#its focused on other characters from the show !!

[jane-asmo]

Why I think Caitlyn didn’t ask Vi for forgiveness

(Thank 'anons' for your messages. I’ll try to respond to you through this text: )

The importance of Caitlyn’s “I know”

A key moment in Caitlyn’s character narrative is her “I know”—both its content and delivery.

The content: When Caitlyn says, “I know,” it doesn’t just mean “You��re right.” It means, “I’ve taken the time to think about this.” And thinking is what Caitlyn does best. Her “I know” conveys that she has already had this conversation with herself, over and over in her head. She’s thought about it constantly, she’s already told herself these things, and she’s already blamed herself for them.

The delivery: She screams it with violence, and we can see this represented by the boat falling apart. It’s not just that she has thought about it; it’s tormenting her. Her “I know” is incredibly powerful because it’s filled with suffering.

To me, this is as valid as an apology because asking for forgiveness is outward-facing—focused on the other person. "Asking for forgiveness" says, “Whether I’ve forgiven myself or not, whether I feel guilty or not, it’s on you to decide to forgive me.”

But here, Caitlyn’s “I know” is inward-facing. It means, “I’m not asking you to forgive me because I can’t even forgive myself.”

She knows everything you’re saying, and it torments her.

This is followed by:

"I didn’t even have time to think before they hauled her off."

This line is so telling. Everything about Caitlyn is tied to thinking and reflection.

Being a sniper means aiming and shooting. Aiming is the equivalent of thinking, and shooting is the equivalent of speaking. Everything Caitlyn does is deliberate and thought through.

This is why some people dislike her: as I’ve said before, unlike other characters, Caitlyn’s actions can’t be forgiven easily because she doesn’t do anything by accident.

Then we get to:

"We can’t erase our mistakes. None of us."

Caitlyn speak in “we.”

In the prison scene with Jinx:

"No amount of good deeds can undo our crimes."

This scene mirrors the rage she felt when she threw the boat. In this moment, she’s speaking to Jinx, but also to herself.

Caitlyn and Jinx are paralleled so many times throughout the show. Caitlyn quickly realized that, in some ways, she had become like Jinx. And so, in order to forgive Jinx, she would first have to forgive herself.

At this point in the episode, the person Caitlyn hates the most is herself.

But she no longer has the "energy" to hate, neither Jinx nor herself.

Energy comes from fuel. What she perceives as a lack of strength to keep fighting is simply the fact that the fuel that powered her hatred has disappeared. And when you stop feeding a fire, it eventually dies out. She has no energy left; she has no fuel to sustain her hatred.

It's a particular way of saying, I don’t hate you anymore, and I don’t want to hate myself anymore either, because in the end, that hatred corrupts us/everything .

In her own unique way, Jinx also says, I didn’t know your mother was there, even if it wouldn’t have changed anything. And this too is a strange way of taking a step toward the other.

We have two brilliant and intelligent women who express their emotions in unconventional ways. ----------

There’s also a whole analysis that could be done about her concept of justice and rules, "but I don’t have the energy" to dive into that here. Still, it would only lead back to the fact that Caitlyn doesn’t see herself as the right person to free Jinx (and therefore to forgive her) because she believes she herself is beyond forgiveness.

[bumblingbabooshka]

When the only person who might understand what happened- understand. Not sympathize or empathize or comfort you but understand what happened, isn't there anymore. Or: 'A Man Made Me Do Something I Didn't Want To', for when you can't talk about it or look it in the eye [Patreon | Commissions]

[respectthepetty]

Spare Me Your Mercy Thoughts

I have waited almost four years for this show since MDL made a placeholder for Euthanasia in early-2021, and now that it is here, I'm going to gush about all the ways I love it!

Just like a few of Dr. Sammon's other shows airing around the holidays (Manner of Death, Dead Friend Forever, and Petrichor), I'm thankful I got the first episode of Spare Me Your Mercy on Thanksgiving and the last will come on Christmas because this is the exact show I need for the holiday season since it began the entire series with Tew, the cop, having to perform euthanasia on an animal.

I grew up and still live in a rural area where cattle far outnumber the actual folks, so I fully understand euthanasia is a good death as the word implies, so I will not be struggling through the premise of this show, and I have faith the show won't either because when Tew fired the gun, the scene was peaceful.

And the show is making some pointed remarks about how things operate outside of bigger cities since Kan specifically mentioned he has about 2,500 patients. When the other officer asked the nurses if Kan had a long queue, they didn't even respond. Kan also clarified that his specialty is palliative care, so he has to monitor a wide range of long-term illnesses, so even though Tew might actually be from this place, he is now the outsider and out of his depth before he even started.

Sidenote: I cannot be mad at a nurse, even if one of them turns out bad because the way they all protect Kan from the police is the teamwork I love to see.

The red light to notify the office the doctor is seeing a patient coming on right after Kan responded to the nurse that it wasn't a murder case yet was perfection.

I already knew Kan was going to be my favorite character, but Tor is doing amazing showing the layers Kan has, as expected. Kan tells Tor he can cry and shows him kindness, but when pushed, Kan makes small digs about how people should spend the last moments of someone's life cherishing them when rudely questioned by Tew regarding the unexpected deaths knowing Tew did not get to see his mother before she died. He also made a subtle display of knowing where things were located in the house because he is in control.

The way he slid his LINE information into the conversation AFTER indirectly telling Tew he was being emotional due to his grief is why I'm excited to see another version of Manner of Death's Tan. Kan probably does like Tew but he stays focused and calculated.

He is terrifying without there being any concrete detail to pinpoint on why he is scary. Som, while describing people being possessed by evil murderous spirits, was terrified of Kan, and the transition from Som telling his story to Kan appearing at the exact moment Som was going to state what human form the evil spirits take was brilliant.

But what's even more terrifying is the treatment of the terminally ill. They are viewed as a burden, locked away, and isolated.

And Tew witnessed it. He got a glimpse of what Kan sees daily, so the show is already building up a case in defense of Kan's actions. If he is performing euthanasia, Tew could understand. He heard the goat's bell. He knew it was still alive, but he decided to end its suffering, cleanly and swiftly, which is what euthanasia is. He saw that man left behind by his family and even moved to go get him. And he was bothered when the man's daughter stated her reasoning for leaving him out there alone.

He also stopped Kan from continuing to question Som. Therefore, the true conflict has been set. Tew, whose job is to discover the truth, doesn't need it if it causes pain, but Kan's entire job is making pain manageable.

And I always want to trust a woman, but as suspicious as the director is being about everything, babygirl would be the perfect person to attempt euthanasia since the dead would end up on her table where she could claim the death was the result of the illness.

Because euthanasia is a good death.

And this ain't it.

He understands that.

But someone doesn't.

[princesssarisa]

I just came across a YouTube video complaining about the changes made to the musical of Wicked from the original book.

One of its main arguments is that in the musical, Glinda is too easily forgiven – both by Elphaba and by the show's narrative – for working with the Wizard, not to mention the other morally questionable things she does.

Now, I haven't read the book, or analyzed every word of the musical's script and lyrics, but I'm not sure if I agree with that claim or not.

I agree with what @cto10121 has written in the past, that maybe the musical focuses too much on Glinda when it's supposed to be Elphaba's story, but I don't think the show glosses over Glinda's flaws or bad decisions. I've always thought she was a very morally gray character who has a redemption arc in the end. And she most definitely pays a hard price for her mistakes, ending up in power but all alone on a personal level, thinking the two people she loved most are dead because of her.

But just from scrolling a little on both Tumblr and YouTube, I think the musical's fandom might idealize Glinda, whether the musical itself does or not. I don't know how widespread it is, but I've definitely felt as if the fandom idealizes her entire relationship with Elphaba, and they do leap to defend her whenever someone misguidedly calls her "the real wicked witch"... sometimes with defenses I don't buy.

Again, again, and again, I've heard people say "The message is that there are two sides to every story and no one is all good or all bad."

(Which of course is true to an extent, but which IMHO, paints false moral equivalency between Elphaba's side of the story and both Glinda's and the Wizard's.)

I've also seen "The whole point is that Elphaba starts out as the heroine while Glinda starts out as a mean girl, but Glinda becomes a better person while Elphaba becomes a worse person over the course of the story, until they become the characters we know from The Wizard of Oz. Ultimately Glinda is the more heroic one."

(That's... not quite the way I would describe their arcs.)

And, most thought-provokingly of all, I've seen this:

"Glinda deserves more respect for her intelligence. At first we're made to think she's a dumb blonde, but it turns out that she's very clever and shrewd, and her claim that a good image is what matters most in society turns out to be totally right. It's by working within the system and pleasing the Wizard and the people of Oz that Glinda gains power, which lets her oust the Wizard and Morrible in the end, while Elphaba's rebellion crashes and burns."

Even if part of the show's message is "Society values a good image more than real merit or truth," aren't we meant to view that fact as a bad thing that needs to change, rather than admiring Glinda for knowing it all along and benefitting from it?

This reminds me of commentary I've read about Amy March from Little Women. A character who has a lot in common with Glinda in some ways, though without the political aspect. I like Amy and I don't think she deserves the hate she traditionally gets from Jo fans, but some attempts to defend her annoy me. Namely the fans who praise her for conforming to society better than Jo does: i.e. "Amy is the smartest, most mature March sister because she knows how to please her social betters and make the system work in her favor – unlike Jo, whose rebellious ways get her nowhere and who needs to learn to be a proper docile lady for her own good." Again, I like Amy as a character, but as a neurodivergent feminist who relates to Jo's independence and her failure to conform, I don't like that talk.

And Amy doesn't serve a fascist regime.

I'd like to know what bigger Wicked fans than I am think of all this. Does the show absolve Glinda too much, or if not, does the fandom? Or do both the show and fandom have a more-or-less accurate view of both her flaws and her virtues?

[tenpintsof-sundrop]

It's so interesting to me how there is far less argument about how good or bad Brenton's Dick Grayson was compared to Curran's Jason Todd, even though they both have the same level of "OOCness" and distance from the comic book canon.

If anything, I would argue that Titans Jason captures way more of an essence of pure Jason Todd with pieces from the comics and other portrayals combined, while Dick is distanced so far from the charming, sweet, socially adept playboy character that he is supposed to be and replaced with an emotionally stunted socially isolated brooding stranger - which seems way more like a lot of fanboys' OC versions of Bruce Wayne than anything actually resembling the emotionally mature, charming, clever, witty Dick Grayson.

And it genuinely feels like people only insist on harping that Curran is a bad Jason because of the most surface level traits - the fact that he doesn't look like the muscled hulked out Jason that they expect to see from the comics, focusing so hard on the male comic book hero image that they completely disregard the amazing raw talent and emotion that he brings to the character. But very few people complain about Brenton as Dick because he is incredibly conventionally attractive and meets male beauty standards much better, and he looks much more like a comics Dick Grayson should. (Not to mention the fact that most people disregard the adaptation at its core because Starfire and Beast Boy don't look like their comic book counterparts and yeah.... that's definitely not racist at all.)

Anyway - I just find it frustrating that of all the aspects of the show, people want to continually shit on Jason - when he is one of the best versions of Jason played by the best (most passionate) actor for the job. And Titans has the best, most well thought out versions of Hawk and Dove and Gar Logan. I will always appreciate people more when they watch the show and complain about it's actual flaws vs people who are complaining about it when they have clearly never watched it before

[cripplecharacters]

one of the main characters of my story is Deaf, and because the story is set in a very small town, he doesn't really have any chance to connect with Deaf culture, so should i change that?

his parents are divorced, and he used to live with his mum, who's also Deaf, but has been living with his hearing dad for a while now in this small town. the story kind of focuses on a theme of isolation in small towns, so my current plan is to show how he's isolated from the rest of the town because they don't bother to learn sign language to communicate with him. the other main character, is his best friend, has learned sign language, so he can communicate with her and his dad (there's some other people who know very basic signs but aren't really putting in the effort if that makes sense)

is it better if i acknowledge that living in this very small, isolated town means that he is cut off from Deaf culture (especially compared to when he used to live with his mum) and ergo doesn't really fit into the rest of the town. i want to make it clear that it's on the town for expecting him to assimilate and not use sign language, all because they don't want to learn yk?

any advice in this is appreciated!!!

Hi!

Why doesn't he live with his mom anymore? Is there times he can go back to her and the Deaf community he (presumably) has there?

Also consider when this story is set. If it's modern day, there are so many ways to connect to people online, so he wouldn't be entirely cut off from his community.

The thing about small towns is people will know him, as the Deaf person. Consider what that attitude will be like. Will people be understanding and know, even if they're not willing to learn sign, to get out a pencil and paper for him? Or will the attitude be more condescending, infantilizing, or unwilling to accommodate in any way?

Another thing to consider in small towns is access to accessibility resources. Is he able to get interpreters? Are they qualified? If he can't access qualified interpreters, what accommodations is he being provided?

Community is important, and especially depending on these factors, your character will react differently. If he genuinely cannot connect with anyone else in his town, what are the consequences? Is he depressed? Does he seek out online community? etc.

I'd also like you to consider: why are you isolating your Deaf character? Deafness in a hearing setting on its own can be a huge isolator, without even factoring in the "small town with no other signers" part. Is there a reason he's been separated from his community?

You don't necessarily have to change your story, but there are several more aspects you should consider to figure out exactly how your Deaf character goes through his daily life.

Mod Rock

[wizardlybullshit]

Ok hear me out: Smallville rpg. Now I know what you're thinking, a licenced rpg where all the art is screen shots of the show, its clearly a quick cash grab on name recognition alone. It looks terrible, I know. But its actually one of the best drama systems I've played. See its secretly the core book for cortex + drama; for whatever reason cortex + doesn't release non specific rules, and sadly the Smallville licence is the only one they made that runs on drama.

So cortex + drama works by first making a big relationship web as part of character creation. Everyone goes through a flow chart step by step, taking turns around the table, and draws one or two nodes on a big map and connects them to existing nodes while giving themselves a corresponding point or two on their character sheet. Even if you're not running cortex + drama, I recommend stealing the character web thing for any rpg built around a tight interlinked cast, like a politics focused vampire the masquerade for example.

So once you've got your characters built, everything you do mechanically is built on a dice pool that is assembled primarily of a value and a relationship, based on why you're doing a thing and with/to whom. These are rated based on how strongly you feel these feelings, regardless of their quality. As well, everything has a short description that provides context; if your action doesn't match the context of the relationship/value you can't use that thing and thus you can't use those dice. However, you can "challenge" a relationship or value, rewriting the context as you do, and this provides a big mechanical boost to the roll and extra xp later. Thus you are mechanically incentivised to feel strongly, and possibly incorrectly, and change your character’s outlook as you grow.

In addition to all this, the publishers have provided a fantastic book called the cortex + hackers guide. Its a series of articles all about how to change the rules; it includes everything from authors notes as to why the rules are the way they are, small rules changes, articles on the state of the game, even huge overhauls that are practically new small games by themselves complete with worked examples. In this book are a couple different examples of using cortex + drama for fantasy, so you don't have to worry about stripping out all the cw teen superhero by yourself.

There are a bunch of other games I've heard of, but this one I've played and can vouch for it being a good example of a fantasy game that strongly incentivises building (admittedly volatile) relationships with the npcs and pcs around you.

out of curiosity, do you know of any games you’d consider legitimate ‘elf-kissing games?’ you know, high fantasy games that engender drama with mechanically explicit/reinforced relationship building systems?

besides d&d, of course. /s

Sadly I haven't found a perfect example of such a game: to me Monsterhearts is the best example of a TTRPG that centers romance and it is a perfect urban fantasy teenage monster romance game, but that disqualifies it on account of it not being high fantasy. Also, Monsterhearts' mechanics are very much about melodrama and like very petty, jealous, teenage romance, so it would not be the best for it.

Anyway, high fantasy intersects a bit with chivalric romances, and for that there's nothing better than Pendragon, a game of Arthurian chivalry in a setting that resolves the ahistoricity of Arthuriana by saying "well, Arthur was such a special guy that chivalry basically was real during his reign as king of Britain." It owns. Anyway, the game has actual mechanics for measuring characters' spiritual attributes, including their Passions, which covers things like strong feelings of hatred and love, so in that sense developing romantic feelings is mechanized and rewarded. Now, while knights doing quests is an important part of the gameplay, the game basically rewards characters for simply doing chivalric things, which means that besides doing quests knights are explicitly rewarded with Glory (the game's big reward currency) for engaging in romantic trysts. But sadly it isn't quite there because it is very heavily tied to a place and time, and I feel just transplanting the game into a fantasy setting would be doing it a huge disservice.

Which leads me to Mythras or RuneQuest 6th edition: basically the same game under two different names (Mythras is RQ6 rereleased after the creators lost the RQ licence). I won't go into the details but RuneQuest basically is part of the same lineage as Pendragon. Or they're like separate branches of the same tree. Anyway, somewhere along the way the creators of RuneQuest decided to basically borrow the idea of Passions into RuneQuest, and they serve pretty much the same mechanical purpose. The main issue is that while there are mechanical incentives for increasing a character's Passions (which works the same as increasing any other skill or attribute) they don't exactly represent relationships, as much as they represent internal emotions. Basically, a character's Passion of Love (Target of their affections) can be entirely one-sided. That's not to say that the system can't be worked to represent developing romantic relationships, but it's a bit of extra work (having said that: Mythras/RQ6 already is something of a "some assembly required" toolkit game, unlike the more recent RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha which is a very specialized game using the same engine, it's a whole thing). Mythras/RQ6 is a very traditional type of fantasy RPG but notably one where character growth isn't simply through becoming better at combat, and combat is somewhat disincentivized by the game. So it actually is a game that does wonders for romantic fantasy.

There's also Burning Wheel, which is a fun and gritty game, which has a system not unlike Passions in its BITs (Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits), but like Mythras/RQ Passions they are internal.

So I have yet to find the perfect elf-kissing game for myself, but if I had to choose I would personally pick Mythras: it is a very trad type of game concerned with verisimilitude above all else, but it has just enough tools for providing some mechanical grit to romantic relationships. In fact, when I first started reading it one of the first things I realized was "I would so much rather use this to run romantic fantasy than Blue Rose" (a romantic fantasy RPG powered by the Fantasy AGE system which suffers from the Fantasy AGE issue of ultimately being a D&D ass game with some light relationship mechanics on top).

Now having said all of that: there are hundreds of games out there that center romance, which I haven't mentioned here either because I'm not familiar enough with them or because they are not specifically high fantasy. But let me just rattle off a couple of those that I would love to play at some point: Star Crossed. Court of Blades. Eyes on the Prize. Heck, looking some more at the blurb of Court of Blades, it might actually be perfect for this ask, even though it is also like a general courtly intrigue game. Anyway, hope that's something.

[wa3jetisbestpony]

revstar fans we need to put on the best talent show this towns ever seen and save ReLive!!

[usercelestial]

okay i do have faith in the bucktommy fandom at large and especially i have faith in the people that i follow but i do just wanna say that we all have to promise to be normal if/when buck gets another love interests or ends up with someone else. like if it's not tommy and it's not eddie, then we have to promise not to be terrible the way antis were terrible to us. like im not saying grr you have to like it, criticize the story all you want, criticize the writers for their biphobia, their lazy writing, etc. but i really hope we can all continue to be normal about buck possibly dating other people and giving the love interest a fair chance

[rahabs]

The Tudors ran so Wulf Hall could shuffle awkwardly around reiterating the same tired old Tudor stereotypes while claiming to be something new.

[cutemeat]

Why do people not want Rob in the writers room this up coming season?

idk i just think rob needs to take a step back from the writing sunny for a little while Lol... in the same way Glenn needed a break from it for a bit yknow

[nyaifyz]

guys ive been working on murder drones swap au is anyone interested i am working very hard on it and

[read that in a sad soggy kitten voice because I have social anxiety and fear ppl wont like my silly ideas]

[lottieurl]

here's. a thing. to consider. van was originally gonna die in the wolf attack i think?? cause i know they just kept the chatacter cause they liked liv that much (meaning that would be a wilderness death and an s1 death). and i gotta ask. like completely honestly and genuinely how interesting would van as a character be if she did die during wolf attack

[the-hilda-librarians-wife]

I've come to the conclusion that when it comes to new characters I have the same attitude as a poorly socialized dog. I swear every time new content comes around and we get the news of new characters my instant reaction is to just. Dislike them. Hope they have little to no importance in the plot. Even when the design looks nice and the characters seem interesting. They're taking screen time away from my faves and my heart tells me to Bite

[trainingdummyrabbit]

uuouhgg. i miss. imdigo... orz

[thirtyskeletons]

damn. ofmd season 2 kind of completely sucked compared to season 1