#it is part of the narrative which means it has implications

[xchronicles]

I have.. yet again.. a crack theory

This fever dream of a shot might be the creator's intent to state - pay attention to the combadges; they hold clues, especially given the moment they show it in

And then, if you pay attention to Chakotay’s combadge(s), you’ll notice the scene later where Chakotay presents her with her old Voyager combadge to remind her of her command anniversary.

What does this imply? You guessed it - pay attention to the combadges again. If you do, and it’s literally a blink-and-you-miss-it moment, it seems they accidentally switched combadges and then switched them back.

The thing is, there are too many coincidences for this to be accidental. If it was an accident, then holy heck, did they get lucky that it made sense like this and perfectly fell into place.

If the show wanted to hint at a more personal interaction off-screen that led to this accidental switch, it would likely do so in a nuanced way that respects the tone of the series. An accidental switch of combadges could be a clever way to imply an intimate moment without directly addressing it, keeping the content appropriate for all viewers.

I am now once again deluding myself ... help

Bonus shot just to make everything super confusing... when it doubt, wear two combadges at once confirming all theories and creating a paradox of your own

[serpentface]

Do you conlang? I was wondering if you had naming languages (or possibly even more developed ones) for pulling the words you use. I tried to search your blog but didn't find anything, wouldn't be surprised if the feature is just busted tho. Your worldbuilding is wonderful and I particularly enjoy the anthropological and linguistic elements.

Ok the thing is I had kind of decided I was not going to do any conlanging because I don't feel like I'm equipped to do a good job of it, like was fully like "I'm just going to do JUST enough that it doesn't fail an immediate sniff test and is more thoughtful than just keysmashing and putting in vowels". And then have kinda been conlanging anyway (though not to a very deep and serious extent. I maybe have like....an above average comprehension of how language construction works via willingness to research, but that's not saying much, also I can never remember the meanings of most linguistic terms like 'frictives' or etc off the top of my head. I'm just kinda raw dogging it with a vague conceptualization of what these things mean)

I do at least have a naming language for Wardi (and more basic rules for other established languages) but the rudimentary forms of it were devised with methods much shakier and less linguistically viable than even the most basic naming language schemes, and I only went back over it LONG after I had already made a bunch of words so there's some inconsistencies with consonant presence and usage. (This can at least be justified because it IS a language that would have a lot of loanwords and would be heavily influenced by other language groups- Burri being by far the most significant, Highland-Finnic and Yuroma-Lowlands also being large contributors)

The 'method' I used was:

-Skip basic construction elements and fully move into devising necessary name words, with at least a Vibe of what consonants are going to be common and how pronunciation works -Identify some roots out of the established words and their meanings. Establish an ongoing glossary of known roots/words. -Construct new words based in root words, or as obvious extensions/variants of established words. -Get really involved in how the literal meanings of some words might not translate properly to english, mostly use this to produce a glossary of in-universe slang. -Realize that I probably should have at least some very basic internal consistency at this point. -Google search tutorials on writing a naming language. -Reverse engineer a naming language out of established words, and ascribe all remaining inconsistencies to being loanwords or just the mysteries of life or whatever.

I do at least have some strongly established pronunciation rules and a sense of broad regional dialect/accents.

-'ai' words are almost always pronounced with a long 'aye' sound.

-There is no 'Z' or 'X' sound, a Wardi speaker pronouncing 'zebra' would go for 'tsee-brah', and would attempt 'xylophone' as 'ssye-lohp-hon'

-'V' sounds are nearly absent and occur only in loanwords, and tend to be pronounced with a 'W' sound. 'Virsum' is a Highland word (pronounced 'veer-soom') denoting ancestry, a Wardi speaker would go 'weer-sum'.

-'Ch' spellings almost always imply a soft 'chuh' sound when appearing after an E, I, or O (pelatoche= pel-ah-toh-chey), but a hard 'kh' sound after an A or U (odomache= oh-doh-mah-khe). When at the start of a word, it's usually a soft 'ch' unless followed by an 'i' sound (chin (dog) is pronounced with a hard K 'khiin', cholem (salt) is pronounced with a soft Ch 'cho-lehm')

-Western Wardin has strong Burri cultural and linguistic influence, and a distinct accent- one of the most pronounced differences is use of the ñ sound in 'nn' words. The western city of Ephennos is pronounced 'ey-fey-nyos' by most residents, the southeastern city of Erubinnos is pronounced 'eh-roo-been-nos' by most residents. Palo's surname 'Apolynnon' is pronounced 'A-puh-lee-nyon' in the Burri and western Wardi dialects (which is the 'proper' pronunciation, given that it's a Kos name), but will generally be spoken as 'Ah-poh-leen-non' in the south and east.

-R's are rolled in Highland-Finnic words. Rolling R's is common in far northern rural Wardi dialects but no others. Most urban Wardi speakers consider rolling R's sort of a hick thing, and often think it sounds stupid or at least uneducated. (Brakul's name should be pronounced with a brief rolled 'r', short 'ah' and long 'uul', but is generally being pronounced by his south-southeastern compatriots with a long unrolled 'Brah' sound).

Anyway not really a sturdy construction that will hold up to the scrutiny of someone well equipped for linguistics but not pure bullshit either.

[fideidefenswhore]

i don’t actually mind iterations of AB where she’s ‘mean’ (…again, whatever the fuck that means in the 16c); but i really do reject portrayals where she’s completely devoid of warmth. unfortunately for me, one of them has remained #1 prestige ‘blueprint’ tudor drama since 2012 😭

[lumsel]

I don't strictly "like" taking ADHD meds, the comedown is awful and they play havoc on my appetite. But I kinda need them. I write software for a living. Software requires a great deal of focus that I simply cannot muster up off my meds. If I didn't have my meds, I would lose my job.

Part of this can be blamed on the cruelties of our modern capitalistic system. If the world understood my condition better, maybe I would not need to take stimulants to survive. I read an article once that really went all in on the idea that ADHD's negative perception is a symptom of perception, not an objective truth. Maybe people with ADHD are just as capable, but they do things in a different way to neurotypicals. Maybe all we need is better support, and social solutions, and more understanding of the different way that ADHDers think.

Which is all very compelling. Except.

I often find myself procrastinating activities that I want to do. My apartment has been accumulating dust because I keep forgetting to vacuum. One time I let the dishes in my sink stack too high and it was months before I could get myself to clean the mould off them. The demands of capitalism mean I need to software to pay rent, but sometimes I just want to do software, and no amount of narrative reframing or social support will clear the noise in my head long enough to let me focus on the code.

The notion that ADHD isn't a deficiency, just a different way of thinking, is something I find condescending. The implication here is I shouldn't have to write software, I should be given a different job, and I shouldn't have to maintain my own apartment, I should have the support of my community coming into my room and cleaning my things. But what if I want to do those things? What if I like software, or the privacy of an atomised existence? Maybe society has no right to decide what the correct way to live my life is, but surely I do!

The reason it sucks that it's hard for me to keep my dishes clean is not because the world says so, it is because I say so. It is because sometimes I want to be able to remember to do things and it sucks that I cannot live my life in the way that I want.

[aroaceleovaldez]

reminder that the only reason the "ADHD is actually demigod BATTLE STRATEGIES" and "dyslexia is DEMIGOD BRAINS HARDWIRED FOR ANCIENT GREEK" things exist in the PJO universe is because it's a very direct reference to early 2000s teaching/parenting techniques for neurodiverse and disabled children, which aimed to frame childrens' disabilities and hardships as a "superpower" or strength so that the children would feel more positively about their disabilities or situations. This technique has fallen out of favor since then for the most part since more often than not it just results in kids feeling as though their struggles are not being seen or taken seriously.

Yes, demigods are adhd/dyslexic (and sometimes autistic-coded) in the series. This is extremely important and trying to remove it or not acknowledge it makes the entire series fall apart because it is such a core concept. Yes, canon claims that their adhd/dyslexia is tied to some innate abilities, which is based on an outdated methodology. It's important to acknowledge that and understand where it comes from! But please stop trying to apply it to other pantheons in the series like "oh, the romans have dyscalculia because of roman numerals!" or "the norse demigods have dysgraphia for reasons!" - it's distasteful at best.

A better option is to acknowledge the meta inspiration for why that exists in the series, such as explaining potentially that Chiron was utilizing that same teaching methodology to try and help demigods feel more comfortable with their disabilities and they aren't literal powers. In fact, especially given Frank, there's implication that being adhd/dyslexic isn't a guaranteed demigod trait, which means it's more likely to be normally inherited from their godly parent/divine ancestor as a general trait, not a power, and further supports the whole "ADHD is battle strategy" thing being non-literal. It also implies the entire greco-roman pantheon in their universe is canonically adhd/dyslexic - and that actually fits very well with the themes of the first series. The entire central conflict of the first series fits perfectly as an allegory about neurodiverse/disabled children and their relationships with their undiagnosed neurodiverse/disabled parents and trying to find solutions together with their shared disability/disabilities that the kid inherited instead of becoming distant from each other (and this makes claiming equivalent to getting a diagnosis which is a fascinating allegory! not to mention the symbolism of demigods inheriting legacies and legends and powers from their parents and everything that comes with that being equivalent to inheriting traits, neurodiversity, and disabilities from your parents).

anyways neurodiversity and disability and the contexts in which the series utilizes representation of those experiences particularly during the 2000s symbolically within the narrative is incredibly important to the first series and the understanding of what themes it means to represent. also if i see one more "the romans have dyscalculia instead of dyslexia" post in 2023 i'm gonna walk into the ocean.

[bloodbenderz]

there was a lot of mistakes made in the live action but the worst one without reservation was that the creators did not understand patriarchy and they did not understand women's liberation outside of an american context ( or any context if we're being honest )

it's easy to see on a surface level how that fucked up katara's whole character how she wasn't allowed to have her character defining moments how she wasn't allowed to be angry or even excited or impulsive but i think it doesn't really become clear how deeply wrong the show's conception of gender & patriarchy is (and the implications for the political landscape of the show) until you get into how they destroyed sokka's character too

sokka's whole Complex is born of patriarchy. i'm not trying to do men's rights advocacy here but in my experience when a people is under constant threat, constant assault, constant violence (much of which is gendered) and the traditional "protectors" or "providers" of that people are men, the masculine role becomes protecting women and children. i am not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing but it is true the narrative of violent resistance is overwhelmingly about men. to be a man in a time & place like this means fighting to protect your women, & to die for them is honorable. that is where sokka gets this idea that he has to be a warrior & he has to fight & if necessary die for katara & the rest of the tribe. it's about duty. everyone has a part to play, a role to fill

everyone including women! which is the other half of this. the duty of women is to keep up the home, to maintain a country worth fighting & dying for, to raise children so that the community can have a future. it becomes especially obvious in the context of the show when you see how the nwt lives & in specific how yue lives and dies.

many women participate in patriarchy. many colonized women participate in patriarchy. most of my family comes from or still lives in a country completely devastated by colonialism & its aftereffects & many women in my family believe wholeheartedly in the idea that everyone in the house has a role to play. it's not because these women are stupid or they hate themselves. but when you grow up believing that men & women are fundamentally different, and seeing that women are in specific danger because of their gender, it actually makes a lot of sense to expect the men in your family to protect you, and to raise your sons that way.

in practice that means that men aren't really expected to do anything around the house, especially when there's no actual danger. my aunt literally 2 days ago told me this lol like she doesn't make her sons do anything bc she wants to let their lives be easy before they have to go out into the world & take care of their wives & children.

what does women's liberation look like when an entire community is under threat? colonized women have been dealing with this question as long as colonialism has existed. the writers of this show don't even pretend to understand the question, much less to formulate a thoughtful response to it. they just say oh, well, katara, yue, & suki are all the exact same type of liberated girlboss for whom patriarchy is no significant obstacle.

which brings us back to sokka lol. sokka, at the beginning of the show, has completely subscribed to patriarchy, has integrated it into his sense of self. he has a lot of flaws, but he also has a lot of really good traits. his bravery, sense of honor, loyalty, work ethic, selflessness, all of this came from him striving to be a good man. he would die to protect katara, because she's his sister. he also has her wash his socks & mend his clothes, because she's his sister. even after he meets suki, humbles himself, & expands his view of the role a woman can play, he doesn't completely disengage from patriarchy. at the end of the day he believes in his soul that a good man's duty is to fight & if necessary die for his people, & that's exactly his plan. this is a very real psychic burden. pre-aang, it's also largely fictional & completely ridiculous. we're SUPPOSED to think it's ridiculous. he's spending his time training babies & working on his little watchtower. the swt hasn't been attacked since their mother was killed because it has been completely stripped of all value or danger it once held for the fire nation, & everybody knows this. there is very little "men's work" left, aside from hunting & fishing, which is so damaging to sokka's self image he resorts to toddler bootcamp to feel useful. the contradiction here is comical. it's also completely devastating. that's supposed to be the fucking POINTTTT like colonialism & patriarchy convinces this young boy he needs to be a soldier & die for his family. & you know what he does? He acts like a young boy about it. they didn't just leave this unexplored in the remake they completely changed the circumstances to 1. make sokka incompetent for some reason 2. make his "preparations" seem less ridiculous. Which ruins the whole character. Possibly the whole show.

all this makes the writing of katara & the other women infinitely more offensive to me. katara is a good character because she believes in revolution. she wants to liberate her people from imperialism, & she wants to liberate women from colonial gendered violence, traditional patriarchy in her own culture, & the complicated ways those things interact. it is LITERALLY the first thing you're supposed to learn about her. she's the PERFECT vehicle to address the question of women's liberation under colonialism. one of the things i was most looking forward to seeing in this show was how labor is distributed in a place where almost everything that needs to get done is "women's work" & how it affects katara & sokka's day to day relationship when their lives weren't at risk constantly. what actually are her responsibilities every day, & how do they compare to sokka's? how does her grandmother enforce these traditions with katara & sokka, & how is that informed by her own experiences in the nwt? what does patriarchy look like in a tribe made up of mostly women & children? it's so important to who katara is & what she believes! but why bother exploring any of that when u could instead make her a shein model who has nothing in common with the source material except her hairstyle lol.

yue is actually even worse to me bc yue is supposed to be sokka's counterpart. she's supposed to show you how destructive it is for women specifically to internalize this gendered duty so completely. it sucks for sokka, but he is a man & thus his prescribed role gives him some agency. yue's role affords her no agency whatsoever, & this is the POINT. to make her someone who's allowed to break things off with her fiance if she likes, who sneaks off to do what she wants when she's feeling stressed, whose will is respected as a monarch, like what is even the point of yue anymore? in the original the whole reason she was even allowed to spend time with sokka was because her father knew she was with a trustworthy boy. her story completely loses all significance when the dimension of patriarchy is removed from it. the crux of her whole story is that she is not just a princess but the literal & spiritual representation of the motherland. that's what women are supposed to represent during wartime, at the cost of their own sense of self. in order to fulfill her duty to her people she gives her life to them in every single way that matters.

it's just so unbelievably frustrating (and WRONG) that the only types of characters for these writers are "soulless misogynistic fuck" and "liberated american-style feminist." there's no nuance at all! they don't bother exploring how real love manifests in patriarchal communities, & how patriarchy defines the limits of that love. or how for so many of these people their idea of goodness, morality, & honor is gendered. or how imperialism affects not just individuals but entire cultures & their conceptions of gender. but why do any actual work when you could completely change sokka & katara's general demeanors, their entire personalities, & their roles in the tribe so you can dodge any & all nuance

Anyways. in conclusion. it was bad

[deancrowleycas]

Favorite Shots Per Episode ✩ 1.06 Skin (3/3)

cinematography analysis and queer reading under the cut

It's of course very obvious that the shapeshifter is functioning as a mirror to Dean, but I still find it fascinating how this is depicted in the cinematography. Because the director isn't using physical mirrors, despite them being such a popular trope in horror for showing the true self or the mental state or metamorphosis of a character. The only time where you sort of see one is in a foreshadowing shortly after the establishing shot with the side-view mirror (which I absolutely love):

But for the rest? Not really. I always wonder if interpret waaaay too much into certain frames, but I am kind of obsessed with how Dean and Becky are divided by the crime scene tape in this shot. Becky is the victim. Dean, well Dean? He's the monster. Kind of. I think a lot of the reflection in this episode happens through what Dean is not also, and he's are not living the lives of 'normal' people. I love how the directing of the episode shows early on that Dean does not belong to that part of society, just like the shapeshifter.

I mean I obviously am doing a queer reading of that (being queer myself), with the monstrous and othered bodies in media being those that are not conforming to various aspects of white cishet society. But I am going to say - the implication that there is a sort of inherent tragedy to Dean's life, not just a sense of not belonging because of his 'lifestyle' but also the fear of being monstrous enough to destroy other people's bodies and livelihoods? Ugh. It hurts, and it's sadly coming back in anti-queer narratives to this day. But yeah, as I said, Dean is portrayed in a way that is disconnecting him from the rest - also from Sam who is the link to this 'normal' life by knowing Becky and who has kept Dean from 'being himself' by pursuing his own dreams and conforming to the exact society that Dean is not belonging to, letting Dean behind in a position where he's neither free to be himself nor enough to be someone else -, and that is giving him a sameness to the shapeshifter.

Dean has to hide the queer part of himself, in a desperate attempt to be accepted, mirrored by the monster of the week: "So maybe this thing was born human but was different, hideous and hated...until he learned to become someone else."

I think that's why I am also obsessed with these shots. Because both the shapeshifter and the shapeshifter as Dean are getting one, revealing their true self underneath the mask that is this body, a body that is subjected to other people's ideas and is projected on and isn't their own. But also the eyes are mirrors? The body part described as the 'mirror to the soul'. It's a little cliché and on the nose, but I find it way cooler than just working with physical mirrors, you know?

And yeah, when it comes to reflections, of course, we cannot forget this scene:

Which is Dean seeing himself, but more so is actually Dean seeing how he is perceived by others. It's not a depiction of his actual self, it's a depiction of the concept of him. We know this, we know Dean is not the 'bad guy' that is televised nor is it an accurate portrayal of him. But I think that it serves to show the audience how media is a place that can shape ideas and construct norms, and it also serves as a way to remind Dean that this is how he will be reacted to if he dares to 'become' monstrous. If he dared to be like the shapeshifter, the outcast, and put his own being over his responsibility to conform. Despite his brother Sam being allowed the same egoism - but Sam's egoism is striving to conform, he's lawboy@stanford.edu you know, and Dean's egoism is striving to be free, to regain control over his body.

And then we have this shot.

Followed by this shot.

Dean 'killing' this reflection of himself, this part of himself in favor of serving and saving. He's a freak, but he's not just a freak like Sam in that he's currently living the hunter lifestyle and didn't really fit into Stanford. Because - well, he's different than Sam. Queer. He's isolated, alone, born hated like the shapeshifter if he ever lived his true self, yearning to be loved. The shapeshifter literally says it: "All he wants is for someone to love him. He’s like me. You know, everybody needs a little human touch now and then. It’s so hard to be different." I think this episode hits so hard for me because you can see Dean's self-hatred, especially in that last shot, Dean's internal struggles that he hides so well under his hero-esque facade. But also how he is ultimately a loving and caring person, putting everyone's happiness above himself.

I think despite this episode reading like being queer is an inherent tragedy at first glance, it walks a fine line in actually trying to convey quite the opposite. Dean is other, but the other isn't bad. Yes, he does good by suppressing himself, so does that mean he has to act according to others to be happy? I don't think that is what the episode is saying. I think it is more an example of Dean's 'monstrosity' being not the same as the shapeshifter's monstrosity in the end, that despite all the sameness they aren't one. That despite what society depicts him to be, evil and harmful to others, he isn't this mirror image projected onto him. He isn't what was shown on those televisions, or in a wider sense, the media. He isn't what is hunted down by the SWAT team, or in a wider sense, institutions in power. Dean's self IS good. Dean's self IS caring and loving, despite his fear to pursue his own dreams and be free, and it's not coming through his actions of suppressing those desires, but because he ultimately is neither those 'normal' people nor the shapeshifter, but his own truth. So yeah, while I think this episode definitely walks a dangerous path by having Dean continue to live this old life in the end, the cinematography in this episode also functions to reveal how - while horror is a love letter to the monstrous, represents counter-narratives and helps to deconstruct normativity (like in this episode!) - the monstrous is often instrumentalized to suppress and oppress and depict victims as an inherent danger to the established systems of oppression. Dean's true self isn't bad. People are just made to believe that it is.

[baeddelicto]

I think yes, we can talk about manufacturing consent as this ongoing and systemic social process re the raping of transfemmes/camab genderweirdos... depraved, pathetic creatures who are desirous of any and all forms of attention and physicality, the abject as desire projected and epitomized...

And i think we could talk specifically about the feminist subject(yes this includes transmascs as many feminist spaces currently and historically demonstrate) in its relationality to this as 1. actors that are categorically unable to perpetrate sexual violence and 2. victims that are desired and objectified and hurt.

But i think it is worth discussing the ways in which narrative as an aspect of aspirational identity is thrust upon us. One presupposed on a bioessentialist understandings of sexual violence.

In the sense that the narrative of femaleness is one of being raped. You see this in the various responses to discussions of transmisogyny when cafab trans folx chime in to more or less effect "well us real females have real problems: we are raped" which has some implications no?

And so any claim of sexual violence done unto our milieau is met w scrutiny even from our cohorts and ourselfs. It seems to basically every1 tht we are trying to adopt the narrative of femaleness. Another instance of the impersonator dressing up. A mummers play with the dragon trying to claim real harm, subjectivity, personhood. Laughable if it werent so insulting.

And so this becomes part of the projected desire matrix. An implicit understanding that yes even if they dont want to(which they do), they want to be forced to. Which means thrs no way to rape them; thrs always a c at the beginning of the dna chain cncncncncncncnc.... so when we bring up even the possibility of sex violence its not only "u wanted it!" its "u wanted to be raped!" We want to be traumatized in the female way which makes it impossible for us to be such... Laughable if it weren't so insulting.

[mochiajclayne]

Marineford Law is no question interesting to me because he pulled off a surprise, motherfucker moment and the timing was so good to the point that both pirates and marines least expected it.

Before I proceed with this self-indulgent lawlu meta post, I will go ahead and say that everything that happened between them in Marineford is a catalyst of establishing their connection later on in the future arcs. I am a firm believer that those feelings™️ started to truly bloom in Punk Hazard and went downhill in a good way in Dressrosa.

Long post ahead. Enjoy!

When I was rewatching Marineford arc, the part where Buggy was already carrying an unconscious and injured Luffy and Jimbei, their conversation sparked my interest.

Highlighting the bit where Buggy was confused about Law's verbal tic of using the suffix -ya in referring to anyone, overall doubting him, then asking for Law's name. Don't forget that Law is a little shit (affectionate) so he proceeded to ignore all of those questions to say this:

Interestingly enough, this part is tricky to translate. I found two translations that closely encapsulate what Law wanted to say here but mind you, and I will sound redundant about this with everything that has got to do with Trafalgar Law's speech patterns: he likes speaking in runarounds, purposely using terms with double meanings and connotations on them, and he's both reticent and cryptic. (I wouldn't say not to trust on his words but don't take them at face value.)

Law described his connection with Luffy as 悪縁 (akuen) which directly translates as evil destiny or connection.

Forgive me for a bit of sidetracking but the kanji used for akuen is the same with Robin's epithet which is "Demon Child" (akuma no ko). To further elaborate, 悪 (aku) means evil--both as intent and violating a moral code. It is also used to refer as the direct opposite of good.

Going back to 悪縁 (akuen), in true Law fashion, this word doesn't only mean evil destiny or connection. Depending on the context, it can also mean unfortunate love.

(It sounds tragic coming from him, isn't it? If your mind was blown after this part, no worries, I am too. This part gave me so much whiplash when I was researching about it.)

So, considering these two interpretations of 悪縁 (akuen), that begs the question, what is Law's connection with Luffy?

On surface-level, they are enemies as Law said so himself. They're rivals when it comes to One Piece. Their common ground, which is only known among people that Law trusts the most, is sharing the same secret name of D. However, I will take one step ahead and say that they both went through the same tragic fate of losing their loved ones, for being weak and powerless to protect them. They were both involved in circumstances where if they were capable enough, they could've saved the person they loved the most. Doomed by the narrative and subjected to trauma that breaks their heart and spirit should they be lesser men to handle such misery and grief. It is unfortunate, disastrous, and cursed to love fully knowing the fact that the other person could die like the ones before them but these two have the biggest heart.

Of course, Law will never say it directly. Thus, settling for 悪縁 (akuen).

It gets better. He did say 悪縁も縁 (akuen mo en) and 縁 (en) itself means fate or destiny (especially a mysterious force that binds two people together). Additionally, も (mo) is also a particle that is used for emphasis.

The implication, in turn, of what Law said to Buggy can be translated this way: Strawhat-ya and I (will) eventually be enemies, but an evil connection is (the futuristic possibility of Luffy becoming his enemy) is fate (that binds them).

Law made sure to emphasize that their "evil connection" is fate: specifically, that mysterious force brought them together and compelled him to be there, that he was meant to sail to Marineford, and help Luffy escape.

These two translations are the closest that I found to be accurate but it's still scratching the surface of what Law said:

This entire panel between Ivankov and Law makes it funnier because he clocked him IMMEDIATELY.

Ivankov asked if he's friends with Luffy to which he replied: no.

He also emphasized that that he doesn't have any obligation to help him but then went on to say this:

親切 (shinsetsu) means kind, generous, gentle, considerate. 不安 (fuan) refers to anxiety, uneasiness, worry, apprehension. These are surprisingly direct words but of course, Law had to go back and be cryptic again when he followed up with 理屈 (rikutsu), which could mean two things: theory, reason, logic or (unreasonable) argument, excuse.

I think this panel did a good job for translating it.

Law himself is providing Ivankov here the benefit of the doubt. To reiterate, Ivankov beats him to the punch which makes their entire interaction so funny.

Again, brilliant translation for directly calling out Law's bullshit. Lmao. Ivankov says 直感 (chokkan) here. It means intuition, instinct, hunch. Please take the next statement that I will say with a grain of salt but "instinctively moving your body" is usually associated with the context of being reckless to the point of directly exposing oneself to danger, consequences be damned, in order to protect someone.

Even Law himself acknowledged that he's not obligated to be there, so why?

Unfortunately, this is the elephant in the room that Law will never address. Several characters even made sure to point out that he helped Luffy two years ago and he purposely dodges that topic.

One thing I can guarantee is that Law never did it to get Luffy to agree for the alliance. Hell, he thought of the alliance after reuniting with Luffy! He adjusted his plans by then. Additionally, he never used the fact that he saved Luffy's life as his bargaining chip and leverage to get him on board the alliance.

Lastly, this is too much for saving a life on a whim, isn't it, Law?

[heartgold]

I think a lot about the way polydactyly is described in umineko ep1 because of the emphasis on the surgery to remove the extra digit often being done in early infancy (therefore without consent), with the intent of making the person "normal" while they grow up not even knowing about it...

of course this hints at sayo having her extra toe removed to hide her relation to kinzo, but I can't help but think about how it's specifically described in a way that evokes infant genital mutilation, especially considering sayo's backstory. all of her character reads like an allegory for intersex experiences imo, which also adds to her trans narrative. a major source of her suffering lies in how her gender struggles were complicated further by the reveal that her body was operated on without her knowledge, which led to sexual dysfunction and infertility.

the narration talks about the polydactyly surgery and reiterates the topic of bodily autonomy (already a big topic in umineko's first episode with the discussion of reproductive commodification of women's bodies) by mentioning how infants can be operated on to "fix" a part of their bodies to fit the idea of what "normal bodies" are like. the parallel to the mutilation of intersex bodies is very obvious to me. in sayo's case it was done as treatment for physical injuries rather than a literal intersex condition, but the narrative centering the violation of her autonomy persists with how she has her body altered and is denied the truth, having never had any means to cope with the inherent trauma of it all because the priority of genji&co was always to cover up anything that could implicate kinzo. she gets everything on her birth records falsified and she is intentionally kept in the dark about her own life. her entire personhood is erased. again drawing parallels to intersex experiences, doctors and parents will lie about it your entire life if they can get away with it. it's not uncommon to only find out you were operated on and/or forced on hrt as an adult!

even umineko's overarching theme about the nuances of truth vs magic can be read as an intersex narrative... it's a common experience to find out you were being denied your truth and made to live a lie "for your own sake". that truth may be unrecoverable and kept from you forever and all you can do is grieve it. your body is made into a catbox. I don't want to get too personal but some parts of confessions were chilling to read because of how similar they were to my experiences as an intersex person and I had never seen these very specific things portrayed anywhere. of course I can't claim to know the authorial intent, but it hit hard even as an allegory.

intersex and trans struggles aren't 1:1 the same but they have a lot of overlap, especially in regards to bodily autonomy, medical abuse and the gender assignment of bodies upholding a strict binary. trans people are denied transition while intersex people are forced through it, so a character like sayo who portrays that intersection of being both with such care is very precious. her struggles are strongly rooted in transmisogyny, intersexism, class and family, all which had her systemically disempowered, dehumanized and stripped of autonomy and agency.

her actions are a desperate gambit to gain some control over her own life, to be in charge of the narrative even if it's through selfdestruction. the horrors in umineko converge into the theme of systemic powerlessness and denial of autonomy. to be made into a piece. all of it combined makes up the multilayered meaning of furniture.

[jonsnowunemploymentera]

It’s interesting how Ned Stark’s dishonor has such far reaching implications throughout the plot. There’s a great irony in how rigid he is in his honor, yet he too fell victim to lust just as many men have before him. It’s not such a big deal if you think about it. I mean, all he did was to father a bastard, and how many men of his station have done the same? So it gives comfort to the rest of Westeros that even an honorable fool like Ned can stoop so low and be just like them. And we see that Ned’s dishonor affects so many characters. Jon Snow internalizes that he’s the shameful product of it and that causes him to join a penal colony, forever driving his need to prove that he too can be a worthy son of Ned. Catelyn Stark is constantly grappling with what it means to be a victim of it (to the point that she resents Jon and fears for her own children’s claims). It’s something that Jaime Lannister references in captivity, reasoning that he at least remained faithful to Cersei whereas “honorable” Ned Stark cheated on his lady wife. Robb probably saw the effects of Ned’s dishonor on his mother and brother, which probably drove him to break his marriage pact with the Freys and marry Jeyne Westerling (something that hastened his doom). Even Cersei dares to make a sexual pass at Ned while being accused of treason, no doubt emboldened in part by the knowledge that Ned at one point fell to lust. And everyone else knows of Ned Stark’s bastard (to the point that Davos gets some random exposition about how Ned dishonored himself on a fisherman’s daughter). Ned’s one act of dishonor is one of his most recognizable character traits and actually has a lot of implications throughout he narrative as it drives how many characters navigate the world around them. So isn’t it funny how it was all a lie?

[autistic-robin]

Why “Hiding in the Light” Didn’t Work: Stranger Things’ Psychospiritual Implications

Supplementary Sources: Jungian Theory & A Wrinkle In Time

Alright, buckle in. I’m running on a year’s worth of spiritual awakening, deep dives into Jungian theory and non-dualism, and my own ego’s primary coping mechanism: immersing myself in media as escapism. The purpose of this analysis is to break down the themes of non-dualism and light/darkness in ST (and maybe predict some character arcs), and also to position the narrative of ST as a psychospiritual wake-up call.

For some context: last year, I discovered the work of psychoanalyst (or philosopher, depending on who you’re talking to) Carl Jung. He had a pretty extensive theory about the human psyche that I immediately connected to the themes throughout Stranger Things, specifically Vecna’s mind control and curse. I’m going to break Jung’s theory down as succinctly as I can, and then delve into how it plays out in our favorite gay monster show.

But before I delve into Jung’s ideas, I also think it’s important to define selfhood (you’ll understand why in a minute). For the purposes of this analysis, the experience of the “self” is an illusion created by our senses, perceptions, memories, and consciousness, all of which are impermanent. Therefore, the self is what we call “conditioned.” There is no you or me, just the ideas we have of ourselves.

Now, we can get into Jung’s theory. He posited the following:

1. Every individual has a “persona” they show the world (a constructed self) to feel like they belong. Underneath this persona, everyone has a personal “shadow,” or the part of themselves they don’t want to acknowledge. This shadow is always projected onto others— every negative thought we have about someone else is a product of our own unintegrated shadow. Note: The shadow is NOT bad, it just “is.” It’s actually there to HELP us grow and integrate all the unhealed parts of us.

2. Individuals’ shadows are usually part of their unconscious, meaning most people are not aware of their shadow side or cannot bear to delve into their trauma/darkness and begin to heal it.

3. All of human consciousness is CONNECTED. This means two things. 1: There is a “collective unconsciousness” that contains the sum of all of our unintegrated trauma, and 2: We can heal our collective unconsciousness by healing our own unconsciousness.

How do we heal our own unconsciousness? By becoming AWARE of our shadow side, accepting and forgiving the conditioning that created it, and working to encourage others to do the same.

What— or rather, who— does that remind you of?

Also— great use of lighting here.

We know Vecna has direct access to his victims’ consciousness; not just their memories, cognition, and emotions, but also their awareness itself. This is how he’s able to target and trance people. But it’s not just their consciousness Vecna has access to; it’s their unconsciousness. Their shadow. Their trauma. Yes, he has psionic abilities akin to El’s, but as far as we know, El can’t access the collective unconsciousness like Vecna can. She is only capable of “remote viewing” via the void or piggybacking into people’s minds. So why is Vecna capable of this?

If you want my take on it: the only way to access a collective shadow would be through accessing your own shadow. So is Vecna really Henry, or his unintegrated shadow? And is either really condemnable, considering the larger themes of the show?

We see this theme of non-dualism echoed in Brenner’s NINA pep talk with El:

It’s fascinating to me that they’re communicating these bigger thematic ideas through the show’s “villians”— while the above conversation could be taken at surface-level as Brenner being manipulative, it’s important to acknowledge the truth of what he’s saying. NINA is only successful because El faces “the good and the bad.” This is why “hiding in the light” is a no-go for Max.

Focusing only on happy memories is a form of emotional bypassing. Throughout the show, we’ve been told time and again that hiding doesn’t work. Neither does running away. The only way out for our characters is through their own shadows.

Now, the fun part: predictions. Looking at all of this with a Jungian lens, it doesn’t make much sense to villianize a character or to end the story by “defeating evil.” In non-dual theory, there are no evil people, only unhealed ones.

We know what worked for our characters temporarily (Will in the UD, Max in her first trance, El using her powers against Vecna) was the memory and vibration of love.

This reminded me of A Wrinkle In Time, which is a science fiction novel that’s been noted more than a few times as one of Stranger Things’ primary influences. In the book, a girl and her brother travel through time to rescue their father from an alternate dimension where all beings are controlled in a hyper-individualist suburbia by a giant, all-knowing brain. The climactic “defeat” of the brain is shockingly simple, but incredible impactful— Meg, the heroine, tells it over and over that she loves it. This love ultimately brings her father and brother out of trances they are in, and they’re able to remember her and travel back home.

(Tangent: And God. The implications of that, outside of analyzing ST, are powerful. How do we live in a capitalist hellscape that is so caught up in the mind— in acheiving, obtaining, securing, protecting the ego— that many of us have forgotten our hearts? The answer is love. Loving ourselves more deeply to love all beings more deeply, “the good and the bad.” But love does not negate accountability, and it does not excuse harm.)

Our characters are all struggling with self-acceptance and self-love in some form or another. Each is wrestling with secrets and lies, and the desire to hide parts of themselves they think others can’t accept.

Mike is clearly struggling with self-loathing, guilt surrounding what happened to El in s1, and a crippling hero complex.

Will is also on the self-loathing train, continually self-sacrifices to his own detriment, and is hiding his identity out of fear (not at all villifying that, just for the record.)

El struggled to reconcile her abilities and forced weaponization with her identity outside of the lab pre-s4.

Max was suicidal and had a lot of self-hatred after B*lly’s death.

Nancy parallels Mike in her survivor’s guilt post-s1 and exhibits the same lack of self-preservation and self-sacrificing tendencies.

You get my point. So how will these characters overcome their trauma? Not through hiding, or running, or bypassing. Not through the light alone. Through love— acknowledgement of their own darkness, compassion for the unhealed nature of others, and commitment to being honest with themselves and their loved ones. We know Will is El and Henry’s mirror/foil and will play a central role in S5, and with all of this in mind I think it’s safe to say he will break the cycle of bypassing and hiding from trauma and pain once and for all. He won’t fight it like El, hide from it like Max, or run from it like he did as a kid.

Only by integrating their shadows can our characters become truly “themselves,” or as Brenner puts it, “whole.”

I will probably have much more to say about this after my re-read of A Wrinkle in Time, but for now, that’s all I’ve got. :) Hope everyone is doing well!

[five-one-two-station]

Thinking about how good @arainydancer is, and how lucky the Signalis fandom is to have her. Every little gesture feels so organic, even with the fairly minimal low poly models, and the amount of story/feeling/movement is always *just* right to hit the mark every time.

Look at You Are My One Desire. There's so much going on, but it all makes sense together! It should be visually smashy and chaotic, but there's a thread of poetry to cohere every image. The gory violence wouldn't mean anything without the contrasting gentle intimacy; the gentle intimacy wouldn't be as convincing without the unapologetic sex (and they aren't at odds with each other). The unapologetic sex wouldn't mean anything without the gory violence and gentle intimacy. And doesn't that last shot bring all of it together at once brilliantly?

It's less than a minute long, and it delivers a bigger wallop than plenty of 2 hour movies!!!

And then on the other hand, you've got stuff like Anata Sonata, which on paper is pretty much just Elster playing a bit of halting, rudimentary index finger piano, in a nearly silent room, for the best part of that same 60 second minute. But because of how it's composed, because of the underlying mini-narrative and the confidence in telling it, and because of all the threads of subtext and implication involved, it's really a gorgeously crafted, sharply effective bit of tragic love story-ing, and it knocks the wind out of me every time.

But don't let me forget stuff like the one with Ariane "helping" with repairs. Isn't that just the sweetest goddamn thing you've ever seen in your life? Doesn't it feel exactly right for both characters, even though - in many ways - the game only lets us see them both as their own ghosts? Doesn't the casual, practical body language tell you all about their months, years, of undisturbed closeness? Doesn't it tell you everything about both these two very different people, and how they live life on the ship, and why they would fall in love? Didn't you giggle at the whole cute as hell scenario? 20 seconds! All of that in 20 seconds!

She has the range!!!

Anyway, just taking a moment to rave.

[conundrumoftime]

My fellow Haladriels I do not know who has told you that according to The Lore elves can only love once, but a) this is not The Lore, and b) also in Tolkien 'The Lore' does not really work like that anyway.

In the words of Galadriel's grandfather Finwë:

It is unlawful to have two wives, but one may love two women, each differently, and without diminishing one love by another. Love of Indis did not drive out love of Míriel, so now pity for Míriel doth not lessen my heart's care for Indis.

What is rare is elf remarriage, and this is partly because of the absolute drama that Finwë's led to.

Also: the law on when remarriage is and isn't allowed is set down by the Valar in Valinor to the elves living there. What the elves living in Middle-earth made of this - if they even heard of it, and how would they? - is unrecorded. Many of us have written fanfic that plays around with a culture clash on this issue!

Also also: the Noldor do not always do what the Valar explicitly tell them to do Or Else, which is how come Galadriel and many of her extended family are back in Middle-earth anyway.

Also also also, and (for me!) most importantly: there is no The Lore anyway, in the sense that people citing it in that sense mean (i.e. a rulebook for this fictional universe setting out what is true and what isn't and how everything works). There is a massive collection of notes, thoughts, essays, letters, stories finished and unfinished and drastically revised, much of it contradicting other bits earlier or later, some of it managing to contradict itself.

Also also also also, much of what is there is in this posthumously published material is presented (explicitly or by implication) within a framing narrative of something reported by a fictional character - as indeed are LOTR and The Hobbit. For example, there's an essay on how elf marriage works as part of 'Laws and Customs among the Eldar' in the History of Middle-earth; it's very unclear whose perspective this is written from; it's associated with a narrator called 'Ælfwine', who in some versions of some Tolkien things is a human who wrote about what an elf called Pengolodh told him about the history of Arda. Also there are Vikings but they're not important.

None of this means 'The Lore' is not important - it's fascinating, I recommend it to everyone, there's some amazing stuff in there - but it's not 'important' in the sense of being like a list of what is and isn't True. It's important in the sense of being mythology, being a collection of texts we can write stories about and frown at and go "I feel like Melian is getting away with far too much nonsense here" about and occasionally send each other snippets of saying things like "fyi there's a version where Maedhros and Earendil and Elwing all end up in the flying ship together, thought you'd appreciate this one" and so on.

[sunshine-jesse]

The Incest End is Not The Bad End, Part 2: The Sane Ending Is Still A Bad Ending

In the first essay I wanted to deconstruct the idea that Ashley was the sole perpetrator of abuse. I wanted to take a look at how unhealthy their dynamic actually was and lay out clear indications that Ashley could, at the very least, fix her own problems, and wasn't a lost cause. I also wanted to show that them ending up together, be it romantically, in death, or even platonically (although I'm not convinced the Sane Burial ending can lead to that) was inevitable.

Here, however, I want to make a more difficult argument: That their relationship turning romantic is not just Not That Bad, but actually Good, at least in the context of what's best for the two of them in the long run. And to do that, I'm going to draw comparisons to the common narrative that it's the bad ending, again. I think it's the easiest way to explain my points, even though it might make me seem like I'm being contrarian or playing the Devil's Advocate.

But I'm not. I actually do think this is the only way they can heal. Why?

WELL.

My biggest driving factor for this belief is and always has been the difference in tone between the two endings. The 'correct' ending under conventional understandings of morality and relationships would be one where he breaks away from Ashley, but the only ending in which that's shown to be possible is the Decay ending. In the ending where Ashley has bullets in the gun (and therefore has control over the situation), she has to yield control over the situation to Andrew, and (going off the reading I established in the last essay) he understands and accepts just how much their dynamic means to him and how important Ashley really is to him.

In a sense, he self-actualizes in the same way he does in the Burial ending: Ashley yields control where it matters the most in both, resulting in him he fully understanding and accepting himself and what he wants, because Ashley's controlling nature no longer prevents him from seeing the truth. Ashley no longer casts a shadow that allows him to be blind to his true nature- his true desires.

In the Burial ending, he wants her either romantically and sexually (in the questionable ending) or as a friend (in the sane one). He lets go of his own need to control her, and accepts the fact that he was never better than her to begin with. In the Gun!Decay ending, he wants her dead. The damage has been done. Whatever final line was crossed made him realize that he can't control Ashley, and a world in which she cannot be controlled is one better off without her.

But in both, he can't live without her.

The tone of the Decay ending is tense. It's dismal. It's emotionally ravaging. Andrew is not acting like someone who wants to break free, he's acting like someone who has given up. He's angry and he's suicidal, but he no longer has any reservations about making intimate physical contact with Ashley.

…and Ashley looks terrified and sad, especially in the last screenshot, which gives off some seriously dark implications about what Andrew might do to her in the Decay route.

He's given up on healing. He's given up on being normal. His heart and his mind both Decay as he's dragged along by an Ashley who's doing whatever she can to try to not allow a murder-suicide to happen and only making it worse in the process, because SHE has no foundation through which to improve or change her perspective on the world, either (more on that below).

In the NoGun!Decay ending, we don't know what he does after. He fails to self-actualize because Ashley never yields that need for control, and he follows the same pattern he always does of resorting to violence the moment he thinks he's losing control. I highly doubt that the ending would be much different- he'd probably just mirror Ashley's reaction of violently kicking the body at first, but he probably wouldn't last long after. Both, in an attempt to regain control or save their own lives, feel temporary relief at the death of the other, because they no longer feel trapped and afraid of what will happen if they leave.

But they also both fail to come into their own as people. Their dynamic- of Ashley being the morally bankrupt one willing to do anything to further their own survival, and Andrew being the one who's careful and calculating and preventing her short-sightedness from causing unintentional consequences- was the only thing that allowed them to survive in the first chapter, and more than likely the second (we don't see the consequences of them not having the trinket's power in ep2 so it's impossible to say for sure). If they don't kill themselves after losing the other and failing to self-actualize, it's almost certain that the world will eat them alive. They're outlaws, on the run, and have nobody to lean on but themselves. Without each other to lean on, it's only a matter of time until they fall.

So. The Decay ending is very obviously bad. There is no freedom to be had from them breaking away from the other; only despair and death. There's catharsis to be had in miserable people meeting a miserable end, sure, but the story goes out of its way to show us that the path to that end will be miserable and unfun and horrifying with the only joy to be derived from it coming from pure schadenfreude. But the story itself makes it clear that this is not intended to be a happy ending and thinking of it as such means you're fundamentally incompatible with what it's trying to convey. It's just a horrifying tragedy of two people who never gave each other what they needed to heal and tore down everything around them in the process.

So, how is the Burial ending better?

The lighter tone is immediately obvious. Ashley trusts Andrew to believe in her, and Andrew goes up to bat for Ashley even in the face of an arguably superficial offer to improve his life; to start it anew. The two just generally have a good time together afterwards, joking around, having fun, and ribbing on each other in a way that comes off as playful rather than hurtful. Andrew, finally, makes progress towards -healing,- because he finally stopped lying to himself about how important Ashley is to him. Why do I think it's a sign of healing, exactly?

Because Andrew, for the first time in the story, is comfortable with what he's doing.

He's comfortable with dismembering their parents. He's rarely tense, hesitates much less, and comforts Ashley instead of just seeking comfort from her. He gives more than just temporary emotional validation; a lot more. So much more, in fact, that it makes ASHLEY uncomfortable. She has difficulty processing not having their push and pull dynamic. She thinks something is off, something is wrong, because she's never seen Andrew so comfortable around her before, or at least lacking reservations in showing that comfort.

She still thinks about the idea of controlling him, of trying to get him to stay. There's internal monologue about it. But that's the difference. Before, we rarely see any internal monologue of her thought patterns- she just acts. Not thinks. But here, she's unsure. Here, she has to look inward. She has to self-reflect. She still frames it as her trying to keep Andy around, but Andrew is making it obvious in both words and actions that he will always be there for her, and he's so COMFORTABLE about it.

Regardless of what her actions in episode 3 end up being, it's still clear to me that the foundation for her to heal is there. She's safe, because she has a warm, comfortable place to return to while she figures herself out.

"So," you might be asking, "doesn't this imply that she'll heal no matter what? Doesn't that make incest technically unnecessary?"

Yes and no. Yes, in the fact that we still see a marked improvement in their dynamic in the Refusal path.

No, in that the Sane ending's tone is still much different.

After the dream sequence, Andrew reveals that he never fell asleep. He never sees that vision. He still self-actualizes to some degree, probably, but he never has his desires laid so bare for him because he doesn't dream. But you have to place sunlight on the left side to see this, so it still leads me to believe that they still grasp the importance of their relationship in that ending. It's just that…

I don't think that they ever, truly heal. I think that they just grow distant. I'll elaborate on what I think that means later down the line.

In the Sane ending, they have much less fun with each other. They don't playfully rib on each other as much- the eulogy in particular seems more spiteful than playful- and they're much less physically affectionate towards each other. It's not dismal. It's not dark or depressing. It's not tense. It's just… there. It's boring. Nothing has changed, and neither has Andrew, which Ashley views him not sleeping as a sign of.

But in the Questionable ending, he -does- sleep.

So what does sleep mean here? It means he can't sleep if he feels he's missing something. It means something is lacking in his life. Something is missing. Is it Ashley's affection? Well, yes, but also not just that. Ashley is just a representation of what he needs: Comfort. Someone to rely on. Someone he know won't leave him. I believe they have the same needs, and those needs just manifest differently. Andrew never had to worry about Ashley leaving him because Ashley was so obsessive that she managed to fill in the all-consuming void that mental illness creates.

But I think in the Sane ending, he starts to doubt that. In the Sane ending, he starts to shake his desire for Ashley. Which is great, right? It means they can finally go down a more conventional, safe path and have a relationship that's societally acceptable. The safe, boring ending that normies would enjoy.

But the fact that he doesn't sleep means that, even if he shakes that desire, he can't shake the need for what she provides.

Because he never sees the vision, he never gets that confirmation that he can pursue a more physically affectionate relationship with Ashley, and given that physical affection is a huge part of the equation for making him feel comfortable and happy (see: the couch scene, where he's the happiest he is in the whole game before the Burial route), he never truly believes he can seek it from her. He never gets it from the one person he trusts to always be around. He never gets that final affirmation that it's okay to be with the one person who has always mattered to him the most, and always will.

If we're to take the scenes at the end of episode 2 as metaphors for what will happen- or has to happen- for the siblings to get the best outcome for their well being (even at the expense of others), then the Questionable route involves Ashley loosening her grip on Andrew and having him naturally fill in the roles she wanted him to all along. But in the Sane route, Ashley bottles up every soul see shes, aside from what's commonly assumed to be Andrew's, who she is uncharacteristically cavalier about letting go.

She's still the same. She still wants to entrap people, and never let them go. She just happens to no longer want to do it to Andrew. She never fundamentally changes. And Andrew?

His soul has nothing to say. It's pitch black. It almost looks demonic, having literally the same color scheme as the Entity and Lord Unknown. If it's already demonic, then it stands to reason that a demon wouldn't want it, because it's just more of the same. Nothing special, nothing they would want, nothing that would be useful to them. In other words… just like Ashley?

He has- or will have- a tar soul.

And what does tar do?

It sticks.

It's the Sane path to take because it involves them conforming to societal expectations. It involves them fitting in, acting as they should, and doing what's expected of them without much fuss. But in the world they're in, they're expected to harm everyone around them. To kill or be killed, eat or be eaten. To never become themselves, and never be truly happy. To never ask questions.

And they'll do all of that, whether they stick together or not. The only difference is how many people they stand to hurt, and whether they're truly happy at the end of it all.

There's a reason the souls of one of the parents- commonly thought to be Mrs. Graves- was unhatched. She probably wanted to love her children. Even Ashley. She just never did, because the world never let her be herself. She never became whole, because it would've resulted in her being too dark to fit into society. But the siblings have a chance to do so. They have a chance to truly focus on each other so they can heal and become better, happier, more complete people in a world that's doing everything it can to incentivize otherwise.

It's just a bit unfortunate for some that Andrew has to fill a hole to become whole.

[saintsenara]

Not disputing you ofc but do you remember the exact line about ron looking like bill perchance? I would love it for referencing purposes

thank you very much for the ask, anon!

and i am afraid that you're getting a more long-winded answer than you may have been hoping for...

male weasleys are split down the middle into two camps, physically:

charlie, fred, and george are described as being short and stocky [although "short" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, since they're all taller than harry: fred and george shrink when they take polyjuice potion to transform into him in deathly hallows].

the implication - i think - is that charlie and the twins look like molly, who is described several times as short and plump in build. ginny is also described numerous times in the books as short and is said in chapter thirty-three of order of the phoenix to resemble fred and george facially, which, since's she's described in deathly hallows as having her mother's brown eyes - which probably triggered some sort of freudian shudder in harry - means i think we can conclude that this half of the family all look their mam.

[and also that molly is a hottie herself. she often gets turned by the fandom into a fairly sexless being - even though she didn't have those seven children immaculately, did she? - with a strict, prudish vibe. and - to do some discourse for a moment - we all know that the fact that she's described as fat is the direct cause of this. but several men are canonically ready to risk it all for ginny - and it's time we all acknowledged this is because she inherited her bonafide baddie powers straight from molly.]

percy and ron - on the other hand - are, like arthur, described as being tall, thin, and gangly. bill is never explicitly said to be slender, but he is described in the fifth chapter of goblet of fire as "tall" immediately after harry has stated that charlie is short[ish] and broad - which allows us to reasonably infer that he's on the arthur-weasley-skinny-legend side of the family.

and we can also assume - since ron is never said to resemble molly, nor [to harry's great relief] ginny, facially - that his features - his long nose and blue eyes - come from his father, who is also the source of percy's short-sightedness.

and, while harry [the narrative perspective] never says that he thinks arthur is hot - because why would he? - nor percy and ron [although i think it's worth noting that he doesn't consider it ridiculous that both of them manage to pull - and it's never suggested that penelope clearwater and lavender brown aren't cuties] it's actually possible to justify the idea that they are canonically fit using more than pure hot air...

[harry does - obviously - think bill's a babe. he sees fleur checking him out and immediately thinks... same.]

because a very striking narrative choice that the series makes is the idea that all pureblood nuclear family units look identical to each other - which serves as a visual metaphor for the importance of blood-status and lineage within the wizarding world. this is why narcissa malfoy is as pale and blonde as lucius and draco [even though bellatrix and andromeda are dark haired] and why molly is a redhead even though red hair and freckles are stated in the text to be weasley - rather than prewett - traits. harry's resemblance to his pureblood father eases his passage through wizarding society. voldemort's lack of resemblance to his pureblood mother does the opposite.

the weasleys and the malfoys are narrative mirrors within the series - with the fact that ron and draco are both so near-identical to arthur and lucius as to be immediately identifiable as each man's son by anyone who meets them part of this mirroring. it makes sense, then, that since the non-ron weasley children don't have a specific malfoy mirror, the same general principle applies, and the three weasley brothers who are built like arthur also strongly resemble him facially - and that bill also has a long nose [and a long something else, i'll wager!] and a cracking pair of baby blues.

or that if bill is hot, arthur is hot - and therefore if arthur is hot, ron is hot.

[where bill outpaces his brothers, i fear, is that he clearly has rizz - whereas ron's seduction skills are famously weak before he gets his hands on a copy of twelve fail-safe ways to charm witches - i.e. when he cockblocks harry spectacularly by beefing with cho unprovoked about the quidditch team she supports, which always sends me - and percy is... percy.]

[if ron had simply played it cool he could have finessed going to the ball with fleur, and i'll die on that hill...]