Countess Françoise Elisabeth “Fanny” Bertrand and her children: Napoléon (F), who carried the censer at Napoleon’s funeral; Hortense (G); Henry (H); and Arthur (I), youngest by six years of all the Bertrand children and born on the island. She was wife of the Grand Marshal, very unwilling participant in the exile on St Helena. Her relations with Napoleon were difficult since she refused to live at Longwood. She spoke fluent English. Was however very loyal to Napoleon.

J / Louis Marchand. Napoleon’s valet from 1814 on and one of his closest servants. As Napoleon noted in his will, “The service he [Marchand] rendered were those of a friend”.

K / “Ali”, Louis Étienne Saint-Denis. Known as “the Mamluk Ali”, one of Napoleon’s longest-serving and intimate servants; He became Librarian at Longwood and was an indefatigable copyist of imperial manuscripts.

L / Ali’s English (Catholic) wife, Mary ‘Betsy’ Hall. She was sent out from England by UK relatives of the Countess Bertrand to be governess/nursemaid to the Bertrand children. Married Ali aged 23 in October 1819.

M / Jean Abra(ha)m Noverraz. From the Vaud region in Switzerland. Very tall and imposing figure that Napoleon called his “Helvetic bear”. He was himself ill during Napoleon’s illness.

N / Noverraz’s wife, Joséphine née Brulé. They married in married in July 1819, and she was the Countess Montholon’s lady’s maid. Noverraz and Saint-Denis had a fist fight for the hand of Joséphine.

O / Jean Baptiste Alexandre Pierron. The cook, dessert specialist, long in Napoleon’s service and who had accompanied Napoleon to Elba.

P /Jacques Chandelier. Iincorrectly identified on the picture as Santini who had left the island in 1817. A cook, from the service of Pauline Bonaparte, Napoleon’s sister, who arrived on St Helena with the group from Rome in 1819.

Q /Jacques Coursot. Butler, from the service of Madame Mère, Napoleon’s mother, he arrived on St Helena with the group from Rome in 1819.

R / Doctor Francis Burton. Irish surgeon in the 66th regiment who had arrived on St Helena only on 31st March 1821. He is renowned for having made Napoleon’s death mask (with ensign John Ward and Antommarchi).

S/ Doctor Archibald Arnott. Surgeon in the 20th regiment. Brought in to tend to Napoleon in extremis on 1 April 1821.

T/ Captain William Crokat. A Scot, orderly officer at Longwood for less than a month, having replaced Engelbert Lutyens on 15 April. He received the honour of carrying the news of Napoleon’s death back to London and also the reward, namely, a promotion and £500, privileges of which Lutyens was deliberately deprived by the governor.