#it’s a subject i like talking about and which i think is important

[unlimitedbutchworks]

honestly I think that the core of a lot of issues of transmisogyny and bioessentialism that you see with tme trans people exists solely because they do not want to see transfems as equally valid victims of gendered oppressions whom they have gendered power over, because doing so would require them to unlearn ideas of sex-based oppression rather than talk around them and be quiet. a lot of trans guys and nonbinary people just never grew past this, still happily talking about how they still experience misogyny due to “being a female” and never bothered trying to consider transfems in their analysis and it’s a problem. people act like they have to believe in this bullshit or pretend that they never faced misogyny or oppression growing up, and it’s a bullshit false dichotomy that only serves transmisogyny. seriously, open almost any post talking about transmasc issues and you’ll see a guy talking about himself and others as female or otherwise utilizing the language of sex based oppression, unaware or uncaring of how it implicitly erases the misogyny transfems are subject to.

a large majority of transmisogyny from tme trans people is either stemming from this frustration that they have to respect trans women’s experiences with misogyny despite lacking the female birth assignment they view as critical, or a post-hoc justification of these views, they don’t really believe trans women are men or access male power, but instead “just find it important to talk about uniquely female issues and misogyny”, which, yknow, always include things trans women also experience, but try telling that to the implications they make

[thy-lovelylionheart]

Mike Wheeler: S4 Outfits & Identity Crisis Analysis

One of aspects of s4 I find the most interesting is Mike's costuming. We see him in 4 distinct outfits in this season (not counting the white t-shirt look since it's not a separate outfit), and they are all interesting in their own right. But ultimately, they all contrast each other and represent different aspects of Mike's internal conflict and identity crisis.

s4 is the season where Mike's internal conflict is externalized via his costume design. He’s trying to figure out who he is and – like for so many queer teens – it starts with his hair and his clothes. 

Shout-out to @glisten-inthedark because it was during a fantastic discussion that I drafted out a much shorter, much rougher version of this analysis!

*Disclaimer: While a lot of my analysis is formatted as statements – more out of habit from years of writing academic essays than anything – much of this is still speculation and subjective opinion. If you have a different perspective or disagree with my analysis, that's perfectly fine! This is just my interpretation.

1.

First up, my second favorite outfit: The Hellfire outfit.

If you put this Mike beside any of his s3 outfits, the difference is incredibly stark. s3 Mike has bright colors, neons spread throughout the palette, nearly all of them collared shirts. Yet the first outfit we see Mike wear in s3 is edgier: nearly all-black, featuring the word HELLFIRE loud and proud, the face of a tiefling or daemon, and weapons. This is also the first time we've seen Mike wear a graphic tee, which is more up Dustin's alley.

Not only this, but his hair is long enough to brush his shoulders, the longest we've ever seen it. Finn Wolfhard calls it "kind of the most metal Mike's hair has ever been."

So why is this so important? Let's talk about modeling for a second.

Dustin models himself after Steve in parts of s2. He listens to Steve's romantic advice and styles his hair like Steve's for the Snow Ball. For Dustin, Steve represents the masculine, heternormative ideal: the kind of guy who girls want to date, a "ladies man." When Dustin does find a girlfriend who loves him for him, he stops modeling after Steve in terms of outward appearance and returns to his own personal sense of style in s3. In fact, it's Dustin who ends up giving Steve romantic advice in s3, because their roles have flipped: Dustin is comfortable in who he is and his romantic prospects, whereas Steve is struggling. ("Instead of dating somebody because you think it's gonna make you cooler, why not date somebody you actually enjoy being around?"

Lucas wears a Karate Kid shirt in s3 bc Max thinks Ralph Macchio is attractive, so he wears clothes that reference him to appeal to her, his girlfriend, but he mixes it with his classic camo bandana because Lucas has a very strong sense of self that was only rocked in s4, when he tries to model after the basketball team, who are also representative of (1980's) socially acceptable masculinity and heteronormativity, for popularity's sake. But he ends up rejecting their blind conformity and regains his sense of self by the middle of the season.

And Mike…..models after Eddie. Eddie “forced conformity is what’s killin’ the kids” Munson. Not just in clothes, but in his more "metal" hairstyle. Eddie even makes a note about Mike’s wardrobe change during the cafeteria scene, saying he’s no longer wearing whatever his mom buys him at the GAP, which highlight this change for the audience.

This is significant because even though Dustin and Lucas are his fellow nerds, even though both Dustin and Lucas end up being chased down by Jason & Friends for their status as members of the Hellfire Club, even though they're labeled as outcasts and reject conformity in their own way –

– they still model themselves after classic heteronormative and socially acceptable representations of masculinity, while Mike is the only one who actively models himself after the school “freak" and vocal non-conformist.

Sure, Dustin wears the Hellfire shirt too, but Dustin is the graphic tee king of the show and he still wears an iconic baseball cap and overlays his graphic tee with a fun and funky button-up in s4. How he dresses in s4 is wholly consistent with his identity throughout the rest of the show. Whereas Mike's first outfit of the show contrasts heavily with all of his outfits from the previous seasons particularly s3.

And this is intentional. This is what Amy Parris, costume designer for Stranger Things says in this GQ interview about it:

Mike's Hellfire Outfit represents his growing internal resistance to and rejection of conformity and societal expectation.

2.

....which is exactly why the airport outfit gives the viewer such insane whiplash.

It is bright, gaudy, dorky, cartoonish and a completely different person than we were just shown. It's no version of Mike we've ever seen. Sure, we've seen him in shorts, and that surfer shirt is technically a button-up, but that hat? Those glasses? Flip-flops? It's so clearly an act that it's laughable.

Amy Parris, in the same GQ interview as before, goes as far to say, "We knew we'd wanted something that felt like an outfit maybe he would've bought at the airport before he got there."

This isn't Mike. This is Mike's attempt at conformity, post-meeting and modeling after Eddie. This is Mike feeling like who he is in Hawkins – the edgier Mike who models after the school "freak" – isn't the "right" version of himself to immediately present to El after months and months apart. Almost like he feels the need to wear something more similar to what he wore in s3, the shorts and the bright colors, to "ease into" the rest of his wardrobe, because when he's with El, he strives to present as "normal."

Finn Wolfhard says this about Mike in s4: "I think Mike's just trying to be as normal as possible and trying to keep on a normal path." Yet Mike says this in s4: "Have you ever considered that we don't want to be popular?"

If Mike isn't trying to be "normal" in Hawkins and is sitting at lunch with the school "freak," then in what ways he is trying to be "normal"? It's when he's with El in California, particularly their first day before everything goes to hell. Yet we see that "normal" = not himself.

Amy Parris notes in the GQ interview that they picked an orange (a rather yellow orange) button-up because it's the opposite of what Mike normally wears (blue tones).

The purple shirt is also an attempt for him to appeal toward El because purple, according to Mike, is one of her favorite colors. He is trying to appeal to El's taste/likes while wearing the literal opposite of what he normally does.

Mike's Airport Outfit represents his attempts to conform to heteronormativity and society's expectation of what a "good straight boyfriend" does, is, and looks like – and how unnatural and unlike himself this attempt is.

3.

This plaid look is my personal favorite Mike look in s5. This is one of the very few times we see Mike with an untucked shirt – possibly the first time we see him wearing a button-up/collared shirt and it's not tucked in. Untucked makes him look less preppy, taller, and more mature. It's a very flattering look and especially refreshing after the airport look.

But, I also have a lot to say about this symbolism of this particular outfit.

The rich blue is a standard Mike color, so it's the first outfit he wears in s4 that feels familiar to us. Additionally, the hint of yellow is commonly speckled throughout Mike's wardrobe. However, look at the pattern. It's plaid.

We all know by now that Mike is the king of stripes. Stripes and the color blue are the most consistent aspect of his wardrobe other than his calculator watch. But plaid?

There are only two instances in the entire show where Mike wears plaid. (I've triple-checked this, but if I still somehow overlooked anything, please let me know!) Here, in s4, and in his final scene in s1:

(top row is unedited, bottom row is brightened – no I couldn't get a flattering screenshot of the second image lol)

A blue plaid with (faint) yellow accents. Hm. How intriguingly familiar!

In s1, we see Mike experiencing conflicting emotions in his final scene. He is very happy that Will is back and that Will is having fun with his DND game. But he is also sad that Eleven is gone and experiencing survivor's guilt. His emotions are split between Will and El. This emotional turmoil is illustrated with the use of much busier pattern than Mike normally wears, but because that pattern is plaid, a pattern Will often wears, it aligns him with Will.

Why does plaid connect Mike to Will yet not El, even though El has worn plaid before? Because El has only worn plaid because of her circumstances, not her own personal style.

El first wears plaid when Hopper gives her his flannel in s1. This continues into s2 when she begins living with him. She's receiving either hand-me-downs from him or boy's clothes because he's having to hide the fact that he's sheltering a girl wanted by the government. If Hop were to start buying girl's clothing/more feminine clothing, that would be suspicious. When El goes on her shopping spree with Max in s3, after Max tells her to focus on what feels like her – "not Hopper, not Mike, you" – she picks bold, bright colors and abstract patterns, completely avoiding plaid. Then, in s4, El is living with the Byers and receiving their hand-me-downs and borrowing from their closets.

Amy Parris confirms this in the GQ interview, that what El wears in s2 is meant to feel mismatched, borrowed, and hand-me-down because she is trying to figure out who she is in Lenora.

She also says this:

It was intentional that when El wore plaid in s4, it was meant to remind the audience of Will and look as though she was wearing his clothes.

Which means Plaid = Will, not El.

So let's put this all together: Mike has worn plaid once before, when he was experiencing conflicting emotions torn between Will and El. Plaid is Will's pattern, not El's. Blue is Mike's color, and it's commonly known that yellow is Will's, which means that not only is Mike wearing Will's pattern, he's wearing a hint of Will's color. On a more minor note, the return of the black jeans and converse from his Hawkins/Hellfire outfit means that the facade had dropped and he's slipping back into what he's more comfortable in.

It's also notable that Mike wears a blue plaid shirt the very next day after Will wears a blue plaid shirt. (Also, Will's blue plaid shirt has more white, which suits his wardrobe more than black, whereas Mike's blue plaid shirt has more black, which suits Mike's.)

And this is the shirt Mike wears during his fight with Eleven, where she calls him out on never saying, "I love you," accuses him of thinking she's a monster, and he calls her ridiculous and tries to place the burden of their relationship issues on other people ("You can't let those mouthbreathers ruin you! Ruin us!")

Visually, the plaid tells us what's going on in Mike's head and heart.

Mike's Plaid Outfit represents his internal conflict between Will and El while simultaneously betraying where his true feelings lie: with Will.

4.

Last outfit! The outfit he spends nearly a full week wearing, the teal outfit.

Right off the bat, this color is one we've seen him wearing before in s3. However, as @hawkinsschoolcounselor points out in this brilliant post, the teal polo he wears in s3 looks nearly identical to one his father wears in the same season.

This has a few nuanced implications.

Firstly, in s3, it carries the visual implication that s3 Mike is currently on a path that could cause him to turn out like Ted. What does s3 Mike do? He neglects his friendships to spend time making out with his girlfriend, tries to reject his childhood hobbies and passions as childish (Ted disdainfully calls toys "hunks of plastic," in s2) and something he needs to grow out of, and, like Ted, makes a comment that could be interpreted as a homophobic slight – ("It's not my fault you don't like girls!" – a comment that I believe is a moment of projection for Mike due to internalized homophobia, not legitimate homophobia toward Will. In s3, Mike is trying to be "normal," "grown-up," socially acceptable and heteronormative.

Remember how I talked about modeling earlier? Yeah, s3 Mike models after Ted in mild aspects.

Yet the very next season, it's revealed that his rejection of his hobbies, passions, and games like DND was a complete farce. He returns to wholly embracing DND and, other than this teal color, stops dressing like Ted. He stops modeling after his father, much to Ted's disappointment: "Might as well call [Hellfire] the high school dropout club."

Secondly, because this teal color ties Mike to Ted, it's notable that this is the color that Mike wears when he tells Eleven he loves her.

(Now if you've read this far, my guess is you're a Byler fan and you've read 50 million analyses of the I love you speech, but if you haven't, the gist of the conclusion of those analyses is this: Mike felt pressured to say he loved El in order to save her and because he believed she commissioned the painting, but he tells provable lies during it that will be dismantled in s5.)

If teal is a color Mike wore during a season where he's modeling after Ted, a husband who the show makes very clear is lacking in passion to the point of his wife feeling unsatsified, a father emotionally distant from his two eldest children, and a man who is the epitome of heteronormativity and the typical mundane nuclear family man – this does not bode well for the success of Mike's romantic relationship with El, nor does it frame his romantic relationship with El in a healthy light.

Thirdly, there are several key differences between s4's teal shirt and s3's teal shirt.

Mike's s3 teal shirt is buttoned-up to the top button (in most of his scenes wearing this shirt) and is tucked into higher-waisted black shorts. It's solid-colored, neat, and preppy, and gives two hilariously contrasting impressions: the outfit of a little boy, and the outfit of a tween trying to dress like an adult.

In s4, however, Mike's outfit is partially unbuttoned, revealing a white tshirt beneath, with gives it a more sporty or even outdoorsy vibe. It's also not a solid color and has angular grey accents – particularly, triangular and diamond shaped accents.

This is what Amy Parris has to say about those grey accents, + what she says about how they purposefully added triangles to Robin's outfit as LGBTQ+ symbolism:

Because of this, it is not a stretch to speculate that the angular accents and, in particular, triangle design on Mike's breast pocket is a nod to his queercoding.

It's no coincidence that this is the shirt Mike wears during his bedroom talks with Will, the van scene with Will, his interrupted pizza parlor talk with El (that reads more like an impending apology and amicable breakup, not a confession – just mute the music look at his face during that scene, and El's), and his speech to El.

Most notably, it's the shirt he's wearing during this moment:

Look at Mike's face. Look at how conflicted he is. How guilty. This is the first time since Mike put on this teal shirt, the first time since he had his two separate bedroom talks with Will, the first time since "as a team," and "best friends," and the van scene & painting, that Mike has to deal with Will and Eleven at the same time.

Mike's Teal Outfit represents the tug-of-war between two contrasting concepts: his internal struggle with practicing comphet and heteronormativity (pursuing a romantic relationship with El and pretending to be straight), and his growing internal resistance to comphet/hetnorm and desire to embrace a truer, more alternative/noncomforming identity (his true romantic feelings for Will and accepting his queer identity).

Conclusion

I could honestly continue this post with analysis of the s5 outfits we've seen from Mike and what that means for his characterization/arc in the final season, but this post is long enough already. Perhaps when we get more content/trailers for s5, I might put out a speculative post in anticipation for it.

If you have a different perspective and want to share it, feel absolutely free! I'd love to hear other people's thoughts.

[maxx-the-queer]

On my post about Isabela in Veilguard, @robinstome made an excellent point about the poor way Veilguard dealt with Varric's death and I wanna springboard off of that to talk about it more.

Prior to playing the game, I know most people agreed Varric was going to die (and I reluctantly did as well), but the way in which he did die was such an insult to his character and his importance in the world.

Varric is one of the most beloved reoccurring characters of the entire franchise. He's gone through 2 games of world-ending situations, and been an easy best friend of the hero each time prior to Veilguard. He's witty, he's intelligent, he's caring, he's a necessary support in far too many ways to count, and he takes care of his people. He's Hawke and the Inquisitor's dearest friend, but he's also got friends in quite literally every circle across Thedas. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't like him.

Rook is shaping up to be Varric's newest hero, the next protagonist of his newest serial, and the affection he holds for them is clear from the moment you see him in the bar in Minrathous. Even though we hardly spend any time with him, it's clear that Rook is soon to be just as friendly with him as Hawke and the Inquisitor were.

Except that Varric Tethras dies at the ritual site that unleashed the Evanuris, murdered and betrayed by another friend he still believed in despite all signs pointing to his hopelessness, and he dies becoming yet another symbol for the Dreadwolf's regrets.

But Rook has no idea. The game pretends everything is fine, and absolutely nobody addresses Varric's death properly because of the twist yet to come in act 3. Nobody is allowed to be seen to mourn Varric because Rook can't know yet that he's gone, for no reason other than to provide shock value and to vilify Solas.

People who knew Varric for 10+ years do their mourning in the background, off-screen, or do so cryptically to avoid bringing too much attention to the issue.

Meanwhile Rook looks like an absolute maniac, surging through like nothing is wrong and going to visit the infirmary frequently, and absolutely nobody calls them out on it.

We get no explanation as to why the companions and Rook never address Varric's death properly. The companions who knew him have already well and truly mourned at this point, so we don't get to see the immediate wound that his passing left.

And honestly the thing that tears me up the most? We have no idea how the most important people in his life mourned because the majority of them aren't present to react to it. Most of his friends in Kirkwall, the people who he cared for for 20+ years, get nothing. Isabela gets a throwaway line after the reveal, but that hardly counts for anything.

Hawke - the literal Champion of Kirkwall, who is the subject of one of Varric's most famous works and his best friend of decades upon decades - doesn't get to mourn Varric at all, because they're in narrative limbo and they aren't allowed back to address it.

I'm not even entirely opposed to Varric dying right at the beginning of the game, I think that could've been okay, if only they'd handled it the way they did with Duncan in Origins and allowed for his death to be more than a simple "surprise! We lied!"

[dingodad]

Hi! I like your work and I saw one post a year ago in which some "Balrogs" were mentioned. Is it possible to get some information about them and their biology maybe? I'm asking here because I haven't found any information about them on all three of your accounts.

thanks! it's crazy that this keeps coming up even 10 years later LOL. the balrogs were the subject of literally one single post which contained the following information:

they are a "cousin species" to cherubs

their genders align with order (blue) and chaos (red) rather than creation and destruction

they transform into giant scorpions rather than giant snakes

the post you saw on this blog is the second time in a decade i have ever drawn or talked about this concept so there is not a lot else to go around but because you asked nicely i drew some more pictures and thought about them a bit more:

instead of discarding a shared personality upon maturity, balrogs consume their mates and make them part of their body. they take on their final scorpion form together, with the losing partner becoming the tail (above). sort of like the male anglerfish who shrinks down to just a sexual organ attached to the female

cherubs are angels who fly through space so balrogs live in the cores of planets instead (duh)

cherubs are associated with black holes and astrophysics so balrogs are connected to quantum mechanics and the physics of tiny particles (where order / chaos and probability are important physical forces)

^ in connecting those two things, balrogs could have the ability to burrow not just into the earth but into the atomic substructure of all matter. so they can travel across the universe to meet and fight but through back channels rather than actually being able to fly through space

they use the Forge / other volcanoes to lay their eggs in the cores of planets and then the eggs hatch when the inhabitants of that planet dig deep enough to awaken them? like the story of the balrog in lord of the rings

the eggs would hatch into millions of babies like spider eggs and the swarm of young balrogs would spread across the planet to potentially disastrous effect. but only one or a few ultimately survive to grow into the cosmically powerful adult stage

i think the discovery of a balrog egg sac in the core of your planet could be like a kind of cosmic test determining whether the civilisation on that planet aligns more with the forces of order or chaos. and maybe the results of that test determine which type of balrog survives to adulthood

unless people have more questions i don't particularly have plans to do anything further with balrogs but you're not the only person who has expressed interest so i think it would be fun if anyone who is interested in the idea could play with it themselves and see what they come up with :)

[highbabyofthenightcourt]

If i may add my input on the subject, i would like to talk about Feyre's pregnancy and the surrounding controversy.

While i completely understand the people who have felt upset about Rhysand and the others not telling Feyre, i also understand why they did not. As for the claims that Rhysand wanted an heir out of his mate, and did not care about her life, i think they are absolutely ridiculous.

Rhysand was the one to correct Feyre when she believed that she owed a child as a high lord's wife. He is the one who told her that she owes him nothing. He did not have to do that when she already believed she had no choice. Rhysand made sure Feyre knew she ALWAYS had a choice.

Furthermore, the risk was not only to Feyre's life but also to the child's. Rhys would have lost the two most important beings in his life. He did not have a personal gain in this.

While i do not fully support the fact that he did not tell her, by the time he discovered the risks there was nothing Feyre could do about them. Even if she decided to nullify the pregnancy, at the stage she was in she would have still had to go through the process which could kill her. We are also aware of the consequences excessive stress can have on pregnancy.

Rhysand was trying his best to bear the burden until he found a solution. If he had thought there was a slight possibility that Feyre could solve the issue, he would have obviously told her right away. Maybe he didn't do the right thing, maybe it would have been better if she knew. But he never did what he did out of malice. He never had anything but love towards his wife. And even Madja advises him to not mention it until until later.

He begs on his knees for Helion to help, while the rest of the inner circle looks for answers. Rhysand's whole world is Feyre. I do not believe he would choose to live on if he lost her.

I think it is important that we remember that Rhysand and Feyre are the reason why the series succeeded. Their love is the beginning and end of these books. Those who know them, know their hearts are good.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, but i needed to say this for my sanity.

[hymneminium]

I read the Glass Bead Game recently. It was frustrating because it really doesn't want to show you the things it's nominally talking about. It's about a future game/art form that interconnects all areas of human art and knowledge but it only mentions specifics about this game very briefly, when there's no avoiding it. And that goes for other subjects too. When the narrative suggests that maybe history is pretty important too it describes the main character being taught about history, becoming engrossed in history, coming to realizations about history's function as a field of study, but you the reader never get to look at history. The meat of the book is interpersonal and psychological, which is fine and good, but it's hard to get very close to someone's psychology if you don't want to show any specifics about their interests. All this might be intentional? But I didn't like it.

Anyway, The Apocalypse of Herschel Schoen isn't like that. Very willing to zoom all the way in and have specific facts bloom into great turns and put interconnections on the page. When these characters have grand ideas you get to see their reasoning, understand where they're coming from or think they're coming from, notice where in particular it does or doesn't line up. And boy are there a lot of things that do/don't line up with these people.

I needed that.

[nalyra-dreaming]

Not to drag you into Twitter drama, but I need a trusted person to tell me the truth. There was an argument on Twitter where someone said that Lestat only fell for Louis because he reminded him of Nicki. They said that Lestat would still be with Nicki if he didn't die and even after Nickistat broke up, Lestat would eventually have left Louis to return to Nicki in time. A different person said that this person would have a rude awakening when Lestat says “I didn't love [Nicki] anymore” like he did in the books. Would Lestat really have left Louis to return to Nicki if he lived in your opinion and did Lestat really say he no longer loved Nicki in the book or are all these people making things up or interpreting things incorrectly? I know you have spoken on Nicki frequently but I don't remember these two particular subjects coming up and I never know what to believe in this fandom so I want to hear a person who is honest and has book knowledge to support their opinions. I love your blog btw.

Glad you like dear!

Oh yes, I have talked about Nicolas before, and I'm pretty sure some of the same people stirring the drama now came to me before as well, for example in this post, which actually addresses a lot of the first questions/statement:

As per the love... that's a bit more difficult. I do touch on it in the post above, too, in the reblog.

Mhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Lestat does not plainly state he does not love Nicki anymore. And I don't think he ever would, either, because he did love Nicolas.

What he says is this (while dancing with Louis(!):

“I saw something, something in your eyes.” “Just thought of a boy I once loved a long time ago.” “Nicolas,” he said. “Yes, Nicolas,” I answered. “Seemed all the little victories of life and life after death were so hard for him, happiness was so hard for him...joy was an agony I think, but I don’t want to think of it now.” “Some of us are infinitely better at being miserable than happy,” he said gently. “We’re good at it, and proud of it, and we get better and better at it, and we simply don’t know what it means to be happy.”

Now, I know, it can be interpreted the way that "once loved" means "does not anymore"... but Lestat does not work like this. And the fact that this is the last scene in the last book, and comes up between Louis and Lestat also hints at the importance. It is important because Louis... managed what Nicolas did not, namely overcome the darkness, managed to accept and reach happiness. And Lestat loving Louis then, "now", does not diminish that he once loved Nicolas, too. And it is important because Lestat talks about Nicolas to Louis, about his past and the love they shared. And the fact that he also adds that he "does not want to think of it now" also makes clear he does think of Nicolas at times.

I think the statement only means that he did, indeed, love Nicolas back then.

And then moved on.

It's complicated. Nicolas' and Lestat's relationship had started to deteriorate before Lestat left him, and was actually broken, and when Lestat left he thought Nicolas safe with Armand.

Him not having been so and him dying at / under Armand's hands then left that wound ever festering.

For that, too, that statement above more rings of reached closure to me than an actual dismissal or finality of emotion.

[radley-writes]

genuinely worries me that some of you think the biggest threat to feminism in 2024 is trans men having words to talk about their lived experience

[repurposedmeatlocker]

On one hand, I agree that there should be a more diverse field of subject matter utilized in "adult animation". Not all "adult animation" should be used as an excuse to revolve around shock content and gratuitous potty humor. At this point in time, stuff like this being seen on prime-time television is no longer out of the ordinary. And, from my observation, is done well even less frequently. There should be more films that treat themselves seriously and explore an array of topics rather than just comedy with a middle-school idea of mature subject matter.

ON THE OTHER HAND. I don't think there is ANYTHING wrong with animated movies and shows with lots of drugs and boobies and sex and gross jokes. I think cartoon characters having freaky sex is funny af. Both have the right to exist together. Art should not be pigeon-holed through a lens of "respectability" in order to be taken seriously. Demanding adult animation be "palatable" for an "adult" audience ultimately strips it completely of what makes it a unique medium for expression in the first place.

[longagoitwastuesday]

So so indebted to u for posting those lovely illustrations from Cyrano <333 & even more so for yr tags!! I'm completely in love w yr analysis, please feel free to ramble as long as u wish! Browsing through yr Cyrano de Bergerac tag has given me glimpses of so many adaptations & translations I'd never heard of before! I'll be watching the Solès version next, which I have only discovered today through u ^_^ As for translations, have u read many/all of them? I've only encountered the Renauld & Burgess translations in the wild, & I was curious to hear yr translation thoughts that they might guide my decision on which one I buy first (not necessarily Renauld or Burgess ofc). Have a splendid day & sorry for the likespam! 💙

Sorry for the delay. Don't mind the likespam, I'm glad you enjoyed my tags about Cyrano, and that they could contribute a bit to a further appreciation of the play. I loved it a lot, I got obsessed with it for months. It's always nice to know other people deeply love too that which is loved haha I hope you enjoy the Solès version, it may well be my favourite one!

About translations, I'm touched you're asking me, but I don't really know whether mine is the best opinion to ask. I have read... four or five English translations iirc, the ones I could find online, and I do (and especially did, back when I was reading them) have a lot of opinions about them. However, nor English nor French are my first languages (they are third and fourth respectively, so not even close). I just read and compare translations because that's one of my favourite things to do.

The fact is that no translation is perfect, of course. I barely remember Renauld's, but I think it was quite literal; that's good for understanding the basics of the text, concepts and characters, but form is subject, and there's always something that escapes too literal translations. Thomas and Guillemard's if I recall correctly is similar to Hooker's in cadence. It had some beautiful fragments, some I preferred over Hooker's, but overall I think to recall I liked Hooker's more. If memory serves, Hooker's was the most traditionally poetic and beautiful in my opinion. Burgess' is a whole different thing, with its perks and drawbacks.

Something noticeable in the other translations is that they are too... "epic". They do well the poetic, sorrowful, grief stricken, crushed by regrets aspects of Cyrano and the play in general, but they fall quite short in the funny and even pathetic aspects, and that too is key in Cyrano, both character and play. Given the characteristics of both languages, following the cadence of the French too literally, with those long verses, makes an English version sound far too solemn at times when the French text isn't. Thus Burgess changes the very cadence of the text, adapting it more to the English language. This translation is the one that best sets the different moods in the play, and as I said before form is subject, and that too is key: after all, the poetic aspect of Cyrano is as much true as his angry facet and his goofy one. If Cyrano isn't funny he isn't Cyrano, just as he wouldn't be Cyrano without his devotion to Roxane or his insecurities; Cyrano is who he is precisely because he has all these facets, because one side covers the other, because one trait is born from another, because one facet is used as weapon to protect the others, like a game of mirrors and smoke. We see them at different points through the play, often converging. Burgess' enhances that. He plays with the language itself in form and musicality, with words and absences, with truths masking other truths, with things stated but untold, much like Cyrano does. And the stage directions, poetic and with literary value in their own right in a way that reminded me of Valle Inclán and Oscar Wilde, interact with the text at times in an almost metatextual dimension that enhances that bond Cyrano has with words, giving them a sort of liminal air and strengthening that constant in the play: that words both conceal and unveil Cyrano, that in words he hides and words give him away.

But not all is good, at all. Unlike Hooker, Burgess reads to me as not entirely understanding every facet of the characters, and as if he didn't even like the play all that much, as if he had a bit of a disdainful attitude towards it, and found it too mushy. Which I can understand, but then why do you translate it? In my opinion the Burgess' translation does well bending English to transmit the different moods the French text does, and does pretty well understanding the more solemn, cool, funny, angry, poetic aspects of Cyrano, but less so his devotion, vulnerability, insecurities and his pathetism. It doesn't seem to get Roxane at all, how similar she is to Cyrano, nor why she has so many admirers. It does a very poor job at understanding Christian and his value, and writes him off as stupid imo. While I enjoyed the language aspect of the Burgess translation, I remember being quite angry at certain points reading it because of what it did to the characters and some changes he introduces. I think he did something very questionable with Le Bret and Castel-Jaloux, and I remember being incensed because of Roxane at times (for instance, she doesn't go to Arras in his version, which is a key scene to show just how much fire Roxane has, and that establishes several parallels with Cyrano, in attitude and words, but even in act since she does a bit what Cyrano later does with the nuns in the last act), and being very angry at several choices about Christian too. While not explicitly stated, I think the McAvoy production and the musical both follow this translation, because they too introduce these changes, and they make Christian as a character, and to an extent the entire play, not make sense.

For instance, once such change is that Christian is afraid that Roxane will be cultured (McAvoy's version has that infamous "shit"/"fuck" that I detest), when in the original French it's literally the opposite. He is not afraid she will be cultured, he is afraid she won't, because he does love and appreciate and admires those aspects of her, as he appreciates and admires them in Cyrano. That's key! Just as Cyrano longs to have what Christian has, Christian wants the same! That words escape him doesn't mean he doesn't understand or appreciate them. The dynamics make no sense without this aspect, and Burgess (and the productions that directly or indirectly follow him) constantly erases this core trait of Christian.

Another key moment of Christian Burgess butchers is the scene in Arras in which Christian discovers the truth. Burgess writes their discussion masterfully in form, it's both funny and poignant, but it falls short in concept: when Cyrano tells him the whole discussion about who does Roxane love and what will happen, what they'll do, is academic because they're both going to die, Christian states that dying is his role now. This destroys entirely the thing with Christian wanting Roxane to have the right to know, and the freedom to choose, or to refuse them both. As much as Cyrano proclaims his love for truth and not mincing words even in the face of authority, Cyrano is constantly drunk on lies and mirages, masks and metaphors. It's Christian who wants it all to end, the one who wants real things, the one who wants to risk his own happiness for the chance of his friend's, as well as for the woman he loves to stop living in a lie. That is a very interesting aspect of Christian, and another aspect in which he is written as both paralleling and contrasting Cyrano. It's interesting from a moral perspective and how that works with the characters, but it's also interesting from a conceptual point of view, both in text and metatextually: what they hold most dear, what they most want, what most fulfills them, what they most fear, their different approaches to life, but also metatextually another instance of that tears/blood motif and its ramifications constant through the whole text. Erasing that climatic decision and making him just simply suicidal erases those aspects of Christian and his place in the Christian/Cyrano/Roxane dynamic, all for plain superficial angst, that perhaps hits more in the moment, but holds less meaning.

Being more literal, and more solemn, Hooker's translation (or any of the others, but Hooker's seems to love the characters and understand them) doesn't make these conceptual mistakes. Now, would I not recommend reading Burgess' translation? I can't also say that. I had a lot of fun reading it, despite the occasional anger and indignation haha Would I recommend buying it? I recommend you give an eye to it first, if you're tempted and can initially only buy one.

You can read Burgess' translation entirely in archive.com. You can also find online the complete translations of Renauld, Hooker and Thomas and Guillemard. I also found a fifth one, iirc, but I can't recall it right now (I could give a look). You could read them before choosing, or read your favourite scenes and fragments in the different translations, and choose the one in which you like them better. That's often what I do.

Edit: I've checked to make sure and Roxane does appear in Arras in the translation. It's in the introduction in which it is stated that she doesn't appear in the production for which the translation was made. The conceptualisation of Roxane I criticise and that in my opinion is constant through the text does stay, though.

[queenlucythevaliant]

Some off-the-cuff thoughts on overspiritualizing patterns in science

I remember watching a talk in middle school youth group about laminin, the "molecule that holds your whole body together" which was supposedly shaped like a cross. The suggestion, basically, was that the cross's image was integral to our molecular makeup and that this was part of God's design in a very Significant way. I was a burgeoning STEM girl, so I taped a diagram of a laminin up next to my bed for a while.

(As I would later find out, the whole laminin thing had/has some reach among Christians. There are T-shirts and everything)

Fast forever to spring of my freshman year as a microbiology student. I take my first course in cell bio, and I learn that laminins are actually one of many families of ECM glycoproteins. They aren't really any more significant in "holding the body together" than collagens, elastins, or fibronectins. They're very important, yes, but ultimately just one type of adhesive protein among many. And! They also do a bunch of other stuff that's way cooler than just. Adhesive.

While some laminins do bear resemblance to a cross when diagramed, it's really only because they have three subchains. Some are t-shaped, but others are y-shaped, and those don't look anything like a cross. Also, when they're in situ rather than in a nice, neat diagram, they tend to be all floppy and then they look even less cross-like.

Source

And when I learned about this I was oddly relieved. It felt like I was right about something that I couldn't even put into words, and that somehow the field of what I could call glorious had grown wider.

Christians are called to see and marvel at the presence of God in creation. I love doing that! I see God left and right through my scientific studies. Yet I also know that the human brain is pattern-seeking and that we are prone to pareidolia. I honestly don't know that there's a substantive difference between seeing the cross in some laminins and seeing Jesus on a piece of toast. It's all just seeing patterns that arise from something else (in the case of laminins, being able to bind three different molecules at once) and attributing spiritual significance. God is sovereign and maybe in the grand scope of his vision for creation it means something, but in terms of seeing God's hand in science I just find it so... small?

You could spin so many four-chain or four-domain proteins or goodness knows how many other molecules into images of the cross if you pick the right diagram. You could take every pattern of three in nature (and there are many!) as an image of the Trinity. If you really, really wanted to, you could take every six in organic chemistry as a sign of the beast, which would be hilarious in its misguidedness. It just becomes so literalistic and dull so very fast.

Look! Wouldn't you rather talk about the fact that laminins begin to appear along the edge of a developing lung at just ten weeks of human embryonic development, suggesting that they play a role in alveolar morphogenesis? That they're present in the neural stem-cell niche, which makes them an attractive candidate for helping to treat degenerative neurological conditions? I want to go back to whoever gave that talk that I watched in youth group and shake him and say, "God did that, and you're still hung up on the fact that laminins have three subchains?"

[angorwhosebabyisthis]

analyzing hermes, emet-selch, the ancients and ascians, how they're written, and the fandom's reaction to them be like hm. emet-selch's role in this fuckery is compounded by the fact that his backstory as a genocide survivor is incongruous with his ruling a huge genocidal colonialist world power in the present da [ANTISEMITISM BLAST]

[hardyorange]

my students who are struggling in my math class are also the ones struggling with not just media literacy but literacy in general

considering the material you were given, what questions are being asked about the material, and how you might approach the material to justify reaching a particular conclusion are all steps in solving math problems AND in being critical of media

maybe, as adults, we could finally stop pitting school subjects against each other, and instead recognize that the devaluation of any one subject ultimately serves as justification for underfunding or eliminating public education as a whole?

Having media literacy is more important than being good at math prove me wrong

[gingersnapwolves]

So today I want to talk about puberty blockers for transgender kids, because despite being cisgender, this is a subject I’m actually well-versed in. Specifically, I want to talk about how far backwards things have gone.

This story starts almost 20 years ago, and it’s kind of long, but I think it’s important to give you the full history. At the time, I was working as an administrative assistant for a pediatric endocrinologist in a red state. Not a deep deep red state like Alabama, we had a little bit of a purple trend, but still very much red. (I don’t want to say the state at the risk of doxxing myself.) And I took a phone call from a woman who said, “My son is transgender. Does your doctor do hormone therapy?”

I said, “Good question! Let me find out.”

I went into the back and found the doctor playing Solitaire on his computer and said, “Do you do hormone therapy for transgender kids?” It had literally never come up before. He had opened his practice there in the early 2000s. This was roughly 2006, and the first time someone asked. Without looking up from his game of Solitaire, the doctor said, “I’ve never done it before, but I know how it works, so sure.”

I got back on the phone and told the mom, who was overjoyed, and scheduled an appointment for her son. He was the first transgender child we treated with puberty blockers. But not, by far, the first child we treated with puberty blockers, period. Because puberty blockers are used very commonly for children with precocious puberty (early-onset puberty). I would say about twenty percent of the kids our doctor treated were for precocious puberty and were on puberty blockers. They have been well studied and are widely used, safe, and effective.

Well. It turned out, the doctor I worked for was the only doctor in the state who was willing to do this. And word spread pretty fast in the tight-knit community of ‘parents of transgender children in a red state’. We started seeing more kids. A better drug came out. We saw some kids who were at the age where they were past puberty, and prescribed them estrogen or testosterone. Our doctor became, I’m fairly sure, a small folk hero to this community. 

Insurance coverage was a struggle. I remember copying articles and pages out of the Endocrine Society Manual to submit with prior authorization requests for the medications. Insurance coverage was a struggle for a lot of what we did, though. Growth hormone for kids with severe idiopathic short stature. Insulin pumps, which weren’t as common at the time, and then continuous glucose monitoring, when that came out. Insurance struggles were just part and parcel of the job.

I remember vividly when CVS Caremark, a pharmaceutical management company, changed their criteria and included gender dysphoria as a covered diagnosis for puberty blockers. I thought they had put the option on the questionnaire to trigger an automatic denial. But no - it triggered an approval. Medicaid started to cover it. I got so good at getting approvals with my by then tidy packet of articles and documentation that I actually had people in other states calling me to see what I was submitting (the pharmaceutical rep gave them my number because they wanted more people on their drug, which, shady, but sure. He did ask me if it was okay first).

And here’s the key point of this story:

At no point, during any of this, did it ever even occur to any of us that we might have to worry about whether or not what we were doing was legal.

It just never even came up. It was the medically recommended treatment so we did it. And seeing what’s happening in the UK and certain states in America is both terrifying and genuinely shocking to me, as someone who did this for almost fifteen years, without ever even wondering about the legality of it.

The doctor retired some years ago, at which point there were two other doctors in the state who were willing to prescribe the medications for transgender kids. I truly think that he would still be working if nobody else had been willing to take those kids on as patients. He was, by the way, a white cisgender heterosexual Boomer. I remember when he was introduced to the concept of ‘genderfluid’ because one of our patients on HRT wanted to go off. He said ‘that’s so interesting!’ and immediately went to Google to learn more about it. 

I watched these kids transform. I saw them come into the office the first time, sometimes anxious and uncertain, sometimes sullen and angry. I saw them come in the subsequent times, once they were on hormone therapy, how they gradually became happy and confident in themselves. I saw the smiles on their faces when I gave them a gender marker letter for the DMV. I heard them cheer when I called to tell them I’d gotten HRT approved by insurance and we were calling in a prescription. It was honestly amazing and I will always consider the work I did in that red state with those kids to be something I am incredibly proud of. I was honored to be a part of it.

When I see all this transgender backlash, it’s horrifying, because it was well on the way to become standard and accepted treatment. Insurances started to cover it. Other doctors were learning to prescribe it. And now … it’s fucking illegal? Like what the actual fuck. We have gone so far backwards that it makes me want to cry. I don’t know how to stop this slide. But I wrote this so people would understand exactly how steep the slide is.

[celestialmancer]

☀️.