#is turning into obsession about subtext again

[inevitably-ineffable-husbands]

Crowley's Bentley = Crowley's Heart?

Putting on them clown damned shoes again, y'all. Had a thought last night while typing out today's additions to my GO S2 Meta...

Is Crowley's Bentley supposed to be a metaphor for his heart?

THINK ABOUT IT:

In Season 1:

The Bentley survives the fire because Crowley believes with all his heart that he and the car will make it to save Aziraphale.

Crowley drives fast because his love for Azzie makes his heart race.

Speaking of driving too fast, when Aziraphale say's "you drive too fast for me Crowley", subtextually he means "your heart moves too fast for me, I'm not ready for you".

In Season 2:

Crowley's houseplants (the only things he supposedly loves) are in his Bentley (home is where the heart is??). He didn't have the heart to throw them away, so... he put them in his heart where they will be loved.

Crowley sends Aziraphale away from the bookshop to protect him from the threat of Heaven, and the safest place he knows is (his heart) The Bentley, which will take care of Azzie. He literally locks Azzie away in his heart to keep Azzie safe and sheltered away from everyone.

Crowley can feel everything happening in and around the Bentley. He knows when his heart slowed down because he wasn't worried about Aziraphale anymore; his heart desires to please Aziraphale and make him happy by driving slow, playing music Aziraphale loves, offering him sweets, and being painted yellow like Crowley's eyes. Crowley only threatens because he's worried Aziraphale will find out that he loves him if the Bentley keeps up with being adoring to Aziraphale. GUYS I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET A DOTING-HUSBAND-CROWLEY is what I'm getting at, here.

That said, the Bentley ADORES Aziraphale, trying to follow him and keep him safe. And immediately does what Aziraphale asks, just like Crowley usually does.

At the end of S2E6, the Bentley plays the music Crowley is thinking about immediately after their spat and his failed confession, then shuts it off angrily because he’s heart broken... so he “breaks the (love) song” by shutting it off and out of his heart.

BASICALLY what I'm saying is that in the 90 or so years he's owned the Bentley is when he truly realized he was IN LOVE with Aziraphale and poured all that love into the Bentley instead to compensate.

Shax even says to Aziraphale in S2E4:

"Sometime, in the last 80 or 90 years, I remember hearing that you and Crowley were an item."

Very specific numbers, mentioned TO the love interest inside of the damned Heart itself, isn't it? And we know Shax can read into people's hearts (she does it numerous times in the season, specifically with the Crowley mirror, Maggie, in S2E5 and again to Aziraphale in S2E6, revealing more about Crowley and Azzie).

I reckon there's a LOT more, but like... DAMN this feels like Phones and Hearts all over again. I'm not sure if this makes the Bookshop Azzie's heart (right now I'm thinking MAYBE??), but that's something else to explore after another rewatch. That would mean, if the Bookshop was Azzie's heart, that he realized a LOT longer ago than Crowley he loved him. Hmm.

Let me know what y'all think! <3

[annabelle--cane]

there's an unspoken subtext that colors all of jon and georgie's interactions, and it's how exactly their relationship played out when they were last in contact. jon thinks they left off on a sour note and speaks about her like they don't know each other, but georgie apparently only has nice things to tell melanie, a fact which surprises jon. they're immediately comfortable in each others' company when they meet up again and banter about mutual friends and georgie's weird tinder matches. she's the first person he thinks of when he needs somewhere to crash, and she is remarkably trusting about letting him turn up with just the clothes on his back to stay in her house unattended all day with no questions asked, but their trust in each other has hard limits.

if he's just chilling at her place, georgie is fine to let him explain in his own time, she dgaf, she'll lie to the police for him and barely think anything of it, but if he's compulsively obsessed with whatever thing landed him there then she is not having that at all. she assumes it's fully possible for him to leave it alone and that he's just not making the right choices about it. she says he was a good person but she's not so sure about the present. and even though georgie works in the paranormal scene and therefore presumably already believes in the supernatural, jon is steadfastly convinced that she'll think he's delusional if he tries to explain himself, and therefore keeps offering to just up and leave and get out of her hair every time she asks him to help her understand.

however their last relationship ended, it left georgie with plenty of affection for jon that he's perfectly willing to return when given the opportunity, but it also left him with the feeling that her compassion for him doesn't extend very far. it left georgie thinking that jon is fine and trustworthy as a person, but that he's given to acting irrationally and making choices that endanger himself and those around him. from how comfortable they are together, I don't think it was a case of slow relationship rot where they started to find each other unbearable, I think it was something fairly quick and discrete where they just pulled the plug and more-or-less stopped speaking. hmm.

[to23623ken]

I'm genuinely fascinated by the existence of "Javert, t'es amoureux", because its creator—Jean Vallée—wasn’t just any singer or actor; he was the very first Javert in the musical adaptation of Les Misérables. And out of everything he could have taken from playing the role, what stuck with him enough to turn into a song? The idea that Javert was in love. That’s incredible.

It completely shatters the notion that Valvert is just a modern, fandom-driven interpretation cooked up by chronically online shippers or queer theatre kids projecting onto the material. No—this reading of Javert, this underlying tension, has existed since the beginning. Before Tumblr, before AO3, before any of that discourse, the original musical Javert himself saw something there. And not just saw it—he felt it so deeply that he wrote and recorded a song about it.

"Valvert" isn’t just a modern fandom invention. The very people who have embodied these characters—actors, writers, and directors—have seen and acknowledged these dynamics. Whether it’s Jean Vallée writing "Javert, t’es amoureux", Andrew Davies (screenwriter of the BBC adaptation) stating that "One can even see a twisted kind of love in Javert’s obsession with Valjean," or countless performers playing these characters with that subtext in mind, the interpretation holds weight.

Never let anyone tell you that your queer reading isn’t valid. The idea that there’s only one “correct” way to read a story is a lie—a lie that has been used for centuries to erase, silence, and delegitimize voices like ours.

Queer readings don’t need to be “proven” to be valid. They don’t require a writer’s approval or an actor’s acknowledgment. They are valid because queer people exist, and when we see ourselves in a story, that means something. That matters. And no one can take that away.

And this isn’t just about Les Mis. It’s about the truth that queer readings of stories are valid, full stop. Literature and theatre have always contained queerness, whether hidden in subtext or woven directly into the narrative. And when actors, directors, and audiences pick up on those themes—when they lean into them, embrace them, and bring them to life—it’s because those layers were always there to be discovered.

So if someone tells you that your interpretation is "just a ship" or "not what the author intended," remind them that stories do not belong solely to their creators. They belong to the people who experience them, who see themselves in them, who bring new life to them. And if queer people have seen themselves in Les Misérables—and we have, over and over again—then that queerness is real, it is valid, and it is part of the story, no matter what anyone else says.

Yes, I want everything to be queer, because I am queer, and I love me.

[neyafromfrance95]

"if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

oh and gaze back into her he does.

when the abyss she has gazed into with hatred for so long gazes back into her with love, what does that say about the complex depths of her own identity and feelings?

galadriel basically wills sauron into life after she turns her back on heaven for him, and then she calls for him to bind himself to her.

and bind her to himself he does. over and over again. just like she has devoted herself to slaying the darkness of him, he now covets to own the light of hers he worships. her obsession became his yearning. they were already bound cosmically, by the sea and by nenya, by connection they share. but it was not enough, he intended to merge their beings, to become intrinsic parts of each other. so he binds her by the blood in an act that is disturbingly erotic, a symbolically sexual act, as it is consummated through violent penetration. he opens her up and slithers in, consuming her.

and there are dimensions to this. sauron still wants her to give herself to him willingly when he asks for nenya. this is his ultimate goal, he is desperate for her to let him "heal" her, to the point he is brought to tears. pain -> reward is his love language, and i'd say he hates hurting her while she refuses his gifts, and yet he still gives them to her in the form of binding her to himself, his darkness, and most likely to her greatest desire - power.

galadriel is metaphorically ravished and reborn, she is both killed by sauron and birthed by him into something new, his mirror, drowned witch thirsty for power. the symbol of their bond both on her finger and just above her heart - his eye, always with her, perceiving her.

now they are bound for all eternity, and those indeed are the seeds galadriel herself has planted.

all of this is of course a metaphor, a narrative device. as sexual subtext is an effective tool of storytelling, a tangible way of showing galadriel's complex relationship with the darkness, ambition and power. and on a more metaphysical scale, a metaphor for an eternal push and pull of the dark and the light, for the intertwined nature of these concepts.

[guiltyandashamed]

Hihihi! My request is something a little unusual and you can ignore this if you want, but how would the om characters react to an MC who's a celebrity singer and performs like Sabrina Carpenter :) iykyk

Bonus ask! Who's your favorite celebrity?

headcannons: MC who’s a celebrity singer

Known for your charisma, flirtatious stage presence, and clever, theatrical performances, you're confident under the spotlight but still down-to-earth offstage. Your drive the crowd, and the brothers, crazy.

(My fav singer is Fiona Apple but celeb/actor is Jon Bernthal. The duality of man.)

Lucifer

He admires your professionalism first and foremost. Lucifer sees how you command the stage with ease and grace, how every glance, lyric, and pause is deliberate. He’s not the type to swoon openly, but backstage, he always makes sure there’s water, a towel, and a quiet space waiting for you. If someone talks about your performances in a less than respectful way, they’ll have him to deal with. He won’t say it, but his eyes never leave you when you're up there. You’re dazzling, and he’s quietly, fiercely proud of you.

Mammon

Jealous? Starstruck? Obsessed? Yes, yes, and yes. Mammon loses his mind watching you perform. You flirt with the crowd? He swears you're looking at him. Every lyric feels personal. He brags nonstop—"That's my superstar up there!"—and practically gets into fights with fans trying to get your attention. He’ll try to act chill but turns bright red whenever you dedicate a line to him. After the show, he’s clinging to you like a backstage pass, grinning wide, begging for private encores and whispering, “Ya were incredible, babe.”

Leviathan

Levi's flustered beyond repair. You step on stage, lights hit, and suddenly you’re a completely different person, confident, magnetic, unreal. It baffles him, in the best way. He’s convinced you’re too cool for him, but also can’t look away. He live-tweets every set (“MC just did that thing again, I’m dead”) and collects fan edits like treasure. If you so much as wink at the camera, he short circuits. “Y-You’re like… an idol in a dating sim,” he mumbles, eyes wide. You remind him why he loves performance art to begin with.

Satan

He studies your lyrics, watches your performances like someone watching a play for its subtext. Why you're wearing what you're wearing, the meaning behind your performance, everything. You’re clever, teasing, layered, Satan’s captivated not just by the spectacle, but by the intent. He loves when you weave in double meanings or put bite behind the sweetness of a line. When you give the audience that smug little smile? He mirrors it unconsciously. He might act unaffected, but you’ll catch him listening to your songs with his eyes closed, mouthing the words. To him, you’re poetry in motion, and he’d kill to see the behind-the-scenes drafts.

Asmodeus

Oh, he lives for it. The lights, the flirting, the way you toss your mic like you own the world, Asmo eats it up. He’s front row, screaming every word, wearing your merch and crying about how pretty you look under the spotlight. “You’re like a love spell with a beat,” he sighs, fanning himself. He adores how unapologetically you you are. After shows, he’s clinging to your arm, hyping you up, helping with makeup removal while gushing. Asmo knows performance art when he sees it, and he thinks yours is divine.

Beelzebub

He doesn’t fully get the industry stuff, but he gets you. He’s there, watching from backstage or sitting quietly in the audience, eyes on you the whole time. Your energy makes his chest feel full. You sing like it matters, like you're speaking to every person in the room, and especially to him. He notices the subtle ways you look for familiar faces in the crowd, how you seem to calm a little when you spot him. Afterward, he always brings food and hugs you tight, saying softly, “You looked happy up there. I like that.”

Belphegor

He’s not impressed by celebrity status. But you? You intrigue him. You can be a chaos-bringer onstage, spinning the audience around your finger, and then curl up beside him afterward like none of it happened. That duality fascinates him. He’ll tease you: “So, superstar, still remember us little people?” But the truth is, he watches from the shadows, taking note of the way you smile after hitting a difficult note or the way your fingers twitch with nerves before going onstage. He gets it. And in his own quiet way, he’s always cheering for you.

[cassandra-silver]

I love. LOVE. Get In the Water

It's one of the objectively best songs in the musical; I will die on this hill.

Poseidon was always, despite being pretty much the main antagonist of EPIC, a really underdeveloped character in my opinion. He just needed a little more nuance, and the fact that one (+ kind of one more) song managed to add so much to his characterization pretty much exclusively through subtext and implications is incredibly impressive writing. Because it did!

At the start, he's yet again playing games with Odysseus, the way he did in Ruthlessness. In both songs, he could kill him easily at any point, yet he chooses not to for the sake of playing games. In Ruthlessness, this becomes his own hubris as it leads to Odysseus escaping.

If you listen closely, at the start of GITW he already sounds slightly different. He's still trying to keep up this "God of Ruthlessness" front that he's so proud of, but he's no longer more or less carefree the way he was in Ruthlessness. He's been obsessing over this feud for ten years, and even if he would never admit it, it's actually clear just from his voice that he really is tired of it too. Not in the sense of it emotionally draining him the way it probably does Odysseus, but in the sense that it's a bother, a loose end in his life, a book that he finally wants to slam shut.

But he still has a reputation to uphold, and he still cannot close this book until Odysseus is dead, so he keeps up the game. Instead of just killing him, he's taunting him to kill himself. He might associate the idea of just striking him down with a sort of loss, like then he'd have to get his hands dirty. Then he's rambling about killing his people, his family. He's provoking Odysseus on purpose, likely trying to get him to snap back, to hate and fear him the way that Poseidon would think any mortal who has consumed this much of his time should. In his eyes, Odysseus deserves nothing less than to curse him with his last breath as his "darkest moment," the god who became the bane of his life.

And Odysseus replies, of all things, with ... sympathy.

Honestly, I don't blame Poseidon for being speechless for three full seconds. He literally just threatened to gauge Telemachus' eyes out the way Odysseus did with Polyphemus, and this absolute madlad of a man replies with an acknowledgment that he (might have) caused Poseidon pain too.

Now, I don't really think Poseidon was particularly hurt over Polyphemus' loss, or hurting in any way in that moment (if he were, I highly doubt he'd still be playing games, and he would've mentioned his son as opposed to speaking about his reputation.) But just the fact that Odysseus acknowledges that he might be hurting too is probably something Poseidon hasn't heard in ... who knows how long? His family is the Olympians. I don't think I have to say more.

It's actually more of a genuine apology than Odysseus' explanation in Ruthlessness ... (even though that was also a perfectly fine apology by Greek standards, as far as I'm aware.) Now he doesn't say "sorry" because he's still not sorry for hurting Polyphemus, since he still needed to do that in order to escape. But he expresses regret over the pain he caused in a more genuine way than ever.

I am convinced that Poseidon is utterly unfamiliar with sympathy or mercy. He's lived by his "Ruthlessness is mercy" motto for centuries, and he doesn't know anything else. No one would try to teach him something different. The other gods all live by this logic, even if he's the most vocal about it considering he seems to have made it his whole personality. Mortals wouldn't dare to question Poseidon in the first place. And barely anyone would be willing to treat someone with kindness who is in turn treating everyone around them with ruthlessness.

It's very likely that Poseidon hasn't encountered anyone like this until Odysseus. Ruthlessness is simply how he treats people and also how he expects to be treated back. The fact that Odysseus doesn't, the fact that instead of hating, fearing, or cursing him, he acknowledges that they have both hurt each other and that it doesn't lead anywhere to still pursue vengeance, must have triggered Poseidon in an unprecedented way.

To him, this was probably the most outrageous thing Odysseus could have said in that moment. And it throws him off so much that he is genuinely speechless, and then simply replies, "I can't." ... his most genuine-sounding line in the whole musical.

I cannot stress enough how much it threw me off to hear this line; in the best way imaginable, it doesn't sound like Poseidon. It sounds almost vulnerable. Almost human. Because he is genuinely at a loss so much that he forgets to put up his "wrathful god" facade for just one second. Standing ovation to Steven Rodriguez for his whole performance, but especially this part.

And then Odysseus goes all out to say something even more outrageous: "Maybe you could learn to forgive?"

... Which is when Poseidon snaps.

Kind of understandable, honestly. There's this mortal whom he has likely fantasized about seeing pleading, hate-filled, and terrified, cowering before him for ten years now ... telling him that he ought to learn something. Even hijacking his own motif and his instrument in order to turn it on its head, "defile" it if you will.

This f*cking mortal pr*ck took his own "Ruthlessness is mercy upon ourselves" catchphrase and turned it into forgiveness ... Of course, Poseidon is no longer hesitating; of course, he is no longer concerned with getting his hands dirty or not. He yells "DIE!" and unleashes his ultimate move (which is really overkill for simply killing a mortal if you think about it) ... But he does it anyway because this time he genuinely means it.

... That, and I am also convinced he jumps to that in order to simply shut Odysseus up, fearing what he might do or think if he lets him go on. Because you cannot tell me that Odysseus didn't actually reach him for just one moment. He was far too thrown off guard, far too vulnerable in that one second. That moment of kindness did something to him, and he hated it. He also probably didn't trust himself to be able to keep listening to Odysseus speak like that. So, he abandons his (still very technically feasible!) blackmail/intimidation and just straight-up kills him.

This simple exchange (my favorite moment in the whole musical, actually) tells us so much about both of these characters that it makes me want to skitter and squeal in excitement.

Here is Odysseus—the very same one whom Poseidon specifically tried to teach ruthlessness—becoming the first person in a long time to offer him sympathy despite how Poseidon himself showed him nothing but ruthlessness. And then one song later, here is Odysseus showing him the consequences of not accepting said sympathy.

Six Hundred Strike and what Odysseus does to Poseidon would've not hit the same, in my opinion, if he hadn't made this offer, if he hadn't given Poseidon this way out, even if no one watching genuinely expected it to work (probably not even Odysseus himself.)

Six Hundred Strike is not Odysseus exacting vengeance If GITW proved anything about Odysseus, it's that he does not want vengeance. He wants all of the hatred and pain to be over, to the point where he is willing to let go of, and I am inclined to say forgive Poseidon for what he's done to him. Six Hundred Strike is simply Odysseus teaching him this lesson that Poseidon couldn't have learned in any other way, because he has proven in GITW that he genuinely does not speak any language besides that of ruthlessness (more on that in this essay!)

It's just the perfect representation of how Odysseus has now finally learned the balance between mercy and ruthlessness, which seems to be the core theme of the musical: Both have their time and place; one simply has to be willing to act in both ways and know when to use either. No one extreme is the solution. I am genuinely exhilarated that Odysseus finally seemed to have figured out that it's been both all along.

[hurlumerlu]

i feel like i’m missing something about the ashtray that you’re seeing, so i must ask, what do you find so fascinating about it?

Well this is probably going to end up being a bit embarassing for me, but no, I don't think you're missing anything about the ashtray. I think it's meant to add just a touch of unease and not much else.

The reason I'm so obsessed with it - my neuroses aside - is because of how gratuitous it feels.

As a transition shot (which I'm using to mean "first shot we get to signify we cut from one scene to another", my apologies if it's not the right technical term) it's kind of a jarring one: a simple, abrupt cut from a relatively colorful shot of Kant in his home to this close up of an object in predominently dark and sepia tones. It's also not the most informative one.

All the clues as to where we are (the computer, the notebook, the chair, the lamp) are background things, out of focus. The one thing that is in focus is something that's never really been brought to our attention: yes, the captain is the only character we've seen smoking so far, and yes, the ashtray is technically present in his office when we're introduced to him, but I had to look for it to find it and would have never noticed it otherwise:

So we've got all those rather discreet, almost subliminal informations about our location, and smack in the middle of it the figure of a naked woman tits up, laying under one of tv's most beloved phallic symbols, and it's just... why? Why put that shot in? What's the point? They very well could have just put a shot of the office through one of its doors, they even did it in the cut version.

(informative, very easy to read, but does not set any particular tone)

But they didn't want to, so it has to be purposeful. My thoughts on its purpose below. It turns into me trying to analyse the captain and Kant's relationship, so it gets kinda long, and just as a heads-up, I discuss sexual coercion down the line.

So, like I said in the begining of my post, I think it's meant to add just a touch of unease and not much else. I stand by it, but I am very interested in that unease. Frankly, even if it was the most tasteful sculpture of a bare lady I had ever seen, I would still question its presence in Christ's office (where he works as a police captain.) But it's pretty far from tasteful, isn't it? Regardless of aesthetic considerations (I think it's fugly), it's an ashtray. The captain stubs his cigarettes and drops their ashes on the figure of an arched, naked body. There's inarguarbly an element of sleaze to that choice of prop, or as my wife would put it "yeah, it's here to tell us that cap's kind of a creep."

And it's not the first time the subtext got sleazy around these two either. They had one of their talk in a bathhouse (probably a universal spot for gay hookups, but certifiably a thai spot for gay hookups) in a steam room (even if there wasn't a long history or eroticising those places, Style almost jerked off/blew Fadel in one last episode). Of course, it's also an hommage to spy stories, spies sure love their saunas, but I don't believe it's only that. Because 1/again, that FadelStyle scene one episode prior. 2/I will not do JoJo Tichakorn Phukhaotong the insult of implying he does not know his gay porn and 3/

they didn't have to touch. They could have exchanged informations and gone their separate ways without touching even once. If they had to touch it could have been a hand on the shoulder or a handshake. (That's what I thought would happen! When we got a glimpse of that scene in the trailer, and I wrote my very first fic for this fandom, I genuinely thought the scene would only be an hommage to spy stories, and that all the potential sleaziness I was seeing there was just, well, me being me. I wrote the fic because I thought the show wouldn't go there!) But instead we got the captain following Kant to a bathhouse, the both of them meeting in a sweat room (something made explicitely sexual in the previous episode), Christ telling Kant he has to "up his game" and to not "tell anyone about this" and then slapping his thigh in a manner very reminiscent of another thigh grab we saw in episode 2, this one definitely sensual.

I'm calling that subtext, and I'd say whoever did the cut for the tv version agreed with me, since they completely removed that damn ashtray. Now, it could simply be a matter of female-presenting-nipples, but I'm willing to bet the thigh grab was also cut (if I'm wrong, feel free to point and laugh). EDIT: @deliriousblue checked, and I was in fact wrong! They kept the thigh slap. I don't think it detracts from my point too much, though, as it doesn't negate anything I said before about sexual subtext/coding. (but If anything, it makes the switch from ashtray close-up to wide office shot stands out even more)

So there's something sexual lurking in the outskirt of Kant & Christ's relationship. It's implied, it's light, but it's there.

I think part of the purpose is just a little playful nod to porn clichés, but I would argue that there's a bit more to it, because Kant and the captain's relationship actually has a very clear sexual component.

Not in that I think they fucked (in canon. i don't think they fucked in canon. i do think it should be explored in fics.), but the plain fact is that Christ is whoring Kant out. It probably didn't start that way, the begining of their partnership was probably more "you have names and contacts and I want them" but how could it stay like that? Once Kant gave all the name he already had, once the captain started to assign him to cases he had no previous contacts with, no point of entry, do we really believe Kant wasn't expected to exploit a sexual angle? I think the people who say Kant didn't have to make Bison fall for him are kidding themselves, and not only because there would be no story if he hadn't. Our societies are far less suspicious of the idea of a stranger suddenly getting close to you because they're hoping for sex than it is of a total stranger getting close to you with hopes of friendship. That's just how it is! You make friends in the circles you already run in, and with the general understanding that real intimacy will be slowly built overtime. Meanwhile a random hookup can have access to your bedroom the very night they met you. There's just no contest: for the kind of missions Kant seems to be sent on, with absolutely no backup or cover story or anything, seduction is pretty much the only trick up his sleeve, especially if the captain presses him for fast results like he did in the show. (not to mention that, on an almost "meta" aspect, the captain chose a young man who's Thai BLs level of conventionally attractive to do his dirty work) The captain may not have said "I need you to have sex with dangerous people", if only to have a layer of legal plausible denial, but he certainly expected it, and even if - a big if - Kant got the idea himself for expediency the first time, Christ kept placing him in situations where he would have to do that again. The captain's a pimp, the currency is intel, and the show said "you don't have to face it if you don't want to, that might be a bit much for a romcom, but we are not shying away from it." Or at least that's where my reading currently lands.

And I do think it's interesting that the two times we were reminded of this aspect of sexual coercion, it was followed first by the KantBison mutual dubcon of episode 3, and second by the captain actually bothering to look physically threatening to Kant for the very first time. Because as you pointed out in the tag under this post, the show plays super interestingly on First Kanaphan's actual height and how often Kant is dwarfed by others, but the captain almost never bothers to use his own considerable height. He sits. He lounges. When he gets up it's never into Kant's space. He can turn his back on him without fear. He doesn't threaten, he reminds. Until Kant himself threatens not just to quit but to bite back and suddenly the confrontation is physical, even though they're not touching. A reminder not just of the consequences, but of their respective place. Then it passes, and here's the nonchalance again: Christ goes back to his ashtray.

And if I may abandon sincere media analysis for just a second and be a little cheeky? Here's a picture of the captain in his sofa, knee slightly parted, Kant coming toward him. And the cigarette I called one of tv's most beloved phallic symbols?

yeah, it's pointing up.

[yandere-paramour]

hi, sorry to ask again, but! i'd like to extend my ask to the other yanderes, too!!

how would they feel about a darling who's hard to read and has trouble reading their own emotions?

...i guess this technically doubles as "how good are the yanderes at picking up subtle cues?" because there would definitely be signs of distress or joy! just... they wouldn't show easily.

They're all pretty good at it! Especially when the topic is their beloved.

Vivien naturally reads people well. It's just the way he is. He would easily be able to tell if something has bothered you, and it would truly slightly concern him if you could not read your own emotions. He would wonder why, and he would make it a point to try and help. When you both get home, he makes you a mocktail and you both just sit and decompress together. He will gently try to change the topic to "Thorns and Roses". Please, tell him the best and worst parts of your day and how you felt about them. He will listen with rapt attention; now he gets to know why you're upset, and hopefully, you feel loved.

Atalanta very much prefers direct communication. Being a young socialite in the business world, people are always trying to manipulate her with secret subtexts they think she's too stupid to understand. But she does, and she hates it. Anyone caught trying to swindle her is swiftly dealt with. But you're not like that. You would never do that to her, you're just reserved and unsure about your own emotions. She has a tender spot reserved for you. She still prefers direct communication, but she will learn to spot subtle cues to understand you, because she loves you.

Noelle is known for her obsessiveness meticulousness, especially about you. Like Vivien, her childhood gives her a very keen grasp of both verbal and non-verbal communication. She is constantly watching you, constantly observing you to figure out how you're feeling, what you might be thinking. When she comes home, she gravitates straight to you, and if something has upset you, she can tell in the tightness of your hands, the way your mouth has turned down, the distance in your hug. She will sit you down, make you something warm to drink, and then you can talk it through.

[feelthesturmanddrangintheair]

On Nosferatu and Dracula, Mina & Ellen

I loved Nosferatu but I hate the online discourse about it. It’s literally making me crazy. This is a pic of all of you bitches right now:

I have a huge problem with literal readings of this movie at all. It’s obviously not the point of the damned thing. But, Ellen/Thomas shippers, I'm coming for you now.

I’ve noticed people online, on tiktok, tumblr etc, shipping Ellen/Thomas the exact same way I’ve seen Mina/Jonathan since Dracula Daily. And the Mina thing already frustrated me, but the Ellen one makes me crazy.

(they’re not the same character)

But I guess I understand the instinct?

Modern vampire media is obsessed with the male vampire as the sexual/romance object. Twilight, Vampire Diaries, True Blood, Buffy. (Interview with a vampire doesn’t count (lol count) cause it’s all from Vamp perspective. Also it's profoundly gay). (However Anne Rice does get enormous kudos for basically dragging the vampire from hammer horror into boyfriend material, so it is relevant i guess?).

The modern approach is that the subtext has become text “Yes we do like dracula and we do want to fuck him thank you very much”.

It’s always been the subtext of Victorian vampire stories - which were riffing off the already dark, brooding male figures in literature before that (Rochester, Byronic heroes, also Byron) and combining them with Eastern folk tales. In the original Dracula Mina and her plucky group of fuckbois slay the vampire. He is defeated and good Christian morals are preserved.

However, Dracula is that bitch - he’s an object of fascination for everyone in the book, especially Mina. The title of the book is “Dracula” not “Jonathan Harker is a good husband actually”. 

In the late 19th century gothic literature, the vampire and the monster was The Other. They were feared but also hypnotic - a beguiling, seductive other. Some women gave in to such temptation (Lucy) and some stood stoic in the face of it (Mina). But the temptation was still there. That is why it is powerful to triumph over it.

The Text: Dracula is scary and we shall defeat him The Subtext: But also don’t you think Dracula is kinda sexy?

That is and remains the subtext in all good gothic horror novels of the 19th century: you don’t literally want to fuck death or a monster but also, maybe in your subconscious, you kinda want to fuck death. You might want to fuck the monster. Maybe you want to be bad.

So when movies began making vampire stories - Dracula, Nosferatu - this theme became stronger in the visual medium. The monster was sexual, and the tension of the film was always the push and pull of attraction and horror between it and the fair maiden.

Later in the 20th century, it became more explicit, like everything else. Sexy vampire movies and exploitation movies in the 70s give way to Francis Ford Coppola’s ridiculous, fantastic, opulent “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” in the 1990s. A film that labors with every breath to faithfully adapt the novel, then throws that labour away to turn Mina into Dracula’s reincarnated soul mate. I find this movie perplexing but fabulous. I have watched it probably 6 times in the past 3 years.

And then the 2000s teen vampire obsession. You have Buffy obviously, with her litany of vampire boyfriends (I’m a Spike fan - Angel is BORING). Hilariously for this discussion, Buffy is a slayer who dates vampires, so it’s less Mina/Dracula and more Van Helsing/Dracula. 

(huh there is a market for that)

But where Buffy took what Anne Rice did and turned it into a weekly fun drama for teens (and tweens who probably should not have been watching), Stephanie Meyer evolves the vampire again. Twilight exploded the Vampire Boyfriend into the mainstream. In the early 2010s you couldn’t escape YA vampire and monster boyfriend fiction. You even had the CW jumping on board with The Vampire Diaries ffs

So after Twilight, wanting to fuck a vampire or monster became somewhat mainstream.

In the 2020s, vampires being the main love interest has fully transcended the subtext from the original stories. The monster has become a protective puppy in our beds. Say it with me “We have defanged the vampire”. And like all big, crazy trends, eventually they run out of steam and become unfashionable. There is nothing particularly shocking left to milk from this archetype. Vampires became dull, untrendy, old news. They were supplanted by dystopias and fairy courts.

(I think ACOTAR is more honest about what readers actually want - most people aren’t monster fuckers. Most people’s interest in vampire erotica is rooted in a powerful, sexy, somewhat feminine man magicking you away from your hum-drum life. Twilight is the dishonest version of ACOTAR. ACOTAR says “Yeah we just wanna fuck Howl from Howls Moving Castle leave me alone”)

I digress.

Dracula Daily started in 2021. A simple idea: using substack, send the text of Dracula out, on the timeline that matches the epistolary novel’s dates. Tumblr being tumblr, we latch on and from 2022, the yearly run of Dracula Daily is an integral part of the tumblr experience. 

Like a book club with thousands of members, Tumblr has basically conducted a multi-year close reading and textual analysis of Dracula.

What has been most surprising is the volume of readers who have discovered the incredible character of Mina, and her sweet and strong relationship with Jonathan.

I think, in comparison to the often milquetoast relationship between these two on screen (I'll call it the cuckification of Jonathan) and the reduction often of Mina to a swooning maiden, Stoker’s original text is a revelation. 

In the book, Mina is a headstrong, intelligent and resourceful operator. Without her, the group would have failed and Dracula would have England in his thrall. The men around her respect her. She works tirelessly to save Jonathan in the first place, then England.

Jonathan and Mina make an excellent team - once reunited, her determination to extinguish the thing that killed Lucy, and his first-hand knowledge combines to help defeat him. A now oft-quoted section shows that when Mina has been bitten and is in Dracula’s thrall Jonathan writes:

“To one thing I have made up my mind: if we find out that Mina must be a vampire in the end, then she shall not go into that unknown and terrible land alone. I suppose it is thus that in old times one vampire meant many; just as their hideous bodies could only rest in sacred earth, so the holiest love was the recruiting sergeant for their ghastly ranks.”

Very sweet stuff. Very wife-guy. Isn’t Mina lucky?

So we now have so much fandom for Mina and Jonathan.

And it’s very sweet and interesting - it’s presented often as a radical, subversive take “I think Dracula sucks and is abusive. Mina and Jonathan belong together!”. It’s a classic “only on tumblr would this be considered a radical take”. But also “Only in the 21st century is this a radical take”.

It’s like Christine/Raoul shippers in the POTO fandom (I am one but however it’s because I truly do not think Christine is right for Erik. Read the masterwork “A Stroll on Sunday” that’s what I want for poor Erik). There’s nothing wrong with thinking the canonical breeding pair are well-suited; however the fixation on them and vilification of the interloping monster is perhaps missing the point of the entire text.

I’m so sorry Tumblr, thinking Mina should be with her Good Christian Husband Jonathan is not a life-altering take. Tumblr has subverted too close to the sun and started reinforcing Victorian values. We/Tumblr should be studied in a lab I stg. The brain gymnastics involved in this one is too insane.

And now we’re seeing this bleed into the Nosferatu discussion. I really liked and agreed with a lot of what Princess said in her video about Nosferatu & the Gothic Appetite:

But to bring this shipping focus to Nosferatu, is even more insane. Eggers' Nosferatu is far more focused on Ellen’s connection to Orlok than Dracula/Mina in the original Dracula text. I really liked what Eggers' said in this interview:

“In the novel, Stoker’s Dracula is seemingly moving to London, to England, for world domination. And, but this is all a demon-lover story. Ya know, Orlok is going to Wisborg for Ellen and no other reason. And that, that’s more interesting to me as a storyteller”

Nosferatu is different to Dracula in that it strips the vampire-hunting gang out of the text. It takes a lot of the unnecessary excess of the text and pairs it down to a fairy tale. One town, cut down the plot, remove excess characters, keep it simple. For me, I feel the result is way more focused than the original plot (and the Coppola movie).

Instead of Quincy, Seward and Arthur you just have Friederich. And Friederich is not a valiant hero like our noble trio. Instead of friendship and brother’s in arms saving the day, Friederich abandons Ellen and Thomas and succumbs to the monster. There is so much more darkness and despair in Ellen’s story because of this change. 

Those changes centralize the relationship between Ellen and Orlok in a way Dracula never did. It also does it in a less shit way then the Coppola film with its terrible reincarnation storyline.  

With Ellen and Orlok central, the Ellen/Thomas argument makes even less sense. Ellen cares about Thomas of course, she doesn’t want any harm to come to him.

But she also says to him “You could never please me as he could”. 

Thomas symbolises the status quo - a husband who leaves you to go to work, to ignore your strangeness and potentially also flatten it. Ellen says “It all ended when I first met my Thomas”. She grew up abnormal, supernatural and sexual - she alienated her father and family, and had a connection to a supernatural ancient demon during her teenage years. But the presence of Thomas removed that.

Some may see that as a saving grace - symbolising Thomas’ love as healing and protecting Ellen from the forces of darkness. That is a fairly simple, Christian reading - the healing love of matrimony and gender norms. However, you can also see this as a squashing of her powers and uniqueness. As Von Franz says:

“In heathen times you might have been a Great Priestess of Isis. Yet, in this strange and modern world your purpose is of greater worth.”

He does not view Ellen’s powers as an affliction but as matter-of-fact and part of who she is. He reframes those powers as something different - not a curse or possession. He compares her to the respected priestesses of an old world. 

Ellen chafes against the role of the good, noble wife. She does not want to be an angel in the house, and she does not want to be left at home while Thomas works. She clearly enjoys the honeymoon part of the marriage. The first scene we have between them Thomas gets ready to leave for work, leaving Ellen in bed crying: “The honeymoon was yet too short!”

It’s a Romeo and Juliet style scene - Thomas trying to leave the bedchamber as he must, and Ellen trying to convince him to stay and enjoy their married life. Thomas, like Romeo, does not realise the horrors that await him.

When he returns and tells her he must go away on a business trip, her reaction is less romantic and more frantic: she throws down the lilacs he bought her and eventually shrieks “Can’t you see that it doesn’t matter? If you leave nothing will matter!”

Throughout the movie Ellen fights Thomas leaving with everything she has. She has premonitions, she knows nothing good will come of his trip. She does not want to be a little wife and does not want to be left behind in domesticity. 

(this is in contrast to Anna and Friederich, who are blissfully happy in a traditional marriage. He talks of his sexual appetite, she produces babies for him. He runs a shipping business, she stays at home with their children. He is brash, masculine and doesn’t listen. She is sweetness and light, hosts their guests and never causes trouble. And they both die. Their goodness, their adherence to Christian values does not save them)

Ellen however plays the part of the hysterical woman. She does not remain quiet, she does not remain sweetness and light. She has fits, she is hypersexual, she speaks her mind and speaks about death.

If you watch Nosferatu and think Ellen would be happy as Thomas’ little wife at any point, I think you have missed the point. Thomas’ personality or qualities are besides the point - he is part of patriarchy, part of status-quo living, part of her subjugation and squashing her into a role she could never fit into. She says as much when he returns and they have their infamous fight by the fire:

“Well, where is it? Your money? Your promotion? Your house? Where is that which is so precious to you? Have you paid back kind Harding your debt? Have you repaid him with this plague that infects his wife?”

She is furious that she warned him not to leave her, that he did and the bad thing happened. That he seemingly sacrificed their love for a sack of gold. Women, in parts of culture and history, blocked from seeking work and income of their own, were therefore subjected to their spouses ambition and therefore neglect. If she was happy with having less materially, and more in her marriage, that was not a decision for her to make. Her husband made it, and the consequence was being left to her loneliness with an increasing brood of children to take care of.

Ellen does not want this. She spends the entire movie telling Thomas this. And at no point does he get it.

I think this is why it's so important that Orlok says:

“It is not me. It is your own nature… Love is inferior to you. I told you, you are not of Human kind… I am an appetite, nothing more”

Orlok is a symbol of all of Ellen that is not able to be seen, heard or appreciated in her world. She has an appetite of her own, love is inferior to power and control. In her marriage, unlike Anna’s, she is the one with the sexual appetite. She wants, she asks and calls. 

There is no future of Ellen and Thomas happily together. There is only death - either the way that played out in the film, or Orlok killing Thomas. But if Ellen and Thomas somehow defeated Orlok with both surviving, like Mina and Jonathan, I doubt they’d happily go on to have a child and name him Friederich. Ellen would leave, one way or another.

Ellen is a woman trapped in a society that does not want her, or at least wants to cut her down, contort her to the right size and shape. Reduce her expression, shut her up and leave her at home while the real men do the real work, including hunting vampires.

And this is why I find Stoker’s ending to Dracula so fucking frustrating. Mina is kept outside of the plans (for good reason - she has a channel to Dracula’s thoughts and worries he can see what she sees, but this is created by the author and so I get to critique it) and bears witness to the destruction of Dracula. While I don’t need a girlboss in every story, Mina is somewhat side-lined in this process and I don’t love it. She follows this by becoming the normal and good house wife to Jonathan and producing some progeny to name after their slain heroes.

(sidebar I think it would be more meaningful if Mina had a daughter and named her Lucy, the name of her dearest friend who was horrifically killed but don’t mind me)

Ellen is very different from Mina here. Her connection to Orlok is not the reason to keep her distance - it’s the reason she must get closer than anyone else. She takes control, speaking to Von Franz and getting what information she must to help her plan Orlok’s destruction.

Like many people, I see the final scene as both a sacred bond (a matrimony) and a heroic sacrifice. It can be both. Ellen can both know what she needs to do to save her love and the innocents around her (kill Orlok), she also knows she is the reason for their suffering (girl clean up your mess!) and knows that luckily, this is also what her dark heart has longed for.

It’s not often the thing you must do is also the thing you desperately, secretly want.

Ellen knows there’s no life after this. There’s no world where she becomes the happy mother and wife Mina Harker. There is only darkness and despair.

Eggers Nosferatu is a fairy tale that warns about the prospect for unusual, modern, sexual women. I read the ending of Dracula, of Jonathan saying “My wife is so happy now” and I think of Betty Draper shooting pigeons in the backyard. You’re telling me that educated, brilliant Mina Harker is happy being relegated to the home? There will always be something that rubs me the wrong way about Mina’s ending in Dracula, and the way the fandom has decided to blindly celebrate it. Ellen is an amazing antidote to that feeling.

Nosferatu is brilliant because it is honest about women and their status in this world. It allows room for Ellen and her own foibles. And it allows the darkness and the monstrous to coexist with the feminine. The ending is not a girlboss ending, it does not leave me feeling warm and fuzzy. It makes me uncomfortable - it is a gothic horror. The status quo is not maintained at the end of the movie - Orlok has disrupted their world, and it cannot be undone.

Ellen and Thomas are not a love story, and to pretend they are is to take the piss out of the entire thing.

[the-analytical-bostie]

I honestly don’t understand the whole “it’s just a joke”, “that’s how guys talk” like no?

First of all that’s a lame fucking excuse for his behavior. Just because you’re a fan doesn’t mean you have to protect every fucked up thing he says.

Let’s be honest non of us know them personally, we see what’s online and hear what’s said. So pretending like you know them, saying “he’s a good guy” and defending him like you do is embarrassing.

I use to be a fan of Misha. Well, more like I use to respect him as an actor and I enjoyed him in SPN. This year I had the privilege to meet him at a con. I say privilege because I know that many can’t afford to or haven’t had the opportunity.

It was so awkward, he clearly didn’t want to be there. Everything he said during his q&a catered to the audience. It was over all very fake, I still can’t understand how people feed into the stuff he says.

It really put a bad taste in my mouth. I’ve never been his biggest fan, just thought that it would be fun to meet someone, from the tv show the show I’ve loved for years. That being said if I could go back, I’d save my money instead of wasting it.

I’m not saying he wasn’t nice to me, I did have a longer interaction than others that had been in line. But as someone who hasn’t ever been an obsessive fan, I think it might have been easier not feeding into all the crap he says.

People forget that he gets paid to do this stuff. The reason why he’s a fan favorite is because of destiel. So ofc he’s going to milk it, since that’s the only thing he has to talk about.

All the questions were destiel related, he has nothing else to say about the show. Honestly I don’t think he remembers anything that happened in the show, except from all of the scenes where he can confirm that destiel is canon.

Anyway after that con I watched a few videos of other panels online, because Jensen and Jared didn’t attend the one I went to. And I have to say I agree with a lot of the things you’ve posted.

It’s clear that he tries hard to push Jared out of the picture, he forces this idea of being besties with Jensen at cons. It’s always so awkward watching them together. Most of the time Jensen just goes along with stuff Misha says, so he doesn’t have to answer the same questions about destiel being canon or not.

Jensen obviously takes his acting seriously, he played Dean for 15 years. So I don’t get when he says over and over again, that destiel isn’t a thing. That people can’t accept it and move on. I love Dean, but I’m not going to pretend I know him better than Jensen. He WAS Dean. He knows him inside and out.

Then we have Misha that eggs the fans on during these panels. It’s like Jensen tries to answer the question seriously. Then Misha swoops in makes a small joke out of it, like Jensen has no idea what he’s talking about and proceeds to talk over him. Giving them the answer they want to hear.

It even feels like he’s making fun of the fans at times, knowing that they feed into this crap and thinking it’s funny that they do.

Gives me the same vibes of Regina George saying “I love that bracelet where did you get it”. Then going back to the green room and making fun of it.

I mean he’s made fun of the show and fans before, there are literally videos or posts online.

ALSO!!! The whole thing Jensen said about it not being subtext it was clear text, has been so fucking twisted.

This has turned into more of a rant, sorry. But what I mean to say is I agree with a lot of the things you’ve said. I just don’t understand how people can’t see it? It’s so frustrating.

I don’t hate Misha, it just really really fucking bugs me, that people don’t see what he’s doing. I just don’t get that you, like others who point it out get attacked.

People go on and on about how hateful others are, then proceed to bully people online for pointing shit out? Make that make sense.

Hi Anon! Saw your other message, and yeah, I don't blame you there, but you are good, so here we go. Thank you for the message btw. Very refreshing after my last few that's for sure.

I will start by saying that I have never seen a group of people so willing to turn a blind eye to the numerous inappropriate things their fave does/says as the hellers/Misha Stans. Their mantra in life is "oh, it was just a joke". I mean, they have to say it constantly because Misha can't stop being inappropriate. He kinda has to though doesn't he? Otherwise, he couldn't keep them entertained and he'd float on off into obscurity.

Unfortunately, that requires the use of Jared and Jensen's names.

I'll start with Jensen just because I happen to already have a link ready.

So, with Jensen, he's going to play that Destiel/Cockles card as much as he possibly can. Always has, always will. Jensen has always said that Destiel doesn't exist. (Thanks to @Sammyiscat on X for posting this today, just when I needed it!)

Once upon a time, Jensen did do a little fan service and lean into it slightly during JenMish panels. However, he always made it as clear as possible how he really feels. Then the hellers called him homophobic for it. So earlier this year, as you mentioned, he called it "clear text" not subtext. He tried to be as diplomatic as possible. The unfortunate part of being diplomatic is that it allowed the hellers to twist themselves into pretzels making it sound like Jensen said the opposite of what he actually was saying.

What I find the most interesting is that in the last few years, Misha is on his best behavior around Jensen. He only runs his mouth off when Jensen isn't around. Usually when he's at a European con alone. I'd LOVE to know how that transpired. Jensen is also usually in a pretty bad mood leading up to a JenMish panel these days as well. He was surprisingly ok in Charlotte (except for that one damn question). However, let's look back on San Francisco. Remember when he ran from Misha trying to hug him?

That is the definition of an unhappy Jensen....Yet hellers, CANNOT SEE IT! How can they not see that? Anyways...I could go on and on here....

So let's move on to Jared...

Sweet silly Jared. How anyone could be mean to him I'll never know. Something has changed there too. There was a lot more joking from Misha where Jared is concerned once up a time. Now, everything Misha says about his sounds bitter and or malicious.

He loves to point out that Jared was discovered just walking down the street, or that he has no training or that he didn't go to college.

Then there was the airplane story from last month in DC. It was partially true, but heavily embellished to make Jared sound bad, and what happens every time that happens? Tons of hate descends onto Jared online. People telling him to kill himself. Just pure bullying and hate. Misha HAS to know that is what would happen.

Just this past weekend he mocked him: (Ignore the person who tweeted this. You don't want to go down that route)

What an asshole. I mean really. I know, I know hellers, "oh, it's just a joke" right? Let's not start the "you and your friends have no sense of humor" crap again.

As far as con experiences go? I've heard people say many times that they have had negative experiences meeting Misha. Unless you are known to him already he couldn't care less. Been there, done that, can confirm. Like I said in another post, glad I already didn't like him because I sure wouldn't now!

Edited to add another link of Jensen denying Destiel.

[talxns]

My only exposure to dc is brudick. I really like their mutual insanity. Can you recommend some comics I should read to perhaps get some more of it, or is it purely subtextual/background in the comics?

It’s always going to be subtextual but it’s an easy subtext to read, you don’t have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to see the brudick in a lot of batman comics (although recently they are intentionally trying to make it harder with the push for dick to call bruce his dad)

unfortunately a lot of strong brudick subtext examples just come from small moments. meaningful conversations they share or characters alluding to something weird between them. all scattered throughout the entire batman publication history. it’d be difficult to recommend certain comics because you’d have to read dozens of issues just to get to a panel where a character makes a quip about how oddly attached they are.

i always recommend Batman/Nightwing Bloodborne to everyone. it’s a one-off so you can read it in one sitting, gives you all the context you need in one story, and it’s just about the devotion between bruce and dick. a lot of people are turned off from the rough art style but i swear the story itself is worth it (and honestly i like how the action scenes are drawn, i think it’s just the close ups of faces that are kind of off)

if you really want to see an example of like. unhealthy but really brudick coded stuff…. venture into Frank Miller’s comics like All Star Batman & Robin and The Dark Knight Strikes Again. disclaimer that his bruce… is not my bruce lol. this bruce is like…. he’s awful just it’s the extreme hyper masculine homophobic alpha dude bro vision of modern bruce wayne manifest. the final boss of bruce wayne machismo. in an effort to make this bruce the most straight manly man who is repulsed by homosexuality they actually klein bottle him back into being an extremely repressed gay man who refuses to come to terms with his sexuality and in essence his desire for dick grayson. he is arguably one of the most obsessed-with-dick bruces out there. if you’re into that flavor of like? abusive bruce? then that is where you will get it

but it just goes to show that the harder you try to distance batman and robin from queerness, the more you highlight their queerness. i call it dc’s chinese finger trap.

[tjlnn22]

Does anyone else ever think about how the main villains of each HxH arc prior to CAA represent a twisted/evil version of each of the four main protagonists? (CAA also has this but in a much more complex way that I’ll save for a later post)

Gon-Hisoka: I think this is fairly obvious with Hisoka being obsessed with fighting and getting stronger/being the best with no real regard for anything else. We see many hints of Gon having obsessive tendencies that could lead in this direction, also his love of fighting that could very well have turned sinister eventually had Gon been a less moral person than he is/went down a different path. Even then though we still get glimpses of that in the early arcs.

Killua-Illumi: again, pretty obvious. Illumi represents what Killua could have been had he followed his parent’s wishes of becoming a full time assassin and leader of the family, or potentially if he had never met Gon in the first place. Illumi is everything Killua fears becoming. (Also I think it’s worth noting how Hisoka and Illumi also have a “will they, won’t they, what are they to each other” vibe going on with the romantic subtext of their relationship. Not nearly as blatant or prominent as it is with Killua and Gon, but it is there.)

Kurapika-Chrollo: This one’s a bit more subtle, but I think the connection can be made between the two of them. First of all both of their backstories involve horrible deaths befalling those they loved when they were a child, which motivated them to go down their respective paths of revenge. Both are incredibly intelligent and competent nen users as well, and take the leader role in their respective groups, a position that neither of them take lightly and feel an intense sense of responsibility for when it comes to their people. Both are willing to sacrifice everything for their cause (Kurapika’s being Justice and Chrollo’s being the PT as a group) and their personalities are also very similar as well.

Leorio-Genthru: Up until this point the parallels have very clearly come from the rival of each character, however I think this comparison also applies regardless. Genthru and Leorio both share a driving goal of doing what they do for money, although in Leorio’s case it’s so that he can help others while for Genthru it’s entirely selfish. Both of them are smarter then they let on at first, and capable of being very dangerous/powerful when they want to be. However, they also share a deep care and camaraderie with their friends despite their outward personalities. We all know that Leorio would do anything for his friends but Genthru as well is shown to deeply care for his two friends even to the point of his own detriment. There is also the fact that they do share many physical traits as well. Tall, lanky, glasses, etc. (also they’re both a bit underutilized in the story IMHO lol) but yeah, I think it’s clear where the similarities are.

Anyway, I may go more in depth into this at some point, or I may not. It’s just something I think about from time to time and was wondering if anyone else does too.

[darcyolsson]

as someone entrenched in the fandom for too long... would you mind sharing your insights as a newcomer what you think the most fascinating or insane things you 911 fans are doing👀 the things we believe or talk about like normal that as an outsider with media literacy are wild to you

BUCKTOMMY!!! bucktommy. going online and seeing that the main two sentiments are "bucktommy are soulmates forever" and "tommy is the literal devil and he needs to die" was truly baffling. before starting the show i thought buck and tommy were for real a good couple, you know, kind of like a compromise: we won't show buck in a queer relationship with eddie, but we can show him in another functional gay relationship. reader, this is not the case. they're SO messy and obviously not actually good for each other and i LOVE it. tommy got buck basketball tickets for their 6 month anniversary even though buck notoriously really hates basketball. this is obviously extremely painful to watch. however thankfully he's immediately upstaged by buck getting him NOTHING. they're perpetually in a terrible boyfriend-off and i'm obsessed with it.

needless to say i'm really confused by how few people (in the main tags at least) share this sentiment. the bucktommy soulmates camp are watching his show with their eyes and ears closed, the tommy devil truthers do not know how to have fun. they're obviously not going to be endgame on account of the show emphasising how much they do not work over and over again, but i'm going to have great fun while he's here. the only way i can really make sense of this really extreme divide is that it's is more about fandom wars than it is about anything happening in the actual show, i understand getting so annoyed by a certain group of shippers you become even more annoying about your own ship. this is a fandom tale as old as time. but then it's made weird again by the show very obviously not wanting you to see buck and tommy as a particularly functional but still educational relationship? it feels like there's a very clear message being sent and everyone has turned their phone off.

speaking of shipping, the way y'all talked about it i really expected buddie to be heavy subtext throughout the entire show but at least for the first 6 seasons i barely saw it if i'm honest! i know more about the behind the screens lore now which has made it make more sense, i know for s5/6 the showrunner was very anti-buddie, but until the swich to abc i didn't really read their relationship as particularly romantic (except in s4, which i recently learned was supposed to be setup for canon buddie s5 until it was shut down by fox)

also this goes without saying but starting the show i 100% expected buck and eddie to be the main, if not most interesting characters, but i honestly didn't care much for them until s7 😭 in general the degree to which tumblr ignores virtually every other character is....... well it's not surprising at all but. you know

ALSO . i feel like tumblr heavily misrepresented eddie to me. i knew him as tumblr's darling so i kind of expected him to be a morally upstanding man. finding out he's pretty much the only member of the cast who keeps consistently doing lowkey evil things was an incredible reveal. i have to confess i didn't really like him at first because of it but then grew on me, not because he's a better person now or whatever but mainly because he's taken his annoyingness to pure derangedness. like, being in the US military and treating your girlfriends badly? boooo. you suck. cheating on your girlfriend with a woman who looks exactly like your dead wife and then doing a little dead wife roleplay with her when she shows up at your door having cut bangs? genuinely what the hell is wrong with you i want to watch 10 seasons of this

it's also why, for once, i do in fact believe in the "this male character who's dated loads of women is actually gay" propaganda, because eddie keeps taking a sledgehammer to every single intimate relationship he has except buck, who, lbr, essentially functioned as his romantic partner at several moments in the show. initially i thought it was just a Tumblr Shipper Way Of Viewing Things that but as it turns out it's actually a really reasonable interpretation. my bad!

funnily enough my entire opinion of buddie remains unchanged. before i started the show i thought "it would be nice if they went canon, and there's a real possibility, but given the way these things usually go i wouldn't bet any money on it" and i still feel the exact same way. yes season 8 seems to be obviously setting up for it. however i've seen this before many times and every single time the outcome was queerbaiting i fear........ so net 0 buddie. i do like them, i'd love to see it, but i've been hurt so many times i do not have it in me to hope </3

tl;dr no one on this website understands tommy like i do and i dont even care about him and eddie might be a little bit evil but i like it so it's fine

[bitterkarella]

Jane Schoenbrun: submitted for the approval of the midnight society, i call this the tale of the glowing tv Schoenbrun: it's about this kid who's obsessed with a 90s TV series called the pink opaque Schoenbrun: and how estrogen would have saved her

King: Oh, like Pete and Pete! Schoenbrun: what King: the show! it's like pete and pete, right? Schoenbrun: Schoenbrun: no

Poe: steve, it's clearly based on Are You Afraid of the Dark King: you think? it really seems like more of a Pete and Pete thing Poe: trust me King: remember arnie? strongest man in the world Poe: sure steve King: man! what a great show!

Mary Shelley: sup fuckers Poe: jane was telling a story about this 90s show King: Pete and Pete Poe: it's not Pete and Pete Poe: it's clearly got an Are You Afraid of the Dark vibe Barker: really it's more of a Clarissa Explains it All Shelley: now THAT was a show Barker: na na na na na na na Shelley: alright alright! Barker: na na na na Shelley: hey cool! King: wow, mary, i didn't know you were into clarissa explains it all Shelley: there's lots you don't know steve Shelley: i'm a real fuckin enigma, steve

Schoenbrun: well, you're all wrong!! Schoenbrun: it's based on the secret world of alex mack King: King: oh yeah i can kinda see that now Poe: yeah that makes sense Barker: i feel dumb we didn't pick up on that Lovecraft: yeah its obvious when you say it

Schoenbrun: well here's something else that's obvious Schoenbrun: this story's about being trans King: what, really? i didn't pick up on that Barker: oh damn steve was the omnipresent white, blue and pink color scheme too subtle for you? King: the omnipresent what color scheme?

Schoenbrun: the 90s TV show is about these two girls who fight against the evil Dr. Dysphoria Schoenbrun: stop me if i'm being too subtle King: [looks at kafka] Poe: [looks at kafka] Lovecraft: [looks at kafka] Koontz: [looks at kafka] Barker: [looks at kafka] Franz Kafka: what

Schoenbrun: so in this next scene, they're in this bar where this cool badass girl punk is singing Schoenbrun: the subtext is wouldn't it be cool to be this cool badass girl punk? Kafka: well yeah but everyone thinks that Kafka: i mean, right? Kafka: that's just a normal thing

Schoenbrun: next the character turns to the screen and says "do you, the viewer, suffer from gender dysphoria? check all the following symptoms which apply to you" Schoenbrun: again Schoenbrun: stop me if i'm being too subtle Franz Kafka: why are you looking at me

Schoenbrun: what i am saying is Schoenbrun: there is still time to be your own true authentic self Kafka:

Schoenbrun: think about what i'm saying here Kafka: haha i Kafka: Kafka: [stands up, quietly leaves] Barker: oh i didn't expect that Barker: shit Barker: we'd better go after her Poe: no no give her some space Poe: this has been a long time coming Poe: seven years, statistically

[pumpkinpenguin]

okay so i was talking to my sister abt this but i'm kind of heated over it now and must share it with the 10 of u that i keep in my echo chamber

i love evil 2012 donnie aus. he's such a creechur and i think he should be able to commit crimes. as a treat.

however.

i HATE evil donnie aus where he's emotionless and/or turns on his brothers.

donnie is emotionally driven and he doesn't hide what he's feeling. excitement, anger, sadness; if he's feeling it you'll know he's feeling it. a lot of his mistakes/the trouble he gets into is because he's having an emotional outburst of some kind or he's thinking with his heart over his head. he's also incredibly anxious and high strung. if something goes wrong it could ruin his whole day. if donnie were to be evil and not hold back anymore, he'd be the most unhinged villain ever with emotions that switch faster than a spirit box surfing through radio channels, and they'd be intense as well. this could be said for rise donnie as well, to be honest, and there's a conversation to be had there about autistic characters who are awkward and standoffish getting turned into emotionless and stoic villains, but that's not what i'm here to talk about atm.

when it comes to why he would snap, i think it would probably have to do with feeling rejected by humanity. donnie didn't ask to be the way that he is, a mutant turtle, but he's punished for it anyway. it's probably hard for him to rationalize. a big part of his character is his insecurity about being a mutant, which is also part of the reason i think he tries so hard to get april's affections. i DO NOT condone his behavior towards april, but it does kind of prove my point here. april rejecting him, to him, confirms that he'll never be accepted by humans. again, not april's fault at all and obviously she doesn't care that donnie is a mutant, she just doesn't like him that way. but like i said, donnie is emotionally driven and it would be very easy to spiral into that line of thinking. some people say that his brothers not appreciating him or asking too much of him would make him snap, hence why they have evil donnie turn against his bros. but i don't think thag would make him evil? to donnie, his brothers are all he has. they annoy him and pick on him and get a little too entitled to his tech skills, but i doubt he'd ever be motivated to hurt them. and if, IF, by some small chance he'd turn on his bros, leo is going first LMAO

raph teases donnie a lot and says mean things sometimes, but at the end of the day, i feel like he's still closer to raph than leo. not only that, but leo is one of the main contributors to donnie's stress. there's a problem? donnie, fix it. make some invention for the team. work harder. don't you know we're all counting on you? you know how much this means to splinter. don't even get me started on the metalhead situation. leo is on screen more often than not telling donnie what he can and can't do. not to mention he can be kind of a hypocrite sometimes. he judges donnie for his obsession with april, but he's just as obsessed with karai, more often than not putting his brothers in danger for her time and time again. i hate leorai with a passion but i cannot deny that it gets brought up in the show frequently. even if you ignore the romantic implications, i would still argue that leo is a hypocrite in this situation. also, through subtext, we can kind of infer that donnie and raph are closer than donnie and leo. i also feel like raph gets got first in these aus because there's an inherent bias against his character within the fandom, but i have a video essay in the works for that.

but again, if anyone were to be the victim of villain donnie's wrath, it'd be humanity. ESPECIALLY after the don vizioso thing (which is ANOTHER thing leo is hypocritical about??? "meh meh meh donnie killing ppl is bad ur stooping to their level meh meh meh" *literally TWO OR THREE EPISODES PRIOR decapitates shredder and carves his skull from his helmet* ?????!?!?!??!!?) he'd grow frustrated with how he can't do normal things. he's punished for something he has no control over. he feels alienated. why not give them the monster people think he is?

obviously ppl can write what they want, but so can i lmao. i usually don't care if something is OOC (it's funny a lot of times tbh), especially in something like a villain au, but when it comes to the turtle bros hurting each other?? that's the one thing i CANNOT stand 💀 of course i'm not telling ppl to stop writing it, but these are just my thoughts! lol i tend to avoid those fics/aus like the plague bc of what i'm personally comfortable with but!!!! i can see how they're fun to explore

i'll probably reblog later with an evil donnie WIP i haven't touched in three months when i have my laptop on me 👍

[auramgold]

On Acht and Romance

going into side order, from the september direct trailer where Acht was first revealed i remember the joke at the time clearly being "and now Marina's ex is here".

the way this line [image description in alt] was written was basically the only evidence for this kind of idea, when the theories were kind of "Marina's order tantrum is sucking people in from her past and the DLC will be about going through her memories", so ellipses in a line like this is basically all theory crafters on no info need to go for shipping.

i'm not one who's super into plot theory crafting, i know full well the tendency to theorize something that's cooler than what you actually get and being disappointed that the story didn't live up to your imagination. the things i was obsessed with in side order promotional material was the obvious bleached coral theme, the symbolism of coral ejecting it that which keeps it safe out of stress being mapped onto Marina, the idea of her pushing those she loves (and those that keep her colorful) away out of a spiral (and it does turn out that was basically exactly what the prologue was going for)

so the whole "Acht and Marina exes" thing was kinda just a joke to me, wasn't even on my radar as something they were actually going to lean into, frankly i was still scared nintendo was going to make them kill pearlina by sending Marina to superhell or smth and we'd end up with a splatoonified destiel meme

so when the DLC comes out and it is legitimately a "they knew each other since childhood" thing, and the running bit is Acht feeling awkward third-wheeling pearlina, and it's explicit in text that one of the reasons they're coming back after the DLC is over is to scope out Pearl as the girl who took down the NILS statue who is now dating Marina... it struck me as really interesting.

at first it was me keeping up the "Marina and Acht are exes" as a joke, but as i kept reading dialogue lines, it slowly became less of a joke, they were to some degree dating because opposite but complimentary autisms, and then drifting apart as Marina got pulled away on the big girl assignment with DJ Octavio, and then the despair of knowing Marina left without even saying goodbye to Acht... it fits well into that reading, it slowly became less of a joke to believe that

but the thing that really makes me think this is intentional subtext is the final Acht diary entry you get from clearing Eight's palette. through the rest of side order talking about Acht's backstory, it seemed like they were retconning the OE lore that Acht had gotten themself sanitized intentionally, losing themself so they could explore their music deeper. but in the final diary, where Acht directly says they drifted into the deepsea metro to fall into their music, because, and i quote

"Hey, Marina. You can guess the chaos your desertion caused. I ended up without much to do except make music. "

they fell into a depression spiral when their girlfriend deserted their society without so much as saying goodbye, falling into their music deep away from interacting with everyone else, to the point that, as the old lore implies, they chose to give up their identity to escape the depression, but sanitization so thoroughly did it that they forget even making the choice.

so when they get brought out of that haze back into being themself again, with the only the barest strung-together horrified memories of what happened in the half a decade interim gap in their life, only to find themself replaced by some inkling they don't know at all, of course they're gonna be awkward seeing the two flirting.

they put on a stoic face because that's clearly their coping mechanism within this damaged body they barely recognize, hiding their eyes behind their tinted glasses so they can't be seen beneath. but the only time they let themself be vulnerable, the only time their eyes can be seen, is when they charge out in the climax when the world is at stake, diving in to try to save Marina, leaving the elevator and its protection behind to help the only person they remember ever caring about.

it's why i don't really like the aroace reading that much, because i think this reading is even more tragic and fits into the themes. the world has changed, it can't go back to how it once was, you can't put the octolings back in the canyon bottle. Marina abandoned Acht to the point they got their identity destroyed willingly to escape the pain, and when Acht came back they were replaced by the inkling whose voice they remember even through the haze of sanitized memories.

the lingering effects of sanitization have changed how they relate to everything (i think there's a fair argument to be made for the idea that sanitization took their gender can't have shit in the deepsea metro), but Acht clearly still cares for Marina and still, the slightest bit, resents having to be reminded repeatedly every time pearlina flirts in front of them how they were replaced.