#its not even a very articulate point in AT itself

[chikinan]

man fionna and cake really fucked up so much. as fun as The Star was, I can't stop thinking about how much of a disservice to Marceline it was to imply she grew up kind because of Simon of all things. Dude, he left. She hunted the vampires down because she was fucked up about it. As an adult she was still fucked up because of the whole thing. the vampires weren't even evil. that was a whole point.

[thydungeongal]

There's this idea floating around the general TTRPG space that's kind of hard to put one's finger on which I think is best articulated as "the purpose of an RPG is to produce a conventionally shaped satisfying narrative," and in this context I mean RPG as not just the game as it exists in the book but the act of play itself.

And this isn't exactly a new thing: since time immemorial people have tried to force TTRPGs to produce traditional narratives for them, often to be disappointed. I also feel this was behind a lot of the discussion that emerged from the Forge and that informed the first "narrativist" RPGs (I'm only using the word here as a shorthand: I don't think the GNS taxonomy is very useful as more than a shibboleth): that at least for some TTRPGs the creation of a story was the primary goal (heck, some of them even called themselves Storytelling games), but since those games when played as written actually ended up resisting narrative convention they were on some level dysfunctional for that purpose.

There's some truth to this but also a lot of nuance: when you get down to the roots of the hobby, the purpose of a game of D&D wasn't the production of a narrative. It was to imagine a guy and put that guy in situations, as primarily a game that challenged the player. The production of a narrative was secondary and entirely emergent.

But in the eighties you basically get the first generation of players without the background from wargames, whose impressions of RPGs aren't colored by the assumption that "it's kind of like a wargame but you only control one guy." And you start getting lots of RPGs, some of which specifically try to model specific types of stories. But because the medium is still new the tools used to achieve those stories are sometimes inelegant (even though people see the potential for telling lots of stories using the medium, they are still largely letting their designs be informed by the "wargame where you only control one guy" types of game) and players and designers alike start to realize that these systems need a bit of help to nudge the games in the direction of a satisfying narrative. Games start having lots of advice not only from the point of view of the administrative point of view of refereeing a game, but also from the point of view of treating the GM as a storyteller whose purpose is to sometimes give the rules a bit of a nudge to make the story go a certain way. What you ultimately get is Vampire: the Masquerade, which while a paradigm shift for its time is still ultimately a D&D ass game that wants to be used for the sake of telling a conventional narrative, so you get a lot of explicit advice to ignore the systems when they don't produce a satisfying story.

Anyway, the point is that in some games the production of a satisfying narrative isn't a primary design goal even when the game itself tries to portray itself as such.

But what you also get is this idea that since the production of a satisfying narrative is seen as the goal of these games (even though it isn't necessarily so), if a game (as in the act of play) doesn't produce a satisfying narrative, then the game itself must be somehow dysfunctional.

A lot of people are willing to blame this on players: the GM isn't doing enough work, a good GM can tell a good story with any system, your players aren't engaging with the game properly, your players are bad if they don't see the point in telling a greater story. When the real culprit might actually be the game system itself, or rather a misalignment between the group's desired fiction and the type of fiction that the game produces. And when players end up misidentifying what is actually an issue their group has with the system as a player issue, you end up with unhappy players fighting against the type of narrative the game itself wants to tell.

I don't think an RPG is dysfunctional even if it doesn't produce a conventionally shaped, satisfying narrative, because while I do think the act of play inevitably ends up creating an emergent narrative, that emergent narrative conforming to conventions of storytelling isn't always the primary goal of play. Conversely, a game whose systems have been built to facilitate the production of a narrative that conforms to conventions of storytelling or emulates some genre well is also hella good. But regardless, there's a lot to be said for playing games the way the games themselves present themselves as.

Your traditional challenge-based dungeon game might not produce a conventionally satisfying narrative and that's okay and it's not your or any of your players' fault. The production of a conventionally satisfying narrative as an emergent function of play was never a design goal when that challenge-based dungeon game was being made.

[saturnsbabyboii]

𐐪𐑂Astro Observations𐐪𐑂

｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡

(Life is like a butterfly...You go through changes before you become something beautiful)

｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡

𐐪𐑂 Despite people talking negatively about Pluto and Saturn, I find them to be the most important and beautiful planets. If you have ever felt hopeless or stuck, look into the position of these two in your chart. All of us struggle regardless, however, Saturn and Pluto bestow us with insight, lessons and knowledge we gain through that struggle and as a result we get to move on further into our journey.

𐐪𐑂 I have found people with earlier degrees on their ascendent tend to have larger frames while those later tend to have smaller ones. I am not talking specifically about weight and measurements per se but rather the general form.

𐐪𐑂 Although aspects act the same in general, it is very interesting when you look into the signs, elements and modalities involved. For example, Trine tends to bring abundance when in Water and in between inner planet but is an indication of overindulgence when it occurs from an inner planet to an outer one.

𐐪𐑂 Mercury opposite Mars "I am not angry! That is just my tone." Be mindful of how you sound and how you deliver your message. It is important to be honest, but it is also important to have tact.

𐐪𐑂 Even though people still dispute which placements determine our leaning towards extroversion and introversion, I have found that the houses and the planets falling in them suggest what are we more introverted about and what are we more extroverted in. Having multiple planets in a house could indicate a higher leaning to extroversion as the sense to express is very strong and immediate, as opposed to an empty house, one might be less inclined to share. The houses that contain only one planet tend to fall under the general energy of said planet and sign ruling over the house, indicating a higher sense of introversion as the person may desire to reflect on the themes of the house or would rather to practice them alone than with others.

𐐪𐑂 However, in case of overall introversion and extroversion, having more planets in Air houses (3rd, 7th, 11th) indicate high extroversion while in Fire houses (1st, 5th, 9th) indicate higher introversion. This may sound off as Fire signs are given the reputation of boldness, however, as the opposite of Air, Fire tend to itself. Introversion isn't anxiety and awkwardness (although it might include them), but rather it describes a person that isn't reliant on social communication, has a low need for others, desires independence, and excels on their own. Another thing, the themes of the 1st, 5th and 9th, relate to freedom, personal journey, creativity, ideologies, beliefs and the self. Meanwhile, the 3rd, 7th, and the 11th relate to unity, communication, the collective, collaboration, harmony and the "us".

𐐪𐑂 Cancer Risings give off favorite child vibes. Having Leo in the 2nd and Libra in the 4th house defiantly makes for the "golden child" trope.

𐐪𐑂 I believe that the degree of a planet has bigger affect on its core desire while the sign affects the manner that the planet translates or comes across. For example, Aries Mercury is usually is thought of as brash and abrasive or interested in things that have themes of violence and sex. However, when in an air degree this person can be much more interested in matters of communication, science, education and holds social rapport at a higher regard. The difference being that the Aries Mercury with the air degree might come across very detailed and articulate, perhaps even to the point of pretentiousness. Yet in matters of thinking they're much more thought out, factual and meticulous than the general Aries Mercury description.

𐐪𐑂 People with Chiron in the 9th house may need to leave their home country or cut off their family to begin healing.

𐐪𐑂 Every sign deep down is similar to their opposite. Aquarius desires to standout while Leo seeks to fit in and belong, Taurus enjoys today in fear of tomorrow while Scorpio wishes for a better tomorrow so they can finally enjoy their day, Capricorn works hard in hopes of creating a better home while Cancer works hard to ensure the comfort of their home, Aries seeks companionship through conflict while Libra seeks individuality through process of elimination, Virgo does practical things out of superstitious believes while Pisces engages in escapist and spiritual practices to better understand realistic demands, Gemini learns to mentor while Sagittarius mentors to learn. Granted, this is an overly simplistic form of explaining it but I hope it was able to better explain.

𐐪𐑂 Venus Aquarius not only desires but actually thrives off of creating bonds online.

𐐪𐑂 People with Jupiter in the 12th would take very long to learn life lessons. This is partly due to having to under go many cycles of self undoing and changes to finally get the lesson.

𐐪𐑂 People with Saturn in 3rd/9th may be untraditional students or enter university late or take time to graduate.

｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡

[ranticore]

someone asked me ages ago for more anatomical drawings of harpies so i deliver. the feathers are laid out in tracts and can hide a lot of detail under the contours, and the fact that the body is usually smaller than people think (and much lighter). The neck usually blends in pretty well with the body, unless the feathers are raised or the crop is full.

they do not have hands whatsoever, all manipulation of objects is done by the feet and mouth. even with their lack of hands they do not at all suffer a lack of dexterity. in the kosa region the eagle harpy flock is famous primarily for its weaving culture - weaving is so integral to their society, in fact, that they view the world itself as nothing more than a large and complex tapestry, woven by some unknown artist. this is evident in how they orient themselves in the air, referring to a tailwind as 'warp', while a crosswind is 'weft'.

these aren't like actual muscle groups or anything it's more of a drawing guide to show which areas have mass & define the form

the thing that gets me a lot about drawing birds & birdlike guys is how high up the leg can articulate, in real birds it's like pretty much in their armpit. harpies have a more humanlike torso which means more space between the rib cage and the hips, and more articulation of the spine in this area as well (though i realise now that i didn't actually draw that in any of those poses). it also means they have a more defined belly area below the pectorals/ribcage.

a king is pictured here but there's no real difference under the feathers between a king and a regular harpy, aside from kings being generally more robust and more heavily built (by harpy standards).

harpies are the descendants of humans who were cursed to be birds thousands of years ago. those humans, who aided the apocalypse, were primarily messengers and chanters, assistants of the wizards who ended the world. their relatively unmonstrous cursed form reflects their general lack of importance to the crime - petty criminals, accessories, not perpetrators. their behaviour is strongly informed by the birds they were blended with to the point where there is very little about them that's even remotely human and their cultures and societies are almost wholly birdlike.

[batboyblog]

2016 is often considered the point when leftism managed to get itself into the mainstream and became more popular, but I honestly can't help but wonder, given the sheer descent into conspiracy theory and selfish cruelty of the current state, whether in hindsight it was actually leftism's step into decline.

I've been thinking about this a lot, sadly I'm getting the start of a Migraine, so the edges of my thoughts are all fuzzy so idk if I'll be able to do what I think justice, but lets try.

The human mind doesn't really like complexity, it'd a pattern recognition machine built to find food and stuff that thinks you're food in the African brush. So we like to find patterns and lump stuff together, its hardwired in.

so "Leftism" I do understand what you mean, but I think it covers a really wide area.

and I think in politics we like to assign ideological and policy logic to things to political movements, it has to be about a coherent and rational ideology and world view we think. But... I think, often times it's emotional as much as anything. Did people vote for JFK or Reagan so much for policy as they, personally in their person, seemed to be the antidote to what was wrong in the moment? JFK seemed young and energetic when compared to an elderly and ill President Eisenhower, Reagan had the claiming aging leading man energy to make everyone feel like it'd be okay, a movie cowboy to lead us against bad guys we didn't understand while nice guy Jimmy Carter seemed stuck.

So back to 2016, I think there was so real ideology to start. The Left of the Democratic Party felt empowered after 2006, the left of the party had been against the Iraq War from the jump and that turned into the organizing issue that pushed Republicans out of power in 2006. A San Fran liberal, founding member of the House Progressive Cause was the first woman Speaker (and in favor of gay marriage too). In 2008 the Left of the party for largely emotional reasons sided with Obama over Clinton, even though they largely overlapped on policy and where there were (minor) differences she was to his left.

so riding high from two back to back wins, having gotten a lot of progressives elected to the House and Senate (like Bernie Sanders) progressive Dems were pretty let down by the real results, the ACA got bogged down and their dearest wish list item, the public option, which Pelosi fought for so hard, failed to make it into the final bill, and then 2010, a blood bath. And understandably there's been some frustration with Obama for not living up to the hype and also failing to really focus on state level races, Democrats got tarred hard

BUT! there's also an emotional side, Occupy Wall Street. I remember at the time being interested in it, I was young and more radical, but soon I got really frustrated because they had no demands, I watched every night MSNBC which was very sympathetic, but no one could articulate what it is they wanted, past a vague idea of "punish" the guilty.

I think there's a lot of restless frustration, some of it grounded and based in reality some of it not, in this country and its only grown over time as well as a contempt for and a break down of any kind of respect for experts and norms any anything established.

SO! I think that emotion latched onto Bernie and the left of the Democratic Party. As someone who worked that election I can tell you, at first knocking doors in New Hampshire, I got the taste of the very start of the campaign. And people would say "oh I'm voting for Bernie now, but I'll vote for Hillary in the general" but soon it went from friendly, from "we're pushing her to the left" to something bitter and angry. I had Bernie supporters tell me 1990s Fox News conspiracy theories around the Clintons, I had a Bernie supporter (in the general election) follow two college girl volunteers for blocks back to our office to SCREAM at us all.

Bernie won the New Hampshire Primary pretty commandingly that year, and partly because he had a strong volunteer network. But in the general despite many efforts we could barely get any of his regular volunteers to come work with us against Trump. I remember one lady who showed up just once and looked RIP SHIT! to be there, I think she said that all the positive stuff we said about Clinton, at a canvass launch for Clinton, made her "sick" and "don't expect me to say anything nice about her!" and she was one of only a tiny number of Bernie people who showed up in the general so she was better than some.

I remember the only Bernie Volunteer we got to become a regular. He'd knocked doors for months in New Hampshire for Bernie, organized his own phone bank into Nevada for their primary, drove down to South Carolina and spent the week before their primary knocking. Clearly a true believer, and when he decided to volunteer with us they kicked him out of the Facebook group he started and stopped speaking to him. I'll always remember what he said, that around the Bernie office they used to say that "a Trump voter was just a Bernie voter who hasn't been educated yet"

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, there were real motivations of the progressives and the left of the party, real policy based frustrations, particularly around how health care worked out, and I think Bernie Sanders himself was running because of that and to express that. But it tapped into something else, something not really political and much more emotional, rage and bitterness and a need to punish, the same energizes Trump taps into. It made a permission to be nasty to people you don't like, particularly women, I won't repeat the things people said on the phones, horrible.

now in 2024, almost 10 years later, there's a lot more depression mixed in, Trump talks about America as a 3rd world country all the time, there's just a vibe of having given up, hopelessness. There's a genocide and everything is horrible and hopeless and give up and die.

I don't believe in giving up, I don't believe in bitterness, I'm not a sunny person in real life, but I believe the point of politics, the politics I'm a part of, is lifting people up. It might be corny and uncool, but I believe in America, not that we're prefect, no, we're not, but together we've done great things, we fought a world war and went to the moon, and we can do great things together still always if we believe in each other, build each other up, stop being so afraid and weak and sad. I want to be beat fascism again, I want to go to the moon again, I want to beat climate change, and finally finally make the promise that all men are created equal REAL, and I don't believe in hiding behind walls, and crying that we can't do it any more, fuck that shit.

[notbecauseofvictories]

I'm still thinking about it, so---if you're a local, I highly encourage Rough House Theater's "House of the Exquisite Corpse". It's lovely, arresting, from the performances down to the smallest touches. I still can't get over the ripped umbrellas hanging upside down in dreamlike suspension from the ceiling; the way each "station" is wrapped in plywood and decorated in its own meaningful pattern and design.

But first, let me step back. "House of the Exquisite Corpse" takes its name from the old Surrealist parlor game, at the heart of which is the idea that you can collect a disparate group, then smash their ideas together and create something from the smithereens. This is something like what Rough House has done, which is pick a theme ("Superstition") and then let the artistic groups loose to create short scenes built around that theme.

(I want to call them tableaux, because watching the performances I was struck by how it felt like something out of time---as though we were 17th century courtiers in Paris ushered into a candlelit ballroom, or early 20th century farmers in Minnesota, paying our penny to see what the circus brought to town.)

The set-up itself does a wonderful job ushering you into a time-outside-of-time---you step into a space divided from the rest of the space by black sheets, chunky headsets dangling from wooden ladders suspended just over your head. The emcee is carrying a clipboard and speaks into an old-school broadcasting mic---which you can only hear if you're wearing the headsets.

It is, you'll discover, the central conceit of the performance. From there, you're directed from station to station by silent ushers, carrying flashlights so they can point you forward. Unless you are wearing the headphones at each station, you can only listen to the absent, ambient music echoing around the room.

Not only are the stations set up to wrap you in a specific soundscape, but they play with your vision too---most stations have you peer through holes or cracks in the wall, though one station had us line up in front of mirrors and watch the reflection of the performance, while another station placed shards of glass at every peephole, so you watched the scene and the character's experience of the scene in a strange double-vision. A couple of the stations used tricks of the light---strobe effects that made the puppets' movements seem even more uncanny or imply violence; a haze of smoke or fabric to disguise the human "prowling" in the puppet-shape of a tiger.

(I always like when I can tell an artist is reacting to something I've seen before, and the Rousseau "The Dream" vibes in that scene were exquisite.)

I will say that “A White Bird in the House is an Omen of Death” was my favorite, not in the least because it featured a whole choreographed song (feat. a lovely articulated owl puppet, plus some very effective shadowplay work). However, “Through the Looking Glass” was beautifully up my alley, from the unique staging---this was the station where you watched the performance in a mirror---to the creative puppetry, and a meditation on loveliness that had some bite to it. “Broken Mirror” was more traditional in its puppet work, but it also had the most elaborate staging, a fully-realized world in miniature.

I keep going back to how enormously creative so many of these artists were, in ways I simply can't ignore. “Step on a Crack” didn't necessarily work for me, but I can't stop thinking about it---its trippy setup, the inhuman knit masks the creator used; the spines dangling, neon-colored, from the nearest tree as the protagonist recited lines about loving his mother with increasing, feverish and horrible energy. The glimpses I got during “An ill fate befalls those who pluck from fruit in their dreams” of the puppeteer's face---how she shut her eyes and turned away, as though she too was affected by the puppet's horror.

[grenade-maid]

Honestly it's really telling how, despite all the sabre rattling about "rising antisemitism" in the pro Palestinian protests in statements of politicians and articles in the news, I have yet to see any of them articulate any specifics on the matter. "These protests are antisemitic", but with no explanation of how or why. Antisemitism is something specific, and has a very long history to pull from. Its many forms and permutations are well documented, from conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the media to puppeting racialized minorities into overthrowing white Western society to ancient claims of kidnapping and murdering children for ritual purposes, or even banning kosher slaughter based on baseless belief that it is savage and cruel.

The fact that, despite all this, all of these sources are incapable of pointing to any instance of these protestors enacting or perpetuating anything of the sort should be telling about how cynically the charge is being made. Over the last decade there has been a concerted effort on the part of zionists to redefine antisemitism primarily as any opposition to the state of Israel. But in this moment, I can't help but feel like this fact is being omitted because to admit that this is the defining criteria would show their hand too much, and would itself turn even more people against the zionist project. After all, if they said out loud that these protestors are antisemitic on the basis of opposing the actions of the state of Israel and nothing more, well... That's not really bigotry, is it? It's a principled stance on national policy.

They want the killing to stop. If that itself constitutes antisemitism in the eyes of zionists, their admitting as such renders the attempt to discredit protests as xenophobic completely meaningless and nakedly cynical. Much more useful, then, to just imply in nebulous terms that these are the actions of bigots, until repeating this intellectually empty phrase takes the place of argument itself.

[loveandlegacy]

the mutation must survive

singed, viktor, power, and progress

ok i said!! some while ago that i think the line 'the mutation must survive' is deeper and/or more sinister than it seems at first and talking with a few friends finally motivated me to articulate the whole. red-string board thing in my head about the themes of progress and power in arcane and specifically what singed and his estranged mentee, viktor, represent at the intersection of both.

ime most off the cuff responses take ‘the mutation must survive’ to mean something like ‘one must survive at all costs’, or that singed, the line’s speaker, believes that nature is brutal, and survival by any means necessary is always justified. i’ve always been kind of dissatisfied with that reading because there’s already a character who expresses this belief in so many words (silco), and it seems unnecessary and redundant for singed to have a world philosophy that's basically a duplicate of one of the major characters.

so what is he doing? what does ‘the mutation must survive’ mean and why is singed the one who says it? despite having quite a lot of influence on the story, singed is far from a major character, why have him say anything that feels Thematic at all?

there’s a lot going on in arcane, and conversations about power and progress recur frequently. characters approach the question of both from different positions, but the story makes the point that each begets the other. they're inextricably intertwined.

jayce, enchanted by magic, consistently reiterates that piltover should step into its destiny as the city of progress and embrace the arcane. he gets his way eventually and inadvertently creates tools of power - the atlas gauntlets and the mercury hammer - and uses them violently against the already downtrodden zaunite workers in a shimmer factory. heimerdinger opines about piltover’s legacy of progress, oblivious to the literal human cost of his idealism, and fearful of “a world that cannibalized itself over power and pride.” silco proclaims power as the avenue to revolutionary and liberatory progress.

on the fringes of these interwoven ideologies, we have singed. the story never presents him as an agent who cares about power in the same way that any other character does. granted we like have to pause here to define what 'power' is in the world of arcane, and that has a multifaceted answer. for the individuals seeking some kind of social control or liberation or domination, arcane outlines systemic power as some combination of wealth access, the ability to enact wide-scale violence without fear of retribution, and a willingness to use the first two to further one's own interest.

i imagine most people in piltover would follow heimerdinger’s example and say they don't care about having this kind of power, or that they think pursuing it is dangerous or kind of gauche, but implicitly piltover's whole existence is all about systemic control - and how power permits dominion over zaun in particular. this implicit disposition all comes out very explicitly in like. marcus. and the other enforcers and their brutality.

and then in the undercity there are varying attitudes about what to do with systemic power. vander gives up on the pursuit of power and liberation after the day of ash in the hopes that the enforcers will meet him halfway for a peace he’s never really granted. caitlyn’s statement that the people of zaun live in fear of “violent crimelords” implies that the chem barons deal in very direct acts of violence-as-power for the sake of amassing greater wealth. silco is obsessed with "real power" belonging to people who will fight for it (ie ruthlessness, the willingness to use violence and/or wealth to further his ends).

in a standout contrast to this, singed doesn't really express any interest in this type of systemic power. even in cases of violence, his behavior is framed as an almost personal interest compared to other characters. marcus, the chem barons, silco, vi, sevika, and even ekko and jinx all have intimate relationships to violence, but their intimacies are somewhat utilitarian. brutality is one act among many that a person might undertake in the interest of self defense, intimidation, protection of a loved one, or political domination. in other words, violence is a social tool and not a curiosity in and of itself.

by contrast, the story rarely confronts singed with circumstances that would require violence. he never needs to defend himself except in the one instance where silco threatens him after jinx’s shimmer infusion. and singed doesn’t physically fight with silco, he only states the obvious: that he saved jinx’s life.

he also never uses brute force to intimidate anyone. he has no loved ones to speak of, much less protect, and he never demonstrates any interest in organized violence for the sake of politics on the scale of silco’s vision or vander’s naive idealism. if anything, the story presents him as a man who was doing what he wanted to do long before he met silco and as a man who might continue to do what he wants to do with or without someone in political need of his skills. and what he wants to do could loosely be defined as scientific research but veers pretty wildly into the realm of malpractice and torture.

maybe the easiest thing to scan about singed is that he’s a solitary man with a sadistic interest in interpersonal power, primarily held over his patients and test subjects. he demonstrates some glee in condemning a cat to die by way of a shimmer-sickened mouse and he cheerfully informs jinx that the agony of her shimmer infusion will “only get worse.” so we could maybe say that violence comes easily to him, but an interest in political, social, financial, or military control is absent.

instead, he chases after progress.

out of the show's ~6.5ish hr runtime, singed has less than 10 total minutes on screen, and he spends most of that time talking about life, death, or survival ("will he live?" / "long enough"; "she's dying….the mutation must survive"; "rio will live"; "i thought you understood. the mutation must survive"; ”[shimmer] should provide everything one needs to survive a violent transition"; "i know the look of a doomed man"; "are you prepared to lose her?"; "sometimes death is a mercy"; "i saved her life").

he never abjures death and he doesn't glorify life. death is a mercy. a person can live ‘long enough’, which isn’t the same thing as living especially well. all these lines of dialogue frame him as the man who stands at the boundary between life and death and who views both things as obvious consequences of nature, equilibrium-like in their relationship if left undisturbed.

progress, though, requires one to contravene nature’s apparent life-death equilibrium, as he tells viktor repeatedly.

in his first meeting with viktor, singed describes rio as a "rare mutation that [he] cultivated" - presumably from some other genetic lineage that occurred by way of stochastic process. this selective breeding is his first intervention on life and death, on what genes are expressed and passed down through generations. he then goes on to say that rio is dying. i'm attempting to prevent that - another intervention.

everything dies, and there's no reason to believe singed takes issue with that fact in a general sense. a later scene even reveals that he isn’t trying to save rio’s life out of sentimental attachment to her, and in one of his culminating interactions, he tells silco sometimes death is a mercy, all of which suggests that even if “the mutation must survive”, survival isn’t always the better outcome for the subject in question.

looking at these two statements - ‘the mutation must survive’ and ‘sometimes death is a mercy’ - side by side, singed’s attitude highlights that there’s value in diverting what might have been the most obvious or best outcome for an organism if there's a chance the consequences will prove interesting by his metric. all well and good, if not for one problem:

nature has made us intolerant to change.

on the global level of arcane as a text, this statement seems to be true, particularly of people with access to systemic power. the piltovan council is incredibly inflexible and suspicious of change regardless of whether that change is likely to benefit them (hextech) or endanger their interests (zaun's liberation). zaun's most powerful figures, the chem barons, are similarly resistant to change. they would prefer to dispense with silco's vision for liberation because it destabilizes their present-moment interests. the underground's former leader, vander, had completely given up on the possibility of change before he died. silco even accuses him of this directly, in an observation that draws a circle around singed's point that real change is quite hard for most individual people to embrace: you'll die for the cause…but you won't fight for one.

despite his revolutionary ideology, even silco has a brittle attitude towards change. his liberatory strategy involves reproducing a violent, class-stratified regime within zaun where the chem barons comprise the ruling class in question, presumably doing as little for zaunites as the council of piltover. his aspirations are noble! but even for him, change involves retracing the boundaries of a known quantity.

whether or not change is necessarily always a good thing in arcane is a conversation of its own, but it's clearly a desirable thing to singed. after stating that an intolerance to change is common among [us], he adds: but fortunately, we have the capacity to change our nature (emphasis mine).

given this context, i think it’s worth returning to the note that power and progress are deeply intertwined in arcane, with different characters pursuing both in different ways. singed seems like an oddity at first in that he’s disinterested in systemic power but interested in progress, as outlined above. but his disinterest makes sense. his vision of progress requires a power mechanism that seems almost orthogonal to intercultural struggle. given everything described up to this point, singed’s ethics (or his cosmology, or whatever you want to call it) can be summed up as:

living things are resistant to change

change is desirable because it produces interesting, unexpected outcomes

being able to influence or alter the expected outcome of biological events is therefore also desirable, given the first two points

in this way, power and progress are not separate for singed any more than they are for any other character. but for most of the figures in arcane, power and progress have some attachment to society. through singed, certain forms of power take shape in the slippery alchemy of biology and chemistry.

shimmer is power because it drives living things off whatever course their natal biology set for them (it should provide everything one needs to survive a violent transition). genetic engineering is power because creates novelty (the mutation itself). manipulating the circumstances such that the mutation can survive (lol) is power too. arguably, creating those circumstances is the most influential force pervading all life, and the one that is most emblematic of progress: evolutionary power.

it’s easy to confound this. ‘evolution’ is pretty frequently conceptually misapplied irl in kind of shitty popsci and pseudoscientific texts. so i want to pause here and say: don’t take ‘evolutionary power’ to mean ‘the pursuit of optimization’ or ‘in search of an apotheosis’ in this case. singed doesn’t articulate an interest in specific end states for a mutation’s survival. even for rio, his interest is dispassionate. she must survive for the circular reason that he wants to know if she can survive by infusing her with the precursor to shimmer. he never opines about a subject’s teleology - that’s silco’s deal.

in other words, on the occasions where singed discusses survival, survival alone is the only qualifying criteria of interest - ‌[he’ll live] long enough; the mutation must survive; i saved her life. the quality of life for the subject or the general function of the mutation in a state of survival never comes up. when he tells viktor that shimmer should provide everything one needs to survive a violent transition, he also cautions him about the cost of said survival, implying that the other side of this rapidly-approaching event horizon might actually be the opposite of optimal.

if you take this path, they will despise you…

all this paints singed not as a man invested in the eugenic concept of survival of the fittest, but as the eerie steward of change itself. evolution drags all things along in its inexorable tide, mutations are the delimited space between what was and what will be, violent transitions are the catalysts for change, and whatever survives the fallout is the interesting data from which new truths about that change can be divined.

if you want to know what a mutation looks like on the other side of the catastrophic break between ‘before’ and ‘after’ - well. you’ll have to manipulate the circumstances such that the mutation survives. and if you succeed, and if you gather new, glittering fragments of truth out of the wreckage - if you’ve learned something novel - that’s progress.

but what does all this have to do with viktor?

taking everything together, singed’s presence in season 1 foreshadows quite a bit about viktor’s arc in season 2. i’m going to turn away from what i guess is pure analysis at this point and into the realm of theory-crafting from here on out, so…enjoy.

if viktor goes the way of league lore (and i assume he mostly will), his fate quite literally includes the word ‘evolution’. but in contrast to singed, viktor’s glorious evolution is all about a certain apotheosis. he is likely to become his former mentor’s obverse, leveraging an engineered evolution towards a specific telos, rather than dwelling at the threshold of change itself.

as an audience member, i hope the story doesn’t set viktor on a redemption arc. even if the narrative continues to build out his choices as understandable reactions to his circumstances, it's better to sit in the mire of people digging their own graves. and i do think viktor’s history with singed might make redemption impossible.

at the end of season 1, viktor tries to steer himself off the path he’s chosen, realizing too late that it involves the literal blood sacrifice of the woman who loved him. but we all know he won’t stay the course. he’s touched the void, the hexcore is hungry, and even if he escapes the hexcore’s direct influence, he’s about to witness the crumbling of what little good will exists between piltover and his home.

depending on which version of the lore you prefer, viktor’s eventual rise to accidental cult leader happens for one of two reasons. he either takes up his quasi-transhumanism because he comes to view his faith in human goodness as a product of emotional naivety (the new lore) or because he specifically wanted to carve out the jealous parts of himself that left him feeling broken after stanwick’s repeat betrayals (the old lore). in arcane, i think the story will change again.

in a last-ditch effort to cure his own terminal illness, viktor returns to his creepy former mentor for help. he claims to ‘understand, now’ what singed told him all those years ago about mutations and survival. knowing what comes next (sky’s death), one has to wonder if he really does. after all, before giving viktor the shimmer variant that might save his life, singed pauses to warn him that love and legacy are the sacrifices we make for progress.

it’s a leading line that invites a lot of questions. what love, whose love? sky’s maybe. or jayce’s. or heimerdinger’s, whose love is very flawed, but is arguably still love that viktor could lose. those are all compelling particulars or parts of the puzzle of viktor’s life, but i think singed is pointing viktor towards something more totalizing.

throughout season 1, viktor’s story has deviated from his league lore somewhat. he hasn't really been preoccupied with human error; instead, he has both desired and rejected different kinds of affection. rather than grappling with jealousy or heartbreak over stolen work, he wants to help the undercity - but ultimately mourns the fact that his illness will steal his opportunity to build a legacy, not his chance to make the world a better place.

summoned back into the role of necromantic mentor, singed seems to intuit this new emotional framework when he reminds viktor that progress has no room for love or legacy. those are the two sacrificial lambs required for progress to take place.

but if viktor truly believes what singed says (and it seems like he does at least a little bit), i don't think he’ll be able to abandon the want for either on his own. even in the wake of killing sky or in the wake of what we assume will be a very painful falling out with jayce, the story still frames him as a person with the basic human desire for closeness. he's afraid to tell jayce what he's done to sky, after all. if progress, otherwise known as the glorious evolution, is to proceed, he'll have to cut out his own heart not for the failings of jealousy or illogical inefficiency, but because the need for love and recognition has made him selfish.

he won't succeed, obviously. not the least in part because no need or feeling is entirely black or white. love brought him to his friendship with jayce. legacy made him brave enough to defy heimerdinger and chase magic. but pain, loss, and self-loathing distort all things, and i think that, in viktor's view of himself, the fragile yearnings of the human heart will become grotesque, the source of all his own wrongdoing.

in this way, singed’s unifying thesis has loaded the spring-trigger guiding viktor’s trajectory. if viktor hopes to forge a better way for the people of zaun, if he hopes to build something new in the world, he'll have to eviscerate himself first. such is the bloody price of progress, and so goes his evolution's apotheosis. it's not the man who matters. the mutation must survive.

[whenmemorydies]

Violence and Love in Monkey Man

Dev Patel's Monkey Man has played at my mind for two weeks now. This is for reasons that I'm able to articulate and for many that I probably have not yet been able to find the words for. This post is, in part, my attempt at sorting through some of my thoughts. My tumblr is all spoilers all the time. If you don’t want that, then please don’t read on.

Violence

Like most places in the world, systemic violence is a scourge in India. Monkey Man does not shy away from this reality and depicts Hindu nationalist state violence and violence against women and gendered minorities in the country to chilling effect.

We come to see this in the brutal rape and murder of Kid's activist mother at the hands of the police, while she tries to shield her child and her land from police and state terror. We see it in the treatment of (largely femme-presenting) sex workers in the two brothels featured in the film, including one frequented by the police and political elite. We see it in the violence and ostracisation meted out against the hijra, or third gender community by individual actors and the state more broadly. We see it in the state-orchestrated razing of an entire community after the land on which it sits is declared a "holy site". We see it in the movement of people from the regions to the city after their land has been stolen and the grinding poverty they face as a result.

Unlike so many action films, none of the violence in Monkey Man occurs in a vacuum. Even Kid's original means of making money in an underground fighting ring is done against the backdrop of his forced displacement from regional India to the city - a migration pathway that many in the country have been forced to take and which is a direct result of land theft and resource extraction in the regions by local and multinational corporations as well as federal and state governments.

The truth is that so much in relation to state and societal control is enacted in painful and violent ways on the bodies of the marginalised and oppressed. And I often think about how the horror and action genres are some of the best suited to speak about systemic injustice because of their capacity to make that violence uncompromisingly visible (one recent example is Mike Flanagan’s Midnight Mass which depicted the bloody fallout of the Christian missionary/colonial project in vivid crimson, splashed all over a non-descript maritime town in present-day America). The violence in Monkey Man is no different.

While Kid's realisation of the interconnectedness and heavy hand of the state not just in the violence experienced by his mother, but also by the hijra, and by sex workers like Sita comes later in the movie, we as the audience are given this insight earlier. Recall Kid pointing out to Sita that her tattoo is of a koel, not a sparrow as originally misidentified by the Australian client sexually assaulting her minutes earlier in the film.

Kid goes on to say that he grew up in the forest and woke up to koels singing everyday. Its the longest conversation that the two have but in those brief words, we understand that Sita too has likely been displaced to the city from the regions, probably under very similar circumstances to Kid. The way this displacement maps itself onto her body is distinctive to how it does so for Kid, with gender playing a large role in this.

Other factors like caste, class and religion also impact on how the characters in this film experience or perpetrate violence. I would write more on these intersections but then this post is going to get more unwieldy than it already is.

I will say though, that in India, where fascist Hindu nationalism is being used by government to harm minority communities, steal land and secure populist votes, Patel makes a distinction between revelatory and weaponised faith. Kid is raised in peace by his mother with the former, but as an adult he lives in a world where the latter has taken hold and is being used by those in power to shore up more of that power for themselves.

For me - as the descendant of parents, grandparents and great grandparents who lived through anti-Tamil pogroms led by Sinhalese chauvinists weaponising Buddhism as part of their fascism in Sri Lanka, who like the rest of us, is living in an election year for Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India, and who is also frustratingly, helplessly bearing witness as the state of Israel and it’s allies conflate Zionism with Judaism in defence of the genocide being waged against Palestinians - watching this action film make the distinction between revelatory and weaponised faith was profound.

Love

Patel makes it a point in this film to show how Kid's most nourishing relationships, the ones that sustain him - indeed the ones that literally save his life - are those that he has with women and with people who don’t conform to the gender binary. In doing this, we see what Kid is fighting tooth (quite literally) and nail for throughout the film. We see what is at stake - what we stand to lose - if perpetrators get to rule without accountability.

Its also no mistake that these relationships are all tied visually to the natural world in the film: Kid's mother's deep ties to the earth, rivers, trees and roots that she leads him through as a child. Alpha and the hijra's sanctuary, the Ardhanareeshvara temple with its most sacred space being the roots of a holy tree. Sita and her koel tattoo: the memory of the forest carried on her skin while she traverses the brutal reality of the city. Patel is making a point here too. About nourishment of another kind, through our connection with the earth instead of extraction from it. The visuals in the film drive this point home, particularly when contrasted with the industrialisation and poverty of the city.

Two particular loving relationships that stood out for me were the love shared between Kid and the hijra community as well as between him and his mother.

Alpha, hijra Elder and the hijra community

Keeper of the Ardhanareeshvara Temple and hijra Elder, Alpha becomes a mother-figure to Kid after he is rescued with near-fatal injuries. It is Alpha who keeps watch over him as he recovers, helps Kid to confront the totality of his past memories which his trauma has kept fragmented, and who ultimately leads a veritable hijra army to join forces with him to assassinate some fascists.

Alpha's gentleness with Kid was so moving to see, in particular during the conversation they have about his attempt as a child to save his mother from the fire set by her rapist and murderer. That exchange moved me to tears.

Kid: I failed her.

Alpha: No. You tried to save her. You see scars. I see the courage of a child fighting to save his mother.

The wider hijra community at the temple also take Kid in and care for him during his recovery. Truly, the scenes at the temple were some of my favourite in Monkey Man. Outside of his memories of his mother, they are the only scenes where we see love, peace and joy on the faces of any of the characters in this film.

Also witness this moment of delight below as the hijra at the temple appreciate a fine ass man channelling his righteous anger and fucking up a punching bag full of rice. I note that the music during this training montage is simply stunning. Ustad Zakir Hussain's rapid fire tablas punctuated by each of Patel's landed punches and kicks and then followed by Jed Kurzel's achingly soaring instrumentals (listen to "The Kid" from the movie's score) were just *chef’s kiss*.

Another favourite moment for me was when Kid decides to go back to the underground fight ring one last time and not throw his matches (as he had been doing prior). He bets on himself and when he inevitably wins his fights, he takes the money and gives it to the hijra, ensuring that they can continue to live at the temple without fear of being evicted. We love to see a man who literally pays his rent.

Neela, his mother

Kid’s first teacher and the center of his life as a child. In almost every memory we are shown of her, Kid remembers his mother walking through a forest, sharing her ecological and religious knowledge with him and in doing so, positioning him within the wider world.

GIF by dailyflicks

We watch as he takes this understanding with him forward through the remainder of the film. His conversation as an adult with Alphonso as they drive through the city in the latter's tuk tuk is emblematic of this. "They don't even see us", Kid says of the elite who frequent the club where he has just gained employment, "they're all up there living and we are stuck in this."

His mother showed him what it was to live: to be still and in concert with the world and the Divine around you, to be loved fiercely, and to thrive as a result. This is in stark contrast to what Kid has had to learn to do in the city: to survive, to merely exist. He is never depicted resting or at home as an adult. He's always working, hustling and planning for the next thing, his next step. When he loses his village, his land and his mother as a child, Kid also inevitably loses his sense of home. It’s no coincidence that the tracks “Home” and “Mother” on the movie’s score sound almost identical.

Later at the end of the film, we see Kid close his eyes, having done what he set out to do. The last thing he sees is his mother, smiling at him in the forest. Her face is the face of God he gazes at before he succumbs to his injuries. This devotion to his mother is not just that of a child to a parent. Its also deeply tied to his Hindu faith which calls on its followers to honour the Divine Mother, the supreme feminine energy, Aathi Parashakthi, in all her manifestations including in those who mother us.

The movie ends with Kid’s deep, revelatory faith - instilled in him by his mother - and with the death of the man who weaponised that faith for power and wealth. It left all of us in the cinema seated in stunned silence even as the credits began to roll.

To describe Monkey Man as simply a revenge film does it an absolute disservice. This is not revenge. It is defence borne out of deep love for community and righteous opposition to injustice. Seeing hijra warriors dressed as Kali, the goddess of destruction, dealing death blows against fascists while spinning in the most beautiful lenghas was exhilarating (I literally screamed “YESSSSSSS!” at the screen when they arrived). Seeing Sita take out pimp and sex trafficker Queenie got me cackling and yelling “whoooop!”. Seeing Kid, a masculine character act to defend women and people outside of the gender binary, from further systemic harm without any ulterior motive was absolutely unreal to witness on the big screen. Seeing a person of faith act in deep connection to that faith without judgment against anyone but those who perpetrate harm made me feel hopeful in a way that took me by surprise. Kid acted out of love and respect. I would argue that Sita, the hijra and Kid all acted out of recognition of a shared humanity.

And at a time when folks from marginalised communities are being subjected to horrendous violence worldwide, both interpersonal and systemic, watching the oppressed take their perpetrators out…and I mean out (see: a rapist and murderer getting bludgeoned to death with a glittery high heel and a fascist, self-proclaimed “holy man” being stabbed in his third eye by the blade he hid in his own “sacred” pathankal/paduka), well, it was cathartic to see.

Am I saying violence is the answer to systemic violence? I think the answer to that question is context-specific. Non-violent resistance has a place, but it’s by necessity a performance and requires an audience. What do you do when no one’s watching? What do you do when the people who are watching are doing nothing to stop your suffering? What then? These questions are what many liberals refuse to grapple with because the answers are too uncomfortable for their polite sensibilities. But if you keep your foot on someone's neck long enough, you should expect them to fight back, by any means necessary. In Monkey Man, we have an action film where we get to witness that resistance in all its visceral glory.

[familyabolisher]

re: this post, would you perhaps be able to reword it? i understand the words you're using individually, and i think i might kind of get what you're trying to say, but it's just one very long sentence and so i'm having trouble parsing it! (wait--i just reread it. initial question canceled, mostly--now: what alternatives might we have available to us?) and what does this section: "it feels all too easy to jump from that to then just stymieing our ability to actually describe the textual violences necessary to the discursive construction of that normativity in the first place" mean, exactly? thank you as always for running this blog. :-)

What I’m describing is a critical phenomenon wherein people will approach (usually canonical) horror texts which reify hegemony by ‘identifying’ with the monster who is generally figured in terms of alterity in some capacity; by extricating, for example, a queer narrative out of what is in fact a homophobic one, and treating this as something of a ‘reclamatory’ practice in which one ‘relates’ to that which the text figures as monstrous. The most common instance of this which I see is people’s discussion of Carmilla as an erotic lesbian romance; other examples include Dracula, or Frankenstein, or the socially currency invested in the idea of a ‘madwoman in the attic’ (ie. Jane Eyre).  

I don’t think this is like, a practice that we need to do away with entirely, lol – but I do think that a) there are marginalised writers + filmmakers who are making horror with actual teeth, with actual radical edge, and we don’t need to keep pretending like this approach of reclamation-through-identification with a monster in a v normative work is all we have available to us when politically subversive horror does very much exist, and b) this critical practice is often vvv limited in its discursive scope, and tends to lack the kind of materialist analysis that I would consider necessary in talking about literatures of alterity/marginality/violence.

When I talked about stymieing our ability to describe the textual violences necessary to the discursive constructions of that normativity in the first place, I meant that overfocusing on these texts as “reclaimed” articulations of an essentially queer (or otherwise ‘othered’) imaginary can inhibit our ability, as critics, to describe how those texts in fact do not think of their monstrous figures as worthy of a sympathetic or appreciative narrative. I mentioned Carmilla above – we can talk about Carmilla as erotically lesbian, sure, but how far down the line in talking about it as a Queer Narrative do we lose track of the fact that the text itself asserts the sexual norms of white Christian hegemony to necessarily succeed over the perversion of the corruptive, predatory lesbian, or as an Anglo-Irish work positing Carmilla as an Irish woman (and thus a contaminant threat to Anglo-Irish society)? At what point in adulating Dracula as articulating a particular form of queer, effeminate Jewishness destabilising and threatening Jonathan and Mina’s persistent heterosexuality do we lose track of Dracula as having grown out of the fear that the new waves of Jewish immigration in London’s East End were vampiric sources of contagion, or its possible relationship to the antisemitic smears that grew out of the Jack the Ripper murders? Or like, taking Bertha Mason (or ‘the madwoman in the attic,’ because truly, v few people using this phrase are actually thinking about Bertha Mason lol) as a kind of feminist paragon – at what point do we begin to overlook the fact that Jane Eyre is a v racist text?

These aren’t necessarily contradictory approaches – like, for example, you can talk about ‘identifying’ with Dracula as emblematic of British Jewish assimilation and the discontents thereof whilst also talking about Dracula as an antisemitic text, even if the analysis in the former isn’t especially coherent – but the focus of the ‘identification’ treatment is often incredibly limited in its scope, and those limitations can often be detrimental to one’s ability to talk frankly and honestly about what a text actually says and does. A very good example such limitations is that of Frankenstein; an identification with Frankenstein’s monster as an entrypoint for textual analysis obfuscates the way in which Frankenstein constructed a discursive template by which the ameliorationist argument against the immediate abolition of slavery could be argued for. (The linked post lays this out v clearly, but the cited source is Mary Mulvey’ Roberts’ ‘Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and Slavery,’ in Dangerous Bodies: Historicising the Gothic Corporeal). What I basically mean is, when we talk about relating to, identifying with, ‘reclaiming’ the monster, we have to have a real grasp on what it is we’re trying to impose such a practice on, and what the actual substance of the source text has to say for itself. I’m not one for assuming a text as a body with a set of metaphysical properties that we as critics are tasked to find – I think the relationship between text and reader ought to be dialectical – but part of that dialectical process means situating the text in its material social context and responding appropriately.

[mswyrr]

why i think agatha has never walked the Road before

Based on the song lyrics, if she had walked it before, she would have needed a coven to do it, and we have every reason to believe she hasn't had a coven since her first betrayed her.

Gather sisters fire Water, earth and air Darkest hour, wake thy power Earthly and divine Burn and brew with coven true And glory shall be thine

Even if she had previously bamboozled some poor bunch of witches into the Road, if they didn't become her "coven true" in that process, the attempt would have been a failure. Perhaps she has survived a previous, failed attempt, but she's never walked it successfully. To walk it successfully would mean to have community at the end, and that would require her to be changed in key ways.

Another lyric talks about "fate" and another about facing your "fears." If Agatha had faced her fears or fate successfully in the past, she wouldn't be the person she is imo. She's currently someone who is in constant flight from her past, her own feelings, other people. Only Wanda's magic trapped her, pinning her in place, forcing her into community with others. And that has just (for the moment) made Agatha double down on running and using. At least at the surface level.

Moving beyond the specific lyrics of the song, there's two broad categories of how to handle magic in stories. The first treats it like a possession--like a powerful weapon or tool in a character's hand--something that belongs to them and they can do with it what they wish and, pivotally, who they are is separate from it. The second treats magic as something that transforms you -- it's not a tool you wield, to wield it creates/requires a change in your very being. I think the way they're writing magic on the show is the second (to me, vastly superior) approach rather than the first.

The song itself and the use of a Road both point to this. The idea of a walking a path or road and being changed by it is widespread in global spiritual practices -- many religions articulate the religion itself as a road/path to walk -- the process of walking the path is supposed to bring you more and more into alignment with the power/enlightenment you seek, rather than the power becoming a thing YOU own.

Agatha herself is so deeply unenlightened at this moment in her life that she is TREATING the Road as if it is the category one kind of magic. Just a tool or a weapon she can grasp and possess without changing. She's treating the magical commitment she's made to this coven similarly, as if it has no weight to it. But I think she's dead wrong about all of that. That the magic in this story is of the second category, and through walking the Road--and committing to a coven-- she will experience change and find a "coven true." Not that she will become all nice; not that the coven will be all sweetness and light. But that it will simply be real and true.

As Jac herself has said about community:

"I hope what people take from the show, is that yes there is a tremendous amount of benefit from the circle, from the tribe, that you can have communal power, and your can find your own internal power in that circle. But also it was really important to me to show that there can also be in fighting in that circle. And there can also be bad decision-making and backstabbing, and the complexity of these witches no being able to get along. The goal for them (coven) is to harmonize both literally and figuratively, and they fail at it! You know, in a number of occasions, a circle can give you so much. But it's always going to be an imperfect thing." --podcast interview with Jac Schaeffer, quote transcribed by the lovely @isagrimorie (thank you! <3)

Even at its best, community is hard work. A "coven true" doesn't mean easy. Just real and sincere. Agatha lost the "grounding" of herself in her youth (my meta on that is here) and she will be more grounded again.

At its worst, as Agatha learned in her youth, community can become monstrous and terrifying. A prison rather than a home; a death sentence rather than a safe place to live and grow. But even when things aren't in that failure state, it can be painful and difficult -- its own hard road to walk. But on that journey you *become*. And others become along with you. By committing to each other, you are not instantly made whole and enlightened. But you allow yourself to live and breathe and become. To do the hard work of becoming. And it is that process of becoming (of living) that Agatha has cut herself off from by cutting herself off from people.

[darcytaylor]

Idk if anyone else is having the same experience as me, but as a fandom neutral who doesn't ship anyone, I don't feel any sort of way about the recent info we've been getting? I don't feel like we're learning anything new, this is pretty much what's been going on, it's status quo.

What's been interesting for me to observe in this situation is the fandom meltdown surrounding it in response to what is essentially no news? It's like a giant Jenga tower of conjecture, wishful thinking and rumors was stacked up to high heaven and now a bottom piece has been pulled out, but the blocks where never from the same set to begin with, so they never even fit together properly? Some of the fans built narratives on top of other narratives and they've basically hurt themselves by ignoring crucial information but at the same time leaning into what they've interpreted as hints of things that they want to happen or be true.

Nic and Luke haven't addressed anything one way or the other and the fandom has sort of diverged into its own thing, almost separate from the people it's supposedly built around, and any info that challenges the favorite narratives is pushed against vehemently, which only perpetuates the cycle of hurt when more of it emerges.

Nothing has actually happened here. Nic is traveling with friends and attending events related to her field of work. Luke is potentially on vacation with his partner, perhaps visiting her family. These are things we've seen them do in the past multiple times, both with the same and different people. Maybe the response is so outsized because they did an unexpected thing in that they posted hints about what they were doing? But at the same time, the fandom whipped itself into a frenzy of anticipation over stories that were very innocuous at heart?

Anyway, I think we've reached a point of disconnect between fandom and celeb that can't be reconciled atp. It feels like a disembodied cluster for the sake of community and having something - anything - to connect over. It hasn't been about the actual people at the core of it for a long time.

This is such a well-articulated take! I agree with your observations, especially the idea of the fandom almost evolving away from the actual people at the core. It feels like the narratives some fans have built for themselves have created a feedback loop, where every new piece of "information" is filtered through an already established lens, even if that information doesn’t actually say anything new.

The Jenga metaphor you used is really good! People have built these intricate structures on top of speculation, and when even the smallest piece doesn’t fit or gets pulled out, the whole thing topples into chaos. I think you’re right that the disconnect between fandom and the actual people has been growing for a while now. And it’s probably made worse by the fact that neither Nicola and Luke aren't addressing anything directly, which leaves a vacuum that fans keep trying to fill with their own ideas.

I also love how you pointed out that Nicola and Luke are just doing things we've seen before - traveling, spending time with friends and/or partners - yet the response to these normal activities is wild. It's like the fandom may be searching for something that isn't there. Maybe that’s why things feel so dramatic when, in reality, it’s business as usual for them.

Thanks for sending this in! I think your perspective is a breath of fresh air in all the noise surrounding this situation. It really does feel like a reminder to take a step back and let things unfold naturally rather than force narratives that may lead to frustration!

I also want to add that it's okay to ship whoever you want together. Everyone is entitled to their own preferences and interpretations. And I think it can be fun. However, when that leads to leaving awful comments - towards others, myself included in that - because I don’t take it at face value, it becomes toxic. That might be a sign that it’s time to take a step back and let things just unfold naturally.

[mageknight14]

I think an interesting thing about both TWEWY games after replaying them is that, when you look back at them, Neku isn’t really punished for his flaws in comparison to Rindo and when he does suffer, it’s mainly through external factors that’s tied to his development as a person. On paper, it's pretty clear that Rindo is punished more heavily for his flaws (or at least more severely near the climax): his bouts of insecurity and fear of accountability made him the perfect candidate to be Kubo's puppet, and as such, he relies heavily on the Replay to the point where he basically assists in creating an all-powerful noise that is beyond their ability to erase, all but guaranteeing Shibuya's doom sans Haz's interference. Neku’s flaw of being tactiturn isn't something constantly producing conflict for him throughout the game; he overcomes a significant portion of his flaw by week 1; and the rest of the punishment he receives mostly comes from the reapers being unfair dicks to him. Neku does struggle emotionally during week 2 and 3, but it has less to do with his flaws and more to do with him having legitimate reason to doubt whether or not he can trust Joshua and Hanekoma. Throughout the game, his doubts are articulated very well through narrative action, but these doubts aren't a result of his own isolation and delusions, you know?

The closest it gets to that point is where Neku heavily blames himself for not trusting Joshua more when he chooses to "sacrifice" himself for Neku’s sake, but that whole instance actually makes Neku more retroactively justified when he finds out the truth about Joshua’s true nature. Not to mention Joshua was giving him plenty of reasons NOT to trust him so mistrust wasn't really a product of Neku's loner demeanor; Joshua was legitimately gaslighting him throughout the entire second week.

But I actually don’t think that’s a flaw within the narrative. Quite the opposite, in fact. The thing to keep in mind about Neku was that he was essentially having his character arc in both directions. He was both having to learn to be a better person and directly confront his propensity to shut people out and refuse to rely on external help, while also trying to piece together who he even was before the Reaper's Game. He’s not given enough of a foundation to lay out who he was and what his deal is to the same degree as Rindo because for both Neku and the player, things start in medias res. He literally has no idea about who he even is as a person besides his name at that point of the story.

I don’t think Neku’s flaws not really affecting him is a problem with the narrative itself considering how people do call him out on his behavior and he does change immensely throughout the game. One could argue Neku becomes nicer a little too quickly given his few days with Shiki, or that in week 2 onwards, his distrusting personality isn't as prevalent; but on the other hand, Neku's growth from week 1 is challenged and put to good narrative use, because now he has to be willing to exercise patience and understanding with other people, especially since he has something worth fighting for that isn't just himself. W2 with Joshua is meant to teach Neku that not everyone is going to be sweet like Shiki, but regardless, you should at least make an attempt to understand such people, even if you end up never really liking them. Expand your world to include people, even if they think or act differently from you. By W3, Neku is now put in a position where he has to learn that caring about people isn't just about being nice to them or trying to understand them; it's also about being dependable enough to support others in need, which he develops into with his time with Beat. From that sense, OG TWEWY doesn't present Neku's flaws as a constant force he has to battle throughout the game, but flips this concept on its head and instead presents his arc as having to learn how to practice being an empathetic human being; something he shut himself from trying to do after the trauma of his best friend’s death.

Neku doesn’t really hate people like he claims that he does at the beginning. He actually loves people. And he fucking hates that because it just leads to him getting emotionally hurt. He doesn't want to get hurt more than he already has and that’s the reason he pushes people away because he's scared he'll end up caring about them and getting hurt again and it’s why he’s heartbroken after Rhyme’s erasure and when he finds out the truth about Joshua.

I think that's really interesting in itself. By the rules that the Reaper's Game is supposed to usually operate by, Neku won with flying colours in week one, but because of circumstances being what they were, Kitaniji had to cheat and keep players from getting their resurrection wish. So Shiki is whisked into reaper-jail as a new entry fee, and Neku is forced into yet another game, even though he should have qualified for another chance at life as he was. The development of his character from amnesiac misanthrope into someone who actually trusts another person is so stark that it feels like you're playing as a completely different guy... but then week 2 rolls around and Neku's partnered with Joshua, who very intentionally pushes his buttons ceaselessly and tests him further.

Rindo on the other hand, has his flaw presented as a constant force throughout the narrative, and presents his growth through it more organically. Everytime he does Replay, he’s essentially forced to take charge of his life and grows more confident and assured in his capabilities as a leader while also becoming more and more heavily reliant on his time-travel abilities to carry him throughout the journey, acting as a double-edged sword in that sense.

He also begins to grow out of his paranoia in regards to other people, having a habit of riding others' coattails and seeing them for their performance value first, personality second (Minamimoto, Beat, Neku when he was seeking him), especially if it's something he's heard about them (Neku the 'Legendary Player', Nagi having a 'bunch of pins') AKA, again, others' opinions.

He slowly gets better with his willingness to take accountability for his choices, but even in the final week, you still see that while he's made strides, he hasn't quite nailed the confidence just yet, and he even still relapses from time-to-time. Some people seem to look at this as a flaw of the game but I actually quite like this and I think it makes Rindo an interesting contrast to Neku as a protag.

His arc shows that you even if you are changing, change isn't like a switch; you don't just all of a sudden stop making mistakes tied to your flaw and it shows when he starts to delegate towards Beat and Neku’s judgement when they come by to start taking a load off of his back. He basically falls into a cycle of:

>improves

>falls into old habits

>improves

>does bullshit again

>improves

Until it culminates into Neku officially joining the team and unofficially taking Rindo’s role as the leader, telling him not to time-travel since it might cause more Dissonance only for Rindo to actually break this cycle and go against what Neku says in order to not fall for Susukichi’s trap.

It’s why his convo with Haz and his final choice is so impactful for his growth; with no outside influences, he has to make one of the hardest decisions of his life and he works his ass off towards making the second chance he got count.

Rindo isn’t the easiest protag to like as a person even in spite of how seemingly more well-adjusted he looks to be compared to Neku. He constantly fucks up, acts really passive-aggressive when confronted on his flaws, and said flaws don’t immediately jump out like Neku’s did. The last part might seem confusing but people tend to attach themselves more to a character when they let you know what they’re about upfront, which is what Neku did quite bluntly at the beginning of the game ("all the world needs is me.") And if you’re not reading into Rindo’s actions and his head, a lot of his characterization can fly over your own head.

It even plays into the themes of both games. Even when Neku got screwed over by the machinations of the game, he was at least able to make some semblance of a difference throughout each week such as taking down the respective Game Master. But with Rindo and the gang, almost every victory they earn gets taken away from them due to another factor out of their control.

"Oh, you took down Susukichi? Too bad, Shiba says fuck you, start the Game over. Oh, and Sho is gone too."

"You took down Motoi? Congrats but he was actually a victim of the same system that you’re all a part of and is basically a desperate man on the brink of despair, which Rindo is forced to acknowledge, especially after Motoi himself passes away the next day."

"Speaking of the next day, you’re starting to form a counterattack and actually fight back against the system but oops, Shiba is here yet again to say, fuck you, do it again. Oh, and Susukichi was just playing pretend the entire time."

Not even taking down Shiba himself is enough to give them a reprieve because Kubo shows up to immediately undercut that sense of relief by revealing himself as the true villain and having Rindo’s very own powers kill his friends. Ain’t that a bitch?

But I think that in itself makes Rindo an interesting protag, at least to me. He’s the epitome of an NPC who got stuck with the protag role that he wants absolutely nothing to do with in spite of the world itself telling him to get his shit together. Hanekoma even initially writes off him at first due to only having average Imagination. But, after everything he’s been through and his character development, he’s finally able to find his own footing in the world and stand tall as the leader of the Wicked Twisters, ultimately saving both his friends and the city.

The main point I’m getting at here is how both games play with each protag’s arc in a way that neatly contrast one another and show off their respective writing styles quite well. TWEWY as a duology is fascinating to dig through and I really appreciate how multi-layered the games are.

[come-down-that-tree]

Prologue Previous

Warning: Geno being loopy for a while and discutable editing choices

Come Down That Tree! (An aftermare story)

Chapter 15: Audio, sed terra cur non plana est?

Geno wakes up not feeling quite all there.

His arm didn’t hurt anymore and he felt rested.

Something is amiss but who cares? Life is fun!

He felt very giddy for no apparent reason. The air seemed to vibrate.

He sits. Oh, he sits alright. With his butt on the ground. His back against the bark. His hands politely wait on his legs.

Geno felt like the universe rewrote itself slightly to the left just to mess with him.

Something makes a soft noise right to his left and he is suddenly very aware of a weight loafed against him.

It was Nightmare who was still asleep.

He shakes his arm to remove the weight.

The other started to stir awake, sleepiness still very present in his gaze.

Why does he wear so much purple? Like his eyes? He wears them prettily.

He moved around and watched Nightmare’s mouth articulate.

“Are you feeling okay? Your eyelight is big…?”

It is? He needs to see that.

Geno tried to reach his eye socket with his left arm but Nightmare stopped him for some reason.

“I know it doesn’t feel painful right now but it is still injured so try to avoid using it?”

Nightmare is too long of a name and Geno says so to him. He thinks.

“Oh your enunciation… It’s alright, the bigger side effects should fade out soon! It did for me…even if you don’t seem to react quite like me then… If Nightmare is too hard to say, you can shorten it to “Night” or anything that you prefer?”

He gazed into the two pale purple moons and attempted to test his balance by standing up straight. He failed.

The ground is green and he is floating above it.

He fell on the other.

“AH! Try to stay still for a moment, will you?”

Moonlight is so loud.

“I’ll try to be more quiet… If I dare to point that out, “Moonlight” is in no way shorter than “Nightmare”...”

The sound he makes is funny.

Geno flayed a bit to get back to sit against the tree without crushing anyone.

Moon is there but where is the other?

“Dream is down the village, you slept for a while.”

Mind Reading, what a powerful and useful magic…

He stared at him and the way his hands were freezed in the air, as if hesitant -he glanced at his face- and lost.

“You’re not aware you’re talking out loud, are you?”

Aware is certainly not the word here.

“We should get you out of these clothes… Dream went to seek some for you, it must be uncomfortable for you… wearing something that wet and heavy…?”

His sleeves make satisfying sounds when shaken.

The monster was drenched. Unlike Nightmare who seemed already dry and back in his usual purple trousers.

Geno knows a funny way to get dry much faster.

“Wait, what are you doing?”

With a firm but clumsy hand, he carries out his plan.

And soon, one giant animalistic skull was floating in front of both of them.

“GENO, please tell me you know what you’re doing with that terrifying thing!”

Feeling like some marbles were back into place, he answered the question truthfully.

“I don’t know what I am doing but I am doing it.”

Somehow, it did not seem to reassure the other who looked ready to leap at the first sign of something going wrong. The monster couldn’t care less at the moment and gestured for his blaster to open its maw…and charge a blast.

Somehow, once again, it seemed to inflict more stress on his companion. He then ignored all the pleading babbles that were just plain grating.

The inside of the blaster started lighting up with a fierce heat and he carefully sat between two sharp teeth.

“The’e, I will b’ dry inno time”, he announced to his gobsmacked-looking spectator.

Nightmare stayed where he was -even after he patted the space beside him in a silent offer- therefore he elected to ignore him, focusing on the almost scaling heat against his back. Why did he never do that before? It was quite a great way to accelerate things.

“Are you sure this is safe? Have you done that before?”

“I have never been lass sure of anything in me life but it seems to work a’right!”

The other scrunched his face in an expression Geno couldn’t decipher, not like he was that interested in trying but still.

After a moment of silence, the not-monster scooted slightly closer. He remained fairly far however.

“What is it?”

“mmmh m’blaster.”

“What? Can you repeat that?”

He giggled at the other’s ignorance.

“Big thing thaaat shoots and.. and bites!”

“Very helpful, thanks.”

He bowed, almost fell out of his seat, then miraculously balanced himself back up.

“M’pleasure to help, aways.”

“I thought you were starting to sound cognizant again but I see I was wrong there.”

“Always the bug words with you, eh”, he shrugged.

“Seriously, what is this thing? It was so impressive and -honestly- scary last time and now it just sits there, floating and warming your back without mauling you for sitting right next to its sharp and huge canine.”

Geno shook his head a few times to try once again to realign the realities. If the endeavor was any conclusive, he didn’t have a clue. He would have to continue riding the wave until it fully went away, he guessed.

“I use magic and fwoop big puppy here comes.”

He really couldn’t explain it any better.

“...Your magic seems far more powerful and advanced from anything I saw from monsters so far.”

“Is that so?”

“Yes.”

“What can you do besides turning into a nightlight at will?”

Nightmare grabbed his knees and started softly rocking back and forth.

“Not much… I can slightly worsen feelings on the bad side but I hate doing that. I’ve been told I turn the mood sour just by standing there so I might do it unconsciously sometimes.”

A frigid feeling finished chasing the daze away, leaving only a slight light-headedness and a dull pain in his left arm.

“Did the villagers tell you that?”

“Yes…”

“Then I wouldn’t trust that source.”

“Geno…They’re not all that bad.”

“Don’t give me that crap. It’s not about me there, they’re obviously mistreating you.”

The purple-clad skeleton hid his head in his knees and hummed, neither confirming or denying his accusation.

“Did you talk about that with Dream?”

Nightmare shook his head but stayed buried there.

“You don’t have to answer that but allow me to put an hypothesis out. The villagers don’t like you because they think your little guardianship here is neatly devised between “good and bad” and they’d be better off with only the positive and none of the negative emotions?”

A timid nod was all he got in exchange but it was enough for him to continue.

“1-I honestly don’t fully understand the whole tree and apples thing but aren’t you just a guardian and the sources of the feelings are the apples?

2-They’re plain stupid if they think they can live with only one side of their emotions. What are they, 5???”

To that, Nightmare lifted his head to look at him.

“Emotions are not a coin you can flip! They aren’t even always positive or negative? Some are neutral or mixed and why are they oversimplifying such a vague concept.”

“I don’t think I ever heard that way of thinking before.”

“You’re surrounded by idiots, no offense to Dream since I guess you didn’t broach the subject with him. Which is strange when you’re so fixated on “your duties as guardians of feelings”?”

“I’m starting to think I prefer you loopy.”

“How dare!??”

He let himself fall forwards, colliding with the other for the second time today but this time on his own volition. The blaster dissolved into the air as the air grew thick with shrieks and laughter as they play-fought on the ground. It ended very fast when something brushed weird against his arm and he all but hissed of pain.

“Oh no, did the pain come back? Are you feeling fine?”

The pain receded without fully vanishing so he answered it was alright enough.

They both laid down for a moment, looking at the clouds.

The faraway white puffs were a fascinating phenomenon to observe and he idly wondered if he would ever get used to it.

“I still think you should talk about it to your brother.”

“If I do that, he’s gonna want to help. We can’t just move the tree elsewhere if worse comes to worse. I don’t want them to hate him too.”

“You’re afraid he would get hurt for you? Or are you scared he wouldn’t do anything if he knew?”

“NO! I know he would- He’s the kindest person I’ve ever met. Of course, he would help or try to at least.”

“I see, you should still try to talk to him in my opinion.”

“...and what if you minded your own business?”

“Ha, I could.”

“Any particular reason you don’t?”

Geno sighed, a deep and heavy sigh that dragged for what seemed like an eternity.

“You somehow remind me of myself, just a bit, and a… situation… I went through. It’s a very, and I mean it, very different situation but I didn’t want to talk to my brother about it either. I did in the end, but let’s say it didn’t really stick, so just forget that.

Nightmare responded with a delay.

“You have a brother…”

“A little brother and despite everything, I’ll keep him close in my heart. Always...”

“Do you miss him?”

The answer was easy but somehow complicated.

“I do. Thankfully Papyrus does not.”

A long silence stretched after that.

A timid question stopped it just as steps approaching made their presence known.

“Would you mind talking to me about Papyrus more later?”

And strangely, Geno found he truly didn’t.

End of chapter 15! Go to chapter 16?

@dragon-tamer-1 @shinechermont

Geno!Sans belongs to @/loverofpiggies

Nightmare and dreamtale belong to @/jokublog

[boxheadpaint]

juice induced hill depression. Back on meds again and hopefully going to get in touch with a new psych who can prescribe me something else. Have been very tired and unjoyful the past week but better now and playing modded Skyrim, initially just to make my oc in it but then just kept slamming more thangs in there. Mod that puts bunny rabbits everywhere. Also is there a mod that adds cute animal ears/suits as wearables or one that even makes the girl armor less sucks. Like im either fully leaning into the immersion breaking for self indulgence sake or im getting rid of the annoying shit.

visiting mom in Vegas earlier this month was nice except for the part where I hate Vegas. I know im not great with travel and settling into places can be a tough one for my brain but also my god it’s just evil there. Brilliantly so but still evil. I would have loved to enjoy the scenery surrounding the place more as deserts are just very beautiful and fascinating places but at no point during the day was the temperature less than a full hundred degrees Fahrenheit. It barely dropped during the night either. Between that and varying physical ailments (Oof Ouch My Digestive Sensitivities Lol) (Oof Ouch My Tendons Lol) (Oof Ouch The Agony Caused By Using Stairs Lol) it was the perfect conditions to be a miserable pile when I wanted to be with my family. As sad I was to part ways again I was not sorry to leave that place. Gained a new appreciation for changing up what I eat randomly to keep my body on its toes. At one point mom brought us to a pub and her husband asked for Diet Pepsi while I asked for regular Pepsi. Visually there’s no difference so we got handed the others pepsi and swapped. And then later after he refilled his Diet Pepsi another waiter came up and wordlessly refilled mine as well. With Diet Pepsi. Wasn’t even asked. Fucking stunned. Also went to a near dead mall that was nice anyway

stuck on brain zaps as a symptom of Specifically antidepressants withdrawal. There’s some things describing them as “mini seizures” in function. To me it’s like the body noticing the usual isn’t happening for some reason so it tries to jumpstart the brain into working good like before. universities I can go to with my theories. Back in and at it this week, hopefully to remain consistent for longer than before which will also likely help with the depression and anxiety. More people should just put stuff in their blood if they can

it can be embarrassing to express your misery more clearly to someone, specifying the fact fact thoughts running through your head. But then again it’s only embarrassing because your mind convinced you so, and will convince you that holding it in is also cruel and selfish. Finding it funny that animals probably don’t have as complex spirals and bouts of depression because they dont have a language to articulate to themselves in their own heads that something is awful in a very specific and contradicting way. Or actually no because there is still pattern recognition but that’s more a paranoia learned thing. Is there an animal that can randomly, for seemingly no reason evident to anyone including itself, experience crushing dread and self doubt. Is there an animal that feels shame besides man

had a tilt table test that was embarrassing too but for much more clear concrete reasons. Somehow didn’t know about that second part, and did complain through most of the first part because Oof Ouch Everything Hurts Lol. REALLY did not know the iv thing and had to once again sadly state that no, It has to go in the hand . I will say the experience was funny in the second part from the other ways because my first reaction was literally just “Uh Oh.” The moment I realized it was going to get worse. all I know is my blood pressure stayed consistent throughout, I don’t know what else im gonna hear about it. Hopefully something helpful.

is setting up an ABLE account difficult? Can anybody do it? It’s an issue dealt with by a lot of people but I should at least try to find a way to save money from benefits for the future or in case some stupid medical shit happens that the health won’t cover. I just looked up and saw Vinny sleeping while propping lubics head up with his foot. Hoping I can enjoy things normally again shortly,

8/26/2024, Still better than july

[comradekarin]

Daemon was possibly worst off that Alicent and Rhaenyra in the repetitive scene front and yet he managed to gather the biggest land army TB has. Jacaerys secured key alliances with the North, Vale and the Twins & suggested a more stable version of the dragonseed plan. Aemond is hadcore carrying Team Black. Cole had managed to basically cut Dragonstone by land and his plan took down the most dangerous dragon the Blacks had. They Did Stuff, amidst having their own emotional character arcs and they have made moves that are logical and further their causes. The biggest thing Rhaenyra did was a desperate ritual sacrifice, giving dragons to guy she doesn't know anything of and one of which is very obvious loose cannon. The most significant thing Alicent did was... sell her entire side off, which kinda goes against her previous characterization. Rhaenys? Died the silliest death, by being a experienced dragon rider that allowed a downed lizard the size of a building to sneak up on her. Rhaena left All her resposibilities, to go chase a dragon in the dumbest way possible, without any forethought; the amount of plot armor required for a girl without provisions to survive IN THE VALE (where raiders are plentiful, remember Cate and Co having to fight back in GoT) in colder times. There' a pretty big difference in how men and women were portrayed and I wouldn't call the show particularly feminist, despite the overexposition of Rhaenyra and Alicent.

anon, you perfectly articulated my thoughts. the men in the show are able to have their own emotional arcs without it hindering the execution of their end goals. on the other hand, all the female characters follow this identical “no violence” prototype that actually harms not just their relationship with other characters but the narrative itself. and what’s worse is that a few of these female characters are portrayed differently than their season 1 counterparts. in season 2, there are a lot of contradictions and inconsistent characterizations that don’t serve a narrative purpose. and this is not to say that all of the men are perfectly written, either, nor am i trying to imply that rational characters are inherently good characters. but, all of the choices the female characters are making aren’t reflective of their season one traits, let alone the books. and these choices are being made so we can stick with this narrative that “its the men that are violent, and all the women are trying to navigate around them”. it’s silly. i go further into how exactly here.

i do wonder what we mean when we say a piece of film is “feminist” though. just because female characters are centered in a show doesn’t inherently mean a work is inherently feminist. as you said, rhaenyra and alicent do have the most screentime in the show yet nothing of substance is really created with that time. how can the show even be seen as “feminist” when the women are reduced to these one dimensional archetypes that don’t move the plot forward.

furthermore, how many times can the writers get away with the narrative that “fire and blood is ambiguous and not wholly rooted in truth”? it’s true, yes, but they are using this to make drastic changes to characters and plots that don’t even make sense half the time. it’s just bad writing. yet when i bring up how drastic the writing between the male and female characters are in the show differ, everyone throws a fit. it’s not wrong to have critiques, especially when the writing choices made in the show resemble one of fanfiction. at what point does “taking creative liberty” turn into “writing what i want to see”?

again, this is not me hating the show per se. i still have my own favorite characters, favorite moments, and favorite dynamics. i just wish the intentions with the female characters were there. how the writers baited the audience into thinking this would be the case with the season one finale just for it to not turn out to be true? it’s just wild to me.