#interpretations)

[princesssarisa]

In the past I've shared other people's musings about the different interpretations of the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. Namely, why Orpheus looks back at Eurydice, even though he knows it means he'll lose her forever. So many people seem to think they've found the one true explanation of the myth. But to me, the beauty of myths is that they have many possible meanings.

So I thought I would share a list of every interpretation I know, from every serious adaptation of the story and every analysis I've ever heard or read, of why Orpheus looks back.

One interpretation – advocated by Monteverdi's opera, for example – is that the backward glance represents excessive passion and a fatal lack of self-control. Orpheus loves Eurydice to such excess that he tries to defy the laws of nature by bringing her back from the dead, yet that very same passion dooms his quest fo fail, because he can't resist the temptation to look back at her.

He can also be seen as succumbing to that classic "tragic flaw" of hubris, excessive pride. Because his music and his love conquer the Underworld, it might be that he makes the mistake of thinking he's entirely above divine law, and fatally allows himself to break the one rule that Hades and Persephone set for him.

Then there are the versions where his flaw is his lack of faith, because he looks back out of doubt that Eurydice is really there. I think there are three possible interpretations of this scenario, which can each work alone or else co-exist with each other. From what I've read about Hadestown, it sounds as if it combines all three.

In one interpretation, he doubts Hades and Persephone's promise. Will they really give Eurydice back to him, or is it all a cruel trick? In this case, the message seems to be a warning to trust in the gods; if you doubt their blessings, you might lose them.

Another perspective is that he doubts Eurydice. Does she love him enough to follow him? In this case, the warning is that romantic love can't survive unless the lovers trust each other. I'm thinking of Moulin Rouge!, which is ostensibly based on the Orpheus myth, and which uses Christian's jealousy as its equivalent of Orpheus's fatal doubt and explicitly states "Where there is no trust, there is no love."

The third variation is that he doubts himself. Could his music really have the power to sway the Underworld? The message in this version would be that self-doubt can sabotage all our best efforts.

But all of the above interpretations revolve around the concept that Orpheus looks back because of a tragic flaw, which wasn't necessarily the view of Virgil, the earliest known recorder of the myth. Virgil wrote that Orpheus's backward glance was "A pardonable offense, if the spirits knew how to pardon."

In some versions, when the upper world comes into Orpheus's view, he thinks his journey is over. In this moment, he's so ecstatic and so eager to finally see Eurydice that he unthinkingly turns around an instant too soon, either just before he reaches the threshold or when he's already crossed it but Eurydice is still a few steps behind him. In this scenario, it isn't a personal flaw that makes him look back, but just a moment of passion-fueled carelessness, and the fact that it costs him Eurydice shows the pitilessness of the Underworld.

In other versions, concern for Eurydice makes him look back. Sometimes he looks back because the upward path is steep and rocky, and Eurydice is still limping from her snakebite, so he knows she must be struggling, in some versions he even hears her stumble, and he finally can't resist turning around to help her. Or more cruelly, in other versions – for example, in Gluck's opera – Eurydice doesn't know that Orpheus is forbidden to look back at her, and Orpheus is also forbidden to tell her. So she's distraught that her husband seems to be coldly ignoring her and begs him to look at her until he can't bear her anguish anymore.

These versions highlight the harshness of the Underworld's law, and Orpheus's failure to comply with it seems natural and even inevitable. The message here seems to be that death is pitiless and irreversible: a demigod hero might come close to conquering it, but through little or no fault of his own, he's bound to fail in the end.

Another interpretation I've read is that Orpheus's backward glance represents the nature of grief. We can't help but look back on our memories of our dead loved ones, even though it means feeling the pain of loss all over again.

Then there's the interpretation that Orpheus chooses his memory of Eurydice, represented by the backward glance, rather than a future with a living Eurydice. "The poet's choice," as Portrait of a Lady on Fire puts it. In this reading, Orpheus looks back because he realizes he would rather preserve his memory of their youthful, blissful love, just as it was when she died, than face a future of growing older, the difficulties of married life, and the possibility that their love will fade. That's the slightly more sympathetic version. In the version that makes Orpheus more egotistical, he prefers the idealized memory to the real woman because the memory is entirely his possession, in a way that a living wife with her own will could never be, and will never distract him from his music, but can only inspire it.

Then there are the modern feminist interpretations, also alluded to in Portrait of a Lady on Fire but seen in several female-authored adaptations of the myth too, where Eurydice provokes Orpheus into looking back because she wants to stay in the Underworld. The viewpoint kinder to Orpheus is that Eurydice also wants to preserve their love just as it was, youthful, passionate, and blissful, rather than subject it to the ravages of time and the hardships of life. The variation less sympathetic to Orpheus is that Euyridice was at peace in death, in some versions she drank from the river Lethe and doesn't even remember Orpheus, his attempt to take her back is selfish, and she prefers to be her own free woman than be bound to him forever and literally only live for his sake.

With that interpretation in mind, I'm surprised I've never read yet another variation. I can imagine a version where, as Orpheus walks up the path toward the living world, he realizes he's being selfish: Eurydice was happy and at peace in the Elysian Fields, she doesn't even remember him because she drank from Lethe, and she's only following him now because Hades and Persephone have forced her to do so. So he finally looks back out of selfless love, to let her go. Maybe I should write this retelling myself.

Are any of these interpretations – or any others – the "true" or "definitive" reason why Orpheus looks back? I don't think so at all. The fact that they all exist and can all ring true says something valuable about the nature of mythology.

[goldammerchen]

it is in fact possible to have more than one interpretation of a character, and more than one interpretation about the interpersonal relationships between different characters

[mysticdragon3md3]

Remember when the fandom had a big discussion about Ballister holding his sword by the blade? And we all wondered how he could touch the lighted part of it, if it presumedly was some kind of cauterizing-laser part of the sword?

Well, if holding a European broadsword by the blade is as common a fighting technique, as this video explains, then it's possible that the Knights were all given gloves that could cancel or were impervious to the "laser" part of their swords. It would be reasonable to issue every Knight, specially protective gloves as part of their standard equipment. That way, the Institute wouldn't have to limit the types of sword-fighting styles that they could be taught.

Though I still like everyone else's idea of the swords having an on/off switch for the cauterizing-laser panel. That still makes sense to have an extra safety, even with specially protective gloves. Especially when a sword is not in use.

[ashley-kins]

After having played all 6 of Nemlei's games, I have come to see the themes of all the games. (Or at least, my interpretation of them) So, let's go down the list.

Jack in a Castle. To me, this game is about what we do in relationships. How do we build a relationship with our manager, new friends, crushes, coworkers, etc. I actually really loved this game.

Candy Scabs. To me, this game is about how we judge others physically. When we slowly reveal ourselves, we can either get a reaction of "thank you for showing me your true self" or "you're scary, therefore I hate you." We all hope we get the first reaction, but sometimes, we might need to kill (metaphorically speaking) the person who hates what we look like.

Divilethion. To me, this game is about what religious trauma can do to us. We can either break free when we notice or we can go with the flow and continue the cycle of trauma.

Better Half. To me, this game is about learning to love yourself and take care of yourself. How depression can really hurt us, but with care, comfort, and love from ourselves, we can get through it, we survived everything up to now.

No Good Noelle. To me, this game is about accepting that you might not be good at something. There's no shame in it. It's just not your thing.

The Coffin of Andy and Leyley. To me, this game (although still in development) is about family and/or shared trauma. We survived together, we will continue surviving together, or we'll hate each other because we remind each other of our trauma.

Anyway, that're just my interpretations. I'd love to hear y'all's if you have other interpretations. And remember, there's no wrong way to interpret a story narrative, everyone does not know what the original intent was for the creator(s) of their stories.

[philosophybits]

There are no facts, only interpretations.

Friedrich Nietzsche, Notebooks (1886-1887)

[sapphicslovewillgraham]

My waiter at the diner looked so much like Will Graham that I had to pull up a picture of Hugh Darcy to show him and another waitress went by and concurred that they seriously looked alike. Also, he was kind of flirting with me I think and the 5% part of me that is straight was cheesing hard—I don’t know if it’s because he looks like a fictional man I project my issues onto and regular read smut about or what.

Then, after I was taking my wallet out to pay, there was a little piece of paper left on the table and I thought “maybe he left his number??” And turns out it was a receipt from my psychiatry visit that fell out of my wallet 💀LMAO

He said I looked really familiar and I said yeah I come here a lot with my mom. But he said that wasn’t it and then he shook my hand and told me his name when I left, not sure how typical that is.

Someone PLEASE give me your interpretation of this social interaction, my autism is not helping me determine how flirtatious he truly was or if it was straight up in my head.

[wesleysniperking]

Usopp and the story of his beloved pet lamb is akin to a classic novel

Usopp will always be multifaceted and complex given what he represents and encompasses. I still haven’t figured him out myself. Yet, I always give him grace and want to further my understanding of him because I care. Therefore, I’d like to communicate another connection that’s been on my mind lately.

So, I want to revisit certain facets of Usopp that make me wonder if Oda intended his storytelling to be even more significant than it appears at face value. Many have discussed this and offered excellent interpretations. Yet, what I’m trying to say is that Usopp and storytelling represent the childlike wonder in all of us. What some may see as immaturity in Usopp isn’t necessarily that.

For instance, with the Going Merry, Usopp was like the protagonist in old books like "The Yearling" and "Old Yeller," where they’re forced to shoot their beloved animal because it keeps eating their family’s crops or has been infected with rabies—situations that are devastatingly inevitable. This is a representation of Usopp up to that point pre-time skip. He had to be that protagonist.

Although "The Yearling" and "Old Yeller" deal with themes of facing reality and a loss of innocence, the act of shooting the animals represents handling it on their own terms. Later, as adults, these protagonists can deal with similar situations with the care they needed when they were younger and faced such paralyzing decisions.

I thought that Water 7 and Enies Lobby was Usopp’s "Old Yeller" and "The Yearling" moment. He had to part with his dear pet lamb because he had to face reality. If people treated Usopp’s letting go of the Going Merry in this way, instead of just seeing it as a guy crying over a ship, the humanist approach would be much more prevalent.

I thought that might have been intentional on Oda’s end, but I can’t read his mind. So, yeah, the Going Merry was like "Old Yeller" and "The Yearling," (or Flag), and Usopp was the boy.

usopp community (it is still a wip but you can post anything)

[ireallyneedaintrestinglife]

Things I took from the FNAF movie that are probably relevant to the game lore (might add to later)

Vanessa is more than likely a stand-in for Elizabeth. Given she is the daughter of William Afton in the movie. MatPat was probably right in that one game theory video. Why am I not surprised?!?

Piggy backing off that last one I can only assume that this means Gregory is indeed the rebuilt version of the crying child but honestly that one's a bit more of a stretch

Mike Afton= Mike Schmidt

Crying child more than likely died first. Given Garret gets taken before Abby is even born.

Please be aware these are just my interpretations of what I saw and I could be dead wrong but this is what I got from my first watch through of the movie. Please feel free to add your own to the list and I'm always down to talk FNAF lol

[bruiserelliot]

Okay but the insanely different interpretations of Hadestown between North America and The UK is wonderful.

Cause the line 'because they want what we have got,' in the context of North America is wealth, nationalism, capitalism and the lie of trickle down economics.

But in the context of the UK, "because they want what we have got" becomes the violence of colonialism, the British Empire, the divine right of kings.

And that's just in one line.

[vegetableharvester]

"She may in glee nor be in peace, but one could hope to understand, for those memories couldn't be remembered."

—A woman from the bygone past.

"Shall there be black amidst the white, just as colors to white amassed,

Flowers be tainted with Poison as Ice be pierced into Flames.

The rain weeps for the lost, yet left forgotten to the bygone past,

So does the wrenched hearts, unknowingly, be shall laid in the endless bane.

"May not the blues meet the red, for the abyss gaze the pure light.

As may not the joyful soul be caress by despairing blight."

Such wishes can't be heard when the Gods are gone from one's sight,

Tragic how it must be—when the purest shall walk through the carcasses.

World be heard with voices of endless goodbyes and good nights,

Towards to the said world of life be pinned by all gazes of venomous."

---

Yeah... The art, the quote, and the poem pretty much explain her past. So... Give me your interpretation about this post.

And also, little things about Aisha's past;

• Her biological parents shall be remained in mystery as she was found in a river that was known to be a sacred land and where newborns are offered to the Gods for the sake of protection and prosperity, but said practices are only known in history books.

• In the alternate universe of where the Order of Aesir doesn't exist, Aisha wouldn't exist because her parents had history with the Order of Aesir. So the other AU she can have is—if her foster parents are still alive. All because she also at fault, though partially, for her own foster parent's death when she was young.

[undertalebabbleblog]

Fellverse Collars

Okay… here we go! This was one of the first rants I ever made that was actually useful somewhere along the way instead of just being what it was… a rant to my closest of close people who GET the fandom (AKA: the only person willing to listen to me and put up with my crap at that time in the morning and still talked to me the day after despite the previous 5+ hours I’d been asking at them. When they are still willing to respond to your messages 4h later- 9am -you KNOW they’re a keeper) So I figured here is as good a place and time to start as any…

[Especially considering I was TODAY years old when they let me know that discord chats have a SEARCH function… anyone else been spamming the ‘page up’ button for hours like your life depended on it? HANDS UP ✋]

SO without further ado~

I bring to you my explanation of the meanings of collars in the different fellverses! [This will be heavily based in the UTMV if you hadn’t guessed - focusing on underfell; Edge and Red, and fellswap; Black (or interchangeably Razz) and Mutt]

So CONTEXT- I was brought into this rant by a question from a friend asking me to explain fell universe collars to them (obviously), since they’re mentioned quite a bit throughout the fandom where the fellverses are concerned, but the variation between the meanings really confused them, and its not like they really had a solid definition to depend and lean on for info on it because the concept was mainly based in fannon. So they came to me. Because I apparently give off the vibe of knowing this. Good thing I ACTUALLY had an answer lol

BASICALLY~~~

In the simplest of terms, quickest way I could put it, and perhaps one of the most obvious of facts: The collars are a sign of ownership.

Think of underfell’s resident skele bros (Most commonly known as Edge and Red throughout the fandom), Edge literally OWNS red.

This could be interpreted in a whole bunch of different ways, but it all boils down to Red being practically either a pet or just straight up property to Edge.

It’s there to send a message. If someone were to hurt red it would be the equivalent of property damage… Or kicking his puppy… It lets people KNOW that if they mess with Red, Edge is going to get, understandably, pissed. It’s a protective measure.

When it comes to fellswap the underlying theme of ownership is the same, but it’s the context that differs. While Edge has his status, it is mainly his formidable battle and trapping prowess and infamy that makes the collar an effective safety measure. When it comes to fellswap the protection the collar offers is more of a proof of subjugation and the rising of said ‘owners’ status.

In fellswap Mutt was was viewed as a fierce foe, whom of which the majority of the underground were terrified of, knowing him and his brother Black by the name of ‘the queens guard dogs’. Having Black collar Mutt raises Blacks own infamy and labels him as some untouchable higher power, despite the lowness of his HP, which ordinarily would spell death for a monster of his world.

Their world is one in which family ties mean next to nothing in the grand scheme of things, they were merely a weak point to exploit. The chink in their armour. It was either that of a form of unsteady alliance with trust in which you’d trust the other to turn on you in a heart beat when push comes to shove.

The collaring is the closest they could come to showing they could care. The only form of tie that holds meaning and makes you stronger. Someone that people wouldn’t want to mess with.

Although that is mainly interpretation based off of the way the fandom flows, while underfell is a little more reliably set fellswap if most DEFINITELY more of a concept than a set idea.

If you needed this cleared up hope it did that for you!

If you didnt… hope you at least found it either entertaining or informative enough to be worth the time spent reading this!

[princesssarisa]

As I've read different people's views on Little Women, I've realized that for different readers, it's a fundamentally different book.

When I see someone describe the "universal" experiences of identifying with Jo, wanting her to marry Laurie, and disliking Amy, I remember all the proof I've seen that these are far from universal. The latter two weren't even my experiences: identifying with Jo, yes, but shipping her with Laurie and disliking Amy, no!

Even people with equal amounts of knowledge of the historical context and of Louisa May Alcott's life seem to come away with vastly different feelings about the story and characters.

I suppose there are a wide variety of reasons for this. First and foremost, which of the four March sisters you personally admire or relate to the most. Then there are other factors like your gender, your age when you first read the book, your relationship (good or bad) with traditional femininity, whether you read Parts I and II as a single novel or as Little Women and Good Wives, your relationships with your own family members, your religion and ethical values...

The list goes on.

That post from @theevilanonblog that I reblogged recently about the different interpretations of Frankenstein makes me want to write out a similar list of ten different views I've read of Little Women. Here it is:

Little Women is about the March sisters learning to be proper virtuous women of their time and place. With Marmee as their role model (a role later shared by Beth as she becomes increasingly angelic in her illness), they learn to conquer their flaws, give up their wild ambitions, and settle down as good wives and mothers. This is especially true for Jo, whose character arc is a slow taming from a rough tomboy to a gentle nurturer. It's a conformist and anti-feminist message, which Alcott probably disliked, but she wrote it to cater to public tastes. (This reading seems mainly to come from critics who dislike the book.)

Little Women is about Jo's struggle to stay true to herself in a world that wants to change her. She struggles with whether to stay a tomboy or become a proper lady, whether or not to marry Laurie despite not loving him romantically, and as an author, whether to write what she wants, write what earns the most money, or give up her writing altogether. In the end, she changes only in ways that make her happy, e.g. by learning to control her temper, and later by embracing romantic love. But in more important ways, she stays true to herself: always remaining slightly rugged, clumsy and "masculine," finding success as a writer, and marrying Friedrich, a man just as plain and "unromantic" as herself, but whom she loves and who respects her as an equal.

Little Women is about learning to "live for others." That phrase is used often and could well be the arc words. Beth is the only March sister to whom a selfless life comes naturally, but the other three master it by the end of the story (as does Laurie). They learn to conquer their moments of pettiness and selfishness, to live in better harmony with each other and with their friends and love interests, and to give up their self-centered dreams of fame and wealth, building lives that focus on service instead.

Little Women is about growing up. The first half is mainly about the March girls' maturing by surviving hard times and learning to be better people, while the second half is about reaching adulthood and bittersweetly parting ways to start new lives. At the beginning, Jo is a girl who doesn't want to grow up: she wants to always be a wild young tomboy with her family (and Laurie) by her side forever. But of course, she can't stop time or womanhood, and is eventually forced to accept the loss of Meg, Amy, and Laurie to marriage and Beth to death. After grieving for a while, she lets go of her old life and willingly builds a new one with Friedrich.

Little Women is about family bonds and the fear of losing them. We meet and become attached to the wonderfully close, cozy March family, which gradually expands through friendships, marriage, and new babies. But throughout the story, the family is in danger of breaking apart, whether due to conflict (Jo and Amy's sibling rivalry, Meg and John's marital problems), or separation by distance (Father going away to war, Amy going to Europe, Jo to New York), or death (the danger of losing Father and Beth in Part I, and the ultimate loss of Beth in Part II). But in the end – unlike in reading #4 above – the family doesn't break apart and never will. Conflicts are resolved, travelers eventually come home, the surviving family members always live near each other and stay as close as ever, and even Beth isn't really gone, because her memory and influence live on.

Little Women is about femininity and each March sister's relationship with it. Meg and Amy happily conform in different ways: Meg to "domestic femininity" as a housewife, Amy to "ornamental femininity" as a society lady. Beth pressures herself to conform to self-effacing domestic femininity, until sadly, it kills her – either because she's too selfless and nurturing when she cares for the fever-infected Hummels, or because she has anorexia, as Lizzie Alcott might have had. But Jo strikes a successful balance in the end, conforming just enough to fit into society, but only on her own terms, and otherwise living a happily unconventional life as a writer and schoolmistress.

Little Women is about Jo's unlearning of internalized misogyny. At the beginning, she's a "Not Like Other Girls" tomboy, who wishes she were male, disdains feminine girls (especially her sister Amy), doesn't care enough when "her boy" Laurie behaves badly toward women, and is afraid to be vulnerable. But gradually, and without losing her strength of character, she learns to embrace the sweeter and more tender aspects of herself, sees that Amy's ladylike manners have practical benefits, and learns to say "no" to Laurie when he turns his childish, unhealthy romantic attentions to her. Then after Beth dies, she realizes how precious Beth's utterly domestic, feminine life was, and embraces a more domestic life herself. Yet by doing so, she becomes a true feminist, as she enters an egalitarian marriage and devotes her life to teaching boys to be good, respectful men.

Little Women is only what US Americans know as the first half. It's just about the March sisters getting by and learning moral lessons over the course of the year their father is away at war. Nobody gets married and nobody dies. Everything else is in Good Wives, which is a sequel with different character arcs and different themes, and which should be published separately, as it originally was and still is outside the US. Trying to tie them together into one narrative never feels quite right.

Little Women is Alcott's idealized version of her own life and family, where no one suffers quite as much as they did in real life, everyone is slightly less flawed, and Jo ends up happily married to a man very much like Alcott's lost love Henry David Thoreau. She wrote the life she wished she had.

Little Women is just a semi-autobiographical slice-of-life that Alcott wrote quickly for money.

Which is the truest to Alcott's intent? I don't know. But while some of these readings I like better than others – and some of them I despise – I'd say they're all understandable and reasonably valid. Some aren't even mutually exclusive, but can be used together... although of course, other readings are mutually exclusive, like whether the story is feminist or anti-feminist, or whether the March family ultimately breaks apart or holds together. And they're all worth using as springboards for discussion.

Alcott wrote more books than she ever realized she did, because Little Women can be many different books to different people.

@littlewomenpodcast, @joandfriedrich, @thatscarletflycatcher, @fictionadventurer, @fandomsarefamily1966

[sonicjustbecause]

And if... (a matter of point of view... maybe?? Not sure, honestly).

To me is jarring seeing how Iizuka describle Shadow (he pratically has only negative traits, no positives, yet he has no weak spots, like an anti Mary-Sue because 'Ultimatehhh'), and how we perceive him from stories and games from the '00s and then from the '20s.

Perhaps, the Shadow that is the closest to Iizuka descriptions is IDW Shadow.

Verbalase youtube

However I remember years ago, when I was in the Dragon Ball fandom, I was reading a blog on Tumbls. It belonged to a Japanese, living in Japan who wrote in a perfect English. So he also liked to follow and read western blogs and forums on Dragon Ball.

What surprised him is how we perceive Vegeta. We describled him with a deep and rich analysis. He as Japanese would describle Vegeta as:

A stern, old fashioned Japanese householder.

Is not wrong, but is not the thing we notice most. We notice that he is proud, that he has inferiority complex, that he loves his family and that he enjoy fighting. And many other things. Perhaps Japaneses don't focus on those traits. They think they are not important.

Partly I considered that as a Japanese, Iizuka might focus on a different angle of the same thing. Or japanese might perceve the very same thing in a total different way than we do.

But I'm not to sure. Iizuka has always been quite inconsistent, he tends to change his mind very often. My issue with him is the fact that after he changed his mind, he totally denies he ever said differently in the past and I'm not blunt here. A lot of people have issues with him.

I prefer Toriyama. he was more intellectually honest. He messed up a lot, but he admitted he had a poor memory and forgot many thing. At the same time he though this flaw could be a source of cooler idea.

Like recently when he said that Shadow is based on Spawn when until last year we all know he was based on Vegeta - although softer and more open minded - there are also notes about that. (Never heard about Spawn associated with Shadow before 2024) .

However Shadow was describled very differently in early days, and the descriptions were provided by the Japaneses:

- Kind of a ninja (and it showed in Sa2, he acted smartly more than brutish, ninja are known to keep a low profile. In fact he actually won in SA2, mostly thanks to his brain, before changing his mind) - Thoughful (doesn't laugh) - it was very obvious. Actually, we don't know how his laugh sounds like. Except for ShtH 2005, but there it was a 'what if if Shadow goes full villain?' so... - Vegeta (post Bu)

Also (By Maekawa)

- Dainty

What David Humphrey was told by those from SoJ, when he gave his voice to Shadow in Sa2

- Menacing but with a heart

Sounds quite balanced and detailed enough. The traits are mostly neutral. Flexible enough to work both as villain and as hero without loosing his charm.

I agree with this description made by japaneses in the early days, although I'm a westerner. I coul see those traits.

So I don't really know about Iizuka's view. Maybe he really wants Shadow to be OP and barely with any reemeding qualities and that's unique with him?.

And maybe Vegeta as a typical old fashioned japanese dad is the unique interpretation of that person and not all Japanese think the same. In Dragon Ball Vegeta was describled differently and more in line to what most people think (I watched all the episodes where Vegeta was describled in Japanese, it matched the Italian script, nowhere I saw him describled as 'old fashioned Japanese dad')

Might be a matter of very personal experiences.

[mysticdragon3md3]

"Silence, canon! AO3 is talking"

[misssicknesss]

My Amnesia Roman Empire is a fact that Alexander mentioned that he deadass cried after he got betrayed yet no one in this fandom gaf... Here goes the Fanfiction idea chat.

Also like, based on the picture above and by the way I interpret it, him thinking about reuniting with his beloved was most likely the only thing which kept him alive and the only thing which made him think "he's better than the others" Oh my poor zesty alien old man forever his number 1 defender.

Also I wish there was more Alexander angst art or content in general, like please.