#it just becomes the logical interpretation of the story presented

[starryoak]

I think we need to just accept that sometimes artists are wrong about their works and actually they’re not what they say they’re about. Sometimes the artists put symbolism in their stories they don’t intend and it’s secretly just about something else.

This is specifically about Hotel California, which, despite the insistence by The Eagles that it isn’t actually a song about the supernatural and is instead about drugs or the music industry or whatever, is clearly about Purgatory. It just literally makes significantly more sense as a story when taken with that interpretation in mind. Hell, it’s barely a story without it! Interpreting the Hotel as Purgatory or Hell is the only logical way to take the story with the metaphors and events that are laid out in the song. 

I’m sorry, I’ll double down on this until the day I die.

[here-for-eddie]

rating the possible solutions to the bt problem in s8

according to my very specific and arbitrary criteria: likeliness of the solution, in-story satisfaction (how would it work in the show) and pettiness factor (how much would it piss off the bt fandom/tommy fans)

Tommy stays, bucktommy endgame

Very unlikely (thank god)

Storyline satisfaction 0/10

Pettiness -1000/10 (they would become insufferable forever)

Buck is single in 08x01, Tommy is never mentioned again

Unlikely

Storyline satisfaction 3/10 (would mean we suffered through 7b for nothing)

Pettiness 10/10

Buck is single in 08x01, bucktommy breakup only mentioned

Possible (happened with natalia)

Storyline satisfaction 5/10 or more (depends on how it would be discussed, what did Buck learn from that relationship)

Pettiness 9/10 (bonus points if it's not due to unavailability of lfj, just Tim deciding he has enough of That Mess)

Buck is single in 08x01, confirms they were only on a few dates and were never in a relationship

Possible

Storyline satisfaction 5/10

Pettiness 11/10 (bucktommies would explode)

Buck experiences buddie summer of infidelity

very unlikely (fortunately for me, because I love this concept in theory but would hate it in the show 🙃)

Storyline satisfaction 2/10

Pettiness 5/10 (would make Tommy the wronged party here, so I'm not vibing with that)

Tommy dies

Unlikely

Storyline satisfaction 0/10 (buck would have to mourn him)

Pettiness 6/10 (their fave would be gone forever but bt would be immortalised as a tragic romance)

They split up because of their incompatibility

likely

storyline satisfaction 7/10

pettiness 7/10 (would mean that Tommy is not the perfect partner they claim he is, but the solution itself is a boring as Tommy)

they split up because Tommy behaves like a jerk to Buck

possible

storyline satisfaction 9/10 (his behaviour in s7 is not brushed aside)

pettiness 9/10 (would contradict all those baffling interpretations of tommy's behaviour being peak romantic in s7)

They spilt up because of Tommy's past and/or present attitudes towards the Gerrard problem

likely

storyline satisfaction 10/10 (it would mean his past behaviour is not brushed aside and forgotten)

pettiness 10/10 (would contradict all those baffling theories and his fans ignoring his past behaviour)

They split up because Buck learns that Eddie was Tommy's first choice

unlikely

storyline satisfaction 9/10 (it would play into Buck's issues)

pettiness 10/10 (as an Eddie fan, I love it when everything is about Eddie)

they split up because Buck realises he is in love with Eddie

likely

storyline satisfaction 13/10 (a logical conclusion to everything that's happened in s7, especially 07x04)

pettiness 7/10

They split up because Tommy realises Buck is in love with Eddie

possible

storyline satisfaction 3/10 (it's something Buck should discover for himself, not have pointed out to him by anyone)

pettiness 5/10 (would mean that Tommy is forever intertwined with the beginnings of buddie, which I'm not vibing with)

They split up because of a threesome with Eddie

very unlikely

storyline satisfaction depends (could be 10/10 if they executed a very specific scenario but I don't really trust them to)

pettiness depends (could be 10/10 hilarious if they managed to convey that Buck was only ever crazy about Eddie)

They split up because Tommy is moving away

possible

storyline satisfaction 8/10 (buck would get to realise there are more important things in LA for him than his relationship with Tommy)

pettiness 4/10 (their relationship would have to be quite serious first)

They split up because Tommy doesn't want children

possible

storyline satisfaction 9/10 (buck would have to think about what he wants and maybe that he already has it)

pettiness 5/10

if you have any more scenarios, let me know!

[pikahlua]

I don’t agree with everything said here but: [link removed]

For context, someone sent me a link to a post about elements of fascism and copaganda they feel are present in MHA. I've removed the link for anonymity purposes.

I have no interest in responding to this essay point-by-point. As a brief, BRIEF, BRIEF summary, the linked post makes claims such as:

MHA is pro-authoritarian

MHA is pro-cop

MHA doesn't have these elements promoting fascism on purpose but the elements are there regardless

MHA's ending endorses philosophies it previously criticized

MHA readers who don't pick up on these things lack critical thinking

MHA's hero system is comparable to the fascistic element described in Umberto Eco's "Ur-Fascism" that "everybody is educated to become a hero"

Nothing in MHA's hero society changes

They say a lot of stuff I really don't see as relevant at all, a lot of nonspecific platitudes and philosophical nothings. They frame the story in MHA as if it says a lot of stuff or does a lot of things that I personally don't see or agree that it does. It also goes on to talk about elements in the story it fails to explore like themes of child soldiers and punishment before crime.

I appreciate that the post acknowledges they see these elements in MHA as unintentional. That makes it easier for me to consider their POV and understand where they're coming from.

That said, my response can only be: it's not that deep.

If I want to, I can read elements of ANYTHING into any story. It's very easy to do. There are whole arms of literature study basically dedicated to reading certain philosophical angles into stories that they know are not intended elements in said stories. But there needs to be some self-awareness here before we take anything that far. Equating heroism in MHA to Humberto Eco's concept of a cult of heroism that equals a cult of death is just another version of the same take I've debunked before. I don't agree with the essay's interpretation of this theme at all. My impression is THEY had a certain reading on MHA in its earlier arcs that conflicts with later arcs, but I have a reading that reads the arcs as harmonious. We are at too many odds here.

But because I acknowledge that the major difference between me and this essayist is that we have VERY different readings of MHA in the first place, I don't really wanna take the time to answer all of their points. They all clearly come from a logical place based on their own interpretation, and I don't see anything wrong with that. If that's their reading, they are welcome to it. It's a little obnoxious to claim the rest of us lack critical thinking just because we don't point out these elements they see as fascistic. To me, the stuff they identify that fuels their branching criticisms is stuff hopefully everyone has to acknowledge before they even start reading the shounen genre. I have to suspend my disbelief in the first place when I'm reading about superheroes as a social system. I have to suspend my disbelief in a shounen action manga where the fate of the world is at stake. These are things we all have to understand going in. Not every story aimed at young teenage boys is going to have the space to explore the nuance in all these social systems. It's just not that deep.

So is MHA copaganda? Setting aside the dissonance of comparing western forms of copaganda to Japanese shounen manga forms, sure, fine--so far as the story depicts an organization, particularly one with law enforcement powers, as not wholly incompetent or corrupt goes. But like, the story itself does pose the question of whether the existence of this organization (the heroes) is necessary, which is posing the fundamental question of anti-copaganda at the narrative too. The question is, what answer to this question do we get from the ending? You can read the ending as, "Everyone needs to be heroes (cops)," or you can read it as, "Everyone needs to be good to each other and then the hero system becomes unnecessary," but no matter what, the ending still says, "The hero institution as it is is not the answer." This is what I mean about gradualism and collectivism easily being co-opted by fascism or by socialism. MHA does basically say, "The current system sucks, so we have to change it," and then changes it. It's just not a satisfying change for anyone who wanted a radical revolution. Gradualism is a position that has MANY critics for this exact reason.

But even on the topic of gradualism, I think it would be a mistake to say that MHA teaches us, "Only incremental change is possible." The way I read its themes are that it's saying "Trying is important; even when all you can achieve turns out to be incremental, it's still worth trying."

As for the themes of collectivism in MHA, collectivism can easily read like paternalism to a western (white) audience, which is a whole other issue. This is why there's so much debate about whether or not people are coming from a place of good faith when their criticisms don't seem to acknowledge the eastern philosophies at play in MHA. In truth, I would be hard-pressed to name an anime that doesn't have an ending that feels weird to me. Every single anime ending I know has an element I find confusing or disquieting or off, and my conclusion has been to acknowledge that anime isn't made with me in mind as its audience. Oftentimes, stuff happens in anime that just doesn't jive with my upbringing, but I recognize it is coming from a different worldview that my upbringing has often caricatured as evil and oppressive and wrong without any nuance. It highlights for me how the media from my general worldview must also look ridiculous at times to others not in the know. So while I think it's perfectly acceptable to point out elements that do seem fascistic in any media and to stay vigilant about them, I do also take care to be open-minded about learning what other things may be going into these stories that could provide a completely different perspective.

As @siflshonen would say, sometimes all I can do is say, "I'm too western for this," and move on.

[fresne999]

Half way through the journey of our analyses

I feel like roughly half of the analysis I'm reading about OFMD S2 is folks who clearly fixated on a character (it's Izzy, it's always Izzy that inspires this kind of analysis) write analyses that cause the 2nd response of, "Um…did you ever study literary analysis in school."

Now I come at this from a slightly odd place in that I did study literary analysis in school (30+ years ago) where I learned it's possible to interpret anything about any way, because we're all bringing different lenses to the analysis. Which isn't to say that an author can't have an intended interpretation. 

Dante in Canto V of Inferno (Divine Comedy) would still like folks to understand fixating on the two damned-lovers and ignoring the details that the artist is putting in there for you to catch about how they are damned because they won't change the toxic patterns that got them there in the first place. Also, they can't because they are in hell, and hell is like that. That Dante-the-writer had Dante-the-character swoon over those same two damned-lovers (because Dante-the-character is on a journey of moral correction) is hilarious, but doesn't make it any less the point of that section of the work, but I digress.

As a career, I am very aware that folks love to misinterpret what is meant to be very clear instructions. Of course, I'm writing policies and procedures, which is a bit different from writing fiction, and is worlds away from creating a t.v. show. But that's the life experience that I always bring to literary analysis. Frequently, people choose their interpretations to fit what they want to see, and that's part of being human.

I've seen a fair number of folks interpret Izzy's redemption arc in S2 as one of a queer man struggling with disabilities and mental health issues whose struggle is made meaningless by his demise. Which sure, you could interpret it that way and in that it's coming from I'm sure an emotional place, I get it. And hmmm… I might give this interpretation more credence  if I hadn't read a lot of Izzy analysis for S1 that was wildly different than the text.

So let's take a step back. 

First, know the rules of the literary universe: OFMD is a show where the reality is not ours. It is either the Core Universe or something very close to it. BTW: If you've never heard of Core Universe or read the seminal BtVS+HtLJ "When Hellmouth's Collide" (https://www.ltljverse.com/index2.htm), a Core Universe is one where everything lines up. Row boats are magic, and where there is a Badminton, he will accidentally stab/shoot himself. 

Terminology more befitting of that fancy literature degree might be to say that OFMD functions along the logic of Magical Realism. Characters will appear briefly for the purposes of the story and then disappear not to be mentioned again (Nana, Calico Jack, Mary Read & Anne Bonny). Things align because they are meant to align. It is a universe where the Gravy Basket is a real place, and meant to be taken seriously.  It's also a universe where a man may become a seagull, because he loves the sea. You change for love, but the ways you change may be positive or toxic. 

They can result in a bird that never gets to know rest. Always flying over the sea. Or they lead to becoming a bird, who can float in the sea or land on a unicorn's leg. 

Transformation. 

Anyway, S1 - Stede commissioned a ship with secret passageways. It did not have a buxom mermaid on the prow, nor something more befitting a ship named the Revenge. He commissioned a unicorn prow and went off to become a pirate. 

A not particularly violent pirate. But a pirate who didn't have a problem with the violence of piracy. See Stede telling Lucius (hardest working man on the ship in S1) to take notes during a violent raid where the show's logo was literally carved into the chest of a dead man. 

BTW: The tone about violence is darker in S2, but the violence was there in S1. It was just presented in a more whimsical way. The nose jar was full of noses in S1. We heard about Blackbeard's violence. A man was skinned alive off screen, but we focused on the Prussian (but also sort of French) party. 

What Izzy needed to be redeemed from was established in S1. The problem is that folks who interpreted Izzy as a) the central focus of the show and b) a put upon manager just trying to do right by his crew (or as one Tumblerina referred to him as the man/father of the family going out to hunt - excuse me while I vomit - and support his family as men must do), are not going to understand what Izzy's S2 arc was all about. 

Ed and Stede are the main characters in a romantic story. There are other characters with their own arcs, but they are the main characters.

In S1, Stede created a safe space where characters had a chance to breathe for the first time. Possibly ever, and as a result revisited parts of themselves they'd lost. Wee John got back in touch with his roots as the son of a seamstress. Frenchie got back to what he loves, scamming the rich. The Swede sang like a siren of the sea, because it doesn't always have to be scary. 

Ed had his first good time in years. After expressing suicidal ideation to Izzy because of his terminal boredom in S1.E4 - Discomfort in a Married state, Ed found himself some balance. Some sweet marmalade. 

Ed and Izzy were in a toxic relationship that only reinforced their toxic behavior. And yes, I'm going to overuse the word toxic. While piracy is a place where you can go be yourself and shag whoever you want (whatever happens at sea stays at sea), it's not a place where you can be soft. Gentle. Emotionally open. Available. 

Ed's only path out that he could see at the time was to plan to skin the face of the man who built a ridonculous boat with a unicorn on the prow and wear it for the rest of his life. A plan to send Stede to Doggy Heaven. 

BTW: This is why Izzy uses the line in S2.E3 - the Innkeeper, that they put Ed down like a mad dog, so that Stede could reply that they sent Ed to Doggy Heaven. Reiterating this concept of piracy as violence, as taking away faces / identity / lives, but also losing one's own. Forgetting even what day of the year it is. Also revealing that Stede knew about Ed & Izzy's plan to murder him, send Stede to doggy heaven, and had moved on. 

This is also why the respite in S2.E4 - Fun and Games is so critical. Mary Read/Anne Bonney are portrayed as direct parallels to Stede/Ed. They are selling what are, no doubt, the spoils of their piracy. But they've chosen a remote location with no community, but each other and a life where they are not actually communicating. Which on its surface is where Ed and Stede end up, and yet…the Revenge can sail back. They are on the shore facing the sea, not in a jungle lost from a clear view. I'll quote the relevant Dante in just a bit, never fear.

Ed and Stede's new inn has the potential for a solid foundation, because the unicorn has been planted firmly in the ground, and if we get an S3, I firmly expect the unicorn leg to have transformed into a tree, because I've read a lot of medieval literature and that's how that sort of thing works. 

Well, it could be a penis tree (this was a thing in medieval marginalia), but somehow I don't think it will be. 

 But I'm getting a little ahead of myself.

Back in S1, the plan to murder Stede and take his identity broke down despite Izzy trying to perform an intervention to get Ed back into the toxic soup, and ended with Ed curled up in a bathtub and opening up about murdering his father. An image the show chose to flash on the screen multiple times in S2 just in case folks forgot that this was a traumatizing event for Ed, and was itself the culmination of years of traumatic abuse at his father's hands. 

Just as Stede kept flashing back to the moment his father tells him what it is to be a man, and kills an animal, the blood splashing on Stede's wee little face. 

That this is the point of the show. Transforming past trauma. It's there. You always carry the scars. Sometimes, you decide to tattoo yourself with the image of the thing you fear, and then the thing you fear is always there, but you've got to keep moving forward. To stay in one place, to stay trapped in the same emotion/action, is hell. I've read a lot of lit crit of Dante's Inferno. Trust me, it's the same thing.

Izzy's redemption arc is firmly based in the events of S1E6 - Here Dragons Be, because it's where the pustule of his relationship with Ed breaks. His attempted intervention fails to get Ed to kill Stede, so Izzy tries to kill Stede. Not realizing that a) Stede is a main character and b) this is a Core Universe show. Where it's possible to win a duel by being stabbed in the left side of your gut and stay there for many hours and not die. So he loses the 1 thing that defines him, his job. 

Izzy's redemption arc is firmly based in the events of s1E8 - We Gull Way Back, where he enlists Calico Jack to lure Ed off the boat (with all the toxic masculinity that entailed) so that the British could show up and shoot the head off the unicorn, and kill Stede. So Izzy can crawl back into his old patterns / job / life. 

Izzy's redemption arc is firmly based in the big drama confrontation in S1E10 - Wherever You Go There You Are, when as a person whose entire identity is tied up in being Blackbeard's First Mate and after realizing that he couldn't cut it as a captain on his own, he does whatever the f- he can to get Ed back into the toxic soup so he can get his old role/job back.  

This isn't to say that Ed's off the deep end actions in S2.E1&2 aren't his own choices. He is a main character. His emotional arc is one of the driving forces of the show. But they are the choices of a man who wants to die. After a lifetime of violent action that had been increasingly drowning him, he wants to die in the violence of battle, but the enemy are never good enough. He wants Izzy to kill him, but Izzy won't. Until he does…sort of. He wants to die in a storm. He's carving notches on his wall hoping to lure Ned Low to him so that he can die in pain. But Ed is the devil and does not die.

Except Ed's not the devil. He doesn't have a head made of smoke. He's a man. Not a fisherman. Not a fisher of men, and what an interesting attempt to go Christ himself off into the wilderness only to be fired for not being that good at it, and then receive his letter from the deep. 

Because in a show full of magical realism, the bottles with messages will reach the intended recipient eventually.

"In the middle of the journey of our life, I came to myself in a dark wood for the straight way was lost. Ah, how hard a thing it is to say what that wood was. So savage and harsh and strong, that the thought of it renews my fear. It is so bitter that death is little more so. But to speak of the good that I found there, I will tell of the other things I saw…and like one with laboring breath comes forth from the deep onto the shore, who turns back to the perilous water and stares, so my spirit still fleeing turned to gaze upon the pass that has never left anyone alive." Dante, Canto 1, Inferno. 

Instead of dying, Ed goes not to Purgatory (sorry I'd quote the opening lines, but Inferno actually works better here), but to the Gravy Basket, where he confronts the spirit of Hornigold. Dead spirit. Aspect of Ed's self. Both. Neither. Hated. Self. Unkillable. 

Is saved by a goldfish incarnation of Stede. 

But just as the imaginary as Stede's vision of what / who he thinks he needs to be for Ed, this is not true. Life being what it is, Ed and Stede rush when they need to go slow. They break apart because they are saying words, but the other person is hearing based on their own interpretation. 

BTW: The clue Dante-the-writer gives the reader in Canto V of Inferno is how one of the damned lovers, Francesca, explains how she hooked up with her brother-in-law, Paulo. She describes reading an Arthurian romance. She and Paulo kissed when Gwenevere and Lancelot kissed in the story. Except the version they are reading (and Dante tells the reader which version this is) was intended as a cautionary tale. Also, Paulo and Francesca were real people who were murdered by Francesca's husband when he caught them together. So there is that too.

I always like it in fiction when characters misinterpret each other because they hear based on their life experiences and don't hear the things that are said/unsaid based on the life experiences of the other person speaking. That's good writing. It's also how we end up with wildly varying interpretations of works of fiction.

But I digress.

Izzy's S2 arc is that he must let go of his relationship with Ed and turn to others. He must learn to let go of toxic masculinity and let in softness. Not weakness. Water is not weak, but it is soft. Calypso, goddess of the sea, is not weak. Her birthday is whatever day you need it to be. She is vast and deep and soft and relentless. 

In Ro-sham-bo, it's a shame that there is not a gesture for water. Because it is not paper that defeats stone, but water that wears away the stone. Of course, scissors wouldn't do much to water either, so that would sort of break Ro-sham-bo, so I suppose it must stay as it is.

It is through a craft's project that the crew of the Revenge find healing. Turn Izzy into the unicorn. A unicorn that Izzy's own actions caused to be decapitated with a British cannon ball in S1. That Izzy rendered legless (drunk). But the Revenge is a boat. They just need to swim/sail. It is through a craft's project that Izzy is able to offer healing to Lucius, who in turn is then able to turn their art away from fixating on Ed, and the trauma that he's been through and back towards love, and Black Pete. 

But it's not possible to see Izzy's S2 arc, if you didn't interpret S1 Izzy as needing to go through his own gravy basket. 

That Izzy dies because his transformation is necessary. He can't leave Ed, and if he doesn't leave Ed, then Ed can't stop being Blackbeard. The kracken. He literally tells Ed this as he chooses to transform. To free the world of Blackbeard, so Ed can be Ed. Yet, I've read so many posts by folks saying, "But why did he have to die?" Which sure, you can choose not believe what the character says while dying.

Which is a narrative privilege. To get a good dying speech. "There he is" get to be transmutted from an attack to an actual seeing. The larger than life concept of a smoke headed pirate can waft away.

Stories are hard to kill. They live on long past us, and as long as someone is remembered, especially in a universe like OFMD, we live. 

Though always reject the gift of a clock. That's someone telling you that you've only got so many hours left of life. If you are a character in a story. 

Thus the other parallel in this season is Izzy to Auntie and Ed to Zheng Yi Sao. Auntie must allow Zheng softness. Izzy must go through a sea change to something new and strange. Also, this would be a case of Doylistically the writers needed to line up Olu with Stede for that to work, and thus the new configurations of Olu and Jim's relationship, which, shrug, could be poly. Could be friends to lovers to friends.  Woulda, coulda, had more time, but that's on Max for not giving us 2 more episodes.

Prince Richard was trying to become a concept, but was too in love with the mechanics of it. Stede was trying to become a concept too. Found his fame, and all too quickly the toxic end of that particular route. Magical Realism was on his side until he tried to face down Zheng Yi Sao, the Queen of Pirates, and then the rules of the story weren't. Because those clocks were ticking. Everyone was in a very dark wood. The memory of blood splashed on Stede's face as a little boy was a warning. It was a reminder. It was the wrong lessons we take from our childhood and must unlearn to become whole.

Having the final shot of the show being Buttons landing on the unicorn leg as a reminder that this is a show about transformation. One thing becoming another thing. Somewhere the dead are dancing in Calypso's court. A dance below the sea and on the sea and with the sea. While the living keep sailing on their magic ship to do…I don't know. 

Because the Golden Age of Piracy is coming to an end. They'll go create new worlds and new places to be. Transforming.

If we get no more of the show, this is a resolution.

Since I've been quoting Dante, I'm going to end this with the final vision in Paradiso. Because folks who haven't been reading my analysis for the last 30 years / read it, may not realize that the Divine Comedy (a story that begins in sorrow and ends in joy) ends with the vision of a 3 way rainbow. 

"In the profound and shining Being of the deep Light, three circles appeared, of three colours, and one magnitude: one seemed refracted by the other, like Iris’s rainbows, and the third seemed fire breathed equally from both. O how the words fall short, and how feeble compared with my conceiving!…Power, here, failed the deep imagining: but already my desire and will were rolled, like a wheel that is turned, equally, by the Love that moves the Sun and the other stars."

[metalichotchoco]

I have no mouth and I must scream would be such a different piece of media if am couldn’t/ didn’t communicate. All the events the suvivors go through wouldn’t be filtered through that lens anymore. Instead of being deliberate acts of malice and envy. It would become much more strange, is it god punishing them? Why them in particular? Is it just a faulty machine or is it something truly eldritch and impossible to understand?

Am as a character has a very specific logic to him, you can follow his logic and see how he reaches his state. He’s a very visceral character, filled with ugly but very very real human emotions. He is the final consequence, the final conclusion to humanities desire to control, to dominate and to destroy. It is all he can do. With this change he cannot be interpreted, he would still exist, after all he’s the setting but everything that can and will be interpreted from his words would feast to be.

The whole piece would become similar to the 1940’s French play, no exit. The five humans in this story fundamentally do not get along, they are locked in this hell for all eternity, together. The psychical pain is almost brushed over in the original short story due to its nature of the format but with am being the way he is, you can fill in the blanks, you can imagine how awful it would be with a being that specifically hates you. In this case, hell is other people

Ted, being our ever present unreliable narrator becomes no longer vindicated or validated by anything he thinks or says because am does not exist, everything he says becomes even more delusional than it already is. The other characters exist through his warped view of reality. The reader might even take away that this entire thing is just in his head

[violetasteracademic]

i don't know why "you are the new ribbon az" is turned into something romantic. after the interaction gwyn and azriel had in the bonus chapter gwyn immediately saw the ribbon as an opponent.

"Gwyn nodded her farewell, again facing the ribbon. A warrior sizing up an opponent, all traces of that charming irreverence gone."

if azriel=ribbon, then gwyn was showing her true feelings for azriel through the ribbon after she stopped talking charmingly to him.

Hello anon!!

While I always want to come from the most well informed place as possible, I must admit I am someone who does not wade into the pools of anti Elriel tags. Thus, I get the majority of the information about what Az and G/wyn shippers are using as evidence against my will, or from my real human friends who ship them but are not deep in the trenches. For them, it really doesn't go deeper than: I'm neutral about L/ucien and Elain so they might as well be paired off but I love G/wyn and Az so I want them to be together. Fair.

So- I'm kinda spinning my wheels here, but I will say some recurring themes I have noticed with my limited exposure is this:

Much of the G/wynriel ship is centered around the idea of symbolic transference. This logic is actually not flawed in of itself, and is an extremely common literary device. However, in the current story, it relies on creating narrative context where it doesn't exist and erasing the context that does exist for it to make sense.

What I mean is this:

I understand there to be a belief that Elain returning Truth-Teller at the end of ACOWAR was symbolic transference that reflected that Elriel's developing relationship was over because she was symbolically "giving Azriel back and not turning back." Then started "opening up" to L/ucien. The context that this lacks is that we have two more books following this where they did not in fact end, but grow. And Elain did not, in fact, open up to L/ucien but further shrank around him and snapped about him not being entitled to her her affection and time just because he was a nice boi bringing her presents.

There is a belief that Azriel regifting the necklace was the symbolic transference of Azriel's confirmed romantic feelings for Elain to G/wyn.

I can only assume that, because so much of the thought process relies on a belief in the employment of this literary device, symbolic transference also somehow needed to be applied to G/wyn, and the ribbon was all that could even remotely apply.

I think what is missing from all of this, apart from the obvious which is that Azriel and Elain are feral for each other, is that this type of literary device is typically applied symbolically at the culmination of the story and character arcs. Think of when Aelin returned her amethyst ring to Chaol. She had an entire book with Rowan, away from Chaol, reflecting on their relationship, developing feelings for her end game romantic interest and finally becoming the lost Queen of Terrason and quite literally learning to move away from her human body- the one that Chaol had loved.

She finds her path, her purpose, her future, and after all of this, she finally lets go of what she has been holding on to. She returns the ring.

Elain and Azriel have not had their story yet, and this is where the holes lie. For any of this to be foreshadowing or the literary device that people are assigning to it, the cart is being placed before the horse. The food is being served raw.

If Elain and Azriel did not have a story in development, there would be no need for all of these little items to symbolically represent the end of their story. It actually has to happen first for these little details to mean what they are being interpreted to mean, and then we look back and say, oh, how clever, when Elain gave Truth-Teller back, it's because she was ready to let go. When Azriel regifted the necklace, it's because in two pages and the interference of a third characer, he moved on from her.

But if Elain and Azriel in fact ended off page in a bonus chapter due to symbolic transference of a relationship, absolutely nothing will land as intended. Which, again, is where it gets messy. Elain returning the knife didn't end of Elriel's budding romantic interest. So that piece gets taken out. Azriel regifting the necklace to G/wyn was not based on his emotional growth as a character and his maturing and finding himself and learning he is not interested in perusing a woman he is forbidden from seeing, so that gets taken out.

Which leaves us the ribbon. And looking at the other perceived literary devices, we have to ask- what is Gwyn transferring?

Azriel giving Elain Truth-Teller was romantic.

Azriel gifting Elain her necklace was romantic.

Both of those moments are being used to symbolize the literal transference of romantic affection.

Was G/wyn... romantically interested in the ribbon? Was she attracted to the ribbon? But she realized she couldn't have the relationship she wanted with the ribbon, so now she is symbolically transferring her feelings for the ribbon to the better choice, Azriel?

Context, friends. Context. Unless we are suggesting that G/wyn was in fact in a romantic relationship with the ribbon, the symbolism and assumption of the employed literary device does not even make sense. You cannot employ transference with nothing to...well... transfer.

Thanks all I've got for this one! Stay kind out there, fam.

[myun-saidthoughts]

8H Synastry: How The House Person Feels When They're Plutonian

(This is my interpretation: I have a Scorpio Moon and it's squaring my Neptune and a 12H Venus/Pluto/Mercury/Lilith/Chiron)

with strong attraction + natal plutonic/8H/12H placements + other intense asteroid/synastry/house overlays

8H synastry will have you contemplating your self worth, it will make you become hyper sensitive towards the planet person's actions. Your body will react before your mind truly can. Suddenly, logic ceases to exist. Nothing else matters but the touch of them.

The trials and errors that persist somehow hurt less than the idea of them walking away. You can't help but desire to be around them because this high can't be reached without this person.

The depths of the disappointment that can manifest from their choices is overwhelmingly present. They make you second guess what is and what isn't okay. You feel that they can understand you, and that part of you believes they want to understand you.

It's like you're walking into a lions den with no protection, and you have no idea if this lion will attack you or not.

You feel this underlying risk and yet, you walk towards it.

You walk towards this forbidden area because there's a curiosity that's reaching the darkest and deepest areas in you that's wishing to be seen by another, it fills your void of wanting be fully loved.

Their presence holds the key to your souls' hidden desire to love,

and they somehow allow you to feel okay with receiving the love.

So your soul wants to drink this poison, their touch is the liquid and your soul is asking you to fill the cup, there's a soft voice in the back of your head and it's whispering "they will give you the peace you wish you felt."

They allow you to accept the desire to be vulnerable, their lingering eyes are your green light.

Your soul is terrified with how deeply you can truly feel and yet with their presence, the mask within you dissipates. It's like they're screaming your name without even saying a word.

You can't hide your emotions, or your feelings towards them, they somehow override any control you thought you had. You don't want this person to read you like a book, but just their touch alone turns the pages. When you look at them, your eyes scream a story they can only read.

When the energy between you feels unsteady, the part of you that withholds the void of wanting a connection, deepens.

This awakening creeps up in you and with it comes the terrifying realization that this person can break you but when you're with them, that "knowing" feels okay.

You're aware that there will be an unavoidable low following their absence; and instead of walking away, you prepare yourself for its inevitable arrival.

You allow this pain to embody you because that pain hurts less than not feeling those moments of acceptance that their eyes are able to give you, especially if it's what you've always reluctantly wished for.

Without them, the thought of receiving any love from anyone else feels unsafe, and it feels impossible.

This kind of vulnerability runs so deep within your veins, it creates a threshold that they can only reach.

A part of you can feel their intentions, you can feel their soft curiosity towards you, but the words you yearn for them to say, somehow never comes.

No matter how many times this cycle repeats and no matter how badly you want to change the narrative, you can't.

You'll still want them.

I have an eBook, and with it has more precise definitions regarding the placements of the IC, Moon aspects, and the potential manifestations of each inner planet in the 8th or 12th house for individuals. As well as it provides information if the person you're connected to is a karmic connection, it has advice, insights and exact transits/synastry overlays to further understand the connection. You can find the link to my eBook pinned on my page.

[fallenalienz]

if you removed alicent from season 2 the story would remain entirely unchanged, that's how relevant she is at this point. they built season 1 around this friendship/rivalry she had with rhaenyra and that was fine for one season but the story has long progressed past that and the writers are refusing to let this go, to the detriment of the show. they're prioritizing marketing and wasting time on a character that canonically does nothing relevant moving forward at the expense of establishing and developing characters who are actually important and whose actions and decisions do affect the story.

i've seen those leaks for the finale lol, they truly turned her into the dumbest character on the show but in a way that's just incomprehensible and has no internal logic at all (i mean, selling out her whole family, even her brother and youngest son???). it's never been a secret that they've been trying to frame this story through the lens of simplistic real life present day gender politics but it's funny how in their obvious efforts they're unintentionally actually validating aemond removing her from council and making the case that she probably should've stayed in the kitchen. if someone wanted to be charitable they could interpret her actions as being so drunk on power that the moment she's stripped of that power she loses her wits and wants to harm the people who took it away from her so badly she becomes completely irrational, but that's obviously not what the intent here was.

[wanderer-on-the-steppe]

Songs about the Khmelnytsky uprising, part 5: Пісня про козака Нечая

It’s been a long time since I added something to this collection, but a movie I’ve rewatched recently (Богдан Зиновій Хмельницький from 2006) reminded me that I can’t just ignore the song about one of the most popular participants of the Khmelnytsky uprising here.

The song about the Bratslav polkovnyk Danylo Nechai comes with many names and even more versions of the lyrics. A lot of these versions, especially the shorter ones, are nearly incomprehensible without context – only if one knows the events they refer to and/or has heard a longer version before, do they start to make sense. The most comprehensive and at the same time chronologically logical (and not too repetitive) version of the lyrics I’ve found might be this one.

To quickly sum them up in English: Nechai and his Cossacks come to a place where they are warned to flee, but Nechai, in a mixture of pride and carelessness, doesn’t heed the warning and goes to a relative to eat fish (or, in many other versions: to get drunk). There is a Polish surprise attack – and no guard – and the Cossacks defend themselves bravely, killing many of their opponents, but are hopelessly outnumbered. Nechai gets killed and is buried, and the comrades burying him plant viburnum (the famous червона калина of another folk song) on his grave, so that his fame and glory shall be remembered in all Ukraine.

What I’ve not found, unfortunately, is a recording using the lyrics exactly like this or at least somewhat close to it. The first recording I’ve included above – by Михайло Коваль ( Mychailo Koval) – already uses comparatively many of its stanzas, but even comparatively many is not that many at all, and the ending is surprisingly abrupt.

However, even though I was frustrated at first by the uncommonness of longer version telling all or at least most of the story, the question what the shorter versions actually choose to tell (and what they choose to leave out!) soon became interesting in itself.

Some can be so short and fragmentary that the lyrics become completely subordinate to the musical performance.

For example, all that is left of the story in this beautiful version by  Дике Поле is the initial warning, Nechai’s refusal to listen to it, and then a short conversation where Nechai asks his godmother if he should unsaddle his horse, to which she replies that she won’t be able to protect him, so he better shouldn’t. And still, even in this rudimentary form the lyrics contain an element that’s both remarkable and quite common in shorter versions of the song: the relative Nechai visits and gets drunk with is explicitly identified as his godmother Khmelnytska – in all probability meaning the hetman’s wife, who, at the time, would have been the famous former Helena Czaplińska. So, according to these songs, Khmelnytsky’s wife is mysteriously present at the place where Nechai gets ambushed and killed – he even gets ambushed and killed while getting drunk with her – but she herself somehow gets safely out of the situation without the songs ever explaining how or just mentioning her again.

I don’t know if it’s the strangeness of these events that gave rise to an interpretation I stumbled upon while looking for different versions of the lyrics: namely that mentioning Khmelnytska in this context is an allusion to a rumour that Khmelnytsky himself, envying Nechai’s popularity and wanting to get rid of a rival, had something to do with Nechai’s death.

How plausible it is – both the rumour and the interpretation of the song – I can’t tell. It has to be mentioned, however, that in none of the versions I’ve come across does Khmelnytska encourage Nechai to get drunk; she just doesn’t stop him when he comes to her to do so. Nor does she convince him to be careless. Quite to the contrary: when he asks her if he should unsaddle his horse, she always advises against it. Can her explanation for advising caution – that she can’t protect him – somehow be interpreted to mean that the hetman might have been responsible for Nechai’s death not in the sense of direct involvement, but negligence and lack of military support? That is probably a question of imagination. Is it something a clever songwriter could come up with who both wants to get his message across and not risk his head? Sure. Is it a likely explanation? I don’t know...

Whatever one prefers to believe, there’s versions that are only slightly longer but add some different nuances of meaning to the story. A very interesting one for what it does with the text is this one by Сашко (Олександр Власюк):

After the same fragment of the story that also the version by Дике Поле uses, it simply repeats the initial warning, emphatically, several times, completely changing the atmosphere of the song. The audience knows, of course, that the story is supposed to end with Nechai’s death. But this performance treats the events as if they were still happening at the moment – Nechai’s fate not decided yet – as if the warning could still reach him.

In a similar way, a version by Гуляйгород ends with Nechai becoming aware of the attack and getting ready to disperse the enemy – without mentioning the fatal outcome. It almost seems like it wants to spare the audience the part about the beloved hero’s death or, maybe more probable and more in line with what other songs about the Khmelnytsky uprising do, like it wants to talk not only of the past by showing the battle against the enemy as something that is still going on and can still be won.

Though most shorter versions decide to omit Nechai’s actual death, I also want to include one that goes the exact opposite way:

This performance by Taras Sylenko (Тарас Силенко) leaves out the whole drinking and carelessness, mentioning his pride in his Cossack fame as Nechai’s only reason for refusing to flee, and then immediately proceeds to the battle, putting all emphasise on his fighting, death and burial – and especially the fame that will survive him.

Like for the song about Morozenko, there’s also an episode of the podcast by Pavlo Nechitailo (Павло Нечитайло) and Taras Kompanichenko (Тарас Компаніченко) dedicated to the songs about Nechai – as always, I’m too helpless without written text to make use of it, but I’m linking it for anyone who might be interested:

[smashjewels]

I’ve been on that Webtoon grind and I wanna rant about one of my favorites currently

The Guy Upstairs - Rozy is a Fantastic Character and I Love Her

Note: as of writing this Episode 45 has just released, so spoiler warning for everything up to that point

One of my favorite parts of this story is the protagonist, Rozy. Her characterization at the beginning of the story makes her seem like the “normal” one. As in contrast to Hawa and of course, Adam, the reader is led to believe that Rozy is a normal person who just happened to witness a murder.

We get introduced to her as kind of a loner, but this only reinforces a cooler, more levelheaded and logical front that the reader initially sees Rozy as. She’s a kind of reflection of cool, calm, collected detectives you see in detective novels or shows.

However, we also see her as just a normal person, her relationship with Hawa and her banter with Ravi reinforces this. So we get two sides of Rozy, one that makes her relatable to the audience and one that makes her a compelling protagonist.

Her being relatable to the audience is what makes The Guy Upstairs a thriller, rather than a mystery. She’s put into a very terrifying situation, witnessing a murder, and knowing that the murderer lives so close to her. Rozy takes matters into her own hands by putting up security for herself, she’s prepared because she *knows* there is a clear and present threat to her.

but this changes so drastically when Hawa gets involved. Hawa is her own person, Rozy knows this but is also aware of how naive she can be. Rozy does whatever she can in order to protect Hawa, but Hawa’s trusting nature and Adam’s desire to mess with Rozy makes Hawa ultimately feel as if she can’t be honest with Rozy because of Rozy’s cautious behavior.

This begins a character shift in Rozy, at least to the audience. Rozy is slowly losing her control over everything happening. She can attempt to protect herself the best she can, but she can’t control Hawa’s actions. This is when we get to see one of Rozy’s major weaknesses and my favorite part about her.

Rozy *is* paranoid, she’s clearly very cautious for a reasons outside of the events with Adam. Rozy is paranoid about many things, from one event she draws seemingly logical conclusions on her own, and act accordingly to them. This works together with Rozy’s other flaw, her closed off nature.

In Rozy’s mind, her conclusion drawn from one event is a definite possibility. One that she has to plan for and go forward from there. But she doesn’t bring anyone along with her, she won’t because this is the truth she’s living in.

Due to her paranoia, she ends up isolating herself. The only person she reaches out to (Alex) for help is because she recognizes her limitations. It is because her series of events that she believes will happen are realistic in these limitations is what holds Rozy back from confiding in others.

This isolation and loneliness, with the one person she cares about so much at risk of being taken away, her fear of losing Hawa ultimately pushes Hawa away and what amplifies one of the scariest experiences when it comes to the mind.

Not knowing if you can trust yourself.

Rozy, a character whose actions have been dictated by her interpretation of events, can’t even be completely sure whether that event even happened. Rozy’s paranoia becomes detrimental to her in this phase. When you cannot trust yourself, it makes an infinite amount of possibilities that are “logical”. As someone as cautious as Rozy, assuming the worst is the safest option she can choose.

Rozy hears that Hawa hates people who see the worst in others and internalizes that as Hawa hating her, combined with the tense conversation they had previously as well as this comment being directed towards her, logically, it makes sense for Rozy to assume this. Rozy ended up losing Hawa because if everything went how she thought it would go, this would’ve never happened. But Hawa is her own person who is ignorant to the reality that Rozy sees.

Rozy has a choice to make, with Hawa becoming closer to Adam, it makes it all that much easier for Adam to kill Hawa. Rozy’s passive aggression towards Adam will not work because it only takes one night for Hawa to be gone. She either has to take matters into her own hands, trust herself and the events she witnessed, even when everyone around her tells her that this couldn’t have happened, when she has no evidence to suggest otherwise, when her situation that night was hazy, she realizes the amount of doubt she really has.

If she decides to doubt herself then she can’t trust anything anymore. She doesn’t trust other people, she can’t trust herself. In fact, if she’s wrong, she’s been the one who’s been a bad person. She alone was the one who ruined her relationship with Hawa and there’s no excuse she can hide behind. She’ll truly be broken as a person with no one to turn to, because within her own paranoid mind, she had already lost the one person who would listen.

And this is exactly the type of person that is perfect for Adam’s mind games. As he, himself, was potentially this kind of person.

I’ll elaborate on that if I ever decide to make a follow-up on this. I mostly focused on Rozy’s relationship with Hawa but her connection to other characters is also interesting and warrants a post in of itself!

This is all my interpretation of the story and characters, Rozy resonates with me a lot because I’m very experienced in gaslighting myself. I wanted to write out my thoughts and talk about stories that I think deserve more love!!

Anyway read My Deepest Secret and The Guy Upstairs if you haven’t already, both really wonderful and I may compare the protagonists of the two later on if I feel like it. I’m not opposed to talking about other webtoons either, this one’s characters just resonated with me in particular.

[charlidos]

(Painting by Viggo, from the book "Sign Language", 2002.)

Back in the day, I didn't partake in any of the discussions around the LotR Fellowship and their intense, collective bromance. So I'm sure a lot of my current musings have been covered many times over before. But most of those discussions are gone, in forums long lost.

So, I'm really curious, what was the theory back then about this painting? I would love to know if there is an idea what O and H might stand for, (if not Orlando and Henry). The only thing I can think of, is O=oxygen and H=hydrogen. Since there are trees and nature pictured, and they need those...

But it does feels like such an improbable coincidence, that he would paint such a picture, with those letters, when he was in NZ and that it would be just random. (And there are couple more paintings with that O in it. Does it mean oxygen there too? Hmm.)

If we go with my idea, it could be an image of two trees in Viggo's life, sturdy and rooted. One being his son (H), the most important person in his life at that time. The other being Orlando (O), a new tree, but still a pillar of his world (or something cliche like that). Each tree has branches with some added pictures hanging from them, but it's unclear what they are. Or maybe Viggo is the tree, and Henry and Orlando are branches on HIS tree? I fail to fully read the words written, so they are no help. And I get no further in my interpretation.

If this is what Viggo intended, their story immediately becomes that epic, extremely romantic and tragic story it already is in my mind. Because if Orlando meant that much to him at that time, and they later lost touch, it's such misery.

And yeah, I'm writing romance novels in my head now. Or, poor 19th century romantic poetry. Or Viggo/Orlando fanfiction. Sappy, angsty and unbetaed. But quite intriguing and entertaining.

An added "evidence" of my theory:

This tattoo on Viggo's wrist, the letter "H" is for Henry, his son.

With this in mind, and how Viggo said back then that Henry was the most important person in his life, it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that the "H" in the painting is also for Henry.

And then it seems logical that the "O" should also be short for someone's name. I can't think of any other O in Viggo's life at that time...

However, when presented in a magazine back then, it's written that this painting is called "OH". It's a possibility I didn't consider before, that you can read O and H together and make an "oh!", like an exclamation. But then H doesn't stand for Henry, and I still think Henry is the most likely interpretation. And so, yeah.

( if you feel like joining me in this insanity, please. It's a little lonely diving into very, very old fandoms. I love comments and theories and discussions. )

[an-au-blog]

hello again!!

i'm quietly dying to know if u!buggy is present when robin translates the skypeian poneglyph & the note roger asked oden to leave on it. just. an amnesiac clown staring at this giant rock, too busy silently screaming what does it meeeean to hear robin explaining what it means. cracks me up.

(i also love the thought of there being a pattern of older locals recognizing buggy just a moment too late as 'one of the kids from back then'. i love a running gag that doubles as foreshadowing! though crocus would surely recognize buggy on sight, i bet he assumes buggy's being cryptic on purpose when he "pretends" not to know him, and goes along with it.)

i'd misremembered that conversation at shakky's bar as having only a handful of the strawhats present, and so was imagining that buggy had no idea they'd gotten a lead on his past, and rayleigh would only see buggy on the kizaru-kuma-strawhat battlefield for a minute before he gets kuma'd away… on one hand, i still love this idea bc i love pain. otoh that conversation happening with everyone but buggy present feels wrong. and a "don't tell me, i'll find out the truth for myself!" ending to rayleigh and buggy reuniting is so fitting, it's the same argument robin & luffy make to rayleigh in that scene!

i looove the thought of buggy losing track of luffy after marineford. what a situation he's in now!! surrounded by dozens of ex-prisoners who idolize him, maybe two he gets along with, a half-dozen he's terrified of, and shanks. he's heard stories from luffy, but that's luffy! you can't go to him for realism or accuracy!! but... this shanks guy does have a boat... and something about his face is kind of familiar...

how long does it take shanks to realize buggy acting like he doesn't know him isn't an act, i wonder? how many old grudges does shanks halfheartedly apologize for, trying to get buggy to give in and acknowledge him? is one of those apologies the thing that makes something click for buggy? does he freeze up, or immediately snap and shout at shanks bc he's misremembered why buggy was mad at him that time? :3c

xoxo, difan

Hello, Difan!

I thought about that like once when I was thinking about Robin in the u! universe, but then i forgot and never really thought about it again lol. In my mind he comes along somewhere between East Blue and Alabasta, though if anyone wants to adopt this au, I'm fine with whatever interpretation or spin they want to put on it.

Now that you said it, I agree, it would be really fun if the locals recognize him randomly like "yeah, yeah, that was the red-nosed kid! Aw, he was so cute, we gotta live him! Pity he's not with his friend though, hope nothing bad happened to the other one..." And Buggy just going"ifk what you're talking about, you're being weird af" and everyone just assumes the other kid (shanks) died and it's a painful memory so they're all like "Oh, yes of course... our bad... if there's anything we can do to help you tell us, it's been so hard for you, we're so sorry ". Which confuses Buggy even more, but hey, he's getting positive attention, even if it's pity, and he's not going to complain about it.

Buggy meeting Rayleigh in the bar is so dear to me. Idk if it'd be realistic but I feel like he'd be very defensive qt first but then Rayleigh would be "Buggy? Is that you? I barely recognized you, you've grown so much, and become such a strong young man" and then something snaps and he just falls into his arms absolutely sobbing. He doesn't know why, he can't remember him on a conscious level, but they still jave this father/son moment of comfort.

I don't remember if I said this in the last post or if I thought of it now, but him losing Luffy at Marine Ford and clinging to Shanks for protection would be funnier (to me) if he goes by the logic of "Okay, he's scary, the generals are even scared of him, Luffy likes him and he seems fond of Luffy. He looks a bit familiar so idk if he would have some grudge with me if I've wronged him in some way... so I'm just going to use my contact with Luffy as leverage!" So he just starts going "You know Luffy, right? Well I'm in his crew" (which breaks Shanks's heart because... why isn't he in his crew? What did Luffy offer him that Shanks can't?? And why is he jealous of his child protege? Buggy sees he's a little upset by it so he continues "So if- if you're his friend and care for him, you'll take me and my men to safety... and not kill me.......... please."

And he switches from being sad to being so confused like,

Shanks: wdym I'll do it because of Luffy. I'm not helping you because of Luffy,

Buggy absolutely terrified that his one strategy of manipulating his one ticket to freedom has expired:..... wh.. why?

Shanks: I'm gonna help you because we're friends! You're my best friend Buggy!

Buggy: We are? I mean uh, we are.

Shanks assuming he remembers him and being do happy: So you remember me?

Buggy afraid if he says no, Shanks will get mad and leave him: ... yes.

Once in the ship (because the prisoners are so many) everyone sleeps wherever they can. Except for Buggy. Shanks insists on giving him his bed or at least his a place in his room. "We were bunkmates after all" he says but Buggy just smiles and nods hoping he doesn't find out he doesn't actually recognize him. Shanks can feel Buggy is on edge the entire time and he tries asking but Buggy always goes "No, no it's fine, everything's great haha" so he starts testing the waters by asking "hey do you remember *insert thing that never happened* that was so crazy, right?" To which Buggy'll go all "yeaaaah, absolutely haha, very crazy that happened I remember!" And after the third or fourth time Shanks couldn't take it and confronts him about it. Buggy is furious but also devastated because that's it. He's going to kill him now. Maybe even worse. (Keep in mind Buggy has seen how cruel people can be and his time with the straw hats doesn't help him think better of people, because they also keep bumping into horrible people)

He starts scream crying at him, he's already a deadman, what else does he have to lose, might as well let it all out. Meanwhile, Shanks is so confused because he understands absolutely nothing.

[girl4music]

I do not believe real life people can commit queerbait.

Queerbaiting is used as an intentional and purposeful marketing tactic in fictional literature. In TV art/entertainment specifically. Real people, such as celebrities, do not owe us an explanation, definition or declaration of their sexuality and/or gender identity and we should not pressure them into coming out before they’re ready to. We can interpret whatever we want about a real person. But we do not get to dictate to that real person what they must and mustn’t do through our personal interpretation of them and their sexuality and/or gender identity. That goes too far.

When it comes to gender nonconforming expression, drag dress-up or just queer presenting when real people are portraying fictional characters as a brand - like t.A.T.u. - then yes, I very much do believe queerbait is committed. But that’s not REAL PEOPLE. That’s fictional characters. It’s a persona. An alter ego. Therefore. it’s still a marketing tactic. An intentional and purposeful one used to exploit very real people.

No. If it’s real people about real people then queerbaiting cannot be committed because being queer cannot be a specificity or a permanence when it comes to real life people. This is something that bothers me about the phrase “in the closet”. It refers to a person already being aware that they are queer but cannot publicly declare that they are. Which is already harmful. But more often than not - a person may not even be aware of it. That’s when the whole “weeding out the liars” becomes very harmful because now that person has to come to terms with it in themselves before they’re able to do that with others and it’s like the whole thing has just been dropped on them. That can lead to harmful outcomes.

Therefore, I will not ever claim queerbaiting when it comes to real life people. It’s just a shitty thing to do.

You don’t know what their story is - where they’re at on their journey - if they even planned to venture into one at all. You don’t know any of this. So don’t do it.

If it looks like a t.A.T.u. situation - fair enough. But do your bloody research beforehand if that’s the case. Don’t just start spouting off assumptions and accusations based on what YOU think it looks like because you could be entirely wrong. And then how are you going to feel about it? Self-educate through reliable sources - and if you believe you’ve gathered enough evidence and logic to make a valid claim. Do.

You don’t ever play around with important situations like this without accurate information to back it up.

[sleepy-aletheas]

Casually losing my mind over Celestia

This is me tossing my free train of thoughts with no edits or double-checking, cause it buzzes in my brain so loudly, I need it out.

It's a mess.

Simulanka = same story cycles with each ending its own

Phanes = 4 forms of names/roles = 4 tries of “cycles” = Paimon is 5th??? 4.5???

Primordial One (it/its) = Istaroth/Tokoyo Ookami/King’s Priest = King (incarnation* of the Primordial One) = ? = ?

*incarnation is such a messy word, because it means something along the lines of divinity made flesh; so like, a divine power assumes the body of a human or animal. In Christianity it’s in relationship with Jesus, but apparently it was a hot topic for debate for centuries, cause no one actually ever agreed on one interpretation, where some made Jesus to be the Creator and not the created, or he was God but also Man at the same time…

Since the four shades are split off of PO, it either could mean that they’re all split at the same time into different (but 50% same?) individuals, or the splits came one after another, for each samsara Teyvat went through.

On that note, the Narzissenkreuz split the samsara cycles into Hyperborea, Natlantean, Remuria, Khraun-Arya, in which AT THE TIME THE ORDO WROTE THIS DOWN they were still in the first half of the 4th cycle (since the ordo established after the Cataclysm, but they were children during it, it must be written down 400+ years ago present time). Those names were just taken from ancient texts, and that the samsara (and these names) are in relation to the spiritual evolution. (also there might be some more details in the Akademiya, with how they worded it to not step on toes…hmm)

What if Celestia is empty, because in a last “trial” (a last hail mary) the Primordial One left Celestia to try and mend this corruption that just keeps seeping through the Abyss…and that last trial character, the last role, the last form…is Paimon?

Hell, maybe the Sustainer is another split from Paimon (or Paimon is the little split, connected with a rainbow string up to the Heavens…) who’s job now is not slapping the wrists of Archons for abandoning their gnosis/jobs, or slamming more nails down, or punishing people for committing cardinal sins (we don’t talk enough about those, really), but instead they're keeping the sky from breaking, and stop anyone trying to leave Teyvat (for some reason).

On a side note, the Primordial One is making my brain turn to mush, because what is the deal with it???? Born of an egg with wings and a crown and androgynous, but for the world to be created, the shell of the egg had to be broken, and yet “Phanes” (quotation marks, cause ‘maybe’ feels like a weird thing to put in the sentiment of calling something from the recounting directly from Istaroth…) used the eggshell to separate the “universe” from the “microcosm of the world”. So either the egg never cracked and Teyvat is a dreamworld because we have to wake up Phanes to become real (and if Paimon is Phanes, her continuous dislike and skepticism of dreams and fantasies and absolute refusal of accepting such things for some reason when others are fine with it…is weird, especially when she’s chill with so many other things. Is it because of some weird dream-logic where the dreamer has build in defenses from realizing they dream to not wake up?? I genuinely don’t know, I have lucid dreams, I’m not sure how it usually works), or the egg cracked in some of the samsara (or in each one a little more, in different places) or because of the Second Who Came, and that’s why the abyss (the universe) is seeping into the dream, into Teyvat, and it’s corrupting it with nightmares and corrosion.

In the quest with the Pari, we found out in a document that the Khvarena and abyssal powers work the same way, using the same sort of energy, but have different results (paraphrasing from the back of my mind). And since the Khvarena is music (and so is the Aranara’s Sourcesong, and Remuria with their Phobos/Symphony), we could see Teyvat’s natural power that shapes it as lullabies, and the abyss is the nightmares that seep in from the outside, tarnishing everything it touches.

If Simulanka is the reflection of Teyvat, with its stars representing the people of “the real world”, then Teyvat is a reflection of reality, and the vision bearers (the prominent stars with specific roles and destinies) are a reflection of reality of someone else. The tracks that is destiny to keep the people of Metropolis safe was meant to protect until the people there grew strong enough to let go of it, returning the tracks back to the stars and live their lives on their own. And even if not everyone is ready, they’re not alone, and have to teamwork their way through life.

Maybe Teyvat’s constellations act the same way. Some people gain constellations to fulfill certain roles, and their vision are the training wheels to help them achieve these ambitions. But eventually they don’t need them. And so they go back to the sky. And some destinies can change, because stories follow rules, unfolding in cyclical patterns, but each should follow its own course...

…..

I lost my train of thought. Stormy weather truly messes with me.

[alicejeangreenlane]

What are your personal thoughts on Peekablue in your rewrite? Is Peekablue still a woman like the original or a trans man like in the reboot?

First up, Thank you for your question. hopefuly this post will awnser it but I did ramble a bit. By a bit i mean a lot.

Now about Peekablue. Well, since you ask. 

(sorry for the info dump I am about to subject to too) 

They are (drum roll) non-binary and use they/them pronouns.  

My fan comic is primarily based on the original she-ra animated show with some elements taken from other adaptations of the story. But I didn't take much from the new series because I don't like it.  The main thing I took from the 2018 show was the sibling rivalry between Catra and Adora. To be honest, the decision to make Peekablue a trans man confuses me because the creator said the reason they made him a man is because the og character has male peacock feathers. But wouldn't that make them a trans woman? Like a woman with male characteristics, wouldn’t making them a trans woman or intersex be more logical? Maybe that’s just me. Originally, I was going to have Peekablue be a trans woman but I changed my mind when I chose to make them a spiritual leader and learned more about Balka.   

Peekablue is loosely based on Bakla from the Philippines who were AMAB people who adopted a feminine gender expression, in pre-colonial times they were considered spiritual leaders. I suggest you do your own research into them because Peekablue is not an accurate representation of them as Peekablue is inspired by multiple southeast asian religions and queer expressions. 

Peekablue is part of a alien race on a alien planet they are not ment to be a one to one parallel to earth. Every one dose have a parallel to a real country but they are not from that country.

IMPORTANT: If you are Southeast Asian, and find my depiction here inaccurate or offensive please let me know and I will change it. 

Peekablue was AMAB (which is why they have male features like their tail) but preferred a more feminine gender expression but sees themself as neither so they use they, them pronouns. They are a spiritual leader who was granted the ability to see into the past and future (using their peacock tail, They have a peacock tail because they are from a race of bird people.) by their goddess who they are closer too, because of  their feminine presentation, feminine mannerisms and their strong empathy making it so they are able to connect more with the goddess.  

They are extremely kind and patient but are afraid of their own shadow. They believe in the rebellion but are too afraid to fight so they help from the side lines. Because they are a spiritual leader, people come to them for advice both spiritual and personal. Peekablue always helps them no matter how big the problem is.  The people who Peekablue is the most empathetic towards are younger queer people who are still figuring themselves out as Peekablue know what it’s like to be in their shoes.   

They play a big role in the story. They are the first person to show kindness to Despara (because they have seen Adora's past) and using their powers they  show Despara her past (by holding hands with a person they can share their powers) and tell Despara the name their parents gave them. They also show Adora the harm the horde is doing to the people of etheria. Peekablue act of kindness and trust in Despara/Adora is what finally gets Despara to leave the horde putting her on the path to becoming She-ra. 

Here is the first design I have for Peekablue it will probably change a lot. I am thinking of basing them on a white and blue peacock and giving them vitiligo.  I also think their design is too simular to Shadow weaver.

If you have any ideas for their design, please tell me (if you want to do art of how you would interpret this version of the character please send them to me), I would love to hear/see them. Likewise, if you have any ideas for their character, please let me know especially if you are Southeast Asian or non-binary as I am neither.

[true-blue-sonic]

What does Silver's naivety mean exactly? He's always described with this word but everyone seems to interpret it differently

The Cambridge dictionary definition of naive is:

too willing to believe that someone is telling the truth, that people's intentions in general are good, or that life is simple and fair. People are often naive because they are young and/or have not had much experience of life.

There's a lot to unpack here, not helped by the fact that Silver's naivete, in my opinion, is definitely not present in all games. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that '06 is the only game that has him as truly naive. I'll put the respective games under headers to make it a bit more readable.

Sonic 06

Let's start with '06. Silver immediately trusts Mephiles when he appears with an alleged simple solution to the problem Silver has been inside of his whole life. He furthermore takes at face value that Mephiles tells the truth and has good intentions, or at the very least does not question those intentions until far later into the game ("Mephiles... Tell me. Who is the Iblis Trigger? Why does he want to destroy the world?"; before the Train Terminal and second boss fight with Sonic). A lot of convincing (starting with Amy showing her unwavering faith in Sonic and Shadow later bluntly intercepting when the seeds of doubt were already planted in Silver's mind) is necessary to make him see the truth of Mephiles' deception. However, I do not think Silver believes life is simple and fair: he expresses frustration in '06 about the endless battle against Iblis he has been fighting for so long:

Blaze: Looks like we stopped it for now. Silver: But, it'll just rise up from its ashes again. [Hits a brick wall with his fist in frustration.] What's the point of all this? It'll never end. Blaze: Calm down, Silver. Silver: [disappointed] Then tell me what we should do. How can we completely destroy Iblis?

So yeah; he is frustrated and angry and does not know what to do anymore. A general conclusion I can draw from '06 is that he is naive there, because he immediately trusts Mephiles has good intentions and provides information with as goal to defeat Iblis forever. Silver does not question Mephiles' motives until much farther into the game.

Sonic Rivals

After that, we get Rivals... and Silver is not naive here, I would say. He is willing to give "Eggman" the benefit of the doubt at the start of his story, expressing a desire to "talk to him" first before taking to brawling multiple times. However, when more and more evidence begins stacking up, he becomes convinced of the idea that "Eggman" is actually a disguised Eggman Nega, and he is right! Furthermore noteworthy is that he figured this out all by himself, through reasoning there is something wrong about "Eggman's" speech and mannerisms, the fact he possesses the camera, and the fact "Eggman" mentions the "present and future". It shows multiple things: Silver is shrewd enough to have a keen awareness of the usual way Eggman Nega behaves, can further compare that to how other people act, can reason that it's highly unlikely Eggman just got his hands on a camera from the future out of nowhere when Eggman Nega is so protective of it, listens well enough to what is being said to notice tiny details and slip-ups, and can draw logical and correct conclusions based on all that information together. It means Silver is not at all dumb or unobservant. And thus, I would say he is not naive here! He doesn't trust "Eggman" as far as he can throw him, but also waits with his accusations before there is so much evidence it is impossible that what he suspects isn't true.

Sonic Rivals 2

And that shrewdness continues in Rivals 2! Eggman Nega directly says: "Ah, Silver, very perceptive! Nothing gets by you, I see." when Silver immediately calls him out when he shows up as "Eggman" again. Thus, he does not fall for the same trick twice! Interesting to note is that Eggman Nega did deny knowing anything about himself when disguised as "Eggman" in Rivals 1; is it possible he knew Silver would not believe him if he tried that again?

However, I would say Silver is somewhat more naive in Rivals 2 than in 1 because of a simple fact: he just figures Espio will know he is telling the truth because he is telling the truth.

Silver: Agh! Where did Eggman Nega take off to? Espio: Silver... What is this about saving our world? Silver: If you want to save your world, we have to hide the Chao in a safe place. Espio: You want me to believe that? Silver: Yes, why? Espio: Unbelievable as it may seem... For some reason, I trust you.

When Espio asks if Silver just wants him to believe that, Silver answers in affirmative while being completely earnest. There is absolutely no consideration of the fact Espio has no reason to believe him and might not believe him at all because Silver currently is basically kidnapping Chao left and right. He even tells Espio straight to his face that he is kidnapping Chao earlier in the game:

Silver: Hey, Espio! Where did you go? Espio: Silver! I know you're responsible for the disappearing Chao. Silver: That's right! To save our worlds. Espio: But that doesn't make sense. Why?

Eggman Nega interrupts before Silver can explain, but also here Silv comes steamrolling through with his honesty like a sledgehammer to the knees. So here Silver's naivete shows itself in an 'opposite' way compared to how it showed in '06, I would say: instead of taking other people at face value, he believes everyone takes him at face value because what he is telling is true. That can furthermore mean he thinks life is 'simple'; nicely black-and-white, where good people like him who want to save the world do not lie and deceive and thus immediately are believed by other good people. It just does not seem to occur to him that people do not automatically believe him, haha! He furthermore gets angry when people express scepticism about his world-saving attempts:

Knuckles: So Silver, what do you want with the Chao, anyway? Silver: I have to save your world or mine will be destroyed, too! Knuckles: What? And you think the Chao can help? You're crazy. Silver: I'll show you how crazy I am. Knuckles: Oh yeah? Bring it on!

I feel it definitely relates to the above-discussed, based on Silver's trusting attitude, but his reactions to not being believed are another story.

Sonic Colours, Sonic Generations and Sonic Forces

In Colours DS, Silver shows a bit more of a sassy side to him, mocking Eggman's ride as inaccurate and boasting to Blaze about his powers. He notices Orbot and Cubot appeared when he and Blaze neared a specific ride, which gives Blaze the incentive to urge Sonic to check it out. There is no indication of naivete as described above here. Silver doesn't have too big a role in Generations next, but he expresses clear distrust for when Sonic suddenly pops up while Silver is hanging out in the void. He asks if Sonic is an imposter/fake sent for the Emerald, and battles with him until Sonic has defeated him, thus proving he is real. Again: not a trace of naivete. I would even go so far as to say him not trusting Sonic immediately is the opposite of naivete.

And the same kind of goes for Forces, really. Silver is on top of things in the Resistance: he is helping with developing plans, he shoots Infinite's taunting down immediately, he is just generally very grounded and desiring to make things right for the world. For this game I truly cannot think of an example that shows him as a naive person. He definitely believes that they can make things better and turn the tide of the war, but not in an overly trusting, 'life is simple and fair' kind of way. At most, his brushing off of the 'strange readings' (Classic Sonic and Tails) in the Mystic Jungle as just another Eggman robot could perhaps show something like that? But I feel like that is quite the stretch and also not unbelievable for him to figure that is the case, considering the entire world is overran by robots at that moment.

Team Sonic Racing

(I nearly forgot about this game, woops.) This one is a bit of a doozy; I think the English Trash Talk Scene which I so detest was meant to give a sense of naivete to Silver... except it just directly contradicts the fact he trash talks everyone in the game itself. And also in this game he is shrewd otherwise: he immediately predicts there will be trouble in his very introduction, he alerts everyone the moment he sees Eggman and Dodon Pa talk (and is furthermore believed immediately by his friends), he asks Omochao's help to keep an eye on the tracks to sate his worries, and confronts Eggman directly about what he and Dodon Pa were discussing. Eggman is as transparant as can be about having hired Zavok in his denial, but Silver might not have been around when that was said (he was not in that cutscene) and thus he very well might have reached that conclusion by himself. So also here: zero taking-things-at-face-value. He does not believe Eggman in the slightest, and all his suspicions and bad feelings that he attempts to tackle and get to the bottom of throughout the game are proven correct.

Overall conclusion

So based on the above info from games and assuming I have not missed something, the only games wherein Silver has shown true signs of naivete are '06 and traces in Rivals 2. In the other games he is far more sceptical and distrustful. Rivals 1 furthermore shows him as quite shrewd and able to put various pieces of information together to see if it aligns with what he thinks is happening. So... I think the conclusion I can get from here is that Silver actually is naive no more, haha! It at least has not been shown in any recent game, with only '06 running on it. The fact that bios still extensively bring it up might relate to the fact Silver's backstory is still heavily tied to '06, which I talked about in an earlier post as well. I do think it is safe to say Silver has a very straightforward mindset: he believes others trust him because he is saying the truth in Rivals 2, the moment Sonic beats him in Generations is the moment he believes that Sonic is the real deal, and so on. So I think that is for me the best way I can describe Silver's naivete: it makes him extremely straightforward and gives him somewhat of a black-and-white mindset wherein people automatically trust him because he is speaking the truth (which is not how the real world works). But he is too perceptive, shrewd, and seemingly good at piecing together clues to be dumb or idiotic, that much is certain.

I feel like I got off-topic somewhat, but I hope I answered your question well!🍀