#it’s astounding how this is considered a ‘controversial opinion’

[mookmayor]

okay yeah but you guys aren’t Actually genuinely fans of the legion Right???? You don’t Actually unironically support them Right????? You don’t Actually ship that slave x master shit Right????? You don’t Actually think they act like That Right??????? guys?????????

[buckleydiazmp4]

hey, you were saying that you don't think izzy should've died and that you didn't agree with his character arc for reflected upon reasons. is it okay to ask what those reasons are? you just always have interesting opinions about tv and i'd love to know about this one

oh hi! well i'm happy to share my thoughts since you asked so politely lol i just didn't share them earlier bc when there's discourse ppl act so vile sometimes

anyways. izzy hands huh. multi-faceted, complicated, very intense character. let me begin by saying the fact that david jenkins and con o'neill managed to do a total 180 on izzy in terms of how the audience reacted to him between s1 and s2 without fundamentally ruining his character is astounding!! i think the whole point of izzy has always been the fact that he's a man who tends to hold on too tight to the stuff that gives him a semblance of safety (even though that stuff is usually pretty traumatic lol) and across s2 we see him slowly loosening his grip on blackbeard. the fact that it was precisely blackbeard's brutal return that made izzy realize both him and ed were in too deep really just adds to how awesome the writing was this season.

and now, just to clarify: i didn't say i disagreed with his character arc, but with the way it was executed. as in, i think izzy's journey was perfectly well written and acted out by con (please give that man an award), and up until the finale it was actually very well executed!! it's the last plot device that i disagree with.

killing off izzy was a bold choice, and a very common way in which writers both show redemption and pull poignant reactions from the audience, which is ultimately what any show strives for!! for the audience to feel deeply about certain characters or stories. i think ppl have forgotten that and focused so much on wanting everything to be emotionally "clean" and lacking of controversy. guys!! the whole of fiction isn't supposed to cater to everyone!! that's why it's fiction!! it can be manipulated by creators and audience alike and each individual piece is supposed to be different. if you don't like emotional ups and downs in the media you consume that's understandable, but don't condemn the pieces of media that do have it. simply don't watch if you don't like it. i personally like these feelings, the ugly, and the dirty, and the unfair, and the painful, the human!!! it's part of the experience and they did it well this season.

even with that in mind though, i think death was only one of the many options through which they could've symbolized izzy finally letting go of blackbeard and the toxicity that name represented for all of them. i get how 'i wanna go' as a show of the deliberate decision izzy is making to escape from the emotional turmoil of ruthless piracy is trying to make his death seem like a way for him to rest, but. it's a pretty definitive rest and i think it wouldn't have been necessary, considering that one of the main things izzy learns this season is that you can spend years in a terrible environment but it's still never too late to pursue something softer for yourself and for the people you love. he says it, too: 'it's about belonging'.

as much as it is understandable to have wanted to take the way of the tragic and unexpected, for the sake of impact and to heighten the significance of what izzy has become this season, it would've been nice to see him stare at a long, happy future with the new family he's acquired aboard the revenge. ed let go of blackbeard without it meaning he had to renounce to the rest of his life for it, why couldn't izzy? it would've been wonderful to see all those years of life experience as a pirate reconcile with the reality that they're not dependent on isolating yourself from others. for izzy to have become captain, or even frenchie's first mate, would've been an excellent seal to his story, even leaving a future full of possibility to further explore how his character gets acquainted with his new way of looking at the world.

izzy put it that way: it is about letting go of ego for something larger. and his death can mean many things simultaneously, but it can also mean that without his ego he couldn't live. which. i do disagree with, so.

i don't know!!! i just think about it many different ways!! like in this post specifically i chose to see it under a different light than what i'm currently writing, and neither of those opinions cancel each other out; they can coexist!! that's the fun thing about fictional media interpretation!! it's also why we have devices like fanfiction and fanart and meta!! the fact that something played out in a specific way on screen doesn't mean it's set in stone as something good or bad, there are always shades of grey.

[beautifulpersonpeach]

I know you struggle to talk about your biases Bpp, but can you please try? Maybe pair them up like namgi and namseok then sope. I love how you talk about Jimin who you don't bias and I'm curious how you feel about the rapline.

***

Sigh.

I won't be coherent. Fair warning. Also, note I'm speculating for most of this.

It's funny you asked me to write about the rapline in pairs, and listed Namgi first, because out of all the pairings in BTS, I suspect right now they're in conflict with each other. With nothing but a gut hunch, Joon missing one too many Yoongi events, and a few whispers, I feel it's possible they're in the middle of a feud and the other members are aware. I've got nothing concrete to support it so please don't ask, and I'm hoping I'm very wrong because a conflict between them could threaten the foundation of the group itself. The LA Times described Namjoon and Yoongi in BTS as John Lennon and Paul McCartney in the Beatles.

"Suga and RM are to BTS what Lennon and McCartney were to the Beatles….I think Suga is a bit more Lennon — more explicit in his antiestablishment sensibilities."

I recognize that yes Namgi in many ways influence the stability of the group, but I'm hoping they aren't like Lennon and McCartney in every way, because that really will be the end of BTS. Joon and Yoongi have both got massive egos, a strong sense of duty, and are both quite volatile. In my opinion. It's only a matter of time before they butt heads and honestly, these are all reasons I love them.

Conflict between Joon and Yoongi every now and then is almost guaranteed to happen because of the sort of men they are. I feel that conflict is healthy to their dynamic and that the conclusion of each conflict has only deepened their trust in each other. The flip side though is that with each new conflict, because of the deepened trust the stakes become higher each time. Given this is contract renewal season, they're all evaluating various life-changing options, and each of them will consider themselves first. This might mean conflict. And that's not necessarily bad. But even if it is, everyone will be fine. Whatever the outcome is, each of them will only choose what they feel is best for them, and that's good enough.

Another, possibly less controversial theory, is that Joon is experiencing a bad breakup. You know the kind. The sort that has you writing poems at 2 AM with a bowl of soggy cereal sitting forgotten on the kitchen counter. Either way, we'll be okay. :)

Taking it back to Namgi - one of the biggest reasons I fell in love with them was how they express themselves on a track.

Yoongi is an animal and doesn't pretend to be anything else. And Namjoon is a passionate, insane freak but is barely concealing it behind his carefully curated Tumblr-cottagecore-plant dad-art collector aesthetic. They're extremely problematic men those two, and I'm hoping to God they make it to 50 years without getting into real trouble.

I'm a sucker for their musicality. For all of it. All Day is a track that opens up the hair follicles in my head. I feel alive when I hear Joon's enunciating on Closer. HUH?! is the best drill track released by a Korean artist this year. The D-DAY tour is easily one of the best this decade hands down period. Amygdala exists. Like, the proficiency and excellence in their work just astounds me. Yoongi and Namjoon are professionals in every sense of the word. Artists who take the meaning of that word seriously. I love that they're a bit greedy too, and competitive. Hoseok is like that too, but he's got much better self-regulation.

Namgi could both benefit from being more tactful and weighing optics better, to list one negative, but I don't see this as a crippling flaw.

I've rambled a lot, but needless to say, I think Joon and Yoongi are hot as fuck.

[alwaysahiccupandastrid]

pls share your oscars takes

… oh boy.

To be honest, most of my takes/opinions on this years awards can be boiled down to the fact that I believe the Academy gave the awards not to the best performances in each category but rather as a reward for legacy/to fit a narrative.

I’m going to get the take that’s most likely to bring me hate out there first: Best Actor. I want to just make it clear that I love Brendan Fraser and I’m so happy for him because what happened to him was awful. But I don’t think he was the best actor in that category, I don’t think The Whale was the film he should have won an award for, and I do believe he won the award not for what I’m certain was a good performance but because it fit the narrative of his comeback and the Academy knew people were wanting him to win for that reason alone.

Personally, and here is my controversial take, I do think Austin Butler should have won - and I’m not some in love fangirl of either him or Elvis, that’s just how I feel. If you watch clips of the real Elvis performing alongside Austin’s performance… it’s actually scary how accurate his movements/mannerisms are, down to the second. Yeah yeah, the voice and the fact he’s still doing it is funny, but I truly do think he was the standout of the film and the main reason it worked - honestly I’m a huge Baz Luhrmann fan but this film hinged on whoever was playing Elvis Presley, and if the actor playing Elvis was wrong then the film would have never worked.

The other acting Oscar I have a take on is the supporting actress one… listen, I adore Jamie Lee Curtis. She’s an icon, a legend, a Queen. But I do not think she was the best nominee in that category, and it felt more like she was being awarded just because of her history as an actress than for her performance she was nominated for. I haven’t seen the film (EEAAT?) but from what I’ve heard she wasn’t even the best nominee from that film in that category. I’m being serious when I say I rooted for Angela Bassett - people seem to scoff and ignore performances from superhero movies but her performance was astounding, I remember seeing that scene in the cinema from Wakanda Forever and everyone being dead silent, the awe in the cinema screening.

So, to sum the above up: I do think the Academy gives some awards based not who was the best in the category but on fitting a certain narrative or even to prove a point.

I think the Oscars used to actually mean something, but nowadays... to me, it just seems like an outdated award show that for some reason is viewed as above and beyond all the other institutions that give out awards, and often times it feels like they don't actually consider most films apart from biographical ones, ones that are clearly Oscar bait (like The Whale is), and dramas.

For example, let’s be honest, with the rare few exceptions, the Academy doesn’t take fantasy/sci fi/horror seriously at all, especially for the acting categories. Even the Lord of the Rings series, which was very awarded, suffered somewhat; the final LOTR film in 2003/2004 won all eleven Oscars it was nominated for (as is right and proper) but there was apparently shock when the nominations were announced and the only categories it wasn’t nominated for were acting ones. Like… seriously? You’re telling me Sean Astin didn’t deserve even just a nomination for the way he cried over Frodo’s lifeless body, for “I can’t carry it but I can carry you!”, for putting on weight even though he’d worked hard to lose it and his co-stars didn’t have to (I’ve heard Dominic had padding to make him look a little more rotund since he used to be so lanky, not sure if that’s true)?

Horror suffers a lot too because people don’t take it seriously and, to my knowledge, rarely gets nominated or recognised; I remember watching Midsommar and wondering why the fuck Florence Pugh didn’t get nominated for that because her performance - the sobbing brokenly at her family’s deaths, the unsettled facial expressions that are tinged with her being taken in by the cult, etc. I’ve seen a number of heartbreaking or genuinely unsettling performances by actors in horror films that are masterfully done and deserve recognition but don’t get it because of the dismissive-ness towards the genre.

I also think actors using motion capture etc are not given the respect they deserve for their performances by the Academy. Like Andy Serkis… that man spent years crawling around the floor in various suits to bring us Gollum and is a master of performing mocap. Any actor who is able to deliver an amazing performance whilst in a motion capture suit deserves a great deal of praise because they’re literally using their imagination for 97% of their performance. For example, the Avatar movies: I’m honestly astounded whenever I see BTS for either film of the actors because they’re literally in studios in silly suits and cameras attached to helmets pretending there’s other blue aliens or various creatures or environments they’re looking at/interacting with. Performances delivered in motion capture are just as valid and deserving as any other performance.

I think the Academy also has an unfortunate habit of choosing Disney to always win Best Animated Feature - which thankfully was not the case this year, I haven’t seen Del Toro’s Pinocchio though I absolutely want to, but frankly 96% of the time when there’s a Disney film nominated they’ll just choose it because it’s Disney (*cough*Toy Story 4*coughcough*).

Anyway, I kind of went off on a tangent there but still.

[shittyasexualwitch]

okay so as promised in the comments of my last post, here's a take on political hypocrisy nobody asked for inspired by me having to unfollow someone because they said something icky

not a callout post, not trying to start beef with some random internet stranger, if you somehow trace back the post I'm so very vaguely talking about as a stepping stone to a point from just what I'm about to say then, uh, shit, you weren't meant to, oopsie

the post in question: a preface, along the lines of "not to gatekeep or anything, but" followed immediately by the take that you shouldn't be allowed to call yourself a lesbian unless you specifically have a vaginal genital preference, and that anyone who considers themselves a lesbian and isn't in it for the vagina should be forced to find another term

the individual responsible for the post: a transmasculine guy who self-assigns as a straight lesbian, with a blog that's otherwise seemingly built around the philosophy that queer people should be allowed to have complicated "contradictory" identities without judgement, because a label is meant to be what works for the user (the very reason I followed in the first place)

essentially, the reason this take rubbed me the wrong way is because A. it's biological essentialist bullshit, it's essentially denying trans women womanhood on the basis of their partners' gential preferences, B. well, fuck ace lesbians I guess, and C. (this one's the key point of this post) the level of fucking hypocrisy required to gatekeep women out of lesbianism when your claim to the label is already much more controversial than that of the people you intend to exclude is bewildering, fucking astounding

to be very clear, I've got no problem with this guy using the lesbian label, but by his own logic, he fucking should, no?

which brings me to the actual reason I made this post, because all of that was merely something that reminded me of something I was already pissed off about, immigrants (wait, I know it looks bad, hear me out)

I live in a very immigrant dense country, on an even more immigrant dense island, mostly quite progressive, tax haven, very beautiful, big industries, one of the safest places to live on earth, EU/Schengen/Eurozone member state, paces away from northern Africa, southeastern Europe and the middle east, lot of diasporas around the world that are looking to come back, it makes sense, immigrants of every walk have a lot of reasons to come here, and I welcome each and every one with open arms because I'm of the opinion that if you make a conscious and active decision to move out of your homeland to here, you've put more effort into proving you're one of us than most of us, but unfortunately that's definitely not the majority opinion, we're a deeply racist country, and it's hard to fight, because what the fuck of substance am I going to say to another native Gozitan to correct their racism beyond "hey, could you be a little less racist?"

but then what baffles me, and I mean truly fucking baffles me, I cannot even begin to wrap my head around it, is that very concerningly often, I come across an individual who happens to have immigrated here, who in any other circumstance I would consider an equal in every regard with just as much leeway to say dumb shit as any native, and then these individuals manage to muster up the fucking audacity to start going off about how they don't like immigrants, and then argue with me about it when I disagree

...

motherfucker, if I shared your opinion, if I had the opinion you are arguing with me to try to convince me to have, I would tell you to get the fuck out of my country running, and go back home, you as an immigrant do not get to say that shit

and I'll tell you a little secret, it's only the western white ones that pull that shit, they're talking about immigrants, what they mean is African and south Asian immigrants, sometimes eastern European immigrants too, but they're just saying the word immigrants, as if it's assumed that being from Australia or England or America makes them not that, as if they're in a separate, more respectable category, nono, they're simply expatriates, but I know what you are, I know what you fucking are and I'm okay with it, I am, truly, but evidently you're fucking not, and I'm not okay with that, you fucking hypocrite

and the great irony in all of that is that on the surface it may look like those pasty fucking hypocrites command more respect from the natives than the immigrants they don't want to be associated with, but that's not how it works here, racism as the world knows it is an American invention, discrimination has regional variants, the races here aren't white, black, and asian, the races here Maltese, Gozitan, and everyone else, you don't cozy up to the fringe groups of racists because they don't like you either, which brings me to my final overarching conclusion that wraps this whole post up with a neat little bow, hear my gospel loud and let it echo within your head until you've heard it sevenfold:

political hypocrisy as displayed by the examples above serves only to achieve one outcome, and that is bringing the movement down on oneself, it is an act of self-harm that one undergoes by forcing their siblings to be harmed with them, so if you're planning on taking a dive off a cliff, be a dear and have the decency to not pull anyone down with you

[mollyboughtthering]

Thank you for tagging me @odearjohn !!💖❤️

Who was your first favourite artist? I guess it was Katy Perry. I didn’t really like music in my early teens, but when I listened to Roar I just loved it, and then I stayed her fan for about a year.

Who are your current favourite artists? Beatles (my precious bugs they own my heart), Alan Parson’s Project (always), ELO, Wings and Simon and Garfunkel

Are you into musicals? Which ones?/Why not? Well I like movie musicals, i’ve watched very few theater musicals. The movies musicals I like are The Sound Of Music (perfect, amazing, indescribably bEaUtiFUL), Singing In The Rain, An American In Paris (that last dance sequence is astounding) and Disney musicals in general. Oh jesus Wizard Of Oz!!!!!!!!!!!

Are there songs you consider so special you only listen to them very rarely? There are some that make me very emotional and nostalgic, but not a lot of them. The ones that come to mind right now are Aquarela (just thinking about it makes me want to cry ughh) and Malíssimo

What's your preferred way of listening to music? (time of day, medium, situation) Lying down with headphones at night or through speakers while doing the dishes

What would you say is the most niche music you listen to? Mmmmh I don’t really know… idk if listening to Vangelis is really a niche, but it’s the closest thing to a niche music i listen to

What's your favourite music related movie/TV show that's not a musical? Phineas and Ferb lol. I’m sorry but it’s so good!!! And probably other movies but I don’t remember them right now😅 Ooh Forrest Gump’s soundtrack is amazing! And so is Guardians Of The Galaxy (it’s basically my playlist so whats not to like)!!

Albums or playlists? Both. Some musics I can’t listen to on a playlist and some I can’t stand the album so I just put it on my playlist

Favourite albums? Abbey Road, Turn Of A Friendly Card, Venus And Mars, Cloud Nine, Voulez-Vous, News Of The World, Parsley Sage Rosemary and Thyme and Synchronicity

Is there an artist you're trying to get into? Bob Dylan. I’ve been trying to listen to this man forever but I c a n ’ t.

Whose music do you find overhyped? Idk really, I usually don’t pay much attention to nowadays music. I’m mostly ok with the oldies sooo, ummm, maybe Nirvana is a bit overrated??(controversial opinion please don’t kill me)

What's an underrated song. I don’t think She’s Leaving Home is sufficiently appreciated, such a beautiful song and beautiful lyrics and beautiful harmonies an-

What's a thing a bunch of songs do that you love every time? Harmonies. Especially if it involves more than two people

What song is better acoustic? Is it lame if I say While My Guitar Gently Weeps?

What's the worst song of all time? Ooooh ughhh I don’t really know afsggshs. I don’t think it’s the worst song ever, but I HATE Sign Your Name

Do you put individual songs on repeat? If so, for how long and how often? Y e s. I get a new favorite song every month and listen to it a trillion times

Do you make your own playlists? If so, what's your most entertaining playlist title? Yeah, but I just have three and they were made so I could separate the “genres”. I’m pretty bad at titles, so the playlist where I put all the songs I like is called Favorite (really original I know), the playlist with the songs I loved as a kid is called Memory and the one where I put my favorite classical music is called Classicos Classicos (Classical Classics in english and oh jesus i’m so dumb shsgsjajaj)

Headphones or earbuds? Headphones always

Do you always sing the lead vocal or do you harmonize sometimes? If you harmonize, do you ever invent your own harmony? I can’t sing lol but when I do (and I only do when there’s nobody to witness my terrible voice) I try to do the harmony, but for the life of me I can’t make up harmonies

A music confession I like Wild Honey Pie. Yes you read it right

I’m tagging @pol-mccharmly, @sgt-revolver and anyone who wants to do it!

[hopeshoodie]

I feel so bad letting this sit for so long, but better late than never I suppose! Thank you to literally everyone who tagged me in this. Literally every time I see these posts it makes me grin like an absolute dope at my phone. This is one of the best fandoms I’ve ever been in. I know I joke that I’m just sitting in my corner making garbage, so thank yall for making the room my corner is in so lovely.

So here’s a shoutout to the people who made my 2020 better. If I’m following you (from my main @hyperspacial because despite being on tumblr for nearly a decade I still hardly know how to run a sideblog) I 100% like you. I’m sorry if I forget to tag people :( Also this is about to be a long ass post- don’t feel obligated to reply or like or whatever just because you’re tagged :P

@garyandhisnan. I just…. I adore you. Highkey would walk to the ends of the earth if you asked. Your writing, your posts, everything is top notch (and you’re an awesome person to boot which like… shouldn’t be allowed). Thank you for letting me rant about American late-stage capitalism and all the other nonsense I flood your inbox with. If yall aren’t following them, go do it now.

@deuchess  

@ariendiel Why you would want to collaborate with me, ME, of all people? Still astounds me. I pinkie promise we’re gonna do it though, and it’s gonna be so good. I’m so excited. But seriously, your fics are some of the only ones that I can keep coming back to. Your writing is *chefs kiss* and your edits/moodboards are literally so pretty. I love your blog and I cherish you, you slut cheat.

@kiki-the-creator same brain saME BRAIN SAME BRAIN how do we have the exact same brain!? Your fics literally are the best thing this fandom has produced- I come up with these half baked concepts, you make them actually good, then I play dollhouse with them over and over again in my head forever :3 That Erikah fic? Literally every Marisol fic you write?? I love them. Also you’re highkey so funny and ugh. Te adoro.

@bubblelaureno you’re literally too good for me. For real. I’m sorry I’m so shitty about keeping up to date with fics and edits, you deserve way more than my shitty memory and my 2 second long attention span. Your blog is literally a beacon of positivity and it’s absurd how much I admire your drive and your analytical way of thinking. This fandom is so lucky to have you.

@codename-mango controversial yet brave opinion- your blog is the best LITG blog on tumblr. Your headcanons, your jokes, your route overviews? All immaculate. Even your reblogs are the best of what everyone else is posting. You’re the only reason I have notes, and I appreciate you sm.

@oneflewoverthecuckoos my comment to mango is controversial only because if not her, then your LITG sideblog for sure. For a ‘Lucas’ blog, the diversity of content and LIs you talk about is refreshing. I fucking love seeing people talk about non-LI characters.

@inthenewblood thank you for letting me bitch about the reddit oml it’s needed. Also having someone to be salty with? A new but not unwelcome experience lmfao

@noahssidechick you are literally so sweet oml I treasure our chats and the pictures of your dogs. You bring such a chill and earnest vibe to the fandom and ugh, I’m so glad to have you.

@fuseboxmusebox I feel like you’re so consistent in the fandom, like you were here when I first joined and you’ll be here after I inevitably lose interest and leave. Your reblogs are top notch, the takes are even topper notch, and it wouldn’t be a ‘litg blogs that made me happy’ list without you.

@crvsh-culture I will never not sing your praises. I love your blog, I love you perspective, I love your vibe. I consider you a friend even though we’ve talked like… once.

@radiantdae your artbreeder edits were the first thing in the fandom that left me genuinely astounded. Like holy shit they were so good. Kassam??? That was a REAL MAN. Obviously the stuff you post now is really good too and your blog is excellent. But tbh when I think of the LITG fandom, the first think I think of is your artbreeder pictures. Also your ‘filipino words that make me think of the islanders’. I still think of that often. 

@therealityofthematteris seeing you in my notes makes me smile every time. That’s basically all, just needed to say it lmao. Also if anyone has almost convinced me to start playing TWC, it’s you and Seliné.

@bellarxse my dash would be dry af without you. Same with TWC- I’m so tempted to play because of your posts (I have it downloaded on my phone but like…. I haven’t finished a single route in Arcana and starting a new thing is overwhelming). But also your prompts are one of the few things that makes me want to write lmfao.

@lahelakoh I feel like I’ve said it before but your posts SEND me oml. The tiktok references, the chaotic energy. Both the taste and the flavour is immaculate.

@kiwi-tai we haven’t talked that much but oml I love your content so much 15/10

@confused-inalltheways-human you’re literally so cool and I think about that Harry fic all the time. Am I ever gonna get around to writing it? Probably not. But it was such a good idea. Also thank you for lighting up my notification.

@oceanatydes you come here, you post literally spectacular content, and then you peace out like bruh I wish I had your mind. I adore your edits, but my favorites are your posts/headcanons.

@voile-de-lune your aesthetic is everything I aspire to be and your headcanons/edits are such a refreshing take on characters that we’ve all gotten so stale with. I still live for that Rahim moodboard you made. Also your headcanons are so fantastic.

@lasswithumor this fandom desperately needs more Carl stans, thank you for doing the lords work. Also I highkey stalk your blog on a regular basis jsjsjsjsjsjs every chat we’ve had has been lovely and ugh, you’re just lovely

@bobbysapron your vibes are literally so immaculate. I know it’s been awhile since we chatted but I highkey adore your content and ugh. You’re such a cool person.

@beebips I feel like you’ve vanished off my dash, but you made up for it with that 3rd chapter of The Other Side of Seventh Ave made up for it.

@nerdferatum I don’t think I’ve ever breathed a word in your direction but oml you’re so sweet and supportive and every time your posts cross my dash I *pleading emoji*

@mrsgaryrennell I’m still agog that we’re mutuals because like… You are so talented. It took me waaaayyy too long to get into Blue and Hazel but now that I have… It’s highkey better than the actual season skskskskss

@kingkassam Like the above, you are waaaayyy too cool to be following me sksksksk. I’ve still got a few edits you had ideas for in the pipeline, and highkey the Kassam icons you requested are my favorite edits I’ve ever made. I live for someone else playing Matchmaker.

@hermitclaw  hello?????? You’re so funny what the FUCK are you doing following me. Ik you don’t post that much anymore, but every LITG you grace us with is a knockout. It feels unreal when you reblog my stuff. Basically the same to @mchamster. Like you’re both so funny and have been in the fandom for so long that it fully feels like royalty whenever yall interact with me.

@ravenadottir I am fully unworthy to even mention your name but oml. Your guides are the only thing that help me retain information about the season, and your recent outfit edits? Oh my god they’re so good. Hope’s especially, with the brightly colored swimsuit, left me absolutely speechless. You’re just above everything in the fandom and I admire that so much. Plus you really don’t have to flex that hard in your fics, and yet-

@smaiihands saving the best for last because you are one of the single most talented people in this fandom. Your art is the strongest life support for the fandom and like I know we haven’t talked in awhile but you’re also such a dope person. So.

And a big shoutout to all the people I follow who I don’t talk to but have nothing but good vibes. I appreciate yall way more than I can articulate: @richhdesire @needsomesorrel @ficticiouspastry @cranesandshipyards @litg-ish @princesslove19060 @fictitiouspastery​  @icedcoffee-please @demons-dogs-and-puns @sparklydinosaurr @mountainmanxoxo  @diamondsdiary @bucket-bill@another-lottie-simp @bobbys-darling @cyn-onlyyou @mikcove @officialpapa-johns @Amaxn @dxncingthroughlife @myfictionalobsessions  @screw-u-vaanu @kittidot @chichiguitarist123 @myfictionalobsessions @Azibear @amelia-w @lilithlibrxa @litghoe @priyas-tiddies @daisybarks @ajs-wife

At this point this post is just a directory of the LITG fandom lmfao but genuinely. Thank every single one of you. 2020 was hard as shit, but I’ve been hyperfixated on LITG for like a year and I treasure your content sm.

[cunninghamstrikes]

Hunger - Bobby Sands in Agony - A Review of Steve McQueen's 2008 Film About the IRA

"Hunger" directed by British filmmaker Steve McQueen, is a frightening look at life in Maze Prison during the IRA "dirty" protests of 1981. As the scenes unfold in this unrelentingly dark film, the camera moves into cells with walls covered in feces, through halls flooded with pools of urine, under the clubs of sadistic prison guards as they beat prisoners and into close-ups of the savage chopping of hair and beards, with bits of scalp and flesh cut away for good measure. This is violence that goes both ways, balancing the savagery neatly with the assassination of a prison guard while visiting his mother in a rest home. He ends up with his brains blown out in her lap, as she stares uncomprehending into the distance. The graphic violence is difficult to take, and this is certainly intentional. McQueen wanted to make the horrors of that period visual and visceral for today's audiences. There have been so many other calamities and historical upheaval since those years, that we are in danger of forgetting the suffering that so many went through, and this film very successfully puts the brutality of that era "in your face." The director achieves a growing tension in the film through several strategies, some of them quite effective. At the beginning there is a sense of barely contained violence in the images, and interaction that eventually explodes into scenes of horrible brutality. This is also reflected in the dialog. McQueen has stated that at first he wanted to begin the film with almost total silence, and then build the pressure to a sudden outpouring of words. He eventually modified this approach somewhat, with the first thirty minutes or so of the film characterized by extremely sparse dialog. The near silence is suddenly ruptured by the first incongruous sound of chattering voices in the prison chapel, where a Catholic priest is saying Mass, his formulaic words barely audible above the din of urgent conversation. The camera pulls back to reveal a crowded room of political prisoners standing around talking excitedly as though at a cocktail party, rushing the words out in this their only opportunity to communicate beyond their isolated cells. It is a highly effective scene, illustrating beautifully the paradox of profanity, humanity and religious mission at the basis of the IRA movement. Many questions are raised by a film like this. The most obvious ones begin with, "What for?" Why did these men join the IRA, why did they fight so tenaciously in the prison, and why were they treated so inhumanely? And the most pertinent question, why bring this all up now? Steve McQueen avoids any direct answer to these questions in the interviews he has given regarding the film. It seems that he considers the entire tragedy of those years to have been a force of human nature, an inevitable Via Dolorosa that the Irish and British people needed to stumble through for their own salvation. He says that he created the story in a non-judgmental way, and did not intend to take sides with this film. However, the portrayal of Bobby Sands, the most well-known IRA fighter from that period, is presented with undeniably heroic overtones. For this reason, the film will almost certainly be very controversial in its UK release in October, 2008. Although the scenes are intense, the storyline of the film has certain weaknesses that detract from its potential impact. The story seems to meander from a distance before it finally takes some direction to chronicle the last days of Bobby Sands' life. It begins in the home of one prison guard as he leaves for work in the morning. It follows him into Maze Prison where it then takes up with a new prisoner as he is being processed into this vast dungeon. We follow this prisoner into his cell where his cellmate has already covered the walls with his own feces. We are quite far into the 96 minute film before we even meet Bobby Sands, played by Michael Fassbender, and a while more after that before we realize that this silent character locked up further down the corridor is, in fact, the protagonist of this film. In compensation, Fassbender's performance, when he is finally brought front and center, is outstanding, and his final agony as he struggles with his own responsibilities and slowly dies of hunger, wasting away before our eyes, is an astounding performance. But besides chronicling the physical suffering, McQueen is interested in also presenting the intellectual dilemma that this situation laid bare: the anachronistic existence of this medieval religious warfare in Twentieth Century Western Europe. He achieves that through the use of a crucial central scene, a polemical conversation between Sands and a priest who has come to visit him in the prison just as the hunger strike is getting underway. This seventeen minute scene, a tour de force filmed without any cuts, seeks to encapsulate through dialectics the entire tangle of contradictions, paradoxes and doom inherent in the situation, with Sands defending the choices made by the striking prisoners, and the priest taking the opposing views. At the Sarajevo Film Festival, there was much talk about the technical achievement of creating such a long scene without any cuts, as well as the dramatic talents of the two actors in pulling this off. However, the real measure of success for this scene is how effectively it communicates the message. In my opinion, the seventeen minutes without a cut was static and counterproductive. It served to highlight the stagey-ness of the dialog, with the back and forth repartee of Sands and his confessor quickly becoming wooden and artificial. After about five minutes I had the sense of watching a verbose Edwardian production, and the scene still had twelve more minutes to go. Perhaps in an attempt to give it an emotional drive, the actors gradually talked faster and faster, but for me, this only made it worse. It seemed like they were pushing the words out to try to get through the scene before collapsing in exhaustion. With these distractions, I had difficulty listening to the barrage of arguments in those thick Ulster accents and I found myself repeatedly wondering when this scene would ever be over.

if you need more information cunninghamstrikes kindly cheakout our site.

[galactichoneybee92]

Thoughts on Isaac and Representation

I don’t have a point- let me just say that now. This also stands to be perhaps my most controversial post, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take in order to get my thoughts out. This will be long and rambling. You have been warned. 

With the release of Sex Education Season 2, fans have been introduced to a character named Isaac, to mixed response. He is Maeve’s new neighbor, a barrier to her relationship with Otis and potentially a new love interest. 

It’s not unusual to introduce a new love interest into a show to prolong the drama and keep the tension will-they-won’t-they romance alive. In season one we Otis in love with Maeve, thwarted by the fact that Maeve was dating Jackson, and that Otis never really believed that Maeve could like him anyway. Resigned with this fact, Otis attempted to move on with Ola who had appeared conviniently around the time that Maeve had realized her feelings for Otis and ended her own relationship. It was all very ships in the night. 

In season two we get a sort of role reversal: This time it’s Otis in the relationship and Maeve left pining, thinking that he could never love her. It makes sense that this would be the time to introduce a new love interest for Maeve, sort of HER Ola, if you will. The difference here is that Ola is sweet and wonderful and Isaac is sketchy AF. 

I hate him, and I’ve made no secret of hating him, because personally I find him sketchy and manipulative.  There are other fans who like them though and ship the two of them. That’s fine; it’s a perfectly valid opinion, and shipping wars have been around as long as fandom. That’s nothing new. There is another issue though...

Isaac is in a wheelchair. 

While that isn’t necessarily a problem in GENERAL, it is something that effects the way his character is handeled, as well as viewer interpretation. It’s my experience that in media, certain characters are usually gifted a sort of “plot armor.” While that term is most commonly directed towards characters who play too pivotal a role in the story to be written off, I find it often also applies to characters who fit into the role of “representation.”

But wait, you might say, that doesn’t sound right. POC and queer characters get killed off all the time. It’s practically a horror movie trope, and “Kill your gays” didn’t come from nowhere. To which I would reply: Exactly. We have all seen it a million times, have raised it as an issue, and I would like to think that as a society we are attempting to move past it. That gay characters are less likely to die because of the attention brought to the “kill your gays” trope.  

It’s my understanding that these common minority tropes originally stem from their initial introduction into media. At first they didn’t have any representation at all, and then gradually they were allowed to be incorporated in media in small ways that didn’t offend anyone’s delicate sensibilities. A very famous example would be the inclusion of African Americans: At first they weren’t in movies at all. Then they were(sort of?) but they were represented by white actors in blackface. Then when black actors were allowed to play their own roles, those roles were harmful stereotypes; You wouldn’t get a black actor playing a heroic lead, but he would be the brutish savage, or the “mammy” character. They were either relegated to minor side charactes, comic relief, or the villain- roles that didn’t challange the views of society. 

There was a similar experience in regards to homosexuality in films, where once gay characters started appearing they were portrayed as sexless comic relief or villinous. The general idea behind it seemed to be that there could be homosexuality in films, but it had to be shows as wrong and corrupt, or destined to end in tragedy. After all, how could anybody in such a relationship possibly be happy? Ridiculous. 

While media  (and society) are still making strides towards diversity and inclusivity, you can’t say that media isn’t in a better place now than it was even ten or twenty years ago. I was born in the 90′s and the amount of difference I see even in the twenty-seven years I’ve been alive is actually a little astounding. I can’t even imagine the difference for people who are older than I. Even just since I graduated highschool (2010) I’ve seen such a huge difference in regards to representation across the board and while we still have a ways to go we are certainly far from where we started. 

But what does any of this have to do with Isaac? He isn’t a POC, he isn’t in any way queer. No, but he is disabled which is another sort of representation and one that doesn’t get as much publicity. As such it is admittedly one that I don’t know as much about, but If I had to guess it’s probably because theres never (to my knowledge) been a big court case about whether or not disabled people deserve rights. It’s never been a hot button issue in a political debate the way that race politics or gay rights have and so I feel like it hasn’t gotten as much attention. Still disability representation is still a topic that comes up in conversation when discussing media.

So what does that have to do with anything? Why was I talking about plot armor? I had a reason, I promise. I’ve found that due to the problematic history of representation, shows (at least the socially aware ones) have been taking strides to try to avoid falling into the same harmful patterns as their predecessors. Since there was a long history of POC characters being cast as villains, evil characters to be defeated by the white protagonists, there was a stretch of time there where you wouldn’t see a single POC villain at all. It wasn’t quite true equality, but it was an effort to combat the harmful stereotypes that the media had perpetuated for so long.

Eventually we got to a place where it was generally acknowledged that you could have a POC villain as long as they weren’t the ONLY POC in your entire movie. The same goes for people of various gender and sexual identies. You can have a gay antagonist, but it’s impportant to include other gay people who ARENT evil to show that it’s the character that is evil, indepent of his sexuality. This isn’t seen as often however, probably due to the relative novelty of the inclusion of queer characters, which is why my examples for these points are POC characters who have a comparitively longer history of inclusion. That’s not to say that the history has always been positive, just that queer inclusion is a newer development and active disability rep seems even more recent. 

I apologize if I’m phrsasing any of this poorly, but I’m hoping that you’re tracking the main points. Now. I repeat: What does ANY of this have to do with Isaac? 

Isaac is, as of now, the only disabled character in Sex Education. As such, I feel like it’s kind of expected for him to be given “plot armor”, not in regards to being killed off but in his depiction. As the show’s only example of disabled representation, as well as his introduction as a love interest for Maeve, I feel like the expectation is that he would be a protagonist. At the very least he would be a good guy.  And maybe some people think he is? I don’t know, he has his fans, but I’m not one of them. 

This is the part of my post where I stop having a point and just start listing my thoughts.

When I met Isaac I expected to like him and I wonder how much of that stemmed from the fact that he was in a wheelchair and as such I expected that the show wouldn’t possibly portray him in a negative light. Even when he was rude to Maeve in the beginning I was willing to forgive it- I don’t mind my characters being prickly and Lord knows no other character on this show is perfect. And he was handsome, and snarky, which are usually traits that I love and I really REALLY expected to love him. However as the show progressed he just gave me bad vibes. I find him manipulative and untrustworthy.

I’m not going to go into my feelings about Isaac because I’ve already made one very long post duscussing his character, but instead I’d like to discuss his role in the show and how his disability factors into that role.

As I said before, it makes sense that this season would introduce a new love interest for Maeve. It’s not a terribly uncommon formula in shows like these. Considering that Maeve is considered the “bad girl” (even though we all know she’s a cinnamon role that just deserves ALL the love) who has self esteem issues and an inaccurate view of herself, I was honestly surprised that the show gave her such a cute, healthy relationship with Jackson. Were they perfect for each other? I don’t personally think so, but there wasn’t anything inherently problematic in their relationship. Jackson is a legitimately nice guy, I wish him the best and he was a pretty good boyfriend. 

It wouldn’t be unheard of though to see her fall into a more toxic relationship, and while that’s a very strong term that even I am hesitant to use toward Isaac at this point, it does look as if the groundwork might be there for that kind of subplot. It could really go either way at this point- maybe Isaac’s actions are influenced by his own personal insecurity and he would be much nicer once they were in a relationship. Or maybe he would be scared of losing her and things would get worse. It’s not just the fact that he deleted her message in the last episode, but that he’s seemed very manipulative throughout the entire season. 

It seems to me that Isaac fits the stereotype of the abusive boyfriend- He’s handsome and charming, but also very skilled at manipulation. If you watch their relationship, it also falls into a lot of the same patterns as romantic comedies. That’s not meant as a compliment however, a lot of romantic comedy relationships are built on very questionable foundations. The leading men do a variety of unethical things, but are forgiven on behalf of being handsome and funny and those actions are forgiven and even romanticized for the sake of the love story. This also reminds me of Maeve and Isaac. How often does he push himself uninvited into her life? How often does he managed to get out of facing the consequences of his actions?

It’s a fairly common trope tbh, and the only thing that isn’t common is that he’s also physically disabled. Which honestly lead me to doubt whether or not he was being sketchy or not. Like, could I be wrong? I eventually concluded that I don’t think I was, but it leads me to consider the fact of his disability on viewer perception. 

Are viewers more likely to forgive his behavior because his wheelchair paints him in a more sympathetic light? That isn’t to say that everyone who likes him only does so because of the wheelchair - I’m sure some people just legitimately like him- but I wonder how many do? And why? Is it because you feel bad for the character? Or is it because, as our only disabled character, we are programmed to view him as a protagonist? Is his disability part of an effort to be more inclusive, or to subtly subvert our expectations regarding his character? Neither? Both?

If he is indeed going to be an antagonist then that raises further questions in regards to Isaac as disability representation. On the one hand, it’s not like being in a wheelchair automatically makes someone a good person- as with any other demographic of people there are going to be nice guys and assholes.

Is it better that they’re treating him like they would anyone else? Like, he’s just a regular guy who happens to be in a wheelchair, and the guy that he is, is prone to questionable behavior. Is it better that they’re treating him the same as they would any other able bodied character in this role? Or, as their only depiction of a disabled character, should they be portraying him in a more positive light? I personally find him to be very manipulative, and often he uses his disability as a part of his manipulation. Is that just an example of Isaac being opportunistic and using the resources available to him, or is it indicitive of a larger problem with his depiction? 

Have physically disabled people faced the same issues in media as other groups, in that their depictions were historically negative? I’m going to be honest with you here, that’s not a question I know the answer to. I haven’t seen them largely portrayed as villains, but that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened. 

I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, and I won’t until I see where season 3 plans on taking this, but these are the thoughts that have been circling my mind since I finished season 2. Do you agree? Disagree? Did any of this even make sense? 

[web1995]

Aesthetic Significance and Human Meaning in the Iconography of Monuments to Mickey: What does Mickey Mouse look like?

Mickey Mouse, a figure with unclear, possibly composite origins amidst the shadows of early human mythology, dominates much of our modern landscape. Visit any city upon any landmass, and you will find the familiar monuments to him, ranging from humble shrines to elaborate multi-storied castles fit to house the Mouse, Himself. Most creation myths regarding Mickey claim he originated in what was known as California, of the so-called United States, though there are variations on the geographical setting, and most speak of pre-plastic human creators, meticulously crafting his first incarnation from bones, potatoes, or, usually, from paper.

It is indisputable that Mickey is a pre-plastic relic. Mickey and his Friends have appeared on clothing, architecture, medical equipment, jewelry, cutlery, aeroplanes, submarines, and nearly every other imaginable pre-plastic object that post-plastic excavation has recorded. In the late stages of pre-plasticism, his image began to take on greater significance to the artists portraying him, and the consumers of Mickey Art grew ever more fervent, leading to the new artforms upon which the Mouse’s plastic throne has been firmly established.

In this essay, the authors’ unified goal is to introduce the reader (doubtlessly already familiar with Mickey and the many monuments dedicated to him) to some finer points of how specific iconography in the omnipresent Mickey Monuments functions to convey meaning. While much of this meaning may be clear on a first viewing and first trip through a monument’s coiled tract, other aspects of it have been lost to pre-plastic history, or lies in details that are better appreciated (in the authors’ opinions) with re-examination. 

Mickey’s following (and the reverence of his followers) are nowhere near devoid of spirituality. However, it bears mentioning that he has never been closer to a religious figure (or “god,” despite his obviously godly status) than to a mascot, an effigy, an anthropomorphic symbolization of the plastic world’s greatest values. Mickey became a symbol of prosperity and fortune early on in the plastic world. These are the main qualities attributed to him historically in his semi-deification, though he has been considered to represent various other patronages (such as joy, cleanliness, rationality, modern medicine, dominion over other beasts, and music, to name a few), and may be considered a “personal” patron by those who seek his favor. 

As prosperity and fortune are ever-changing, Mickey himself has no single traditional depiction. The same artists may depict Mickey differently every time they portray him. There are regional, cultural, and religious trends but has never been a consensus on how “Mickey should look”— and most Mickey enthusiasts will instead reach a consensus on agreeing that there never should be. Let us begin our visual exploration of Mickey Monuments with four strikingly disparate depictions of the Mouse:

The differences, not only in Mickey’s appearance but in the architectural motifs utilized, intended function of the monuments, overall composition chosen, and other decoration present are astounding. Mickey’s image is ephemeral, in the hands of the creator, but so too in the eye of the beholder— for each of these monuments, once erected, drew admirer’s cries— behold! the Mouse himself!

Fig. 1

Fig 2. 

One common motif in Mickey Monuments is the portrayal of Mickey’s head (and sometimes, his many noble heads) alongside the heads of other animals, lacking his pseudo-god qualities. In Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, Mickey’s dominion over ordinary beasts— what appears to be a common mouse, perhaps the extinct pre-plastic rodent Pikachu (if not the closely related, probably also extinct Raichu species), and elephants, demonstrates that Mickey is neither an ordinary rodent nor unable to wield authority over even much larger beasts. 

Fig. 3

Similarly, in Fig. 3, Mickey’s dominion over other mascots becomes clear. Mickey and his Friends are afforded honors above other pre-plastic cartoons that may have once had a following of their own, because Mickey’s power surpasses theirs. Doraemon, another pseudo-god figure who may once have been equal in popularity to Mickey, is seen here as a mere painting alongside other cartoons, while Mickey is sculpted and elevated into the imperial 3rd dimension to show his status. Snow White takes a similar role in Fig. 1.

Fig. 4

Two-dimensionality does not always denote a lesser status, however. In Fig. 4, simple iconography is used to evoke Mickey’s presence (as is a “cross” in christianity) in sculpture, accompanied by mosaic and/or fresco depicting Mickey enthroned, in a pastoral scene with his Friends. 

[ A word on Mickey’s Friends— sometimes, Mickey’s Friends appear as his companions, and sometimes as lesser aspects of Mickey’s own soul. In Fig 4, Mickey’s Friends appear to be his acquaintances or subjects, celebrating alongside him, but this is not always the case. All of Mickey’s Friends, Minnie Mouse especially, may be depicted as pseudo-gods equal to Mickey, and quite a few scholarly endeavors have been made in exploring the history of Donald Duck Monuments. Take note that in Fig. 4′s composition Minnie is equal in status to Donald Duck, rather than placed alongside Mickey, while in other monuments, Minnie appears as Mickey’s mirror image (or even as the superior deity, with Mickey as a lackey). ]

Fig. 5

For a charming interplay of 2D and 3D space, one may turn to Fig. 5, in which is seen a mosaic/fresco of Mickey humorously pointing toward a sculpture of his head (authority), showing different aspects of his soul. Intriguingly, while Donald Duck appears beside Mickey in the arch, only Mickey is given the right to manifest in three dimensions— perhaps playfully reasserting the dimensional hierarchy seen in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3. 

Fig. 6

In Fig. 6, two-dimensionality has a positive function (with mild third-dimensionism, in the shape of the columns). Mickey and Donald Duck decorate the pillars of this monument, suggesting that they are “pillars of the earth.”

Fig. 7

Fig. 7 creates little distinction between relief, freestanding sculpture, architectural contour, and painted icon, in a chaotic plastic landscape, with one notable exception to this blurring of category— Mickey’s gaping mouth allows visitors to crawl in or out from it, bringing Mickey (and thus, fortune) into their life as both creator and judge. 

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 demonstrate monuments in which Mickey’s eyes are obscured, showing his impartiality. Mickey’s ongoing popularity as a figure and his enduring semi-deification probably have been assisted by the human desire to appeal to fortune for help, and the human understanding that fortune is simply another word for “fate.” Mickey’s face acts as a softening mask over fate’s seemingly arbitrary, often cruel judgement.

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

Subdued by comparison, deliberatively minimalist Mickey Monuments like Fig. 11 followed controversy surrounding laboriously painted monuments such as Fig. 10. Elaborate paintings of Mickey and Friends drew criticism for their “gaudiness” at the same time that they drew praise for honoring Mickey with the luxury he deserves. Fig. 10 aims to be a gilded celebration of Mickey’s pantheon. Simpler designs like Fig. 11 typically signal an intent to prioritize the visitor’s relationship with Mickey himself.

Fig. 12

Some monuments do verge on genuine deification of Mickey, such as Fig. 12′s emphasis on his Head of rationality and Hand of justice (with frescoes).

Fig. 13

Other monuments use allegory to pay tribute to history. Fig. 13 shows a castle that has been decorated with frescoes of Mickey and Friends as the four humors, showing the influence Mickey has had on modern medicine.

Fig. 14

It is only reasonable to take some time to focus especially on Minnie’s role in Mickey Monuments. Here, in Fig. 14, Mickey and Minnie Mouse are depicted as equals, sharing in the honor of a triumphal arch.

Fig. 15

In Fig. 15, Minnie and Mickey take on the role of two sphinxes (the “ups and downs” of fortune, if you will). Minnie beckons the visitor to ascend the monument’s stygian stairs, while Mickey laughs at their all-too-abrupt plunge from grace. Both are mischievous (yet non-malevolent) figures.

Fig. 16

Another triumphal arch, Fig. 16 actually centers Minnie herself. Minnie’s distinction from Mickey is not always clear— is she half of a single pseudo-god? While it is tempting to argue that Minnie’s status is entwined in Mickey’s, as much a part of him as he is of her, viewing her merely as half of Mickey reduces her significance in Mickey Monuments that have made the conscious decision to honor Minnie in the better-known Mouse’s stead. 

Fig. 17

However, Mickey and Minnie sometimes are portrayed as two halves of a single soul, as seen in Fig. 17, in which case there seems no other choice but to admit these figures do, at least partially, share an overlapping self. Fig. 17′s melding of their flesh establishes them as true equals, though it is Mickey’s outstretched Hand of justice that seems to wield their shared power. 

Fig. 18

When portrayed together, Minnie and Mickey seem to be conveying a shared power more stable than Mickey’s capricious rule might appear alone, evoking imagery of pre-plastic royalty. In Fig. 18, Mickey stands above the world, confidently surveying his surroundings, while Minnie luxuriates in her power, appearing to rule with serenity in this Mickey Monument clearly meant to show their dominion over Spiderman. 

Fig. 19

In Fig. 19, the entirety of the monument is an altar, dedicated to Minnie. A small yet ornate monument, this altar’s subject matter is again the motif of dominion over beasts. Here is a hierarchy: an ordinary rodent, with little significance; Pluto, who is to Goofy what a human must be to Apollo; and Minnie, a true pseudo-god, blessed with wisdom beyond that of each lower category of beast. She appears to use her wisdom benevolently, gazing out at the visitor with self awareness and a welcoming expression, while Pluto lacks the ability to look into a higher dimension and interact with the beings there (and the ordinary rodent is merely a rodent). Minnie’s bold stare shows the visitor that she is aware of dimensions beyond the two that she has been painted in, that she feels no fear of the third dimension (indeed, she appears unsurprised and if at all surprised, merely charmed by the sight of the 3D world) and may in fact be aware of dimensions beyond even the one through which her visitors approach. This not-so-simple altar has an entire pseudo-theology painted on its sides.

Fig. 20

Mickey Monuments often draw upon existing religious iconography to illustrate Mickey’s form, instead of attempting to create a separate pseudo-theology as seen in Fig. 19. Fig. 20 is a Monumental variation on an “Annunciation” scene, from christian myth, depicting Mickey announcing Mickey’s birth to Mickey.

Fig. 21

Fig. 22

Another reference to christian iconography, Fig. 21 depicts a Monument in which Mickey is the Gate through which lies “salvation.” ("Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" or, in this case perhaps, there is no salvation outside the House of Mouse). In contrast, Fig. 22 depicts Mickey and Friends as bringers of joy and supporters of same sex marriage. 

Fig. 23

Above the central portal by which the monument in Fig. 23 may be entered, the visitor is confronted with an unusual wall mosaic depicting Mickey and Friends as patrons of "fun" and "cleanliness." The subject matter may be a unique twist on Mickey’s patronage, but this style of Mickey Monument certainly isnt— wall ornamentation is a common motif, seen in many previous figures.

To conclude this essay, the authors have chosen to draw back from their closer analysis of these Mickey Monuments, to return to the most intuitive way of appreciating them: as a visiting admirer. Following will be examples of some unique and particularly visually striking Mickey Monuments, which the reader is free to admire and/or to apply any analysis of their own to, without the authors dominating the Mickey Monument conversation. Mickey may have dominion over all cartoons, mascots, and other beasts, but each follower of Mickey must decide for themself, in the end— what does Mickey look like?

[bearded-shepherd]

Masterpiece In The Last Of Us (No Spoilers)

Video games are another form of art; it's still sort of controversial in cases (particularly through a philosophical proposition but philosophy itself is just opinionated questions and a whole other topic). In this case, I am going to say video games are another form of art.

However, there is this one word that some people use often and that word is "Masterpiece". If you've taken any sort of art class you will most definitely hear it often. But back to video games, I keep hearing people talk about masterpieces particularly in this subset of art in an insular definition (something being the "best" of all kind). Though yes,it's part of multiple definitions. But it seems a lot of people are forgetting that "masterpieces" are nowhere near perfect.

A Masterpiece can have flaws (and a lot of them certainly do), it can be controversial, etc. Example many famous artworks like 'A Bar at the Folies-Bergère' by Édouard Manet or quite a number of Michelangelo's works showcase having flaws or Thomas Eakins, "The Gross Clinic," 1875 being fairly controversial at that time. The list can go on.

But let's look at The Last of Us; it was quite a feat. during that time and blew many people out of the park with it's story to tell and it's characters. Though it still has its flaws, the overarching story plot being fairly predictable for one and the mechanics in the game was decent though sluggish.

But let's hone into the story though. What really astound people is what happened off the beaten track, the interactions between characters, the moral conflicts throughout, etc. What made TLOU so good was that ND took a generic plot and an overused subject in a world saturated with them during that time and still is (post-apocalypse infected) by delving deeper into the wounds of it's characters, their emotions, their loss.

Most art that are considered masterpieces are "masterpieces"  because they played a pivotal role in the art world either through artistic freedom, criticism (religious, politics, etc), or storytelling. In this case , TLOU incorporates all of it, changing the scene on how storytelling can be told in modern video games.

Was/is the TLOU a masterpiece? Well yes, it was ND’s little love note to life really through that game. The type of game TLOU was at that time was rare; many people thought linear story driven games were dead/dying out and here comes ND with the exact type of game. It's not perfect and it had its own controversies but it was truly an experience to live vicariously through with it's characters.

Will TLOU2 be a masterpiece? It will certainly be a controversial one for a long while (lol). Honestly TLOU2 is going to open those wounds that they went deeper in the first game wide open, it's going to be a very different feeling compared to it. It's not about "Love" this time around, it's about "Hate" and that shit is going to be raw and unpleasant. I believe that's what ND wants, they want us to feel discomfort and they sure as hell want you to feel far from how you felt in the first game.

[icountcards]

tag game

I was tagged by @secretlibraryoj​ ! Thanks for the tag! 

(I think I’m only supposed to answer the new questions? Who knows, I could totally be doing this wrong) 

1. What is one of your ridiculous life goals?

I’d like to think at least most of my life goals are pretty reasonable - but the real big ambitious one is that I’d like to get a book published. 

2. What is something that always amazes and astounds you?

honestly? I’ll never be over how it feels to be in the crowd at a rock show. just, thousands of people, one voice. 

3. What is the most recent interesting fact you have learnt this week?

I’m not coming up with something off the top of my head that I’ve learned recently, but I was recently reminded that it is legal in my state (North Dakota) to open carry a sword or machete lol

4. How gullible are you?

not at all usually, but if you hit the right tone on sarcasm or a joke I will miss it and think you’re serious. 

5. What TV Show would you like to come to life?

oh, man, most of the shows I watch fall under “I wouldn’t mind if the characters were real, but man am I glad the events of the show aren’t happening irl”. star trek would be pretty dang cool tho. 

6. What is your cure for hiccups?

okay, this one’s coming to you from my mother, a nurse: take a spoonful of peanut butter. cover it in sugar. consume it all at once. swear to god it works. 

7. What makes a person interesting?

tell me something I don’t know. have a good story to tell (here’s a hint: anything can be a good story if you’re a good storyteller). be your own person. think for yourself. try new things. be a little weird. 

8. Do you procrastinate?

I’m procrastinating, like, at least 3 things as we speak. 

+new questions: 

what was the last song you listened to (or if you’re currently listening to music, what are you listening to right now)? 

how many languages do you speak? 

how do you take your coffee? 

ever gotten stitches? tell me the story if you have!

museum or aquarium? 

TELL ME YOUR FAVORITE POKEMON

what’s your makeup routine, if you have one? 

controversial food opinion! tell me either a popular food you can’t stand, or a widely hated one that you love!

tagging: augh I always feel anxious about tagging people because I don’t want to bother anyone so @ anyone who feels like playing consider this an invitation! 

[megagametophyte]

       What comes to mind when you’re driving past a farm and you get a whiff of something unpleasant, to say the least? You’re probably not thinking about the impact of cow farts on climate change, but instead, how much it reeks. Cow farts and burps contain a harmful gas known as methane that is a profound contributor to the progression of global warming as we know it. Who knew cow farts could have such an impact? This gas is one of the “greenhouse gases” and is responsible for a process known as the greenhouse effect. Typically, the greenhouse gas we all think about is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is produced from fossil fuels and other similar industrial processes such as cement production. Of the greenhouse gases that have the strongest effect on our planet, however, methane gas is one of the more controversial. Some support the belief that methane production is largely a natural process. After all, we can’t control cow farts and burps! Are the emissions of these harmful gases mostly caused by human activity?  Perhaps the environmental fallout is the result of natural processes (such as cow farts), and humans account for only a small minority of the aftermath. Unfortunately, the science does not come to this conclusion. According to NASA, before the industrial revolution, many of the effects of global warming could be attributed to radiation from the Sun and the release of volcanic gases. In the present day, we are now seeing trends in warming that simply do not coincide with the natural activity of the planet. Historical climate data has been studied (various fossil records), and the science disagrees with the conclusion that nature is the main cause of global warming.

       What is the greenhouse effect and what are the long-term consequences of having these gases in our atmosphere? The Sun’s rays penetrate through our ozone layer and heat the Earth. Some heat is reflected into space (off the water and white snow/ice), while some is absorbed into the Earth. This process is very similar to the way a greenhouse stays warm. Sun shines into the greenhouse throughout the daytime, and the glass prevents the rays from escaping which keeps the temperature consistent throughout the year. The same way it keeps plants warm, the greenhouse effect keeps organisms on Earth warm. The absorption of the Sun’s heat is essential for life; keeping it temperate for organisms to evolve. The problem arises when greenhouse gases fill the air and prevent an excess amount of rays from reflecting into space, resulting in the overall temperature of the globe to increase. Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases (manmade gases containing fluorine) have the most profound effect on the environment. These gases accumulate when they are released into the atmosphere, perhaps from a cow fart, and cannot discharge into space due to Earth’s gravitational pull. Just like the glass of a greenhouse, the thicker it is (the more concentrated the gases are in the air) the more heat will be trapped. According to the Government of Canada’s 2017 national report, carbon dioxide accounts for 80% of the global greenhouse gas emissions, methane accounts for 13%, nitrous oxide accounts for 5%, and fluorinated gases account for 2%. While carbon dioxide is by far the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, the effect of methane should not be overlooked. Methane traps more heat than carbon dioxide; in fact, 25 times more heat! Let us investigate the ways in which methane is produced and what percentage of that is caused by humans.

Figure 1: Mechanism by which methane increases absorption of heat energy from the Sun.

       The largest natural source of methane comes from wetlands. In this environment, microorganisms known as methanogens thrive. In wetlands, oxygen is scarce, so methanogens have adapted in such a way that they produce methane as a metabolic by-product when breaking down organic material. Another common habitat for these microorganisms is in the stomachs of a class of organisms known as ruminants which includes animals such as cows, sheep, goats, deer, etc. Methanogens even live inside human digestive tracts! These microorganisms help break down difficult-to-digest plant matter, and in doing so, a chemical reaction takes place known as fermentation. This process ultimately results in the production of methane gas which is then released from our bodies by farting and burping. Methanogens in cattle digestive tracts behave in the same way. Many consider this to be a natural cause of methane production, and it is easy to see why it might be considered as such. Cows inhabit the Earth just as any other animal, but their domestication for agriculture is where the real problem arises. The diary and beef industry are a huge source of methane pollution, outputting approximately 188 million tons of methane globally each year. According to the Global Carbon Project (an organization whose aim is to evaluate the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted and from where), agriculture and waste management is the single highest producer of methane, even in comparison to natural production. Farming produces 5% more methane than the highest natural cause of methane production.

       Another source of methane production is the burning of vegetation. “Biomass burning” releases smoke contains methane that diffuses into our atmosphere because of the chemical compound’s volatile nature. Of course, humans can be attributed to a portion of this, but what about wildfires that occur naturally? While there are wildfires that occur naturally from lightning, the frequency and duration of these events have increased over time as a result of global warming.

       On top of these examples of seemingly natural origins of methane emissions, there are even more human-caused sources. Rice paddies, for example, are semi-aquatic crops that produce up to 100 million tonnes of gas annually. Coal mining, landfill gases, and fossil fuel production are additional ways humans contribute to methane production. Approximately 60% of the methane we see in our atmosphere is due to human activity, leaving the remaining 40% originating from nature.

       Another popular opinion among climate change skeptics is that nature can mitigate the methane being produced. To an extent, that is true. Chemical reactions occurring in the atmosphere and in the soil can process most of the methane and convert it to water and carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, more methane is being produced than can be consumed, and the by-product of the conversion reaction is also a greenhouse gas (CO2). Currently, there is research being done to mitigate these emissions more than just relying on natural “sinks”. Several different approaches to lessen the emissions in cattle agriculture include breeding and genomics, feeding strategies, and infrastructure management. Selective breeding for cows that produce more milk and less methane is an example of a genetic approach. Giving cows antibiotics, vaccines, and nitrates is said to reduce methane by 5-20%. Supplementing their diets with oils and fats reduces methane by 15-20%. Finally, adding other natural supplements to their feed such as an experimental red algae supplement called “Future Feed” claims to reduce methane by an astounding 80%.

       So, while it is true that there are sources of natural methane production and natural methane “sinks”, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released an estimate of global methane emissions based on several studies in 2001. The researched focused on both natural and manmade causes for methane emissions. The results of these studies showed undeniable agreement that most of the methane has been created by humans, and nature cannot manage it all. It is so important to consider all the potential sources of greenhouse gas emissions. As inhabitants of this beautiful planet, it is in our best interest to explore ways in which we can reduce our negative impact on the climate and bring awareness to these pressing issues. Maybe next time you’re driving past that farm, you’ll consider not only the stench from cow farts, but also their unanticipated impact on climate change.

Further Reading:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/global-climate-change-what-you-need-know

https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/methaneuk/chapter02.pdf

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0145/8808/4272/files/A4131-01.pdf

https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/methanebudget/index.htm

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/AF/Areas/Food-security/FutureFeed

https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/carbon-farming-reducing-methane-emissions-cattle-using-feed-additives

http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/news-from-agriculture-and-agri-food-canada/scientific-achievements-in-agriculture/reducing-methane-emissions-from-livestock/?id=1548267761377

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-climate-change

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect.html

https://www.sightline.org/2019/02/12/calling-natural-gas-a-bridge-fuel-is-alarmingly-deceptive/

https://www.sightline.org/2019/02/12/methane-climate-change-co2-on-steroids/

https://www.sightline.org/2019/02/12/study-methane-life-cycle-critical-pacific-northwest/

http://www.zeroco2.no/capture/sources-of-co2/stationary-point-sources-of-co2#industrial-sources

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-emissions/sources-sinks-executive-summary-2019.html

[tarot4bangtan-blog]

Introduction

Why I’m starting this blog and what kind of blog it will be:

Hi all! This introduction will hopefully find everyone interested in reading the predictions I post on the blog because I think the context is a huge motivation behind going public with my private tarot readings for BTS.

Right off the bat I have to give a shout out to @btstarot for inspiring me to make this account and I want to be clear about that, because many of my predictions currently (and will likely continue to) echo her own. I respect her so much as a reader and in no way wish to call her out, but I was one of the private readers who recently approached her with questions hoping to confirm some of my own recent readings on the group and her reaction (which she made clear was not just directed at me but at the fact that I was one of many who did something similar) was too publicly refuse to discuss the predictions of other readers. This genuinely surprised me since I was so excited when I discovered her accounts. It seemed like the perfect place to compare and discuss readings with all the other people who periodically look in on the boys with their cards but she was very defensive about whether or not I even read cards since she couldn’t seem to understand why I would have to ask for confirmations on my own readings from another person (a sentiment she repeated publicly on her twitter). I suppose I understand this logic on some level, and while I support her decision to delete all questions from people claiming to be readers, I think there should be a place where all private readers can discuss and confirm their readings on the boys without having to make blogs themselves. Theres no need for a million accounts all predicting the same things, which was exactly why I never considered making one myself as all of my predictions seemed to line up with hers so I thought it was unnecessary to just repeat everything she said.

But perhaps my blog WOULD have something different to offer. Perhaps my goal can simply be to both support her readings with my own as I know she gets a lot of people who argue with what her cards tell her, while making myself open to all people who want to discuss the info they themselves have gotten on BTS from their own predictive tools. I firmly believe that every intuitive person has a different perspective to offer, and perhaps if I can aggregate not just my own readings but those of people who don’t wish to suffer through the drama of running a controversial prediction account I can shed some light on a more fuller picture. Since not all info is appropriate to post, I welcome questions from readers who have seen the crazy things going on inside BTS and BH right now and yes that brings me to the infamous WOMAN.

So first I have to mention @btstarot again because she has said she has done a reading about a mystery woman currently affecting the group but she has given really no details, only promising to post the two readings she has already completed very soon.

I struggled with the timing of making this blog. Should I wait until she posts the big reveal that we’re all waiting for? Or would it be better to post something now, AFTER she claims to have already done her reading, so that we can help confirm the details we are both getting on her. The truth is, this woman is the very reason I approached her account in the first place. I saw her coming into the picture more heavily around this time about a month ago but the details were so insane I barely believed them. So I thought messaging her privately would allow me to confirm what I’d seen with a reader I trusted just because I myself couldn’t trust my own info it was so strange. Well, she made her feelings known by blocking me and I fully respect that. Obviously I should have gone deeper into her history to see she claims not to like to discuss the boys love lives. That was my mistake.

Well, I can understand that but this is different. This woman isn’t just a love interest, she’s a catalyst for a huge change in the company dynamic. She only has a relationship with one member and the details are strange so I’m still sussing them out but I think talking about this relationship is about more than just shipping gossip. It’s a relationship that going to bring the horrible things the entire group has had to endure for years up to the surface and it’s going to expose the horrors hidden between the lines of their slave contracts. What the member has been through to simply ATTEMPT to be in a relationship with her despite the company trying to maintain it’s iron tight control over him is astounding. And the biggest reason I feel comfortable going public with these predictions is that the member himself has internally decided to begin speaking out as best he can. He’s just very limited with how he can currently express himself.

Now, as I said I really debated whether or not I should post my reading on this woman now since @btstarot has one in the works, but after thinking about it I believe this is the best way to see if the readings she has already completed match the info I’ve been getting for weeks. The things is, I literally do not where to start with this girl other than basic info which I’ve narrowed down to this:

1. I believe she is an American citizen and has lived there her whole life. I can’t possibly know her full genetic background but she LOOKS very very very fair colored which indicates probably mostly white if not 100% caucasian. And I do not believe she speaks any language other than English.

2. She is 25-26 years old, but I believe her connection is to one of the younger members.

3. She is the daughter of a prominent farming family from the south. Possibly an agricultural heiress. I do not know why this specific detail keeps coming up other than a clue as to perhaps how she first came in contact with the member. This also explains why I can’t get a good reading on her career other than future business aspirations.

Beyond these details are many strange pieces of info I would love to discuss with others who read cards or make predictions and perhaps together we can suss out a picture of who this woman really is and how her relationship with this member will bring a positive change to the boys’ current situation. So while I anxiously await the readings from the @btstarot I will open up this blog for any and all questions about this woman and what the cards have told me about the events of this weekend which caused a disturbance just before the show in Seoul. I am not here to contradict anyones predictions or theories mind you, I just want a place where I can connect with others with different opinions and perspectives and together (along with the strides @btstarot has already taken, and hats off to her) I believe we can bring to light a side of the industry that is currently suffocating a grown adult’s right to make his own decisions. If my readings turn out to be confirmed by others then I will publicly aggregate the findings here, and my heart will go out to the members negatively affected by the chaos that possibly occurred on the 20th and was just barely covered up by the company in time before there could be a scandal.

[madara-fate]

Now that Darling in the Franxx is over, could you rank the characters from least to most favorite and why? as well as your opinions about the endgames.

I guess I’ll just stick to the characters from the main group. In which case:

10. Miku - She definitely had the least focus out of all of them and I therefore had the least reason to really care much about her. During the few times where she did get some attention, she didn’t really resonate with me. She just seemed like the typical tsundere with pigtails, and that’s unfortunate considering how a certain other girl with pigtails from an earlier anime by Studio Trigger…

Was by far the best thing about the show, bar none. Nico was absolutely amazing in Kiznaiver (and not just because of how adorable she was!!!), and Miku just kinda disappointed me in comparison. 

9. Futoshi - I had nothing to really say about him prior to episode 11, and then during said episode he annoyed me with his possessive clingyness and his primitive ideals about how the worst thing a man could possibly do is to hurt a girl because that’s just completely untrue, and overly chivalrous sentiments such as this just annoy me, but I digress. He showed a lot of growth following this, but I just wish we got to see more of him and Ikuno interacting as partners, because they weren’t ever really depicted as “partners”, but more like two people who just happened to operate the same FranXX. That was rather disappointing, because I feel like two people who were as different as Ikuno and Futoshi could have made for a very interesting dynamic.

8. Hiro - I won’t call him bland, but I just didn’t find him interesting at all. He had a few good quotes here and there, with perhaps one of my favourite quotes in the whole show coming in episode 21 where Hiro said “I don’t live to fight anymore, I’m going to fight to live”. That was a very good line for him and was very applicable to all of them. But overall I just found Hiro to be rather “meh”.

7. Kokoro - I liked how as the show went on, she grew out of her shell and stopped hiding behind a smiling face that just went along with whatever her peers desired. She began to be more assertive, both in regards to voicing her opinions and in her romantic advances towards Mitsuru (a lot of which was actually influenced by him from their talks in the greenhouse), and this was nice to see. She obviously didn’t go about voicing her desire to partner with Mitsuru in the best way because she broke her promise with Futoshi in the process, but she acknowledged this and didn’t make excuses for her actions, which was commendable. She followed her heart and actively went after what she wanted, which in itself is admirable considering how they were brought up.

6. Ichigo - She was a character that intrigued me because I was always interested to see how she’d react to certain situations. I found her to be a good balance; she wasn’t the standard tsundere like Miku, she wasn’t the standard “waifu” like Kokoro, and she wasn’t quiet and reserved like Ikuno. I found this balance to be very appealing, and I think this balance of her character was what made her a good leader. She obviously made a few mistakes during episode 14, but what transpired during said episode was every bit Hiro and Zero Two’s fault as it was her’s, and her actions were very understandable under the circumstances, so I never held any sort of grudge. Besides, she then demonstrated a lot of character in the ensuing episodes, so it’s all good.

5. Zero Two - She was the character that added the “spice” to the series, which is always a plus in my book. She was unpredictable and captivating, which always made for high quality viewing and entertainment, and she ticked the box which I always find the most important when determining how much I like a character - their ability to retain my interest and attention. There were instances in which she irritated me though, such as in episode 14 where rather than simply clarifying to Ichigo that her outlook on Hiro had changed after discovering that he was the darling from her past, she instead decided to continue acting like she didn’t care and that Hiro was still expendable to her, which was what caused Ichigo to act obnoxiously stubborn in the first place:

That was utterly stupid on her part… But I digress. Zero Two was undoubtedly the heart and soul of the show. She made the show what it was.

4. Zorome - Towards the beginning of the show, I never would have imagined that he and Mitsuru would end up becoming two of my favourite characters, because they were both such pricks, lol. But I guess character development is a great thing eh? Like Miku, he didn’t really get too much focus, but unlike Miku, the focus that he did get resonated with me very much. Once you get past the brash exterior, you can see how much of a caring person he can be, with a good example being when he shed tears for Futoshi because he was so worried about his friend’s health in episode 16. I really wish that his fascination with being an adult could have been explored further, because episode 10 was very interesting. His conversation with the unnamed elderly woman caught my attention greatly, not least because Zorome found her to be inexplicably familiar. Alas, this was never really touched upon again, which is a shame. That plot point had a lot of potential.

3. Ikuno - With her, I always felt that there was so much more to her beneath that stoic facade, but as the episodes went by I felt that it grew increasingly less likely that she’d reach the potential that she had as a character. Thankfully, the 2nd half of the show showcased Ikuno in a really powerful fashion. Her confession to Ichigo was so well done because the manner in which she explained herself was just so understandable, saying things like how frustrated she felt that the boys were able to ride with her just because of their gender, which is something she could obviously do nothing about. I just found myself nodding the entire way through, and following this, she undoubtedly became one of the MVPs of the group. I don’t think the importance of the research that she conducted following Hiro and Zero Two’s separation from the group can be stressed enough. Hopefully she spent the remainder of her days happy with Naomi by her side, it’d be no less than she deserves.

2. Goro - If there was ever a character who remained consistently great throughout the entire duration of a show, Goro would be up there. He and Ikuno were the only two characters who never annoyed me once throughout the whole show, not even a little bit. But what puts Goro above Ikuno for me was that he was a great character from start to finish, whereas Ikuno took a while to get there. There wasn’t much development to speak of with him, but when you start off great, then this isn’t exactly a requirement. He was the constant voice of reason for the group; he was that safety net which assured you that no matter how mental the group may act, Goro would always be there to bring them back down to earth, and I really appreciated that. 

1. Mitsuru - This guy was development personified, seriously. His transformation from the difficult and pompous person he was at the beginning, to the kind and compassionate person he became later on was astounding :

It was essentially like watching two completely different characters. A lot of his development can be owed to Kokoro, because much like how he helped her break out of her shell by influencing her to speak her mind and become more assertive, she helped him recover from his self loathing as a pilot, and through her unwavering belief in him, he was able to regain the belief in himself. And in doing so, his conceited attitude began to wane, and in it’s place emerged a bundle of fluff who would become “Papa No.1″.

As for the endgames, the pairings were to be expected. I couldn’t be certain of whether a relationship would be canonised between the Goro-Ichigo-Ikuno triangle, but I have no issues with the conclusion.

The reincarnation thing with Hiro and Zero Two understandably caused a lot of controversy but I had no real problems with it to be honest. Maybe because I had already resigned myself to accepting the likelihood that the two of them wouldn’t be getting the standard “happy” ending, long before episode 24. This made it a lot easier for me to accept the ending for what it was, and appreciate the journey that all of them had gone through during the course of the show:

Still though, even without Hiro and Zero Two’s story concluding in a standard happy ending, they were at least able to have a second chance to spend their lives together in peace and happiness, without the hindrances that came with being nurtured in a dystopian state where you’re bred to pilot and nothing more.

[supercantaloupe]

gotta say, of all the controversy and hate that sprang up among the new musical nominess for the 2017 tony awards, this past year overall was just a really really good year for new shows. everything was about hope and kindness and seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

dear evan hansen’s message is, obviously, “you will be found”, “you are not alone,” etc. groundhog day is about learning to enjoy life and appreciating the fact that we can’t know or control anything. come from away is about kindness and caring and hospitality in the face of intense tragedy. and great comet is about finding your place, how the little things can make you satisfied and fulfilled, and life goes on. (or something like that. im basing that conclusion mostly on pierre’s ultimate reflection in the finale.) if you open your consideration up to those shows which didn’t get nominations, consider in transit or a bronx tale. and that’s not even mentioning amelie - a show whose entire story revolves around a woman doing anonymous good deeds for strangers.

on another note, 3 out of 4 of the best musical nominees featured main characters visibly and objectively living with acute mental illness (deh, great comet, and ghd). 

furthermore, how innovative was this season anyway? dear evan hansen and in transit were (to my knowledge) the only truly original shows of the season, and that’s not a lot, but it’s still more than some seasons, since so many shows now are adaptations. in transit was the first all-a cappella broadway musical, which is just astounding. (it also featured a creative team of 4 who equally cooperated to write the book and music together.) dear evan hansen marks one of the first times a show with a 2010s pop score made it big on broadway, and look at its impact. great comet, just like hamilton, pushed the freakin boundaries as to what a musical should sound like, seamlessly incorporating all kinds of music styles, creating a sung-through pop opera of sorts, and, hell, it didn’t even rhyme. i can’t tell the last time a show didn’t have any kind of standard rhyme scheme. come from away introduced new genres to the broadway stage, folk music from a part of the world that’s never really been shown in limelight before, with authentic instruments and even authentic accents from actual newfoundlanders in the cast. and while groundhog day didn’t have the newest-sounding score out there, its use of repetition beautifully reflects the themes of the show and all of its songs still have a unique sound to them compared to each other. this year’s round of soundtracks have provided some of the most beautiful and poignant melodies to come out of broadway in a long time, in my opinion (favorites of mine have to include “there will be sun,” “prayer,” “no one else,” “times are hard for dreamers,” and “so big/so small”)

plus, how diverse were all the shows this year? great comet’s huge ensemble was in large parts actors of color and featured same sex couples numerous times on stage. in transit as well had a colorful cast and one of its plotlines focuses on an interracial gay couple. part of a bronx tale’s story is about an interracial couple in new york. come from away has been praised for its cast, which reflects the diversity of the people actually reflected in the events depicted in its story (including people from east africa, egypt, europe, and india; cfa also has a gay couple among its eclectic cast of characters).

all the hate and arguing makes me sad. i feel like people don’t take enough time to appreciate just how beautiful and meaningful this season really was, disregarding who won which awards and who deserved them more.