#i tried my best to be coherent

[dreaming-about-seireitei]

Re: the 'talk about for hours meme' -- "2. Certain fictional characters : from books or anime, I can give you full essays on them"

Could I have your full essays on Matsumoto and Shinji!! (Feel free to split into two posts if it's weird/too long to do them both in one, haha.)

OUH. MYGOD. This is what I have been waiting for. Yesssss I CAN. Also, I think I will split it into two separate posts, because I want to cover more aspects. So this will only be about Matsumoto Rangiku. But beware, you brought this upon yourself. It will be long af (roughly about 1900 words). I hope it all makes sense!

Also, everything I say is totally my opinion, the way I see them, and the "analysis" (nothing too formal) I made is based on anime only and/or maybe some spoilers (because I don't own any Bleach manga yet😭)

In the beginning, I need to mention that in my opinion (and as I mentioned in a previous post), she is actually a very humane, relatable and complex character. And this is why I like her so much. However, she is, most of the times, underappreciated.

So usually when people are talking about her, they get to mention her her physical appearance, which is normal and is what you do with everyone, but then something interesting happens.

When it comes to her personality, she is often viewed and portrayed as a shallow, superficial and unbothered woman. Kind of the standard beautiful but ignorant woman trope portrayed in most media.

But she is not just a plain character made to fill in some gaps and have a few lines. And while I agree she has a few flaws (that I'll talk about later), I feel like this portrayal of her couldn't be more wrong.

In actuality, she is a very well constructed character, that we subjectively misjudge, because we have certain expectations when we see an architype of fictional universes and forget to look past certain traits. And you might ask "Okay, dude, but what do you mean by that?" Well, let me explain.

But to get even deeper with how much of a complex character she is, as we go further along with the anime, we know that Gin leaves with Aizen. Even since then, we knew something was going on with those two, when he apologized to her. But as it was revealed later, Gin was her childhood friend, the one she even lived with for a while. The first person she ever loved from what I know (not sure if romantically or platonically, but love, none the less). Now, imagine how destroyed she must feel about him leaving with a man that betrayed, used and lied to everyone in their community without any explanation whatsoever. More so, imagine how worried she must be everyday for him, not ever knowing if he'll come back. Imagine how she has to live with this constantly in the back of her mind, and still be a good shinigami and fight with the fear that one day, she might have to fight him. The strength one has to have to be able to continue life with these realizations in mind, every day, without breaking once, is colossal. How mature you have to be adapt to this kind of situation so fast, even if you hate the reality this is bringing you in, is the proof of being not only very emotionally intelligent, but also intelligent overall. And not to mention how she carries this burden seemingly alone, because nobody seems to ever ask her if she's alright or care whatsoever for her problems, probably because of her optimistic, cheery personality.

Firstly, when we initially get to meet her, in the episode of Aizen's "death", we see her restraining Hinamori and getting her to jail, as a good lieutenant would do at the orders of her captain, right? But after that, we witness a conversation those two have, in which we can clearly see that Matsumoto does empathize with Hinamori, telling her she understands how frustrated she is, but she needs to think about her squad and priorities and to not make any allegations (when Hinamori was about to say she knew who "killed" Aizen).

In that small dialogue, we get to understand that not only, is Rangiku very levelheaded, but also she cares about Hinamori enough to tell her it is not her place to make those accusations and she lets to be understood that she will regret saying anything more, and tries to guide her to better priorities. She does everything in a serious, yet not necessarily harsh manner. She feels as many emotions as everyone about what just happened, and yet she thinks about what is best to be done and how to be efficient, while still empathizing with and not blaming Hinamori for anything. And she keeps that attitude towards her even later, in the fake Karakura Town arc, when Hinamori clearly calls Aizen "captain", but Rangiku still has an understanding, yet compassionate and worried attitude towards her (and to be honest, that is more than I would've had for her at that point). That already says so much about her character and moral compass.

Which brings me to the next point. We always see her as being this bright, obnoxious ray of sunshine. Party girl who likes to drink, sometimes a little too much (but I would too in her situation), who's everyone's friend. From hanging out, getting drunk with the boys, or being there for Hitsugaya (she was even the one who told him to be a shinigami in the first place, and made sure to make him understand it would be best for him to do so), to even having a heartfelt conversation with Orihime when she gets jealous and depressed. Rangiku is an optimistic, reliable person who you can have fun with and trust with your heart. But who's there for her the way she is there for others? Because I don't see her talking about any of her personal issues, besides this one exception with Hitsugaya once. So not only is she strong to keep herself composed and with the mind clear, ready to battle anytime, but she is also succeeding in doing so alone, with no support system (that I know of). So she has the power of continuing to battle for what is right and be there for everyone in a very enthusiastic way, with a broken heart that still has room for hope, and with an intelligent mind that still makes room for fun.

Now, everything I have mentioned so far are her positive traits. Of course, she wouldn't have been a very good constructed character if she didn't have any flaws. That's also what makes her even more relatable and humane. But what is again very interesting here, is that her flaws seem to be very much in contrast with her positive traits.

Also, talking about being ready for battle, there is one more point I need to add. Considering everything I mentioned earlier, we also need to talk about how good of a fighter and strategist (not to mention how strong willed) she is.

Remember: she had a portion of her soul stolen (at least that's what I understood) by Aizen! And if we are to recall the encounters she had with arrancars (and fights overall), we can surely say she had some interesting strategic moves, as well as some decent, interesting decisions in battle. So we can only imagine what kind of a fighter she would have become if she had her soul intact. All though I will not dive deeper into this (because I will have to rewatch all of her fights, and even then get into a subject that I'm really not good at), I can definitely say she is not a lieutenant for nothing. She is definitely a capable, devoted and loyal lieutenant, fighter and ally.

We can also see a similar circumstance with her shallow and vain demeanor whenever she talks about shopping and getting nice things. Because we need to remember she grew up poor! And not only that, but she was dying of starvation. When Gin found her, she was on the verge of death. And as she grew, like most kids in Rukongai, she had mostly nothing. So to one extend, I can really understand why, as an adult, she would prefer to spend her money as she likes without any reservations. I think it helps healing her inner child and can also be a coping mechanism that she developed along the years, to help cope with everything she goes through by herself.

When we think about her flaws, we picture in our minds her laziness and how conceited and vain she can be sometimes. We can also talk about how unbothered or easygoing she seems to be in many situations. And her drinking problem (which I am not going to talk about, because in my own balkan view, it doesn't really look like a problem, just that when she parties, she goes hard, and I would too and I get it).

But I found that her laziness is in strong contrast with her strong will to fight and how ready she is for battle anytime. Which is not something a lazy person will do. We have plenty of great characters that can be very intelligent and impressively created, but who are very lazy and find many things (such as fighting) as a "drag" or "nuisance". She could do the same, but she doesn't. Which leads me to believe that it's not laziness per se, it's most likely the boredom and uninteresting facade of doing chores like paperwork. And I see that as fitting to her, because she probably needs strong and intense sensations to fixate on something and not be distracted by her own mind (my opinion).

And even that, I think it really depends on how important her role would be as the responsible person in said situations. Because if you remember the flashbacks of her being a lieutenant under Kurosaki Isshin, she was the one who scolded him for not doing work. Of course, it wasn't like she was working anywhere near the amount Hitsugaya would, in any day, but still more than now. And I think that was exactly because someone had to. It was important for the captain to have someone who would nag him from time to time, so that's what she did. Just like how it is important for Hitsugaya to have a ray of sunshine to cheer him up and get him out of his sometimes-too-serious way.

And sure, she doesn't like being called "old", like most women, and she cares about her looks a lot, but I think that also comes from a place of not knowing or having the privilege of getting to care about those things as child. Which she finally has now, as an adult, and of course she takes advantage of that now and thinks about those things.

With all of this being said, I think the only conclusion here is that Matsumoto Rangiku is a strong, very reliable, smart woman with the emotional intelligence above many other characters (and people) that we get to see usually in fictional universes (or even real life). She is the kind of person I would love to have as a friend, and I wish I could have the honor of being there for her, because she deserves it. With a heart of gold and a personality brighter than the sun, Matsumoto Rangiku is the glue that holds so many things together and is one of the many needed pieces of our Bleach puzzle. And yes, she is also very hot and I would tap that.

And concomitantly, we see her seemingly self-absorbed personality that shows up from that to time and the contrast that makes with how much empathy and devotion she demonstrates.

This made me think of just the way we perceive people sometimes without having the full story on them. Because I think that it may be a misunderstanding of her character.

What I mean by this is that, maybe, we misunderstood those traits, and in reality is just her confidence. A lot of self confidence and care for one's self can be missinterpreted as shallowness if we either don't have the full story, or if that person is not slightly modest in admitting the good things about themselves. Which is an interesting way to see her, that would further demonstrate how cool she is (but considering this hypothesis is only that, a hypothesis, it might just be two contrasting traits she has, which either way, make her an interesting person).

Bonus: this is the song that always reminds me of her for some reason -

[batsplat]

hello, i have a question. what is the difference betwwen a hard and a dangerous racer? is there some sort of characteristics like how succesful a racer is or is more of a "a dangerous racer races on the limit and that's dangerous. a hard racer races on the limit but. its just a hard racer". thank you for answering!

completely in the eye of the beholder, I'm afraid. it's a perpetual debate, and one where everyone draws the line differently... very much a case of one man's dangerous manoeuvre is another one's hard but fair overtake... that being said! I'll have a go at coming up with a general framework with which people assess this stuff

let's bring in two strawmen, which feels like the most direct way to illustrate the possible stances you can take on this debate. to be clear, nobody really fits neatly in either ideological category - but, well, these are pretty much the two most extreme positions anyone could have:

when people are describing something as 'hard racing' (as opposed to... idk, 'clean' racing), they are usually talking about a) contact between the two bikes, and/or b) an action that forces the other bike to take evasive action. what constitutes forcing evasive action? well, this is all very nebulous and hard to define - there's crossing another rider's racing line, making them pick up the bike mid-corner, forcing them wide/off-track, not yielding in situations where one of you will have to yield to avoid a crash... but this is always an assessment that will depend on the specific circumstances. not every block pass is considered hard racing, for instance, even though you are quite literally 'blocking' the other bike. contact is the more straightforward one... if you initiate a move that leads to contact, then most people would agree this is 'hard' racing

so say you are in the 'A' camp. according to this line of thinking, pretty much every contact is 'dangerous' riding and should not be allowed. here's what gibernau said about jerez 2005, included in the sete post:

let's not discuss the merits of the jerez 2005 move specifically here - this is an expression of a broader ideological position. "this is not a contact sport" "it's not about hitting another guy"... so, according to this stance, actions that knowingly result in contact should not be acceptable and as a result need to be penalised. taken to the logical extreme, any and all 'hard racing' is dangerous

let's go to the other extreme, 'B'. let's say you're very pro-hard racing, to the point where you think that contact is more than fine and that it is unreasonable to call it 'dangerous'. sure, of course it is dangerous, but inherently all motorcycle racing has a lot of risk attached. racing that involves contact is basically acceptable. even within this extreme, my lovely venn diagram allows for some actual 'dangerous' riding - either behaviour that is wholly irresponsible during races... or stuff that doesn't count as hard racing because it's not 'racing'. here are some examples:

stuff that happens during races but is like... egregious misbehaviour. cf romano fenati pulling a rival's brake lever during a race - obviously dangerous and no longer really exists within the confines of actual racing

in either races or non-race sessions - not following proper safety procedures like for instance ignoring yellow flags. again, should be pretty obvious why that's dangerous

poor behaviour in non-race sessions,the general tag for not exhibiting appropriate care, awareness for your environment, all that stuff... the extreme example is marc barrelling into the back of another rider after the chequered flag had been waved in friday practise at phillip island 2011 (more on that here). it's also things like faffing about on the racing line, see the pecco mugello dramatics

so, yes, everyone will agree that there's some stuff that counts as 'dangerous riding' that's distinct from 'hard racing' just because it's not actual racing. that's the most straightforward stuff... but yeah, anyway, those are basically the two extreme positions you can take. you can say that all contact is bad and dangerous, that any time you're forcing another rider to take evasive action and are making a pass that isn't 1000% clean, you are putting others at unnecessary risk. or, you can say, hey, everything goes, rubbing is racing on steroids - sure, there's a small category of things that aren't acceptable, mainly stuff that isn't actually racing, but otherwise you should be allowed to brute force yourself past riders whenever you please

obviously, they're strawmen for a reason. basically nobody holds either of these positions in their entirety - and in race situations, there's always going to be actions that are seen as hard racing by some and as dangerous by others. so, unfortunately, we're going to have to dig a little deeper here, and figure out by what metrics people draw the line between hard and dangerous. let's... hey, how about we bring in casey stoner, just this once. as a treat. here's what he said after laguna '08:

“I’ve been in hard racing all my life, some very aggressive racing, but today was a little bit too much. I nearly went in the gravel so many times and I don’t think it was necessary.”

hard racing? casey's done that before. some very aggressive racing? no issue. but what valentino did at laguna was "a little bit too much" and not "necessary". the specific thing casey cites is nearly going into the gravel - and indeed, forcing other riders wide/off-track is one of the types of racing behaviour that most finely straddles the line between 'hard' and 'dangerous'. for other examples, see suzuka 2001 in which biaggi forced valentino off-track and valentino flipped him off when he eventually got past (a few more details here), qatar 2012 where marc forced luthi off-track and got slapped after the race (here) and sepang 2015, where... uh. you know. or how about argentina 2018 where... look, I think you get the point - plenty of controversy comes from forcing your opponent's bike into places where it's simply not supposed to be

while we're at it, let's throw in a little excerpt from casey's autobiography about the race:

A lot of it was fair racing, he was out-braking me on the inside and riding better than me around a lot of the track. If it had all been like that I would cop it sweet. But a couple of moves off camera added to my frustration. I risked running off the track, and racing at the limits like that as we were I even became worried about my safety.

(does have to be said that the pair of them spend... relatively little time off-camera, never when the bikes seem to be particularly close - but of course the problem this statement creates is that by definition you can't judge any footage you don't have access to)

so, let's strip away the details and think about what casey is actually talking about here. it's a risk/reward calculation. this is what's at the heart of this riding standards debate: what level of risk is acceptable for what level of reward? there are situations in which there is inherently a higher level of risk in a way that isn't caused by either party - influenced by the circuit layout, what the weather is like, how hard you're both pushing aka how much on the 'limit' you are, and so on. but even if that risk isn't your 'fault', if you are riding at very high speeds on a dangerous track, you can still be considered a dangerous rider if you're not exercising appropriate levels of caution

so, let's break it down even further and try and come up with some basic criteria by which people judge whether a specific move is 'hard' or 'dangerous'. how about this: (1) does the action have a reasonable chance of coming off, (2) is the risk you're taking proportionate to the reward, and (3) is the move likely to cause serious harm to you or the other rider. let's take them one by one

listen, it needs to be plausible that you're going to be able to pull this move off. if you're firing the bike from fifty miles back into a gap that doesn't exist, then this is by definition an unnecessary risk. you are not going to do yourself any good and you are also not going to do the other rider any good. (sometimes it might be in your interest to crash the other rider out so you might as well, but unsurprisingly this is frowned upon. see the 1998 250cc title decider.) obviously, this is going to be affected by your skill level - if you're a mid rider, there will be fewer moves that are 'plausible' for you than for the best riders

this is basically the common sense metric. if you are riding in a pack, make sure to keep in mind that crashing in this situation could get ugly. if you are fighting for p5, maybe a different approach is fitting than fighting for p1. if you can make an overtake a lap later as long as you're patient, in a way that's a lot safer than doing it now, perhaps just do that instead. don't be silly in the wet! this comes down to stakes, whether it's worth it, how likely the move is to succeed... and also what the consequences would be if you got it wrong, for both yourself and other riders. you're making an overall judgement based on all of those factors... sometimes you need to take risk, but it's better to make sure that risk is reasonably sensible

however high the potential rewards are, there's a certain level of risk that is no longer acceptable, where the 'risk/reward calculation' stuff has to be thrown out of the window because the reward no longer matters. this is basically the catch-all for 'wholly irresponsible riding' - anything that's just going too far

so, uh. obviously everything described above is super subjective... but that's what people are judging in my opinion, this is the standards they are using in their head to determine where they draw the line. so, as an example, to bring back the stuff from this post about the inter-alien ideological differences:

and again, this is also what the debate after aragon 2013 was about:

if you think aragon 2013 is unacceptable to the point of being dangerous, then you probably take quite a hard line view and think pretty much any action that could lead to contact needs to be stamped down on. while that contact did have unpleasant consequences for the other party (dani wasn't able to walk for several days and his title bid was basically over), it is perhaps a little worse than could have been reasonably expected in that situation. in that sense, there's a bit of surface level similarity with jerez 2005... there, valentino made the pass for the win at the last corner, knowing he would probably bump into sete while doing so. neither rider is knocked off their bike (though sete has to leave the track) and it is at a slow corner, with relatively 'light' contact. unfortunately, as a result of where valentino's bike impacted sete's body and sete's preexisting shoulder issues, it ended up injuring sete (see here for valentino learning of this perhaps a little later than was ideal and only after he'd taken the piss out of sete for dramatically clutching his arm). at aragon 2013, marc was harrying dani and sticking very close to his rear tyre as he applied pressure to his teammate before he made a small misjudgement, getting his braking a little wrong and clipping the back of dani's bike. he happened to cut a crucial wire in the process, causing dani to highside a few moments later

these aren't equivalent situations and each have their own risk/reward profile. but the basic point is this: inviting contact with another rider will always generate more risk, and can always have unintended consequences... even when the action is relatively innocuous and the rider would not have expected this outcome. if you are in the 'all passes should be clean passes' school, this risk is fundamentally unacceptable. even trickier - what if contact is made as a result of a move you initiated but the other rider could have avoided? of course, you started it, but they could have yielded... and maybe they should have, maybe that would have been the wise, the sensible thing to do in that situation. it's always important to remember that at least two riders are involved in all these situations - and there are many cases where contact and/or crashing is not 100% the fault of any one party. so, for instance, there are several moments in laguna 2008 that are so risky in part because casey is also refusing to yield. that's not to necessarily imply any blame or fault! of course, it might not be ideal for the most aggressive riders being able to bully everyone else as they please because they know they can generally rely on everyone else being more sensible and yielding. but the differing outcomes resulting from the choices made by the 'other' rider will always help influence perception of any race situation - a move that is seen as 'hard but fair' might have been seen as considerably more dangerous if the other party hadn't yielded

and yes... yes, there is absolutely a question of your success rate. this links back to point (1) - is the move plausible? there are moves that aren't really considered examples of 'hard racing' and certainly not dangerous... because they worked. take valentino's last corner move at catalunya 2009, at a corner where you don't traditionally overtake (remember, before the race jorge was going around tempting fate by saying that if you're ahead by that point you're sorted). sure, he goes for a gap that exists, but it could easily have gone wrong - and if a lot of other riders had tried that, then it would have. how do you think yamaha would have felt if valentino had taken both yamaha riders out at the very end of the race to allow ducati to claim an unlikely victory and an increased championship lead? here's another one: misano 2017 and marc making a last lap move in treacherous conditions to snatch the win. no contact required to make that risky as shit - and if stuff like that goes wrong too often they call you an idiot at best and dangerous at worst. of course, both valentino and marc have had moments where they very much did not pull off moves they were intending, which is how we get ambition outweighing talent and 'I hope he can learn from this one and improve for the future', among other hits. but, relative to the amount of risk they're regularly taking in their racing, they get a lot of reward for their troubles... because they're very good at what they do. the risk/reward calculation is one that they... uh, can both be very adept at, but it's also one that's fundamentally easier when you're skilled enough to pull off a lot of moves that would be beyond the capabilities of other riders. it's when you don't know how to judge your moments, when you keep trying moves that you can't pull off - that's where other riders will start having a problem with you

which is where we get to reputation! how different incidents are judged will also depend on the existing reputations of the riders involved and whether they are seen as 'fair' racers or not (an even more nebulous term, if possible), versus hard racers, dangerous racers... often, this is a question of quantity too - with certain riders on the grid, you will notice they're involved in controversial incidents disproportionately often. how likely people are to pay you the benefit of the doubt... how likely they are to believe you as to what your intent was in a certain situation, perhaps the most nebulous concept of them all. 'hard' and 'dangerous' aren't assessments that are made in isolation, and how severely riders are judged will often depend on their pasts and how those pasts are perceived by others

where you get into really sticky territory is... okay, both valentino and marc have more often than not (arguably) been able to stay on the right side of 'the line', where their moves might be hard but aren't putting anyone else in active danger - but that's because they are at least theoretically capable of exhibiting a good sense of judgement and are also good at what they're doing, as covered above. here's a question: do they bear any responsibility for when younger and/or worse riders copy their moves and/or general approach to racing, with worse consequences? when they have been criticised, when they are called dangerous, at times it's not just what they're doing in the moment... it's what they're inspiring. so you've got stuff like this from sete:

even more drastically than that, after the death of a fifteen year old rider in supersport in 2021, one of his fellow rider said this about marc (which marc unsurprisingly strongly pushed back on):

(just worth remembering, this is a rider who did walk away from the sport as a result and was clearly deeply affected by what happened - the marc comments were part of a longer statement that got overshadowed by this part and the resulting controversy)

setting aside the merits or lack thereof of these specific assertions, what of the general questions they raise... can you be a dangerous rider in an indirect fashion like this, by the very nature of your legacy? are riders who helped bring about a more aggressive baseline standard of racing in any way responsible for anything that happens as a result of this standard? (even worse, there's a line of succession here - after all, who was marc's biggest inspiration?) or does individual responsibility reign supreme here? athletes are by design only interested in their own successes, aren't they - and 'legacy' is so abstract, how can anyone know how others will be influenced by what they do? how can we even begin to assess how big an influence individual riders really are? let's not forget that there will be other factors - riders in the past have discussed how particular characteristics of the moto2 class have bred more aggressive racing, or the influence of the size of motogp bikes, or how difficult it is these days to overtake in a completely 'clean' manner, or the rules themselves and to what extent they have actually been enforced etc etc... maybe there's also an element of people focusing on the easiest, most visible explanation in the form of star riders, without giving proper consideration to the underlying factors that will influence an era's style of riding. again, how you feel about all of this will vary from person to person - but part of the hard vs dangerous debate is inherently forward-looking. and it's hardly just legacy... your hard/dangerous moves may also be setting a precedent in the present. to what extent is it the duty of riders to worry about that?

so then, that's what I've got. how you draw the distinction between hard racing and dangerous riding will come down to your individual ideological position and what you think racing even entails. do you think all contact is objectionable? do you think only the most extreme of transgressions - most of which don't qualify as 'racing' per se - should be labelled dangerous? somewhere in between? everyone will draw the line in a different place, according to the situation and their individual biases and understanding of events. it comes down, generally speaking, to how you judge the risks and rewards of a certain move, whether you think what a rider attempted was 'worth' it. all of which depends on whether the rider could realistically have managed whatever action they were attempting, whether the potential rewards were proportionate to the risks, or whether the whole thing was just too flat out dangerous to ever be worth it... of course, none of these are objective standards by which you can assess the racing, but they should give you a rough indication of what people are even talking about when they're distinguishing between hard and dangerous racing. riders as individuals are also far from consistent in their stances (surely not!) so you do have to play it by ear a lot of the times... and while there are plenty incidents where the majority can agree whether it is 'hard' or 'dangerous', there are plenty more where you're going to get a lot of contradictory opinions. no definitive answers here - unfortunately a lot of the time you'll just have to make your own mind up

[antiendovents]

I've been following you for a bit and noticed how you said your system has NPD (at least I hope, our memories can get mixed up and such)

I want to know a little more about the disorder if that's okay. Mostly, how it appears for systems.

If that's okay, that would be nice. My system has recently been trying to find ourselves out a little more now that we are getting help, and we think we show signs of it. -Citrus

yes, we do have NPD ^_^ don't worry you didn't get it wrong

So for us our alters sort of display the different kinds of NPD, I guess. We're all affected by it at different levels, most of us are covert Narcissists but some of us are overt (mainly the symptom holders)

we have different levels of empathy and different ways of expressing the symptoms, so it was a little hard to figure out that we had NPD, but after looking at the criteria we found most of us do have them just presented differently ((I feel like I've said that tons of times now))

For example, our alter, Achilles, is a symptom holder. He's very overt with his NPD, isn't afraid to state he thinks he's the best, often gets extremely defensive if people criticise him, ect. But our host, zim, is very covert, rarely ever speaks up or says he's superior even when he sort of(?) thinks so, he reacts badly when criticised but instead of having an argument with them like Achilles would, he just withdraws himself.

I don't know if any of this is helpful, but I hope you at least found some answer to your question ^_^

[you-are-constance]

how was the great gatsby musical?

overall, one of my favorite theatre experiences. to the level that i have been looping the cast recording nonstop since it came out last week

i do have a lot of specific points that i could talk So Long about with this show, most of which i'll put under a read more, but first: casting

anyway. spoilers for the great gatsby musical (things that were changed from the book for the production)

the 'main four' being Jeremy Jordan, Noah J Ricketts, Eva Noblezada, and Samantha Pauly, were all absolutely incredible. show stopping in their own ways. i was genuinely so scared that when i saw it that any of these 4 wouldn't be on, but i got so lucky and all of them were!! i am 100% convinced that many of the songs were written just to showcase certain actors voices (jeremy jordan).

let me tell you. getting to see jeremy jordan and eva noblezada live was unlike anything i've ever seen before. i was like. genuinely honored to be there. their stage presence, their voices, their acting ability, oh man... and Samantha Pauly was just incredible, and her big number was so. show stopping. Noah J. Ricketts was amazing the whole time, but his emotion in finale as he was saying the lines that are basically quoted exactly from the book... yeah i cried.

but so many other actors were also so amazing! John Zdrojeski as Tom was so good at the role, because Tom really was genuinely awful, but not in like an evil villain way, because he's much more realistic than that. i also find that a lot of times Tom is kinda seen as stupid or whatever for not noticing a lot of things going around him but in the musical he really like. could tell what was going on. and he worked his way into finding out secrets (kinda more on this later bc of my favorite song)

another main this was just. the design. Linda Cho costumes MY BELOVED im so glad she won the tony because this show DESERVED IT. it was definitely a glorified image of what those 1920s outfits would actually be, but most musical theatre isn't meant to be an exact replica of history, it's meant to dramatize it, and Linda Cho understands the assignment when it comes to costumes. the lighting and scenic design were also just incredible, especially their use of the green light shining from across the bay...

the show started out with Gatsby onstage, reaching for the green light. a set piece is moved across the stage, passing in front of him, Nick standing where Gatsby was. within that moment i was like "if they don't end the show with Nick standing there, the set piece passing in front, and leaving Gatsby behind, reaching for the green light, then what is the POINT" and then they DID and it was just as great as i'd imagined.

there were definitely changes to the story to adapt it to the stage, which i actually enjoyed (i've read the book, but didn't love it mostly due to a bad experience with reading it in school so. yeah). it is kinda more romance-centric in the first act, which i have heard people complain about, but i kinda see reasoning for it. yes, the first act is very much centered around the various relationships (especially the romantic ones), and in the second act, while certain characters (mostly gatsby) try to keep it centered on the romance, there is a much bigger, darker story going on all around them. so i really liked that meta perspective of it.

they also gave a lot more character to mr wilson (idr his first name), effectively intertwining him with both Gatsby and Wolfsheim as he, from the very beginning, plans to move him and Myrtle away from the city (its been a hot sec since i read the book, so idr if that's there but i don't think it is).

the relationship between Nick and Jordan is also taken a lot further in the musical, to the point where they are engaged, but after Myrtle's death, it gets broken off. this is because, in this version, Jordan ends up lumped in with both Tom and Daisy, in with the old money. throughout most of the show she is much more aware of society and doesn't want any part of what her role 'should' be, but when things go south, she is just as quick as the others to abandon what's 'right' in favor of what's better for her. and ik some people might not like that change but i actually did.

Myrtles character is also taken a lot further in this, which i find really fascinating. she is given her own big number right before her death as she tried to go after Tom, saying that he'll leave Daisy and marry her instead, but then she realizes she'll become just like Daisy in that situation, and the only choice is 'love or money.' she eventually decides that she wants to go back to her husband, and the moment she turns back, she is killed. this was Such a big number and, looking back, might be one of my favorites story-wise.

while i absolutely adored most everything, genuinely, the music was by far my favorite part (besides maybe jeremy jordan and eva noblezada...) a personal thing for me was that Every. Single. Song. has SUCH a good bassline. man i need the sheet music for this show. (side note: i got to talk to the show's bass player for a few minutes after the show! i was super nervous about it but im glad i did. he was super nice)

there's def a mix of more modern showtune styles, along with bringing in a lot of jazzy elements, which was GREAT. i love jazz. like i mentioned before, certain songs were definitely written for actor's voices (Past is Catching Up to Me) which is absolutely not a bad thing because they were AMAZING

two of my favorite songs were 'Only Tea' and 'Made to Last.'

only tea is when Gatsby is stressing about Daisy coming over for tea. this was hilarious. I kid you not jeremy jordan jumped a fence at the end. it was iconic. (you can Feel the nerves in just the cast recording alone).

made to last takes place in the scene in the Plaza. it's mostly Tom, revealing the secrets he learned about how Gatsby got his fortune, then Gatsby trying to get Daisy to tell Tom she doesn't love him. there are So Many Good lines in this song (everyone kinda drags Tom a lot its great) but this is where the characterization of Tom was really just. top notch. because he really is freaking Awful. but he's also smart and not going to let go of what he owns (not good that he considers Daisy a possession though...), and he knows exactly what is going to happen to Gatsby--he's not Made to Last.

(also the song Shady is iconic. spinny tailcoats)

another just. singular line that i need to draw attention to, sung by mr wilson (he has multiple songs directed to the Eyes of God), and this line is right when he decides to go after Gatsby. "God sees everything but he's slow on his commands/You've got the eyes of God, Doc/Who's gonna be his hands?"

(this line is reprised in the middle of Gatsby's song right before the gun goes off. fun fact)

i'm sure there are So Many Other Things i could talk about (i s2g i could write 13 essays about this show) but in general like. while it wasn't groundbreaking to the theatre, it was still Such a good show and absolutely deserves better yknow. attention then it's getting. like jeremy jordan is here for a Reason this is a Good show. and mostly this is my begging people to listen to the cast recoding because its SO GOOD.

anyway. if anyone has questions about specific things i am So Happy to talk but here's a lot of my more general thoughts... (god i haven't even Talked about Eric Anderson as Wolfsheim...)

[sforzesco]

i think you said in response to a previous ask that octavian and antony are a Worse version of the brutus and cassius gladiator-statesman dynamic, and that octavian and agrippa are a different thing that wasn't relevant at the moment. i was wondering if you meant that octavian and agrippa are a thing outside the gladiator statesman dynamic (and if so, any ideas on why that is?) or that they were a different version of that dynamic?

also, this is the same anon who asked about using some of your quotes in a presentation! it ended up going pretty well considering most people there weren't unwell about dead romans!

octavian and agrippa are thing outside of that dynamic! this is, ofc, a YMMV type of thing, this is very much getting into creative/thematic nonsense that I like to play with as someone who makes comics

but basically the cut off for the statesman-gladiator/politician-warrior dynamic is philippi. things get hazy leading up to philippi because julius caesar has already eroded a core element to rome's structure, which is that it's made HIM the focus point of politics. there is no longer room for horizontal alliances of power amongst men vying for prestige, there is only room for vertical loyalty (so like, a more extreme version of patronage and bossism politics) (and disloyalty! because you get stabbed if you make people unhappy!! you make your body one with the state and people will let you know what they think of you. and the state.)

Antony, Fulvia, and the Ghost of Clodius in 47 BC, Kathryn E Welch

so by the time octavian wins, standing on top of everyone else, the general power structure of rome has changed and it's not going back. it looks the same, and people are going 'nooooo it's still a republic, LOOKS like the republic!' while dragging around decayed corpse, but it's different.

Caligula, Aloys Winterling

octavian and agrippa are co regents, with octavian as the clear head of state and agrippa, who is borderline unwell in his devotion to octavian, and somehow it worked for them. like, for them specifically it balanced out into a partnership.

Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture, Harriet I Flower

in theory, this kind of dynamic (with a domestic politician and a general to enact imperialist policy) would be the blue print that would continue down, and boy did they try. tiberius and sejanus. caligula and macro. good grief. the system of relationships and obligations that allowed this kind of dynamic to show up frequently in the republic falls apart here because power corrupts, baby, and with a state assuming a body, there's no way that power is going distribute itself. everyone is going to want to be that body. except agrippa, who was devoted to octavian, but you can't. replicate that kind of intimacy even if you want to.

so it LOOKS like a statesman-gladiator dynamic, but they're really just co regents in practice, but the actual framework is closer to a king and his knight. they are also. incest adjacent. ground zero for the incest circus that happens later? or maybe something else.

basically the logic for that is the way that octavian kept trying to get agrippa into the family tree to make agrippa his heir prompted this kind of. increasingly more insular behavior. AND THIS TOO

Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture, Harriet I Flower

additionally, I think proximity to octavian-imperial rome dooms a lot of people. agrippa dies before octavian, tiberius' character goes on a definitive downward arc. brother-pairs as rulers, caligula's hellenistic tendencies and the incest allegations with his sisters, the twin-ification of pairs--

Tiberius and the Heavenly Twins, Edward Champlin

--agrippina and nero. Everything Nero Was Doing With Masks And Theater Sure Was Weird. there's a kind of house dynamic going on with imperial rome, but the whole thing is a mouth eating itself. rot. pater patriae. in a permanent state of digestion. etc/

that last one is a thought I'm work shopping, but basically to me all of this is a worse version of the statesman/gladiator dynamic because of the concentration of power.

[catboyidia]

how i think asgzc behave while angry:

angeal: passive aggressively goes after absolutely everything and everyone!!! even people that weren’t a part of it initially will get dragged into the problem and will be complained about, especially about things that happened years ago, although he manages to do it all in a very calm seeming tone

sephiroth: sets fire to a whole village and tries to wipe out everyone except a single blond twink! no but my hc is that he’s actually just really silent but absolutely menacing, he’ll stand there with his arms crossed and not say a damn word but it fills everyone around him with pure dread and terror

genesis: he’s definitely a crier, and he’ll start getting real condescending! he avoids raising his voice so he can pretend he has some kind of high ground over whoever hes mad at, but he eventually gets really loud and will throw a whole fit about everything

zack: its hard to get him actually mad so when he is mad, it’s TERRIFYING! its such a rare sight but i think he’s similar to angeal somewhat, except he’s direct and he gets LOUD! but also, rather than attacking everyone i think he’s more likely to defend the people around him, mostly because i feel like he mainly gets angry when its a situation where someone is being awful to someone he cares about

cloud: i dont think he truly gets angry angry, i think he’s most likely to actually just go very quiet and sort of shuts down, he’ll bottle it all up until he’s alone and his emotions just overwhelm him, but he still keeps it all mostly internalized

[flyingwargle]

your character analysis of Suna Rintarou ?

p.s: loved cranes born from love take flight

thank you, anon, glad you enjoyed it!

fun fact: i hated suna while reading the manga and refused to watch the inarizaki match because of him until last spring. what happened? sunaosa happened. anyway.

(i tried to stay with canon as much as possible, but there's only so much we know, so i couldn't help but intertwine some headcanons into this.)

i view suna as a shadow that yearns for the spotlight. we see that he's ambitious and skilled because he was scouted for volleyball, and he moved from aichi, which is not easy for a high schooler. he's the only one that can do a cross-body spike, and on top of that, his read blocking is terrifying. we can assume these were developed to make up for the fact that he's shorter than most middle blockers. he's known as one of inarizaki's main scorers, and wrecked havoc against tanaka and tsukishima, putting him in an antagonist position. it makes sense that he went pro in the future, as no other character does what he can.

but i like to think that the road there wasn't easy.

we see that his dedication isn't as feverish as, perhaps, atsumu's. suna slacks off when victory is near. he finds corners to cut. out of all the second years, he's the only one with a standing serve (although, in his defense, it's pretty nasty). he is skilled, but compared to atsumu or aran, his toes are at the edge of the spotlight, waiting for it to swivel onto him. you have the best high school setter and participant at all-japan youth camp on one hand, and a top 5 ace on the other. who is suna? just some guy.

thus, leading to the word that i heavily associate with him: hunger.

it's fanon that atsumu and aran go pro straight out of high school. for suna, it depends - some portray him also immediately going pro, some show him working his way up. i personally like the latter because it makes sense. despite his skills, he lacks height and power. he lacks the talent to make him desirable. he can train all he wants, but always falls short because of this. it makes him yearn. it makes him question what he lacks. it makes him wonder if going pro is even the right decision, when he spent high school waffling between slacking and being a menace.

it makes him a character that's hungry for the pinnacle, but ends up a step behind. whereas someone like osamu enjoys the process, suna is someone who'd rather skip all of that, and nothing shows his shortcomings better than when he's left backstage while atsumu, aran, and so many others at his age thrive under the spotlight.

so what does he do? he preserves. he yearns. he hungers.

and he is eventually awarded for it.

--

to talk a bit about his character arc in cranes born from love take flight, there's the added layer of responsibility as an older brother, to protect his sister, while also overcoming the scars carved into him by his father. suna thinks by ignoring the past, he can move forward, but trauma isn't easily healed, and he'll find that the only way to overcome it is acknowledge it, and learn to accept it.

origami hearts focuses on osamu, but the final installment pivots back to suna, where a lot of what i talked about will come into play. i hope that this gives a little insight on how i view him, and that it makes sense 😅

[gemharvest]

Might not be exactly what you asked for but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go into more depth about the bf and pico drawing with the kinto pet song lyrics 🙏🙏🙏🙏 it has haunted me in a good way and I will explode without more

UR MORE THAN FINE DWWW it's easier for me to ask for prompts but I LOVE ASKS IN GENERAL I like getting to ramble. Forever and always if you see me post something and you want me to elaborate on it/ have specific questions/ literally whatever PLEASE DON'T BE SCARED TO SEND AN ASK IN !!!

okay needed that out of the way first LOLLLLL

The like. Images I get in my head when I listen to this song drive me insane like this was just me putting it into one image but I could deadass do a full PMV if I had the time.

Obvi I prefer to draw in a more Funkin'-influenced style, but esp. with how Pico is drawn I hope it's clear I was leaning into the Pico's School side of things.

(continuing under a cut because I am about to Ramble)

I don't think I was consciously thinking abt it the other night BUT at least the first verse makes me think. Of the Love Conquers All version of Pico's School. An ideal ending; Cassandra is convinced not to carry out her plan, nobody dies, Pico certainly wouldn't be Going Through It. Maybe in this ideal ending they (Pico & BF) wouldn't have split. "In this world, we're friends forever".

I also imagine it as like.. basically how the art I did ended up being. They're just black lines on a white background. Faces obscured. Maybe with some visual effects that distort things too/ some pixelation whatever. I actually think I was planning to have some parts of that pixelated but forgot by the time I was home and could draw; might have been for the best but here's a version with a biit of what I'm talking abt.

They're in a void. Separate from the real world, but happy. Stuck in a loop of the happiest time of their lives (mostly thinking from Pico's perspective with that lol). Is that not better than having to continue on in a fucked reality?

Of course, that's not real. It's just an imaginary loop of "what if"s in Pico's mind. It's a world he built for Boyf.

In this world, Boyfriend is always following with Pico, always showing him kindness and always smiling. Pico's emotions are less readable; maybe in a proper PMV I'd give him his mouth too so he can show he is at least somewhat happy, but despite being the "leader" of the two, he is much more passive, reserved. They are always holding each other's hands.

Verse 2 would be the inverse (lol), signaled by the stronger beats kicking in. White lines on black background. It's no longer the ideal world, and instead the "real world". Real, but distorted by trauma. "Inside my code, you'll always be". The world Cass built for Pico.

The bit of instrumental between verses 2 & 3 would be the Real real world, going forward to when FNF would take place; Pico and Boyfriend reconnected, through less than ideal means, though reconnected nontheless.

We're back to black lines on white background, but everything's less distorted. There's more details too, the world not just being a hazy backdrop for Pico and Boyfriend to play around in, but real.

He's different from Pico's memories, obviously, drawn now in the FNF style fully. More confident, still stupid. He has Girlfriend now.

The first 2 lines of verse 3, his imagined worlds and the real world melt together. Mixed in ways that highlight a feeling of off-ness. Everything feels strange, distorted, unreal.

The last 2 lines it's just Pico and Boyfriend hanging out alone. "All that's left is me and you/Lots of fun that we can do". Boyfriend cheery as ever, while Pico is visibly nervous-- uncharacteristic for him but we don't see if Boyfriend notices.

The strong beat kicking in again sends us back to the imagined world. The good world. But things are wrong. The real world is slipping in, things are no longer stagnant; no longer perfect. Visual distortions/ glitches worsen.

Pico could delude himself when he hadn't known where Boyfriend was; now that he's back, his world warps. No longer under his control. He is not in the lead.

The first half of the outro Boyfriend is still mostly playing along, though still seems to be growing disinterested. Pico is noticably anxious, clearly seeing how the other is no longer like a puppy at his side. Boyfriend is pulling away. Why is he pulling away, when everything's "perfect"? Why is everything going wrong. "The world I built, designed for you".

The second half of the outro, Boyfriend is now actively pulling away. He no longer looks like the idealized, young Boyfriend. He's older, a stranger, he doesn't care for Pico anymore. Pico is older now too, desperately holding on to Boyfriend. Unwilling to let him go again, first in the real world and now in his mind. Boyfriend refuses to hold his hand but Pico still grips onto his arm. Their eyes finally become visible in the imagined world.

Pico's behavior mirrors Cassandra's involvement in the second verse, though unintentionally violent as opposed to her intentional violence. He's selfish, desperate to hold on to his world; to Boyfriend. He's hurting the imagined Boyfriend in the process, but that is second in his mind to him so desperately trying to avoid a second heartbreak. Anything to keep his world together, his peace. Without it, he just has the dark.

Beyond this screen, you cannot leave Inside my code, you'll always be Endless fun that we can do In a world I built for you

In the final instrumental and as the song fades out, Pico wakes up. He's shaken, disgusted by how he acted in his mind and feeling like he's nothing but an anchor to Boyfriend, holding him back. He can't keep clinging to this false reality, nor can he pretend he's doing any good by being in Boyfriend's life again. His mind is made up.

...

LOL I hope the way I summarized The Thoughts I get paints the picture I get in my mind. I've got terminal artist brain I am imagining AMVs to near everything I listen to I am not joking; had to take a break halfway through typing this to walk around a store and I was looping KATAMARI by femtanyl for like half of it imagining an edit in my head. I can imagine anything jpeg.

I wanna very much stress that all that above would have been filtered through Pico's mind. He's not actively hurting Boyfriend, but he's fucking terrified of doing so and he feels so fucking guilty for continuing to hold on to the past they had. I guess it wouldn't be apparent from what I described but he'd also feel guilty for still having feelings for him when the other has moved on and even has a girlfriend.

His world, once his perfect escape from the anguish of his reality, corrupts as he feels worse and worse over even entertaining the thoughts. Him deciding to forget his world and, in turn, go to cut off Boyfriend for the other's sake is not based on objective reality, but an act of self-sabotage that he convinces himself to be the best outcome for everybody.

^ Literally included him doing this shit in a part of that last fic I did you can tell this is something I find interesting exploring with him.

The tone of the song too just fucking.. it adds to the eeriness I'd want out of a proper PMV of this idea. The way it's clearly an homage to the IBM 7094 singing Daisy Bell; the voice and instrumentals just feel so unnerving. Sweet and innocent on the surface, but clearly holding bad intentions. Maybe not intentionally bad, maybe misguided good even, but they are not good nor sweet nor kind. I am talking about the song on it's own divorced from it being from KinitoPET what I describe here is just the feelings it gives me in regards to my favies.

Anyways uhhhh god I could go on for hours but I've been going off for long enough I'm sorry to anyone reading this who had to sit through my insanity. My head is now lighter with this information shared tho.. I guess in conclusion: I am definitely normal and neurotypical and can be trusted to listen to music and be into my games without creating the most devastating ideas known to man. xoxo

[echolavender]

WAIT

So I’ve been thinking about this quote from focalors

It’s been confusing me because the first and last line give the impression that she believes that she’s above everyone, but everything in between gives the impression that she believes her people to be able to judge a god like her.

But then it hit me…

she genuinely doesn’t believe that she can do anything wrong, like no one has ever tried to object to anything she’s ever said so she believes that shes superior to everyone.

And I think this is going to be a MAJOR part of the archon quest

“The god of justice lives for the spectacle of the courtroom, seeking to judge all other gods. But even she knows not to make an enemy of the Devine.” - travail chapter

Back when she first stepped up as archon, The oceanids refused to accept her as their God she she straight up kills all but one of them 

She probably views anyone that dares to object to her as an enemy. 

You see Fontaine’s an awful place to live

Their waters are polluted, The laws extremely hard to understand and the court is said to be terrifying to face.

How much you want to bet that someone speaks out against her and/or starts a revolution of sorts and it all just goes to hell

[coulrology]

So what's the lore with Juniper n their relationship with Vitimir n Hettie?

WELL for both, their relationships go back to their school days! Although the difference being that Juniper and Hettie went to St. Epiderm together, while Vitimir went to a different school (Glandus at the time he met Juniper).

I’ve briefly touched on how Juniper and Vitimir met here, so that explains their first meeting. To reiterate, Vitimir was a shy kid that didn’t really have any friends growing up (aside from bugs/whatever little creatures they spent their time around) and was bullied frequently, so that single positive interaction with Juniper, though small, really stuck with him and he never forgot it. Juniper didn’t forget it either, but being the sociable type meeting and talking to lots of different people, that moment sorta blended in with the rest of their memories. So fast forward to them both working as Coven Heads at the same time, Vitimir immediately recognizes Juniper. Despite Juniper changing a lot since his child self, that one good memory left such a big impact on Vitimir as a kid that he still held that soft spot for them. So of course, when Juniper eventually approached him on their own time, Vitimir already had this layer of vulnerability. Even though they might not have recognized him, from Vitimir’s perspective, there was that sense of familiarity and comfort; Juniper might have changed, but that kind kid was still in him. Now that they have the chance, Vitimir wants to actually get to know this one person who had plagued so many of their thoughts as a kid. And the rest is history!!

As for Hettie! Again, she and Juniper attended St. Epiderm together. Hettie was just as terrifying as a kid as she is now. She was everything- a jock, a princess, a bully, a weird girl, whatever you can think of. Though she’s very open about who she is, everyone around her was always so intimidated by the fact that she was unpredictable (and the fact that she’s both the smartest AND strongest person you’d ever meet is terrifying enough on its own). Most everyone- except for Juniper. To Juniper, Hettie was always such a character. She’s always been so confident and unapologetic, able to command people’s attention without even saying a word. Her unpredictability made everything she did so interesting. Juniper so deeply admired this about Hettie. And the fact that she’s 100% his type only drew them closer to her. Hettie was Juniper’s first ever crush, and that love Juniper had for her never faded. Though as kids, they weren’t in the same social circles, they did cross paths a lot, whether it was through Sonia (Scooter Crane’s daughter and childhood best friend to Juniper, who was also in the Healing Track), or Juniper getting injured for whatever ridiculous reasons. At this age, Hettie didn’t reciprocate her feelings (yet), but she had a fondness for Juniper because he was so different from the other kids for the fact alone that they had a (very obvious) crush on her. And while their crush may have caused them to do embarrassing things, and foolishly being used as her own guinea pig from time to time to practice her magic on, Hettie had cared about Juniper. To her, he always made life more fun and interesting. Fast forward to them as Coven Heads- Hettie has grown a stronger affection for Juniper. He’s changed over the years, but he still makes life so much more fun and interesting. Perhaps now, Hettie admires Juniper for the same exact reasons they always have her. They’re still a bit pathetic around her, but Hettie finds it endearing. Not to mention, Juniper still makes for a good doll to experiment on, and she takes good care of her favorite dolls ;-)

[robertphilip]

enchanted became my favorite film a few years ago and i couldn’t shut up about it. recently, a friend of mine criticized it for having the “born sexy yesterday” trope. i don’t believe this to be true but i was wondering how you would dissuade this?

I think, like many Disney takes, it's a very bad reading of Enchanted.

Now, I'll start by saying that, had this movie been picked up by a different studio, and given to a different director, it may have fallen victim to this trope. But luckily Kevin Lima, the director of all time, got his hands on it, and made the movie even better than the original script.

Nothing about the Born Sexy Yesterday trope fits Robert and Giselle's dynamic in my honest opinion.

"The man is unsatisfied with the women on earth; he disregards his equals in terms of love and relationships and quite literally reaches for the stars and plucks a mythical/sci-fi heroine for himself. He molds her into what he wants as she is a blank canvas, then wows her with his (minimal) knowledge on the world."

None of this even remotely sounds like Robert's character (and to imply Giselle's a blank slate is crazy). He was married in the past (and she left him, something he seemingly didn't want), and is with Nancy when we meet him, and wants to marry her. Clearly the man is interested in the women around him. Furthermore, he never once tries to mold Giselle into what he wants. Does he share his perspective, sure, but he isn't trying to change her, and even if he wanted to (he doesn't) Giselle refuses to do so. She starts and ends the film firm in her beliefs that true love, and fairytale endings do exist, and that dreams can come true.

"This character is ultimately a child trapped in a woman’s body."

I could complain for days about how untrue this statement is for Giselle, and how irritated I get when people claim she's childlike/has the mind of a child. Giselle acts the way any grown adult from Andalasia acts. Edward and Nathaniel act the exact same way she does, yet no one calls them childish. Idk maybe I'm in the minority here but I've never found Giselle's personality childlike, and feel like, more often than not, viewers infantilize her far more than they claim the movie does. (this is especially common in fanfiction, which is something else I can rant about for days, but I'll save that for later.)

^ This always goes hand in hand with people claiming Robert's a predator, which couldn't be further from the truth, and I get very frustrated with that argument as well. He's a grown man who fell in love with a grown woman, he is not a predator.

(as a random side note that is not specifically part of the argument, I personally read Giselle as autistic, and while she and I aren't exactly the same, I do see myself in her quite a bit, so when people call her a child, or say she has the mind of a child... yeah I kinda wanna fight. ANYWAY.)

I think it's also important to note, with Robert and Giselle, they are treated like equals the entire film. Robert never sees her as lesser, nor does he treat her as anything other than an equal. He never looks down on her, acts like she's an idiot, and he certainly never takes advantage of her. A common part of this trope is the male lead taking advantage of the "clueless" woman and tricking her for his own sexual gratification. Robert never does any of that. There's never any single moment in the film where Robert uses her naivete to get anything, and certainly not anything sexual. And yeah, you can argue it's because it's a children's movie, but even without sexual content, he never tricks/lies to her about anything??

I feel like people also wrongly assume that Robert falls for Giselle because she's naïve and that's ..? He doesn't even start liking her as a friend until roughly around 40 minutes into the movie, and up to that point, he desperately wanted to get away from her. Patrick Dempsey himself said that Robert doesn't start to really fall for her until the moment she gets angry with him. That's when things shift. And I may be misremembering, but I believe Kevin Lima said that as well. Giselle had gone through a lot of character development by this point, so I'd say claiming Robert just likes her because she was "naïve" is wrong. Yes, their love story progresses very fast, but he's still grown to know her as a person. (they're basically speed running friends to lovers)

The only part of this trope that I would say does apply to Enchanted is the bathroom scene, as that is a moment where she's very briefly sexualized. I can't really defend that, and I won't, but I will say it's certainly far more tame than any other movies that fit this trope, that's for sure.

idk I think if you haven't watched Enchanted since 2007, or are relying on buzzfeed and tiktok comments about the film, then sure, one might say it's the Born Sexy Yesterday trope. But I personally don't agree. Brushing it off as nothing but that ignores all of both Giselle and Robert's character development, and the growth of their relationship, and mutual love and respect they have for one another. And that, to me, is sad because watching them go from strangers to friends to lovers is one of my favorite things ever.

So, anyway, yeah, much like "Ariel gave up everything for a man!", "Cinderella just waited around to be saved", and "Belle has stockholm syndrome", this take suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks, and I think people should pay more attention to what they watch :] (not a dig at your friend btw, I just mean people in general)

[ask-mark-stuff]

hola

Hola! Spanish is a great language, it's very common and easy to learn! Mark, can you speak Spanish?

Uhh...no?

That's okay, because today we're going to learn Spanish!

First, let's learn some simple words! 'Amigo' means friend, try saying it Mark!

Amigo..?

That's right! Now try to translate this sentence for me. Tengo tus amigos.

I don't...know-

Vamos Mark, esa es una frase muy fácil.

What??

Voy a matar a tu familia y amigos, nadie podrá salvarte.

I don't understand!

:)

[sincerely-sofie]

One thing I will say is that saying you "disagree with the term queer" Is Not A Great Look, but that could easily be a me not getting the wording as intended thing - The above assumes you mean just, queer in general though it feels more like you might've meant in reference to yourself? (Which is entirely fine - I'm of the opinion that any given label should be opt-in to anyone who's genuine about it rather than mandatory.)

Really, the main important thing I appreciate is being able to accept others where they're at. Being able to just say "Yeah, sure, ok" and go along even if I don't personally understand is honestly one of my core beliefs* too, and with minimal disrespect it's nice seeing this from a Christian. The little I actually know suggests something worth looking into, and the notion of an eternal soul is something I find fairly agreeable (if not strictly the outcomes of that.) Then again, I'm someone whose personal experience with religion can be described as a tangled web of jokes that ran too long and accidentally became character traits, so, maybe not the best judge of anything here. Also, wow, this post got away from me quickly. Originally meant to just put in the first paragraph and call it good.

*I draw a hard line the second that personal belief starts meaning harm to others. Believe what you want about yourself, but anyone saying someone else needs to change their ways (bar the very beliefs this targets, primarily meaning bigotry/racists) because of a thing YOU feel a certain way about simply can't be tolerated.

Thanks for the critique! Looking back, I definitely should have written “disagree with the term queer FOR myself” (which was actually the original wording I drafted) rather than “disagree with the term queer myself”. I was trying to cut down on my wordiness as I edited my response, but I ended up just making it a confusing sentence to read. Curse my proofreading anxiety. 

I'll try not to get into it too much here because it'd probably derail this entire response to your ask, but I've got a lot of mixed feelings with most labels, especially ones that were formerly derogatory terms. My church has worked hard to pivot from being called “Mormons” because among other (honestly more important) reasons, the term was basically used as a snide and condescending way to refer to my church, and it quickly became the default phrase for addressing us. The fact that members of my faith were basically referring to themselves with an insult as I grew up in the church never really sat well with me, even if we took pride in it. I'm super impressed by those who can take once-painful words and make them into badges of honor, but for me personally, it's a real emotional minefield. Hence, in part, why I don't agree with using the term queer for myself. It's a matter of preference and personal implications.

Agh, I really rambled on for a while there. I hope that made sense.  

For your second paragraph— it's sad to me that so many people have had such disheartening experiences with Christians. I swear, most of us are loving people. There's just an unfortunate amount of very vocal bible-bashers who forget that God's greatest instructions to us were to love Him and love others. 

If you're interested, there's a lot of resources on my church’s website if you'd like to learn more about what we believe (though there's no pressure from me to read up on it!) I just felt like I should share because we don't believe in a Hell where people burn for all eternity. 

We believe in three different “kingdoms” that everyone will be sorted into, with interaction between them being possible so families and friends can visit each other if they end up divided. The least glorious kingdom (for lack of a better term) is still an absolutely amazing place, full of light and happiness. There is a sort of Hell called Outer Darkness that I guess anyone reading about could see it as a form of eternal punishment, but people choose to go there themselves— it's a form of willing separation from God that happens when people who have an absolutely perfect knowledge of the gospel still choose to go the opposite direction. It's not somewhere you go because you drank coffee or swore in life. That'd be ridiculous.

… I opened my mouth and a missionary came out. Oops. 

Anyhoo, that last paragraph is a big deal, Anon! People need to be able to choose for themselves what they'll do in their lives— any forced change is not change at all, and the second you do harm to another person that isn't in the defense of yourself or others, you're in the wrong. As you can probably tell from my tangent above, I'm an advocate for missionary work, which could be seen as telling people they need to change their ways, but the type of missionary work I stand behind is the kind that invites people to learn more— never forces— and respects when they say no. Always honor agency is my motto. Invite, don't incite. That sort of thing. 

Thanks again for the critique! I appreciate your willingness to send it in and share your thoughts. I'll add a link to this ask in my original post so that if anyone else is confused by my wording, they'll be able to see this and get some better information. 

[megaawkwardhuman]

I've said it once and I'll say it over and over again

my personal definition of insanity is trying to make sense of details that were probably just overlooked in a show

with that being said here's my theory on the whole killing someone's sire = bad things and how can still be true

warning: I'm aware this is like 99% bullshit and prob doesn't make sense I'm just having fun and dealing with gay vampire withdraw by having a category 5 hyper fixation event

OK OK SOOOOO as we know nandor was able to kill derek without killing gullermo (all it did was make him human)

which makes no sense since not that long ago nandor was freaking out about the baron dying and back in season 3 he tried his darndest to make sure the sire didn't die so that all of vampire kind wouldn't die

now a common theory I see is that the main reason why killing those two would be bad while meanwhile killing derek wouldn't be as much is a matter of the person ageing the amount of time they spent as a vampire (as seen by guillermo growing a beard and longer hair when being made a human again) so if a vampire who lived past a human's life expectancy they would just die

and yeah I fully believe that

I mean it makes a lot of sense

but it wouldn't explain why killing the sire would kill ALL vampires

sure it'd kill vampirism but not the younger vampires themselves

this is where my bs theory comes in!

now despite being bitten a month ago guillermo was only by the looks of it (I'll get into what I mean later) a FULL vampire for not that long (as seen by his outfit not changing at all from finally drinking blood to the party to the fake ceremony)

sooooo what if when nandor killed derek it was in a small period of time where under specific circumstances it WAS possible to kill the vampire who turned guillermo?

let me explain

so to be a vampire you kinda have to be dead

but what exactly kills you? (if you die purely due to the bite)

back in season 1 what kills jenna is a fever induced by the vampire cells so most likely that's what normally kills you

or at least the process most likely takes a while to kill you

but what if it (the vampire cells) didn't kill him

you see as we know his van helsing blood has been fighting off the vampirism with all its might ever since he got turned by derek (which is why memo was a weird half vamp all season)

and when guillermo died it was for a very VERY short period of time

so what if his van helsing blood brought him fully back to life?

like memo was dead enough for long enough to jump start the processes power wise but due to the van helsing blood fighting back and bringing him back he was going through all of that while still alive

OR he did die but not fully

like I said before guillermo's death was surprisingly short

well what if instead of being brought back by van helsing blood what if it wasn't able to bring him fully back so instead made it so that he didn't die fully (which was the best it could do)

with that being said however I personally believe that if nandor waited until the next day it prob would have been too late

for you see I think drinking blood not only finished giving guillermo his powers I also think that it would have also led to the vampire cells realizing that guillermo either isn't dead or isn't fully dead

so IF guillermo said he wanted to stay a vampire OR if they waited any longer they couldn't have turned him human again by killing derek since he would have fully died by then

so with all of that being said I think under normal circumstances if you killed the vampire who turned you after being fully killed by vampire cells you die

but if you were brought back through other means or you kill them BEFORE you fully die you go back to how you were pre bite

now you're probably wondering WHY TF WOULD NANDOR KNOW ALL OF THIS!?!?

weeeeeeell remember the trip he promised guillermo back in season 3?

while I do believe he wanted to make turning him a trip to make him realize what he'd lose as a vampire

I also think that he probably did some research in the council library beforehand

so that IF guillermo still wanted to become a vampire

and guillermo learned the hard way that he couldn't handle being a vampire

well...

at least his last memories with guillermo would be nice before he "fixed guillermo's problem" if you catch my drift

tl;dr: normally killing the vampire who turned you would actually kill you but due to blood bullshit™️ and timing nandor was able to kill derek without killing guillermo and make him human again

also he knew this shit cause he looked into it before the trip he planned all the way back in season 3 as a plan if shit hits beyond the fan

[unpurposed-organism]

One thing that stands out to me about the way people discuss morality-related intrusive thoughts (what if I did 'x' bad thing) is the insistence that these thoughts aren't ever connected to the individuals desires. I'd generally agree with this, and I understand why people feel the need to stress this point. Nobody wants their deepest fears to be regarded by others as something they would sincerely want to do. Besides that, its also just not how intrusive thoughts work, and its good to inform people about how OCD actually works. Its a very misunderstood disorder.

What bothers me about this is that, as somebody whose struggled with this, is that it feels like its missing the bigger picture. Yes, your intrusive thoughts probably have nothing to do with your desires. But even if they did, even if you legit liked the idea of murder or whatever, thats still fine. What actually matters is what you do. The distinction between intrusive thought and desire doesnt matter in terms of morality.

I also understand that many people arent receptive to that idea, but its a conversation Id like to see more often. Telling somebody with OCD that whether or not their thoughts are okay or not depends on their emotional response to that thought doesnt encourage healthy coping mechanisms. It will likely cause them to obsess over how they feel whenever they think of 'x'. (Did I feel disgusted enough with this thought? No? I need to intentionally upset myself now to reassure myself Im not a horrible person.) I know Ive been there before, so its important to me to stress that thoughts are morally neutral. I think thatll be more helpful for those with OCD than reiterating for the millionth time that intrusive thoughts =/= desires.

[zorilleerrant]

"Everyone's gay awakening was Nightwing," Bernard repeats, like Tim didn't hear him the first fucking time and, okay, back before they were brothers obviously attractive was a descriptor he would've used about Dick Grayson (he can't see it anymore, especially not until Dick stops sending him autotuned videos of people's pets when he said he was busy this week) but it was a couple years before he really thought about that kind of stuff, as much time as he even has to think about it now, and by then they were friends, at least, and it was weird just like it was back in high school.

Oh. He did like Bernard in high school. But it was all in the way of their friendship if it went wrong, just like with Steph, except Steph had a way of convincing him to take he leap, because she's an optimist like that. With Bernard, he needed enough space to figure it out himself, which, well, that was a journey, anyway, not that Tim's ever been very good at introspection. But, like, look at his family - both of them, really - and see where he would've had any examples set for him, so Tim is doing pretty well all things considered.

But the thing is Bern's an optimist, too, always seeing the silver lining and hoping against hope, ready to break down barriers wherever they sit, and if he'd taken Tim's hand, Tim probably would've made that leap. Does it mean something, then? That he followed Steph's lead because she promised it would turn out well, but he needed outside forces conspiring against him to shove him into Bern's arms? Or was it just that they weren't open yet? Does it mean he liked Steph more, and now he's settling? Or he liked her less so he was more willing to risk it, lying to himself about how strong his feelings were?

Oh, god, he hopes it doesn't mean he had a crush on Nightwing, back in those early days. If he suddenly realizes that one of these days he's going to chug an entire bottle of vodka to try to wash it out of his brain, and that's not going to end well. That's going to end with someone coming to rescue him and talk him down, and that's probably going to be Dick, because Dick is the one that's always had those conversations with him. And, in this particular case, that would be - oh, fuck, he can just see that smug grin and he already wants to punch it off of Dick's face.

"Earth to Tim? You okay?" Bernard says, and Tim doesn't even remember what he was talking about anymore - oh, right. He was talking about wanting to fuck Tim's brother. Right. That's why Tim's been speechless for the last ten minutes, except he can't exactly explain, either, because the thing is. The thing is that Bern said Nightwing not Dick Grayson, and the even worse thing is that he was so carefully not saying Dick's name and it was so obvious because Tim's read gossip magazines and watched the news and he knows that look in someone's eye. And it's not like he can call his boyfriend on what he didn't say, that's just mean.

"I think I liked you in high school," Tim blurts out, instead, because here's this memory that's just come to mind: they were changing for gym and Tim suddenly had to turn around, and nothing was even happening, Bern wasn't even taking off his shirt yet, just his jacket, and there wasn't anything to see. But Tim didn't want him thinking he was looking, even though he already wasn't really.

There's a second part of the memory, too, with Bernard running as fast as he can, shirt clinging to him, wiping off his forehead with a hem that was already wet. Bernard was toned, even back then, even before he got into martial arts the way he is now. Tim thought, at the time, he was jealous. How the hell did he think he was jealous? And he calls himself a detective.

"I mean," Bernard says, carefully, with a shrug that isn't as casual as he's trying to make it seem. "I knew I liked you, I just wasn't willing to let myself know that yet. So I projected. Onto Nightwing." There's an awkward smile there as he trails off, and Tim wonders if he's thinking about what it would've been like to hold hands down the corridors, make out by the lockers, go to prom together. Maybe thinking about how, if they did, they'd have broken up by now, and maybe Tim would've dumped him because he couldn't figure out why he had so much chemistry with Steph. Or maybe it would just be Robin stuff, getting in the way of everything. Or, who knows, maybe he'd be dating some celebrity, dressing for the spotlight.

But he's been silent again too long, and Tim tries to recover with, "is it less gay if it's Nightwing?" which is not what he meant to ask at all. He meant to say something sappy, or something heartfelt, or something true. Something that would reassure Bern or something that would make them both laugh or, fuck, anything, really, to get off the topic of his brother that he's not allowed to admit is his brother and therefore can't just offer a horrified look and walk away. Not that he has the energy to be that bothered, anymore, when someone waxes rhapsodic about Dick Grayson's bubble butt or whatever. And talk show hosts definitely know - it's their job to know - that Tim doesn't need to hear that.

"Yeah. Way less. Didn't you hear me when I said it's everybody? You know there's a whole fansite devoted to him being people's celebrity exception," Bernard says, and then, at Tim's look, which he's probably misinterpreting but Tim definitely can't get himself to make any different face about that, "it's not like I was looking for it, okay, it's just a lot of the most interesting - do you know a lot of people think Nightwing might be Kryptonian? Or half, anyway, like Superboy."

"Right," Tim says, wondering who the hell claimed Nightwing was Kryptonian and why, and stands up abruptly to, he doesn't know, put on a movie or something. Anything to distract them from the disturbingness of - what the fuck is a celebrity exception and why would anyone want one? Wouldn't wanting one be evidence of - well, now Tim's just being a hypocrite, because he definitely didn't notice all the men he slotted into his 'we'll just think about them a little extra for no reason' file. "You don't still like Nightwing, do you?"

Bernard gives him the most quizzical look, and then shrugs and makes an ambivalent hand gesture, which Tim is very generously choosing to interpret as an agreement that he no longer likes and will continue to not have a crush on Dick in any capacity, forever. "You're taking this a little personally Tim. I already said, you were the first person I knew who I caught feelings for, and it's not like he's your competition or anything. You'd think you were Robin." And Tim doesn't laugh. He doesn't laugh awkwardly and sit there, or laugh hysterically and leave the room, and he doesn't laugh at the absurdity of the situation and spill everything right there, either. But they are going to have to come up with some kind of agreement about never ever talking about Nightwing ever again.