#inherent romance of road trips etc etc

[rottingraisins]

triannual accumulated clefdraki art dump... some strange little timeline out there where theyre happy i think

[tyrantisterror]

Tales of Kevalry: A Collection of Star Wars Fanfic Ideas

Ok, so, if you’re looking at this you’ve probably seen the posts where I and a bunch of others workshopped what was originally just a joke proposal for an alternative to the Sith and the Jedi in Star Wars into an almost workable proposal for an alternative to the Sith and the Jedi in Star Wars.  @theswiveldiscourse suggested making a sort of campaign/setting pitch out of all the scattered bits we’ve established so far, so... this is that.

Keval Errants

Our alternative force users, for those who think the “you cannot have meaningful relationships with anyone - family, romance, etc.” rules of the Jedi suck but also don’t like the complete devotion to selfishness that defines the Sith.  They’re called the Keval Errants, and they basically play on the “wandering hero” archetype in fantasy fiction - i.e. the knight errant who wanders from place to place slaying monsters and saving villagers, the nameless gunslinger who rolls into town, shoots the bandits, and rides off into the sunset, the ronin who decides to protect villagers from marauders out of the goodness of his heart, the gumshoe who gets in over his head investigating a criminal conspiracy because a dame with a problem came into his office looking for help, etc.

There’s a loose code for the Keval Errants here, but the jist of it can be summed up as:

A keval errant devotes their life to helping others as much as possible

Keval errants believe that you can’t be good at helping others if you don’t understand and care about them

To that end, Keval Errants dedicate themselves to understanding other creatures as much as possible, and are required to have at least one animal that they partner with in combat to reinforce this idea (because training an animal as a mount requires you to practice communicating with and caring for a creature that isn’t capable of communicating the same way as you)

If a Keval Errant’s mount dies, they are expected to raise a new one after a period of mourning.

A squire is usually expected to pick a different mount than the one their Keval Errant mentor uses, as the point of having a mount is to hone the skills of understanding different creatures - relying on the mentor’s pre-established knowledge robs the squire of a valuable learning experience.

Any creature can be a mount so long as 1. it consents to the partnership and 2. its biological and psychological needs are different than the Keval Errant is works with.  Droids and sapient beings, while uncommon, can be found among the Keval Errants’ partners.

Keval Errants believe that freedom is an essential right of all beings, and oppose tyranny in all its forms

No force power is off limits, though draining life force, dominating minds, and looking into the future are viewed as inherently dangerous powers that should be used sparingly if at all.

Unlike the Jedi and the Sith, Keval Errants aren’t big on dogma and strict rules.  Their code is a set of guidelines that is meant to be open to interpretation and, if need be, broken when necessary.  There is no strict dress code, naming convention, weapon selection, etc. - freedom is a big value of the code, and so followers of it are encouraged to do things their own way.  Keval Errants are also free to leave and rejoin the order as often as they need to - no one is shamed for, say, wanting to pause their training to go save their friends from being killed by fascists, or take a brief holiday to rescue their mother from slavery.

If one chooses to be a Keval Errant, one must travel the Galaxy trying to help people in need and have a creature one trains as a mount.  That’s it, those are the only requirements.

Like the Jedi and the Sith, the Keval Errants are not well chronicled in history - in fact, they are even more obscure than the other two, as Keval Errants don’t actively seek out children to indoctrinate like the Jedi, nor do they try to conquer the Galaxy like the Sith.  Most stories of the Keval Errants are folktales of a mysterious and helpful stranger who wandered into a town, solved some problems, and eventually went on their way.

Though they don’t actively recruit new members, Keval Errants will accept any who ask to learn from them.  Most Keval Errants began as an ordinary citizen of the Galaxy who witnessed another member of the order performing a heroic act, and decided to ask the mysterious stranger to teach them how to do the same.  Keval Errants accept squires regardless of their midichlorian count, believing that anyone - even droids, perhaps - can learn to use the force if they open themselves to it.

Though a Keval Errant’s travels can take them anywhere, they are most often found in the Outer Rim - where there are plenty of problems to solve, and few good warriors willing to deal with them.

Umbrade Vassals

Star Wars loves dichotomies, so the Keval Errants need an opposing faction.  Enter the Umbrade Vassals (we brainstormed a lot of different names but only the “Vassal” part stuck, so we might play with the name some more here).  Their philosophy focuses in the ideas of necessary evils and greater goods, believing that certain cruelties and inequalities are inherent aspects of the universe, and that the Galaxy would thrive if everyone submitted to the rule of the Dark Side of the Force (and, by proxy, the rule of the Umbrade Vassals themselves, who execute the Dark Side’s will).

Like Keval Errants, Umbrade Vassals embrace anonymity, albeit for very different reasons.  While a Keval Errant drifts from town to town as a mysterious but helpful stranger, an Umbrade Vassal commits acts of cruelty beneath a mask in order to deny responsibility for their actions - it is not THEIR will that others should suffer, but the will of the Force, and as such they should not be held accountable for the suffering their actions cause.  Like the Sith, Umbrade Vassals try to dominate and rule as much as possible, though unlike the Sith they prefer to do so without getting credit for it.  Umbrade Vassals spend most of their lives in positions of power that avoid fame - high level bureaucrats, chancellors to emperors, etc.  They do not seek the throne, but rather to be the whisper in a king’s ear.  When forced to change things in the open, they wear uniform set robes and armor that conceal their true identity as much as possible.  Identity is something the Umbrade Vassals would like to do away with should their conquest of the Galaxy ever fully exist - in their Utopia, all are nameless pawns for the Force to use as it will.

There are few stories of grand battles between Keval Errants and Umbrade Vassals - though the two despise each other on principle, most of their conflicts are less epic struggles of good vs. evil and more akin to a story of a trickster evading an over-reaching tyrant.  The Umbrade Vassals have tried to wipe out the Keval Errants on many occasions, but have failed in part because the Errants are so loose and chaotic in structure that tracking all of them down is nearly impossible, especially for an orderly and rule-oriented group of villains who by their nature hate thinking creatively.

Rough Ideas on How a Keval Errant Story Would be Shaped

The Star Wars stories that focus on Jedi/Sith conflicts tend to be Epic in scope - stories of nations going to war and high political drama ala The Iliad.  A Keval Errant story should be a bit more personal and intimate in structure - less Phantom Menace and more The Mandalorian, if you will.  Keval Errants wander the Galaxy in search of people to save and villains to thwart - they don’t get involved in Republic trade disputes and take orders from Galactic senators unless the problem gets REALLY out of hand.  Which is where the Umbrade Vassals come in - while a Keval Errant story should start as a fun road trip where the Errant(s) helps out people in need across the Galaxy, Umbrade Vassals can escalate the problem to a degree that the Keval Errant has to become involved in a grander conflict - a Star War, if you will.

Thematically, a Keval Errant story should be about the value of kindness and love - any and all forms of love, be they Romantic, Platonic, etc (for clarity’s sake: you don’t have to be romantically/sexually attracted to anyone to be a Keval Errant, but you do have to care about people in some capacity).  Keval Errants are compassionate and want to connect with the world, and their enemies are those who are cruel and selfish.

Also, Keval Errants are space warriors who ride space monsters and stop space villains.  Have fun with that and do some goofy shit.

Ok, that’s all I got - what did I miss/what else can we add, gang?

[potteresque-ire]

The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes - My Rambling Review

This is a book that at times floors me, at times frustrates me.

(Under the cut, because 1) rambling and 2) spoilers)

I’ll lay out my frustrations first — then, I’ll do a 180 degrees turn around and explain why these frustrations also make the book such a haunting, powerful read for me. All in all, I really enjoyed this book. It’s just that, while reading, I also kept thinking:

This book is a several edits away from a masterpiece.

I’ll begin with this. I can’t say how much I adore Suzanne Collins’ dedication in driving home the themes of the Hunger Games in TBOSAS. The nature of war and how it serves a tool for those who want to retain power, the opposing view of whether human nature is inherently good or violent or self-destructive. 

Control, chaos, contract.

But this is also why, I think, the book stumbles in places. The themes are given such a strong, at times heavy-handed treatment that they threaten to swallow up other elements of storytelling. The plot, the characterisations etc have all at times given way to serve the themes, and the story’s believability is compromised. The Hunger Games, as a series, requires more believability to work than a novel about our world because of the sheer brutality of the games, both inside and outside the arena. This requires a sure hand in the writing. Suzanne Collins accomplished that in the original trilogy — I never doubted the existence of these games, and the horror that is the Capitol that has created and enjoyed them. But I did have moments of doubt while reading TBOSAS.

I think, if I have to sum up the shortcomings of TBOSAS, it is this: everything in this book is about war and totalitarianism. Every plot point speaks to these themes. Every major character is a walking symbol of a set of ideals related to these themes. Everything they think and do, every backdrop of their thoughts and actions including the imageries, the songs, the objects (compact, compass, snakes etc), all serve the themes in some way. This undermines plausibility of the story because actual human beings aren’t like that. Actual events don’t happen like that. Our lives are pulled in multiple directions by numerous purposes, most of them trivial. The trivialities may not serve any larger themes but they round us, complete us as humans. They provide the context, the texture of who we are.

Because only the aspects of them connected to the themes are told/emphasised, The characters in TBOSAS are prone to reading flat, textureless. Dr Gaul (DG) is the most extreme of examples. She feels no more than a voice (not a human) for the singular purposes of bringing up questions about the themes. Other major characters are relatively spared, but the issue is still evident in places. The thoughts of Coriolanus Snow (CS) are too focused on several issues (poverty; the three Cs; how the Plinths offend him, for example). Lucy Grey (LG) is somewhat saved by her songs and her mystery is her draw, but the same mystery also prevents us from engaging emotionally with her. Sejanus Plinth (SP) repeatedly tries to defy the Capitol, which is noble, but does little else that we’re aware of. His presence seems to serve as a contrast to CS rather than being a person on his own. The secondary characters suffer even more under the weight of the themes:  the mentors, for example, are so similarly unlikeable that they border on cartoonish for me. It makes sense in the trilogy that Katniss doesn’t know much about those in the arena with her and their mentors; it makes sense that her descriptions of them veer towards two-dimensional and therein lies the tragedy of the Games — Katniss and Peeta are fully aware that every tribute is a human being but they’re robbed of any chance to treat them as such. In contrast, the mentors in TBOSAS are CS’s childhood friends. CS may be self-centred and calculating, but he’s too observant to see his friends as all alike. Symbolically, I can understand why the mentors share certain traits — they will be the audience for the next 65 Hunger Games, after all — but the implausibility of these mentors undermines the plausibility of the 10th Hunger Games itself, as CS sits among them.

The shortcomings in characterisations are reflected in the plot. The romantic scenes between CS and LG tend to get into the discussions of the nature of the Games, of Panem and the Capitol’s rule very quickly (for example, the one by the Lake, the one during their final trip out of District 12). It allows a direct compare-and-contrast between his views and hers, but at the plot level, it makes their romance, healthy or not, difficult to believe, which makes some of CS’ decisions hard to believe. Sometimes, I almost sense a disinterest in the writing, a hastening in the pace at what are significant plot points that don’t directly serve the themes (for example, the confrontation in the shed). And there are many of such beautiful plot points in this book, fantastic moments when things don’t go as expected or the writing nails the scene and brings the emotions to the max (The last hanging. * Sigh*). But this book, like CS, isn’t interested in lingering in those moments. This book, like CS, doesn’t allow itself to veer out of emotional control.

Related to the plot too is that I feel the treatment of the tributes before 10th Hunger Games is a bit too heavy handed, and as a result, fail to achieve the chilling effects of the games in the original trilogy. How the tributes are dumped in a zoo and treated with veterinarians, how they’re treated in the funerals etc … the cold-heartedness of these acts, the villainous nature of the Capitol is so overt that it’s difficult to imagine the Capitol’s citizens going along with them (watching the tributes at the zoo, for example; the fans outside the arena during the games). The luxury offered to the tributes before the Games in the original trilogy adds on a whole layer of brutality, because it’s there to appease the conscience of the Capitol citizens, because it’s equivalent to fattening the pig before slaughtering it. The 10th Hunger Games misses that. Like everything else, I understand this choice of presentation at the symbolic level (more on that later), but it also makes some of these sequences read almost caricature, if the Games were a human. It’s Evil spelled out for all to see; it’s evil for evil’s sake.

Okay, so this seems to be a long list of complaints. If you get here, you must be wondering, how come I said I enjoyed the book? What is there left to be enjoyed, if the characterisations, the plot and the pacing all have somethings left to be desired?

And my answer is: this book is a very different book if I adjust my perspective, think of everything in terms of its themes and symbols. After this adjustment, TBOSAS becomes a very different read.

It’s also brilliant.

My thoughts are rough — I’m not familiar with the Hobbesian theories, but I’ll try to explain my alternate view of TBOSAS via my understanding of the 4 major characters, Coriolanus Snow (CS), Lucy Grey (LG), Sejanus Plinth (SP), and Dr Gaul (DG). I think of them as the major characters because I feel they each represent a set of perspectives regarding totalitarianism and the wars and chaos associated with it. In the books, these perspectives are engaged in a Hunger Games of their own, a battle raged because the governing set of perspectives, the one of Dr Gaul, is failing. The victor of this Game doesn’t get the Plinth Prize, but decides the fate of the Districts and Panem. I’d summarise the 4 perspectives as follows:

DG (Dr Gaul) is the closest to the classic villain. She views the line between the Capitol and the Districts as not the line between good and evil, but between winners and losers, who are violent animals without the line. The line is rigid and unmovable and must be maintained via constant war. She wants to make a totalitarian regime.

SP (Sejanus Plinth) is the closest to the classic hero. He also sees the line between the Capitol and the Districts, and as clearly and insistently as Dr Gaul (he insists he’s from District 2 throughout the book). The difference is, he sees it as the line between the oppressors and the oppressed, the evil and the good. He wants to break the totalitarian regime, make the line obsolete by making one side disappear. The road to achieve his ideals also involves war.

LG (Lucy Grey) refuses to acknowledge the line between the Capitol and the Districts. She has no trouble becoming friends / lovers with those who are from the Capitol as long as they do not commit the same brutality, while her sympathies also lie with the rebels who’re brutally treated. She has no interest in wars, in the making or breaking of any regime. She is her own judge of who’s good and who’s evil, who’s the oppressor and the oppressed and contrary to DG (and eventually, CS), she believes humans are inherently good.

CS (Coriolanus Snow), on the surface, also sees the line between the Capitol and the Districts. Unlike DG and SP, however, he sees it as something fluid, which can be erased and redrawn to suit a purpose. The line CS sees doesn’t demarcate good vs evil, or winners vs losers. It separates CS and what CS wants. Like LG, CS has no true loyalty to the Capitol or the Districts, has no inherent interest in wars or making or breaking a regime. Unlike LG, however, he is open to participating in them as long as there are rewards to be reaped. As such, CS has no qualms cheating in the Games, which does far more damage to the Capitol’s image of strength and control than anything else (by making LG a victor despite her unthinkable odds but more importantly, making her a person instead of an animal), or later on, taking over SP’s place in the Plinth’s family.

DG, despite being the game maker, is the first loser of this Hunger Games between the ideologies. Her control is cracking. Her Games are a bore, and discontent and hunger have lent chaos to the Districts, like the fight in the dark in District 12. Chaos is also in the Capitol when CS, discontent and hungry in his own way, begins to erase the line between the Capitol and the Districts by showing up in the train station with a rose. Despite her powerful façade, DG is also weak against LG and SP. LG defeats DG’s snake mutts easily in the arena. DG has to give SP chance after chance, given his father’s ammunition empire.

DG’s strength is that she’s aware of her weaknesses, and willing to adjust her tactics in exchange for the control she craves. I don’t think she’s grooming CS as much as she sees something in him that she doesn’t have. The something that is symbolised by the compact — the remaining humanity in CS after the war that allows him to gain the trust of LG and SP. DG fails to even pretend to have that. Like the 10th Hunger Games she’d staged, like her dumping the tributes in the zoo and abusing them, her intent is too obvious, her distaste too overt and … tasteless. Even the Capitol audience aren’t keen on her designs; they go to the zoo to watch the tributes but skip the Games. She needs a CS who knows how to re-package the Games as something that appears fun and harmless and beautiful, like LG. LG who can make tributes in a cage look dignified, who can entertain and sing DG’s snake mutts into oblivion.

SP’s strength is, of course, his moral fibre, which is also his weaknesses. He’s too idealistic; his inability to accept compromises, especially when he’s still too young to bring about actual changes to the Capitol, render him useless towards his goal — even if he doesn’t meet his end, what good can he do for the Districts, for Panem, once he heads North (with the likes of Billy Taupe)? I find myself agreeing with CS when he talks SP out of the arena — morality is of limited use if it can’t be translated into meaningful actions. I also (somewhat shamefully) find myself agreeing with CS’s frustration / bitterness about SP’s constant, vocal insistence that he’s District, if only because I find it disrespectful to the actual suffering the District 2 folks must be going through. As the Plinth heir, SP is in a very powerful position to bring about reforms to Panem if he can be a little more patient, a little more scheming, … a little more CS. Instead, he constantly engages himself in largely performative acts that compromises his own potential. Acting out in front of Dr Gaul. The bread crumbs for Marcus, even. It’s touching, yes, but does it change anything? No. The bread ritual isn’t the same as Katniss’s funeral for Rue; Katniss and Rue are both tributes. SP gets out of the arena because of the privilege he has in spades but fails to see in himself. He should also know, because he’s seen it before, what happens to whichever tribute who would’ve killed him if CS doesn’t show up.

That said, it doesn’t mean SP doesn’t do any good; it’s just that the good he’s done isn’t what he’s intended, which, perhaps, makes SP’s end even more tragic than it is. I think SP and his idealism have inspired CS to be a better person. I believe CS, despite himself, like SP more than he admits and SP delays his final turn for at least a while. SP may not have helped anyone in the Districts as he’s wished, but he’s close to changing the mind of someone who’ll one day decide the fate of everyone in the Districts.

LG. Her strength is her independent thinking. She isn’t naive about the Capitol-Districts line she refuses to acknowledge — she knows where the snakes are. She knows that better than anyone else. On the surface, she appears to be the weakest among the four, the girl in a rainbow dress whose only survival skill is her ability to manipulate snakes. But someone can sense evil and manipulate it to their advantage is a threat; someone who doesn’t buy into the Capitol’s propaganda is a threat, especially those who remember that the cruel laws and “traditions” (the Games) the Capitol attempts to pass as “lessons” are artefacts and therefore, transient. Transient things are weak; subservience to them is then an option, not a must. LG and her kind can be even more threatening to the Capitol than the rebels, because while the latter can be rid of with sentences of treason, the LGs of Panem cannot be removed the same way because they haven’t acted against the regime. They cannot be sentenced for singing songs about the good and bad in humans, about human emotions, about the day to day sightings of their human neighbours, dead and alive, about the humans that arch between reality and imagination and prophecy. They cannot be hanged for knowing songs that predate Panem and the Capitol, for being the mockingjays that still have the jabberjays in them but nonetheless find a way to sing whatever they choose.

DG, I believe, fails to fully grasp the danger of LG, but CS does. His biggest fear of LG is that she can locate snakes, that she can see through him. They bond at first as they both sees themselves above the Capitol-Districts line, but once the Games are over, the cracks between them almost immediately begin to show. She thinks of her knowledge of snakes as self defence. He sees it as something she’ll coil around him one day. Like a hope — LG is CS’s chance of getting back the humanity he lost in the war — and also like a rope.

The weakness of LG is, of course, that she’s after all, just a girl in a rainbow dress. Even if she wants/needs to, she doesn’t have the power to make any changes to the Capitol. She can only run once perceived as a threat, but she can’t fight back.

She can’t fight CS, the ultimate winner.

All through the book, I keep shifting my own mind lens to see how I would perceive CS if I cannot read his thoughts, if I’m like everyone else around him. And I realise how he … smells like roses through a significant portion of the book, given how unifying awful his classmates are except SP. He’s the first mentor to treat a tribute like a human. He helps his classmates (Arachne and Clemensia; the mutts attack on the latter isn’t his intention). He’s the only Academy student who’s kind to SP and while he’s forced to save the latter, he does so with tact and an understanding of SP’s thought processes that can only come from friendship. Do we judge a person with his actions or his thoughts? I’d say, his actions, and from an outsider’s perspective, CS does seem to be the one who can change Panem for the better. He does seem to be the one who can fix the Capitol from within, who can get it to rethink its treatment of the Districts while preserving its own dignity as the ruling class. And herein lies the greatest strength of CS—he’s a diplomat; he’s all about soft power. He knows how to work within a system (eg. his cheating), how to wage a war without firing a shot. He can be everyone’s ally and at the same time: while he’s making a major contribution to the Hunger Games by his betting proposal, he’s also destroying the Games at its foundation by equalising his Capitol self and his District tribute (picnicking with LG at the zoo in front of the camera, for example). When DG says she destroyed the records of the Games because the mentors’ death makes the Capitol look weak, I wonder if it’s a lie. Aside from my suspicion that DG staged the arena attack — her intention being to remind the Capitol of the Districts’ “evilness” and draw the Capitol to watch the Games as revenge — I believe DG is aware that CS and LG are chiefly responsible for making the Capitol look weak during the Games. The invention she’s proud / confident enough of to go on an interview right before its introduction into the arena turns out to be pets in their collective hands.

My understanding is, DG sees CS as both her potential successor and potential threat. Her campaign is to find out where he stands and to get him on her side: her extra homework for him, the breadcrumbs she lays down for him (the peacekeeper-ship, the officership) are all to corner him to out of his diplomatic exterior and to force him take a stand, to bait him to take her stand.

The ones doing the tug of war with DG are SP and LG — if this is a war for CS’s soul, then SP represents his conscience, and LG, his humanity.

SP loses first. Between conscience and safety, CS picks the latter. This is a decision I can understand on some level; many in our world, too, have opted for safety (from being ratted out, punished by association) instead of speaking out against injustice, especially when the injustice is committed by those in power, especially when the association is also protected by power (CS is not entirely wrong in thinking that SP may be able to buy his way out of the jabberjay incident, given his privilege). LG goes second and last. The choice between humanity and power isn’t as much a more difficult decision to make as it is reserved for relatively few, for those already with power within their reach.

CS is aware of that.

It takes a 500+ page journey for CS to make a conscious choice of giving up his humanity. He misses it, and I believe his pain is real. He misses the humanity he lost during the war, symbolised by the loss of his mother who left him with the rose powder in the compact. The rose powder he smells for comfort. I think Suzanne Collins deserve major kudos for using CS as the sole narrator of TBOSAS. It’s a risky move and doesn’t always pay off, but it offers a unique, in-depth perspective in how real world villains come about. CS starts out as talented but also mundane in that on the scale of morality, he starts out as neither exceptionally evil nor exceptionally good. He’s neither the classic villain nor the misunderstood villain. His views of the world is still being shaped, and the book doesn’t shy away from the messiness of the process, the back and forth between CS’s better and worse thoughts, the discrepancies between his thoughts — including what he perceives as his motivation — and his actions.

CS so desperately wants to be believe he’s in love with LG and the renewed, post-war humanity she represents. He’s so convinced that he’s already in love. But he never truly is (he dislikes LG’s songs), because the rewards LG can offer him turns out to be far from enough. The rewards humanity can offer him turns out to be far from enough, not in a world where war, where the Capitol and the likes of DG have already so de-valued humanity. A life with LG will be about digging worms from the soil. Free, but poor in every other way. It may satisfy his conscience, but SP has already been killed at the Hanging Tree.

CS fails to kill his humanity as he did with his conscience. CS cannot fully divorce himself from humanity, being human himself. And so LG disappears into the woods.

With all this in my mind, the climax of the book, in which CS hunts for LG by the Lake, is both emotionally and intellectually intense. As his actions become more and more threatening, as he starts with a seemingly concerned search for LG and ends with firing shots at the echos of “The Hanging Tree”, his taking the stand of DG is complete. As a reader, his decision has been evident for a while, but this is when he faces and owns his decision himself, and the chapter is haunting as it is powerful. At that moment, CS turns into DG’s most powerful mutt, a human mutt but with its humanity left only as a veneer, like the compact he’ll get back from Casca Highbottom with his mother’s rose powder long disposed in the trash, with his only hope of a new rose powder — his renewed humanity in the form of LG — long banished into the unknown by his peacekeeper’s rifle. CS becomes an actualisation of DG’s and his own belief that he’s but an animal that requires constant control, which in turn requires with constant war. It’s an apt end for TBOSAS because by then, the fate of the Districts, of Panem for the next six decades is sealed. Because by then, the return of humanity into the Capitol, in the form of Katniss Everdeen, is also sealed.

No matter how much jabberjays there is in them, mockingjays will find a way to sing whatever they choose. 

[octavianacidicbreastmilk]

bold which of the following trope within each pair that you like best! (or if you dislike both, whichever you hate the least)

tagged by caro from @youlovedme-never!! tysm and ily!!

slowburn or love at first sight // fake dating or secret dating // enemies to lovers or best friends to lovers // oh no there’s only one bed or long-distance correspondence (the inherent romanticism of having to put your feelings on paper but not too much) // hurt/comfort or amnesia // fantasy au or modern au // mutual pining or domestic bliss // smut or fluff (i dont mind smut, but im not really into it per se honestly. like it depnds on the source material, but by default im meh) // canon-compliant or fix-it (meaning canon divergence) (it really really depends on the source material.)// reincarnation or character death // one-shot or multi-chapter // kid fic or road trip fic // arranged marriage or accidental marriage // high school romance or middle-aged romance (yeah honestly ive been in high school once. it was enough. pls dont drag it into self-indulgent stuff lmao)// time travel or isolated together // neighbors or roommates // sci-fi au or magic au // body swap or genderbend (neither thanks <-- keeping it, bc caro as always this is a mood) // angst or crack // apocalyptic or mundane

not tagging anyone bc im pretty sure everybody in the polycule of mutuals has been tagged at least once already, but if anybody wants to do this consider yourself tagged etc etc!!

[naazyalensky]

I guess I will discuss it.

I know often things that are posted by someone outside one’s rnm circle are treated as hostile but this isn’t an attack on the takes I’m seeing, just one I’m not seeing brought up: the infinite potential for good in matrimony.

I think it’s really uncomfortable that a relationship in which partners choose marriage is being argued as inherently reductive to a woman’s complexity. Choice is key, and has been overlooked. I think it’s uncomfortable that we leapt past the possibility of healthy so quickly that we’re only discussing the downsides to romantic partnerships and not the way vulnerability nurtured into familiarity, confidence, and trust can lead to the desire to pledge one’s devotion forever. Whether forever comes or goes.

And that’s not for everybody. Some women will never want to be married to their partners. Some don’t desire romance or partners. There’s a path for every woman and they do not all run parallel.

In this case we’re discussing fictional characters, but choice is still a key component. The choosing of the thing is what matters. People in healthy relationships do not have to lose parts of themselves. With luck and support, if you do, you’ll find those pieces again. Liz as a bride is no less a scientist. Maria as a wife is no less a businesswoman. Neither is either any less one single plank in their identity’s foundation. Women in love are, ideally, no less individuals. Women who function in a unit don’t cease to exist on their own.

There’s a lot that can be said here, but I’m not arguing a thesis, I’m just pointing out that this event isn’t about what all women will do. Or even placing Liz and/or Maria on one set path. It’s about the what-ifs around marriage for these particular characters and pairings. Why them? Personal preference. but none of us needs an event to explore the hypothetical.

The prompts are general. Think of all the ground they can cover.

Do they want to get married? Do they want all the bells and whistles or just the promise and some cake? Somewhere in the middle? Somewhere outside it all? Who would they want present when they take their vows? How would they change as individuals in marriage? What steps would they take to hold onto themselves? How tight a grip would they need? Do they stay married? Are they friends if they divorce? 

Have they missed each other for decades before they get their shot? Do they live together before getting married? How do they honeymoon? Do they choose not to? Where do they compromise? Where are they indulged? How do they resolve fights? What are their goals outside of a partner and how does their partner respect this? How do they make time for one another when the honeymoon phase slips into normalcy? 

Do they want kids? Do they not? Do they adopt? How do their parenting styles differ? How do they match? Do they marry before or after kids? Do they have kids and never marry? How would they fare on a family road trip? 

What do they learn about each other after they believe they know everything? What do they learn about themselves? How do they show their affection in the small moments? How would they make a grand gesture? How do they propose? How long is the engagement? Where do they fit into their community as individuals? How does the community regard them as a couple? 

How does a typical day of married life play out? How is the wedding planned? How well does the wedding go according to plan? Is there a plan? How do they get on with their in-laws? How does the in-law relationship shift over time and how does that impact the marriage? Which parts of the relationship are a well-oiled machine? Which parts need work? 

What do they score on a ‘before you get married’ quiz for fun on their ten year anniversary? How do they score on it the night before the wedding? What are their marriage memes? Does one leave for work before the other and leave notes on their windshield? Do they high five after successfully following a youtube tutorial on the third attempt? 

What family traditions do they carry on? What traditions do they create? What does their home look like? What does their life look like? What excites them most about coming home to the other? How to they value, express, and maintain intimacy?

There are just so many facets to explore and this is all off the top of my head. It’s hardly all-encompassing, and I’ve quite possibly repeated myself. Marriage and weddings and women who choose that for themselves by offering and/or accepting a proposal—or hey, there’s a whole subsection I missed: exploring the challenges and triumphs of couples who meet and marry nearly on the spot—these things, they do not have to be limiting. They do not have to be answered in any particular way but the one that you enjoy if you enjoy it. They do not have to follow the ugly tropes between men and women played out by rote in media. 

Re: the event. Does commitment require marriage? Not one bit. National Wife Appreciation Day just happened to fall when there were no other events posted and that became the basis for exploring more about Liz and Maria (and Max and Michael) by holding them up to any and all of the questions above. Plus the many many many I missed. 

Intimate and loving relationships thriving is a fun as hell playground. Difficult (not synonymous with toxic) relationships that have the work put into become healthy are also fun as hell. Now this isn’t fun or interesting to everyone, but it’s, again, not inherently stale or limiting. 

The journey is about what you see in it, so if it don’t apply let it fly, but it’s misogyny plain and simple to write women off as lesser when taking on the roles of brides and wives alongside all their others, like sister, daughter, friend, biomedical engineer, bar owner, etc. etc. as though one cancels out the others.

[doubled-helix]

book thoughts: the hearts we sold (spoilers)

the hearts we sold, emily lloyd-jones

(disclaimer: all of this is my opinion because i decided it’s better for my own writing to reflect upon books i read (thanks college profs). in fact, i’m not even putting it in the main tags so no one should be reading this except future me anyways)

overarching conflict: all books should have one of these. usually it’s to defeat the big bad, which doesn’t quite fit this novel since there wasn’t one defined big bad. i mean, there were the burrowers, which were pretty creepy, but i’m personally fond of the classic puppetmaster villain, who pulls the strings and monologues and bemoans the state of the world or whatnot. think the mage in carry on or luke/kronos in the pjo series. call me old-fashioned. 

my prof told us that books, especially sci-fi/fantasy ones, should have a looming threat that’s constantly hanging over the heroes even as they defeat or are defeated by many smaller threats. like harry facing quirrel, tom riddle/the basilisk, the dementors/sirius black/peter pettigrew (the “one true baddie” was a bit more vague in thisone) - all the while knowing that voldemort’s the final boss. 

in this book, i guess you could say the final big void was the ultimate baddie, but considering neither our main gal nor us knew about this until three quarters of the way through the book, it wasn’t exactly a looming threat, even as the characters did close many smaller voids (the in-between threats books have - the ones between the exposition and climax). i say a bit more about this later, but i think the lack of a dominant big bad may be one of the reasons the book felt stagnant for a good portion of the first half. this, combined with the lack of strong motive dee had - well. it certainly slowed things down. 

things that didn’t work: 1. the “team”: i’m a sucker for a tight-knit group of people who’d kill to protect each other, who poke fun and laugh and joke around à la avatar the last airbender. i’m even more of a sucker for found families, also like avatar the last airbender. but this book’s “team” absolutely did not work for me, and the most probable cause i can think of is that the author just didn’t let us spend enough time with them. 

the main dude james had been with cal and cora for almost two years, and i got none of that from the way he talked about them. in fact, main gal dee actually says that she’s glad james and her have a closer bond than the other two - which, sure, romance, i get it, but if you want to make a dream team you can’t throw half of its members into the wind. 

when cal died, that evoked nothing in me as a reader because i cared about him as much as dee did, and she maybe shared 20 lines total with the guy. similarly, she barely interacted with cora, who was supposed to be the leader, but other than the author telling us that she was the “leader,” there was nothing showing her fulfilling that role. i absolutely hate saying this because it’s the most cliche advice one can offer but “show not tell.” if you want to show a fall from grace, from cool and collected cora to frantic and panicking cora, you gotta show us the grace first. 

riley: don’t get me wrong, i fucking love riley, but she didn’t show up until 70% of the way through the book. and there was a sort of insta-friendship between her, james, and dee. at one point towards the end, she says something like “if we die tonight, i’m glad i met you two” which would be very nice if they hadn’t met 20 pages ago. (i feel like i should note, a few weeks did pass world-wise, but that really doesn’t do much for the reader, who didn’t get to feel any of that time)

it would have been fantastic to have riley with us from the very beginning. her relationship with james and dee felt like it actually had the potential to blossom into that dream team/found family thing. cal and cora felt like they had their own separate lives, which is fantastic in reality because no one should spend all their time with a single group of people, but the thing about stories in my experience is that to be effective, everything - every interaction or desire or situation - should be Too Much. 

also, riley seemed a little too cool with everything that was happening. it took dee at least a few weeks to accept the whole voids and homunculus and world-ending thing, but riley was like “fantastic, let’s do this, i can blow things up” which was a bit sudden. 

cora: i mentioned already how she was the “leader” but didn’t really do anything to show that, but also - i felt like we were supposed to feel sorry for her, or at least understand her motives, but i got absolutely none of that. she killed cal, who i didn’t feel much for, but it was still fairly unforgivable, and she never had an act of redemption. i’ll talk about this later, but i feel like james’s sacrifice at the end should have been hers. she wanted “everyone to live,” that was her motive. sacrificing herself would have been the loop to close her character arc, instead of her just dropping out of the story completely. and speaking of motive...

2. the motive: oh boy, i don’t even think i have authority to talk about this because “motive” is a biggie. they have entire writing courses dedicated to character motives. i read a post a while back that said something to the like of “every character should want something and should want it to the point of obsession.” 

going on my avatar the last airbender comparison (that show’s story is literally my baseline for everything else i read or watch), every character in that show wants something desperately. aang’s is easy - he wants to learn the other three elements and save the world. katara, at least in the first season, is completely focused on mastering waterbending. zuko - capture the avatar, regain his honor (and this one’s definitely an obsession). my point is, if your characters don’t want something desperately, there is no story.

now applying that to this story is a bit tricky because the premise is that these people did want something strongly, strong enough to sell their hearts for it. dee wanted money for boarding school, wanted to get out of her awful home situation. and the daemon gives it to her - the first thing, at least. and then for at least 100 pages, it was like she was just being pulled along with anything that happened, without any intense desire of her own. i felt this most strongly when she was out collecting rocks with james. i understand it was a bonding scene, etc. but goddamn. rocks? it just felt a bit shoehorned in, like there needed to be a good reason for the two to start hanging out that was at least semi-work related.

for a moment, i thought dee’s motive would become trying to break out of the deal, to join cora and end it all - it certainly seemed like she was freaked out enough to do it. but something magical healing romance-esque happened and afterwards, she seemed cool with accepting that she had no other choice. i understand she wasn’t a voluntary hero, but it still feels a bit stale when the savior of humankind is doing it not even to save her own skin or that of her friends, but out of sheer obligation. (however, i will give it to her, there was a nice little scene on the bus towards the end where dee was people-watching, and the part at the very end where she said that she did believe that people were inherently good, what a great development from beginning of the book dee)

things that kinda worked 1. the romance: okay, i understand that “kinda worked” doesn’t sound like the most glowing review for a romance, but from me, it’s practically a declaration of adoration. more often than not, romance in young adult novels just do not work for me, whether because it’s instalove or some love triangle’s at play or the  premise is just problematic. but this one? ehhh, i can’t say i hate it.

james, thank god, is not the dark, angsty, “why are you even speaking to me” male love interest (four, i’m describing four from divergent) that i feel like i see too much. he’s funny, a bit dorky, super big on consent, and basically a sweetheart. the author obviously took some care in building up their relationship a bit before taking it to a romance - though in the process, i think she had to give up a lot of development dee could have had with cora and cal. 

their little fairy tale research road trip was actually one of my favorite parts of the book (i’ll talk about this more later). i did, however, groan every time dee became hyperfocused about the oh-so-scandalous fact of being in a car with a boy, sleeping in the same hotel room as a boy, blah blah with a boy. and i facepalmed quite a bit at the extended hesitancy dee had about calling james her boyfriend. i understand why she hesitated (trust issues, negative body image), but it doesn’t mean i have to like it. which leads me to this next thing.

2. character’s response to abuse: let me preface this by saying that i absolutely despise child abuse as a plot device. this is a personal opinion,  i’m not going to get on any high horse and preach about moral quandaries. 90% of the time, i just don’t like it. a lot of this is because i feel most of the time, the character never gets to confront their abuse - never gets the chance to recognize “oh, what happened to me wasn’t right, and a lot of the negative thoughts i have about myself stem from this abuse, and i should not let it define me.” and more often than i like in ya novels, especially for female victims of child abuse, it’s their male love interest who runs in and beats up their abuser/yells at them about how they were a horrible person, which really doesn’t grant the victim any catharsis at all, and i hate how often that is portrayed as “romantic” or a good way to deal with abusers. 

this book, well. let me just say that dee finally standing up to her father about his alcoholism and telling her parents that when THEY finally decided to change, they knew where to find her - that was some good shit. there was a bit when james came running in that i covered my face and went “oh no, here it goes” but to my pleasant surprise, all he did was support dee and didn’t try to insert himself into the situation at all, which was, you know, fantastic. and gremma casually pulling a fire ax out of her purse in front of dee’s parents? lesbian solidarity.

the thing i disliked the most would have to be dee’s image of herself due to the abuse. i understand you don’t need to overcome trauma solo, but i do wish that she could have realized that she didn’t need to be thin or that she wasn’t broken without james telling her so. also, there was that one line where she tried to minimize her abuse - which i know is a common thing for victims of abuse but once again, i don’t have to like it - and james had to talk her out of it that made me groan. i just generally dont think dealing with the effects of abuse should be anywhere near romance, let alone hand in hand like so many books like to treat it. 

3. the sacrifice: i pride myself on not being easily surprised by books anymore, but i did not expect james to die. and i definitely felt something when that package of harry potter books and dee’s picture and the ct scan of the brain tumor arrived in the penultimate chapter. and i hate to be that person, but...

james got his heart back before the final void opened. he could have not been there, like cora. which means the daemon would have still needed him. why didn’t he just sell his heart once more in exchange for the daemon removing his tumor? sure, this way, i have no idea how they would have gotten out of the manual timer thing - then again, who knows if they would have been so targeted if james had not been carrying the heart into the void in the first place, but i still think the sacrifice should have belonged to cora, who definitely required some sort of redemption act if we wanted her to matter to the story in any way. it could’ve been a nice scene -  a “i couldn’t save cal but hell if i’m going to let you two die” act of closure. really, i keep going back to my grievance over how utterly insignifigant cal and cora felt to the story, especially compared to riley, who only jumped in near the end. 

things that worked 1. diversity: can i get a fucking hell yeah?? i’m so goddamn happy that more and more ya novels are recognizing that the world isn’t full of beautiful white straight people. our main gal dee is half-latino, we have a badass lesbian lady who carries axes in her purse, a fucking awesome trans girl who blows shit up (the fact that she doesn’t show up until near the end is a travesty), and our latter two ladies have a cute as hell romance that i wish we saw more of. side character romance is always more awesome because it doesn’t have the kind of baggage that really kills the vibe of main character romances. 

just - diversity.

2. the research road trip scenes: okay, this is very specific. but i’ve watched far too much supernatural for it to be healthy, and james and dee’s little road trip where they ate bad diner food and spent time at the library reading about old fairy tales and old gods and speculated about angels - i just got such a strong supernatural feeling from it. more specifically, the parts where they have no idea what monster they’re hunting and are flipping through old books to figure it out. it had some really calming good vibes, i loved all the speculation and discussion of how people in the past processed magic. no fancy analysis here, it just really resonated with me. 

final rating: 3 out of 5 stars 

note: it would have been 2.5, but the ending surprising me and making me Feel Things really bumped it up. also, writing this ridiculously long review made me feel more invested and charitable. 

[hatnews3-blog]

Ask Ausiello: Spoilers on Good Place, Riverdale, Timeless, B99, Resident, Million Little Things, Flash and More

Got a scoop request? An anonymous tip you’re dying to share? Send any/all of the above to askausiello@tvline.com

Question: Got any Riverdale scoop? What’s next for Archie? —Kerri Ausiello: When we last saw Archie in the fall finale, he was dyeing his famous red locks and making a run for the Canadian border. Executive producer Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa won’t tell us who he finds when he gets there, but “he is headed into the Canadian wilderness, for sure.” He won’t be seeing his dad Fred in the flesh anytime soon, though: It wasn’t shown on-screen, but the EP confirms that Fred did make it back into Riverdale before the quarantine came down.

Question: Any Million Little Things scoop? My friends and I are obsessed with it and hope it’s back for another season. —Montreal4 Ausiello: Remember how showrunner DJ Nash said that everyone in the group of friends has a secret they’ve kept? Look for Regina’s to come to light in Episode 14.

Question: Any scoop on what to expect when Grey’s Anatomy returns? —Al Ausiello: I will have a special holiday treat for you this coming Monday, so sit tight. In the meantime, I tried to get showrunner Krista Vernoff to share even the tiniest bit of intel about Jennifer Grey’s mysterious character and… I struck out. “I can’t [say anything],” she responded. “Because it would really ruin a twist and turn that I don’t want to ruin.” Hmm… I’m sticking with my initial prediction: She’s Jo’s mom.

Question: Anything on The Good Place? (Janet, specifically.) —Whitney Ausiello: Everyone’s favorite not-a-robot will be forever changed by having the humans materialize in Janet form, creator Michael Schur teases: “The way to really have empathy for people is to walk a mile in their shoes, and she did, like, the inverse of that. A bunch of people walked in her weird body for a decent amount of time… so that is another contributing factor to her evolution.” He adds that the season finale “has some pretty wonderful ‘compare this version of Janet to the one you saw in the pilot’ kinds of scenes.” So enjoy, Janet fans!

Question: I’m glad Dorian finally confronted Kaleb about his feeding problem on this week’s Legacies. Can I stop worrying about MG now? —Susan Ausiello: I don’t think it’s ever safe to stop worrying about MG, but as far as Kaleb goes, it sounds like Dorian’s pep talk was just the beginning. “Kaleb has a lot of really big ideas, and a lot of opinions about how things should work,” series creator Julie Plec says. “Much like in the real world when a hot-headed teenager thinks he can second guess what makes the rules the rules, he’s going to have a rude awakening pretty soon where he realizes he doesn’t know as much as he thinks he knows.”

Question: The ending of New Amsterdam‘s fall finale makes me think that Max’s cancer is progressing quicker than first assessed. Will this affect the clinical trial Dr. Sharpe has gotten him into? —Malasha Ausiello: We brought your query to showrunner David Schulner, and he said: “While we can’t reveal here what happened to Max on that dock, we will in our first episode back January 8. But, you’re right to ask if this will affect Max’s clinical trial. It most definitely will. This setback will change a lot of things in Max’s life. And Dr. Sharpe’s too. Thanks for watching and caring and writing to TVLine about the show.”

Question: Will The Flash give us any more hints about what Nora seems to be hiding? —SSH Ausiello: Now that we know there is some sort of alliance with Eobard Thawne, you should expect “a flash-forward flashback episode” that explains “how all that came to be, which will be a lot of fun,” says showrunner Todd Helbing. “You’ll slowly start to get the pieces of info that you need, but there will probably be one episode where we explain how that all happened to get her to come back [in time].”

Question: Challenge: Make me look forward to the Schitt’s Creek holiday episode more than I am already. — Belinda Ausiello: TVLine’s resident Schitthead Charlie Mason promises me that, no matter how great your expectations are, you won’t be disappointed — the special totally “sleighs.” What’s more, he issues a warning that the episode reveals a potential stumbling block to Alexis and Ted’s rekindled romance that neither she nor we anticipated.

Question: I need to know two things about Timeless: First, will #lyatt have a baby? Two, is Jessica really pregnant with Wyatt’s baby? —Miwako Ausiello: In response to your second question, star Matt Lanter says, “We address that [in the series finale, airing Dec. 20]. We’ll find out.” As for Wyatt, he’s not suspicious of Jessica and her baby news. “We’ve seen Wyatt be blinded by love throughout the last two seasons, though, and this is nothing new for him,” Lanter says. “Inherently, he’s a good person with a good heart, and I think he has a hard time accepting that people he loves or cares about … wouldn’t be good. So I think it’s easier as an audience member to look at Jessica and go, ‘Yeah, she’s lying.’ But I think Wyatt is just more blind to things.”

Question: How many time periods will we see in the Timeless finale? —Amanda Ausiello: “There are two-plus time periods, I will say that, that we have not visited before,” showrunner Arika Lisanne Mittman shares, adding that the historical time trips highlight “ethnic representations that we have not seen before [on the show]. Both of these stories are things that [are about] lesser known historical figures. You get to meet some new people that you’ve probably never heard of.”

Question: I’d love a Resident scoop on Conrad/Nic. —Holly Ausiello: I hope you enjoyed the couple’s honeymoon phase while it lasted, because the back half of Season 2 will be “nothing but obstacles” for the pair, according to executive producer Todd Harthan. “In just about every episode, there’s a new one for them to overcome… and they just start stacking up,” Harthan says, adding that the couple will be especially preoccupied with the health of Conrad’s father and Nic’s sister. “It’s going to be a ‘hold on and hope that they make it’ kind of ride,” he teases.

Question: Any hints on how to solve the Blindspot episode title puzzle for Season 4? —Hannah Ausiello: “Oh man! We finally built a title puzzle this season that is legit very hard to crack,” showrunner Martin Gero answers. “I will say this: The puzzle is an homage to some our favorite TV series and how they title the shows. Figure out which, and you might be a step closer.”

Question: Creek’s death on Midnight, Texas was so awful. Please promise me no one dies in tonight’s episode! —Rina Ausiello: I cannot make that promise. But I can tell you that Mr. Snuggly makes it through OK. So that’s something… right?

Question: Got any red-hot Chicago Fire scoopage, Aus? —Gene Ausiello: I see what you did there and I’m… very amused. Well done. The NBC drama is planning some girls-only bonding time for Sylvie, Stella and Emily. “They’re going to go on a road trip to [Sylvie] Brett’s hometown,” showrunner Derek Haas previews. The episode will air the week of Valentine’s Day, “so we’re calling it the Galentine’s trip.” Before that, though, the show will explore Emily’s “attitudes towards dating, which are different than Brett’s, and I don’t mean LGBTQ,” Haas explains. “I mean more of what [Emily, who is bisexual] considers casual versus what Brett considers casual. All of those dynamics are going to be deepened.”

Question: March is far away. I want American Gods scoop now! —Rob Ausiello: Well, because you asked so nicely… Pablo Schrieber says the “antagonist and ally” relationship between Mad Sweeney and Laura Moon will be tested big time by his allegiance to Mr. Wednesday when the Starz drama returns for Season 2. The leprechaun’s destiny “is tied to [Wednesday], no matter what, but it’s also very thoroughly tied to her,” the actor says. “So Sweeney is walking the line, balancing what he owes Wednesday and what he’s realizing he feels in other places.” Hmm. Sounds a lot like we’ll see Laura kissing the Blarney Stone before the season’s over, am I right?

Question: Can you give us any Outlander spoilers? (Especially involving Brianna’s and Jamie’s meeting!?!) This is my first time doing this — hope I’m doing it correctly! —Carolina Ausiello: You did OK. I’ll send you some notes about how to refine your approach in a separate email. Regarding the question at hand, I turn it over to our resident sassenach, Kim Roots, who has seen the scene in question: “I have rather high standards for the huge moments on this show — the wedding night, the print shop reunion, etc. — and I was incredibly satisfied by how the father-daughter plays out in [episode number redacted according to Starz’s spoiler restrictions]. Fans of the book definitely won’t be disappointed.”

Question: Elizabeth and Henry on Madam Secretary are #couplegoals. Please tell me anything you can. —Mary Ausiello: An upcoming episode opens with the McCords taking a tango lesson. And one of them is significantly more skilled than the other.

This AAnd That… ♦ THE BLACKLIST: As teased in the Season 6 trailer, Red will spend some time behind bars after being double-crossed by a close confidant — but don’t count him out just yet. “He’s really been stripped of his superpowers,” series creator Jon Bokenkamp shares. “He’s disconnected from his resources, he may have friends who will fall away and he’s sort of on his heels, which is new for us.” But Bokenkamp assures fans that “if anyone could embrace the solitude of a cell and the experience of incarceration with open arms, it would be Raymond Reddington. We have really high stakes, but we also have some of the most fun we’ve had, as well.” ♦ BROOKLYN NINE-NINE: There will be one major.hilarious change when the sitcom makes the leap from Fox to NBC in January. “We’re allowed to bleep and blur [now],” series co-creator Dan Goor recently told us. “Fox had a no bleeping and no pixelation policy.” Now the gloves are off. “Some filthy, filthy things have been said,” added Terry Crews. “I had one [joke] where I’m ashamed. I’m actually very, very ashamed. It was so jarring that everyone was like, ‘Whoa,’ and we needed to regroup… But holy cow, we never heard language like that on the show.” ♦ CHICAGO PD: Burgess is not the only one who will have a reaction to Upton and Ruzek’s romance. In an upcoming episode, Jay “responds in a way I think you’d expect Halstead to respond,” showrunner Rick Eid teases, “and I think what’s going on in his head is a little different than what he says.” Eid also adds that Jay’s “relationship [with] Upton is interesting and evolving, so don’t sleep on that.” ♦ HOUSEKEEPING NOTE: This is the last AA of ’18 so happy holidays and all that jazz!

That’s a wrap! Please send questions, comments and anonymous tips to askausiello@tvline.com. (Additional reporting by Kim Roots, Andy Swift, Dave Nemetz, Vlada Gelman and Diane Gordon)

Source: https://tvline.com/2018/12/14/million-little-things-spoilers-season-1-episode-14-regina-secret/