#kin analyses

[thediamondarcher]

if you're a Nick Nelson kinnie you either understand gis character completely or actually have no idea about who he really is, there's no in between

[transmanleonardo]

I can't believe you keep using my own edit against me. a thousand curses upon ye

[corviiids]

What do you think Kira would want for his birthday, Rook?

(Why would someone ask me what Kira wants? Do they suspect me of being Kira? But everyone knows Light Yagami is Kira. I'm just some random tumblr user. There's no way they think I'm Kira, that's absurd. I should just analyse Kira's character and respond like I always do.

No, wait. It's a trap! They don't think I'm Kira, they think I'm kin with Light Yagami! That's so much worse! If they think I'm Kira, at least some people would be on my side, but nobody's going to want to hang out with that gay nerd.

I need to handle this quickly. What would Light Yagami, as Kira, want for his birthday, that I, Rook, wouldn't also want? Well, what I really want is to kick L in the face, but if I answer that, they're definitely going to think I'm Light and/or Kira.

Hurry up! The ask has already been in your inbox for too long! Don't worry about all those other ones which have been there for months or maybe years. Don't overthink it! What reason could they possibly have to identify you with Light Yagami from Death Note? Just keep calm and answer normally.)

$700 000 in an unmarked envelope. and world peace

[endless-ineffabilities]

dragonfire

Aemond Targaryen x f!reader

masterlist ▪︎ word count: <1k

The one in which Aemond Targaryen ponders over an existence without you. (i.e. a little something caused by my recently resurgent Aemond brainrot)

"So, what are you planning to do?"

Daeron's question hangs in the air. For a moment, Aemond fails to grasp the subject of his inquiry. But his mind, as it always does, goes back to you.

Having returned from visiting you in the library, Daeron found him smiling to himself in the godswood, like some pathetic, lovestruck youth.

"I am not sure what you mean." Aemond turns, regarding his younger brother with a lingering look.

"Will you ever confess to her how you feel?"

Has he become that easy to read? How he feels. Has he even admitted that truth to himself? He casts his gaze downward, kicking over a pebble with the sole of his boot. "It has not crossed my mind," he says. A lie, plain as day.

Daeron tries another approach, knowing how difficult it is to elicit the best reaction from his stoic brother. "Well, look about the matter in this way - what would your life be like without her in it? What if you never knew her at all?"

Aemond scowls in distaste. He is not too inclined to be analysed in such a way. But his thoughts have been influenced by Daeron's questioning. What would everything be like without you?

He would still be Prince Aemond Targaryen. He would still possess his royal devotion and sense of duty.

But without you?

"It would not be right," Aemond confesses. "It would be a plain cruelty to myself were I to entertain the thought. I suppose I would go on, as I am, but I have no desire to."

Days without your companionship, and nights without the thought of you intertwined with him in his chambers? How dull it would all be.

"She's like... like my dragonfire. My strength. Only she can ever have any true power over me."

Only you would be permitted to. The influence of his family, and of his status - they stand no chance. If you asked him to renounce his titles, and to sail together on a ship to Yi Ti, Aemond knows he would do so. For you.

And it terrifies him. He was raised to be methodical. To not be rash in his decisions. He has always upheld his family and his personal ambition above all else. But what terrifies him even more is the possibility that you would not be so receptive of his affections. And that, one day, duty would demand him be wed to another Lady who isn't you.

So he is resolute is not letting that happen.

"I would be the most content man in all of the Seven Kingdoms if I could live out my days with her as my Lady wife." The sentiment flows out of him as naturally as taking a breath. "If she will have me," he adds, softly.

Daeron smiles in agreement, before offering the simplest course of action. "So take her to be your wife. There is no doubt in my mind that she will have you."

"It is not that easy."

"What if some other Lord will ask for her hand - "

"Then I will take pleasure in feeding Vhagar her next meal."

Daeron simply laughs, patting Aemond on the shoulder. "Take heart, brother. No Lord can surpass you."

"Hmm." Of course not.

"I shall take my leave," Daeron says. "Oh, and if you change your mind about her, I would not be averse to asking for her hand, myself."

Aemond stiffens, glowering at Daeron with a storm brewing in his eye. For a split second, he considers having to duel his brother, if it would come to that. Felling him, if need be. For you.

His own kin. He has done it before, after all. And this time, it would be for the greatest of causes - the battle for your heart.

"Gods," Daeron bursts in a fit of laughter. "Aemond, I only jest. We do not need any more infighting in our family than we already have."

Aemond exhales in relief as his brother departs, leaving him with the realization that he would actually resort to such extreme measures in order to be with you.

Seven hells, he is well and truly fucked.

[biblicallyaccurateinga-does-art]

The last year I joined pathologic cosband, it was tons of content like photoshoots and cosplay stand at con where visitors chose between utopists, kin and humbles, made vaccines, analysed the collected blood and stuff. I did Katerina, guess this year I can join them as Murky.

[transmandrake]

Trans allegory

Disc Horse adjacent if you wanna skip but

I have mixed feelings on the current chatter around 'Female Socialisation' as a concept

First off its really wierd we only talk about it as Female but I almost never have heard the term Male Socialisation on here. Which is already quite telling on the current biases in this very insular part of the online world.

Second, like... Idk. As a trans person, was I really... socialised female? Not really. As soon as I hit like 6 I went into my tomboy I hate Pink and Girls phase and no one really fought against that.

So I agree somewhat that its a shit term.

But also like... I did grow up as a girl. I was perceived as a girl, I experienced the world as a girl, I was aware, to my dismay, that what I was affected how others saw me and treated me.

The beginning of my 'trans awakening' was when I moved to Ireland and was very confused as to why the boys in my class were oddly cold when I said I liked pokemon too, and wanted to play pokemon with them, and oh I play CoD too with my brothers and-

Oh. They see me as a girl. They don't want to be my friend, because people will make fun of them or me, or make jokes about us dating.

Nothing changed about me. It was the outside that came into view. I still feel this; I would not be transgender in a genderless world (Though I feel my body is Transsexual. Whole other tangent)

But I wasnt socialised in any way, really. Some people are but its not a replacement for 'afab', another flawed term (in its use not its intent) that just tries to hopelessly draw a line of girl trans and boy trans.

But undeniably I have experienced the world in a way that is not cis. The trans experience is not defined by your genitals, or how you were raised, but... The others. The perception. I can never unnexperience it. No matter how much I do or don't 'pass', no matter how much any of us do, we have an experience of... not been seen as what and who we are.

Transness isnt defined by presence, but absence. We do not get to be seen as ourselves, not for a long time if at all. And when we do, we cant erase that experience.

And thats why I hate these divides, even if I was 'socialised' in a distinct way; I don't feel unrepresented when something has a trans woman or man in it, because they're... trans. I know that. It doesnt matter who. The asethetics, the gendered traits, its all outer, irrelevant.

I grew up being perceived as something I am not. That is all that matters. The body is irrelevant. The dress. The identity.

Wolf in sheeps clothing. Sheep in wolfs clothing. Both disguised. It doesnt matter if the wolf is shot for being a wolf underneath or if the sheep is shot for looking like a wolf.

Who has it worse? Whose disguise fits better? Does the sheep lose privilege? Does the wolf gain it?

It doesnt matter. We all end up on the dinner plate or the tannery at the end.

Betrayed or hunted? Death. Always.

Stop shooting wolves. Only then will we both stop dying.

[justanapplenothinghere]

MEPHONE4 (PERSONALISED ) CHARACTER ANALYSIS.

I was debating whether to post this after the whole movie was finished however, due to the recent episode I am really scared of all you coming after me because this character is a heavy kin. Please bear that in mind. This work has taken me months to type and analyse. I didn't do everything due to how long this post would end up being. So just the major points were discussed.

Mephone4’s generalised overview:

MePhone4 is one of the main characters in Inanimate Insanity, a popular YouTube object show created by AnimationEpic. As a sentient smartphone, MePhone4 serves as the host of the competition, a role that places him in a position of authority and power over the contestants. His character is defined by a mix of ambition, arrogance, and emotional complexity, which is what makes him one of the more dynamic characters in the series. From a first glance, when watching, some may view him as just a rude and arrogant host with no mental well being of concern for his contestants.

Whilst that might be somewhat true from the start of early episodes into Season 1, he progressively begins to change his character through the course of the other two seasons.As shown for example in Season 3 his attitude begins to change, from a distance the show makes it obvious to us that he DOES CARE about his contestants, just has a hard time expressing such emotions.His character is complex, especially as the series progresses, revealing deeper layers of psychological trauma and emotional conflict.

Mephone4’s background (TW: mentions of abuse/manipulation. As a victim myself of these, this part maybe very detailed.):

MePhone4 was created by the character Steve Cobs (a parody of Steve Jobs), who represents a father figure to him. However, the relationship between MePhone4 and Steve Cobs is strained and toxic. Cobs is demanding and controlling, treating MePhone4 as nothing more than a tool for his own ambitions.The trauma begins with MePhone4's creation, where he is given life, his identity is defined entirely by his purpose to serve others (In other words just Cobs and the Meeple company alone).This lack of agency and the constant pressure to meet Cobs' expectations contributes significantly to MePhone4's psychological issues.

Cobs created MePhone4 with a "highly-advanced emotion emulator," allowing him to experience emotions deeply, unlike other Meeple products. However, instead of focusing on the tasks assigned to him by Cobs, MePhone4 became enamoured with reality TV, which led to disappointment and tension between them. This foundational conflict likely left MePhone4 feeling inadequate and rejected, contributing to his later insecurities and anxieties. His love for competition and showmanship can be seen as a coping mechanism—a way to channel his emotional energy into something he enjoys and excels at, perhaps in an attempt to gain the approval he never received from Cobs.

Most evident in his anxiety and insecurity, which are central to his character. He is often portrayed as anxious about the show's progression and its eventual end, indicating a deep-seated fear of failure or losing purpose.This being evidenced in seeing Mephone3GS.That experience alone caused a sense of realisation he needed to finally leave Meeple.The way Mephone3GS is..that could end up being him in his place. Whilst it is unknown how 3GS gained his scars the best bet to assume it was from / or somehow Cobs did contribute to it himself (Back in typing this before ACT 1 CAME OUT). If that is the case that would explain Mephone’s sudden urgency to leave the company.However, a fascinating factor is Mephone took MEPAD, WITH HIM. That within itself is noble, Mephone could have just left by himself. But he didn’t. That’s the thing. This already shows Mepad’s and Mephone4’s deep level bond to the point Mephone could’ve taken any other Meeple products with him, yet again he specifically took Mepad. He saved him. He saved him from the possible future abuse that could have been inflicted exactly like Cobs has done to Mephone4.Even if Mepad seems somewhat not exactly aware of all the details.

Mephone’s competitive nature may also stem from a need to prove himself, reflecting an internalised pressure to meet expectations that were never fully articulated by Cobs.

Furthermore, MePhone4's "out of sight, out of mind" mentality is a clear indication of his avoidance coping strategy. Instead of confronting his past, especially the painful memories associated with Cobs and Meeple, he chooses to erase them from his system. This physical removal of memories symbolises his desperate desire to escape from the emotional burden they carry. His consideration of re-erasing these memories after they resurface suggests an ongoing struggle with his unresolved trauma. It highlights his inability or unwillingness to process these emotions healthily, leading to a continuous cycle of avoidance and emotional suppression.

Impact on Relationships:

His trauma significantly affects his relationships with others, particularly the contestants and his assistant, Toilet. His lack of regard for the contestants' well-being and his blatant bias during eliminations suggest that his trauma has warped his sense of empathy and fairness. By showing favouritism and making shrewd comments, MePhone4 exerts control over the game in a way that might make him feel more secure or powerful, counteracting his underlying feelings of inadequacy.

His treatment of Toilet, whom he sees as an "unhelpful menace," further illustrates how his trauma manifests in his interactions. MePhone4's disdain for Toilet can be interpreted as a projection of his own insecurities. By belittling Toilet, MePhone4 may be attempting to distance himself from his own perceived flaws and weaknesses. This dynamic reflects how his unresolved issues with Cobs influence his behaviour, leading him to replicate similar patterns of emotional neglect and dismissal.

Mepad:

Relationship between MePhone4 and MePad is characterised by a clear hierarchical structure. MePad is the professional assistant, always respectful and subservient, referring to MePhone4 as "sir" and fulfilling his tasks with precision. This dynamic reflects a classic power imbalance where MePhone4 holds the authority, and MePad exists primarily to serve and support him (Though I do not believe Mephone does so with any malicious intent). MePad's professional demeanour and lack of overt emotional expression reinforce this power dynamic, as MePhone4's emotional volatility is contrasted with MePad's calm and measured responses.

MePhone4's authority over MePad is not just professional but also emotional. MePhone4's insecurities and anxieties often lead him to rely on MePad for solutions and advice, placing MePad in a position of subtle influence despite his ostensibly lower status. This creates a complex dynamic where MePad, though subordinate, becomes a critical emotional anchor for MePhone4, helping to manage his chaotic emotions and the stress of running the show.

Despite claiming that he "can't feel anything," MePad's use of sarcasm and his occasional concern for others indicate a deeper, more nuanced emotional landscape. This suggests that while MePad may not experience emotions in the same way as MePhone4, he has learned to navigate the emotional environment of the show, adopting a dry, ironic tone as a coping mechanism or a way to fit into his role.

MePad's emotional suppression is most evident in his calm and composed demeanour, even in situations where others might express frustration or concern. However, his growing concern for the contestants, particularly Marshmallow, reveals that he is not entirely devoid of emotional response.

The relationship between both of them revolves from one of strict professionalism to something more complex and personal. While MePad starts as a loyal assistant, his actions later in the series suggest a growing sense of independence and moral judgement. His willingness to challenge MePhone4's decisions, as seen when he lies about Marshmallow's whereabouts.

Truth or Flare (ii 15):

MePad's conversation with MePhone4 about quitting the host position of Inanimate Insanity II is a pivotal moment that causes the shift in their relationship. This conversation suggests that MePad is not only concerned with the show's logistics but also with MePhone4's well-being and the overall direction of the series. MePad's ability to confront MePhone4 about such a significant decision reflects a deepening of their relationship, where MePad moves from being a mere assistant to a confidant and advisor, someone who can influence MePhone4's major life decisions..

CONCLUSION:

Whilst many claim and point fingers at Mephone4’s behaviourisms after such a pivotal moment. There is something that must be addressed that I noticed as I am writing this analysis. In this episode, he struggles with handling the pressure of hosting and maintaining control, revealing his insecurities. His tendency to put his own desires above the contestants is a key aspect of his character, as seen when he prioritises entertainment value over fairness. Throughout the episode, MePhone4 becomes increasingly panicked as the game show format starts to unravel, whether that being even something simple as Suitcase trying to reassure Mephone about his past trauma.A pattern I have noticed is that people will try to justify themselves that they hate him because of how he doesn't care about his contestants or his co-hosts. When he clearly does! It is shown subtly throughout the season 2 and 3 he does care, just isn't sure how to show it. The only way he knows is by doing what he is doing. He learnt everything from TV, his views on things will be skewed.He's going to have weird views on what is considered care. Because this man hasn't HAD a single OUNCE of it in his life. He doesn't KNOW what care is, properly.There's a reason why he was suddenly rude and dismissive,there's a reason why he didn't keep answering suitcase,despite suitcase, trying to reassure him that it's okay to talk about it and that she's there for him if nobody else is. Mephone doesn't know how to respond to that. How would he anyway?

If you don't agree with me. Please do NOT come after me. This is just MY personal analysis because he is a heavy kin for me, for a good reason. And It makes me really anxious and REALLY uncomfortable when I see people hunt him down as a character,I am not excusing his actions but I am explaining it.

[lesboygamzee]

i do see a lot of people taking cronus at face value in the more serious sections of the otherkin community and its like ok whatever but i like to analyse this shit . these are fictional characters ( funny 2 sya when talking abt kin shit but you know what i mean ) and sometimes what is being communicated by the story is not always perfect or like ideal rep . vriska is better off not identifying so strongly with mindfang and cronus is textually faking otherkinity for pity points . i can understand being averse to these when you are on your otherkin blog posting about being otherkin but i do like ot actually read and work with the comic . this is coming from someone who is for realsies serious abt being gamzee ... i know what happens in the comic and know that people are going to have thoughts abt me that make me uncomfortanle its whatever . #thegrind

[kanakori]

i hate the culture of "kinning" and the lack of media literacy in fandom because you cannot express that you relate to morally grey/complicated/evil characters in any way because people will either assume you're admitting you're some cartoonishly evil psychopath or that you're one of those insufferable joker incel type dudes

like for example, i personally relate to a lot of iasip dennis' internal struggles and some of his shitty behavior (+ as someone who struggles with moral ocd and who also acknowledges their behavior can be shitty and awful, seeing that behavior in a character is a big eye opener and has been a really valuable tool for me in both realizing that "oh fuck, that's shitty, i do that" or "hey, my ocd is saying i behave like this but i genuinely don't, maybe i'm not evil") but some people will just hear "i relate to dennis" and immediately think that im some homicidal sexual predator??

which like, first of all, is a complete mischaracterization of dennis and oversimplifies his character in an awful way that, in my opinion, disrespects the whole writing team and the show in general (there are plenty of really good character analyses of him on this website that articulate it better but im assuming you understand what i mean) but also, when did i say i relate to everything he does? when did i say i believe everything he believes? why cant you just casually relate to characters instead of Kinning them with your entire soul and claiming you're an exact living copy of said character???

[fairytaleendingss]

The Fandom Zodiac

I have this theory that everyone has a “big three” when it comes to fandoms that they’re in.

I realise that no matter how many fandoms I drift in an out of, I always come back to three specific comfort fandoms and I have for years. I feel like at this point that they make up a core part of my personality and kind of define how I interact with fandom culture in general so I thought I’d share.

Sun Sign: A fandom that really shaped your fandom experience. You’ve probably interacted with this fandom the most and share your love for this fandom most outwardly. It was a turning point for your relationship with fandom/fanfic/fan art etc. and you have a special relationship with the culture of this fandom and its media. It might have helped you discover what genres of fanfic you prefer or art styles you connect with. You’ve probably spent a lot of time deep diving on the lore, creating/discussing fan theories and subtext and analysing characters and relationships. You probably have a lot of merch of this fandom and have made lot of friends through this fandom (or you’ve converted a bunch of friends because you think the source material is so good that everyone should get into it). This fandom is something you find very interesting and mentally stimulating.

Moon Sign: This is a fandom that you resonate with on an deeply emotional level. You might not be as outwardly open about your participation in this fandom but the source material/fanbase impacted you personally. It helped you learn about yourself and who you are. You’ve probably been in this fandom for a long time and you may feel like its characters have grown up alongside you. Maybe you kin some of the characters in this fandom or you are really really invested in some of the ships. Maybe it helped you discover your sexuality or helped you get through a difficult time. Maybe your love for this fandom has developed throughout your life and you’ve shifted into a more niche subgroup away from the main source material, but nonetheless you have a special place for this fandom in your heart. This is a fandom that you’re probably more likely to want to gate-keep because it’s very personal to you.

Rising Sign: This is a fandom you have a lot of fun with. A fandom that you enjoy the aesthetic and culture of. The source material may not have had quite as much of a deep emotional impact on you as the other two fandoms but it brings you a lot of joy and excitement! Maybe you were introduced to this fandom and its content by a friend or got into it a bit later on but this is a fandom that you come back to for the fun of being a part of. This is likely to be a mainstream, popular fandom that you fit into quite easily. You might come to find a lot of other people in your life are already in this fandom as well and it’s something you can bond over. This fandom was probably a cultural reset for you. You really enjoy the vibes of this fandom.

Obviously there’s also room for nuance here and overlap between different aspects of your big three fandoms but this is just a fun little concept I came up with to analyse the way I interact with different fandoms.

For example, I’d say I’m a Supernatural Sun, Marauders/Harry Potter Moon and a Stranger Things Rising.

What do you guys think? What are your Big Three?

[literallys-illiteracy]

Impromptu electric screaming analysis:

So o'er on twitter i saw an analysis of different Meursault EGO and how they could relate to his nature in particular, and as i have recently re-read Philip K. Dick's 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?', (henceforth: 'bladerunner' to save time) i thought i would add onto their analysis regarding Electric Screaming.

Foremost we must discuss three perspectives of this EGO ere-we analyse it's relation to Meursault and 'The Stranger'.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?:

The primary theme(s) in 'Bladerunner' is akin to that of the movie inspired, is best presented in the form of a question: "What does it mean to be human?"; in the novel, we follow a bounty hunter, who is responsible for finding and hunting down humanoid androids who have escaped to earth. The method used by our primary 'hunter', named Deckard, to determine whether one is an android is called the 'The Voigt-Kampff Test', measuring minute differences in reaction time, and ones visible 'empathy' (a word which appears over 100 times in the book).

Empathy is shown throughout the entire book; the claim is made that it is a purely human trait, that:

"“An android,” he said, “doesn’t care what happens to another android. That’s one of the indications we look for."" [...]

this concept of empathy is transposed by the bounty hunter(s)' lack of emotion shown towards the androids, reffering to them as "it", using the phrase "retired" rather than killed; Furthermore, there is limited empathy shown between the human's within the book: Iran and Rick(Deckard)'s marrige is shown to be distant, with Iran distaining Rick's work, viewing him as a murderer; another hunter, Philip Resch, showing no remorse to 'retiring' these androids, even after retiring his supervisor (who had turned out to be an android in himself).

Resch acts as a foil to Deckard, who, after the hunting of three androids, shows no remorse, even willing to "retire" himself should he turn out to be one; Though Deckard's attitude began as kin to that of Resch's, he begins to question himself, ruminating over the reply of one whom he had just retired:

“An android,” [Deckard] said, “doesn’t care what happens to another android. That’s one of the indications we look for." “Then,” Miss Luft said, “you must be an android.”

This change in mind is borne from both the refute posed by Miss Luft, compounded by his encounter with one 'Rachel Rosen', who, though momentarally, made Deckard question his faith in 'The Voigt-Kampff Test', that, should a person be emotionally or empathically deviant from the norm, they would be murdered by the pretense.

L'etranger:

The Stranger, novel by Albert Camus, also sold as L'etranger and The Outsider, is the novel of inspiration for Meursault, following the internal journey told in two parts, following the death of his mother, and preceeding his murder of another; and following his imprisonment and proceeding execution.

The name of the book stems from Meursault's views being abstracted from the norm - his beliefs differ in such a way that he is posed as a "Stranger" to common society. To summarise Meursault's beliefs is best said as "absurdism", that humans have no inherent meaning, or purpose.

I would like to aside a small section to clarify the difference between 'existentialism', and 'nihilism', and how they contrast the beleif in Providence. The three philosophies listed above are all intrinsicly linked in their belief of an inherently meaningless, chaotic, and fleeting universe; these three beliefs however trifurcate at their response to this belief.

Though i will assay to discuss each three apart, there is a large field of overlap in each of them, stemming from the variant nature of human beliefs, and their resistance to being defined.

The easiest to define, and the most intrinsicly linked betwixt the others is absurdism: Absurdism, discuss the absurd nature of human life, our innate urge to attempt to find meaning in a meaningless universe, the order and rationality that man attempts to maintain fighting against the chaos and irrationality of their universe; absurdism, while not claiming to understand or define reality, believing it epistemologically infeasable, states that existance within this universe is inhieriently absurd. Traditionally, one of the posed responses to an absurdist world is suicide, in the belief that, though the universe is meaningless, it is the nature of humanity to seek meaning despite knowing its futility, that obtaining true meaning is bootless — it is through this lens which absurdism differs from the belief of nihilism;

Nihilism, as prior mentioned, relates to the belief of a complete and utter meaningless in life and the universe; the sad quirks of circumstance act to both start and end all things, and that there is no point in existance. This is now a topic which i find frustrating, as when defining nihilism one must contend with the fact that nihilism does not act as one singular belief. Nihilism is... tricky. In many ways there is potential to define what a nihilist beleives, however that will almost never encompass the entirety of their philosophy: The most common trait, often acting as a throughline for the other's, is the non existance of human purpose, and lack of meaning in the universe. This is the basis of what i will refere to as 'existential nihilism' (which is the primary focus that returns forthcoming). Existenital nihilism may be accompanied by other fields: Epistemological nihilism, or the belief that knowledge is inattainable and emphemaral (closely related to the field of sceptecism); Moral nihilism, which poses that, the chaotic and fleeting nature of the universe descents an innability for definite and universal morals (somewhat linked to the belief of 'Hard Determinism'); or even Ontological nihilism, which posits the idea that nothing at all exists.

Finally, relating back to the concept mentioned agone in absurdism, of "mans search for meaning to be fruitless and futile in the meaningless universe", is 'existentialism', the acknowledgement of the universes transient, chaotic and absurd nature, alongside the idea that one should still strive to live an authentic life in which they find value or meaning in their existence; The primary difference that existentialism creates from nihilism is their treatment of the universes' lack of meaning as an adjacent concept to the meaning one finds in life.

The reason that i find these topics hard to discuss in any true depth is due to their compounded nature; it is far from impossible for a person to believe in aspects of both nihilism and existentialism, or existentialism and absurdism. Mentioned ere, existential nihilism is the belief in a lack of meaning in the universe, the belief from which all three philosophies discussed are descendant from. Without acknowledging the intrinsicly linked nature of these topics, all rooted in the common belief of nihilism, one is unable to properly realise the difference in each, and one will be less likely to properly grasp how one may have overlapping beliefs.

There are many examples that i could choose from, too many to discuss in this Meursault essay (remember when this was about him?) but the two i have selected are: Friedrich Nietzsche, and (so that i can somehow relate this back) Albert Camus.

Though commonly (and correctly) attributed a nihilist, Nietzsche did not believe in absolute (or ontological) nihilism as others may, nor did he believe in futility persuing meaning in life — Nietzsche was both and neither an existentialist and a nihilist, believing that one can and should find meaning in their life, coming to terms with their lack of inherent meaning, yet overcoming it, whilst also beleiving that that there are no inherent values or morals that one should hold. It is to be noted however that Nietzsche was a self proclaimed nihilist, yet also rejected common notions of the belief. Due to this, one might define his beliefs as separate, as 'Nietzscheist', yet one must also accept that there is a futility attempting to create labels for what a person may believe.

Camus, in comparison, denied both the label of a nihilist and of an existentialist, though he was often labelled as the latter due to the closely related nature of both absurdism and existentialism being practicalised responses to existential nihilism. Similtaneousley, one may pose several of his works as leaning closer to nihilism, though writing against nihilism in his essay 'The Rebel', such as, and most notably, the acceptance and inevitability of death present within 'The Stranger'. Meursault's final thoughts within the novel reflect how many feel detached from the universe;

“I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world, finding it so much like myself.”

more specifically, Meursault acts as a moral nihilist, akin to Nietzsche, not understanding the supposed inherent morality or value present in human life, nor understanding those who refuse to acknowledge the inevitability of death.

2 layers of contrivance:

Dreaming Electric Sheep Encounter

the encounter and EGO gift for Dreaming Electric Sheep has been in the game for quite a while now, and Its always been one of my favourite for its existance being a reference.

in whole, this abnormality seems to relate to somewhat similar themes as the novel it references; The concept of exploiting the non-human, or androids, in order to fuel socity as in the novel is present — Desperately longing to escape, the sheep is used as a source of power having its freedom removed along with its lightning.

There is a second theme present however within the abnormaltiy observation logs (and arguably though Meursault's own EGO), that of the electricity being harmful to the sheep. Sinclair, thinking that this is the case, chooses to plug more cables into the sheep, attempting to siphon it, concluding that:

Well, there’s no way for us to know now, but… I wonder if lightning actually hurts this Abnormality. Or… maybe having its electricity taken away hurts more.

This concept is (once again, arguably) present in Meursault's EGO line:

This electricity is all I have left… I can't…!

3rd layer of contrivance:

so. what does this EGO represent on Meursault?

personally, through the relations to both The Stranger, and Electric Sheep — Books questioning the reality of humanity — there is a likely chance that this EGO is indicitave of how Meursault can be exploited or abused by others around him, perhaps not nessecarally exploited for something that he specifically provides, as is the case for the Electric Sheep itself, but rather being overworked and exploited for his time, as others know that he simply does as he is asked.

The EGO corrosion animation also supports this concept — within the animation, meursault simply falls to the ground and releases his electricity, potentally representing his being overworked.

This was SUPPOSED TO BE A SHORT ESSAY!

anyways it was inspired by a twitter thread

[deusvervewrites]

Maybe I’m Perfect AU x Stray Cat AU x Kith and Kin AU: What’s scarier than one Midoriya who snapped and weaponized analyses? Two Midoriyas who snapped and weaponized analyses.

>:3

[madame-mortician]

Analysing the Family Dynamic of Saw

A very obvious theme in the Saw franchise is the found-family aspects for the main antagonists. It’s not subtle at all with Amanda and John’s relationship but I wanted to delve more into it.

John Kramer is a man with no family. His only true loved-one is Jill Tuck, who he divorced after becoming emotionally detached from everybody. He was going to have a son with Jill but tragically she suffered a miscarriage which started John’s downward spiral into the monster he becomes. He created a puppet character for his unborn son, which he named Billy. The interesting thing here is that he later reused his unborn son’s doll for his Jigsaw games, updating the design from a cute little doll into a terrifying looking dummy. John uses Billy as a mascot of sorts, speaking through him to his victims. I think it’s interesting to note that he’s using the representation of his unborn child as his mascot. I also think it’s worth noting that he updated the design from a cute children’s puppet to the more adult, bigger dummy version, almost like a grown-up version. A major part of Saw is the theme of “legacy” and the kind of legacy John will leave after he dies. It ends up being a big one but at the start he had no kin. He shut Jill out of his life and never had children, so all he had was his work. Yet even then he uses the representation of his unborn son to speak through.

Then there’s Mark Hoffman. We don’t know much about his home life but we see he has a great emotional attachment to his sister, and she’s the only one in his life. It’s clear he has no romantic partners and if his parents are still alive he isn’t close with them. Like John, his whole life spirals after he loses a loved one, with his bitter hatred towards people like Seth Baxter fuelling him into the murderer he becomes later. When John finds out he pinned a Jigsaw trap on him he decides to test him with a rigged trap. The trap isn’t rigged so that Hoffman will die, but so that he will survive. He “proves” his ideology for Hoffman who is then coerced into helping Jigsaw. One could argue John only enlisted Hoffman’s help to both punish him, and because his inside u of the police department would be helpful and whilst I agree, I also believe John took the opportunity to make himself somebodies mentor. You gotta remember by this point he’d pushed everybody else away, he must’ve been extremely lonely and considering he was so excited to be having a child it’s clear he wanted nothing more than to take somebody under his wing and teach them things only he could. It was likely not a conscious decision, I doubt John recruit Hoffman with the intention of becoming a father figure towards him, but subconsciously he desired that. It’s why he treats him like a student, but doesn’t give a crap about anybody else he recruits (Obi for example.) At first Hoffman seems reluctant to accept the help. He joins John mostly because he’s forced to. Eventually he becomes a devoted disciple but it took him a while to get comfortable. I also think a major turning point was Amanda.

Now obviously after Amanda survives her test, John comes to her and recruits her and we all know she has major abandonment issues, specifically with John. She states multiple times that she sees John as a father figure, who she becomes obsessed with because her own father was a horrible abusive person. Whilst Amanda becomes unhealthy devoted to John, he becomes more forgiving of her. He definitely sees Amanda as a daughter, likely more than he sees Hoffman as a son, and he gives Amanda multiple second chances because he doesn’t want her to fail. John is a huge hypocrite throughout the entire series and his relationship with Amanda is no different. He punishes people for things when Amanda has done way worse, and he knows but chooses not to call her out unless he wants to teach her a quick lesson.

Here Hoffman’s relationship with John becomes a game of trying to one-up Amanda. It’s obvious to Hoffman that Amanda is John’s favourite and he sees her as a daughter. Even though it’s not likely Hoffman desires to be seen as a son, he still becomes jealous and starts a rivalry with Amanda, which is mostly one-sided. Amanda isn’t shown to be jealous of Hoffman, but it’s also clear she doesn’t particularly like him. Hoffman however, despises her, and gets her killed. I don’t just think he disliked Amanda because she was close with John though, I also think a major part of his relationship with her is that Amanda reminds him of his deceased sister. He doesn’t want to feel that heartbreak again, so he shuts Amanda out deciding he doesn’t like her and then getting rid of her when he can’t stand seeing her around. His entire motivation has been for his sister and now he sees a woman who reminds him of her, working for Jigsaw just like he is and it disgusts him.

Jill Tuck‘s relationships are interesting. She isn’t a part of the whole Jigsaw thing, so she hardly interacts with John or his apprentices however she does reunite with Amanda after her “rehabilitation.” Amanda was one of her patients who she gave up on, and seeing her “fine” shocks her even though she subconsciously knows Amanda is not just cured like that. It’s clear she cares about her and seeing her after being tested BY HER HUSBAND would’ve been upsetting for her. Her relationship with Hoffman is worse, because she meets up with him multiple times, mostly just to get him to fulfil John’s will. Her scenes kind of read to me like a tired mother and her son that she’s distant from. Unlike Hoffman and John, her relationship isn’t really motherly. It’s almost a step-mother dynamic. Like she lives with you and your father loves her but you just kinda tolerate her. They’re only working together because she’s telling him to do whatever John told her. He only does it because she’s John’s ex-wife. Of course then she tries to kill him, and he is utterly betrayed before he goes on a long hunt to kill Jill. Again, I don’t really see Hoffman and Jill’s relationship as a surrogate mother situation but he kills her and it almost feels like matricide.

Admittedly Lawrence Gordon doesn’t really for into the found family aspects of Saw. He definitely becomes a loyal and devoted follower of John’s and kills Hoffman as vengeance for him killing Jill, but his relationship with John doesn’t feel like a father-son dynamic at all. At a stretch it kinda feels like a distant cousin who comes to help with fixing a car but you wouldn’t spend Christmas with you know? Weird allegory but it’s the vibes. He has no relationship with Amanda, none with Hoffman, his only relationship with John is seemingly more like a job than a family and he barely knows Jill.

Logan Nelson.

[inkdemonapologist]

What are your thoughts on joeys character in batdr and his redemption? If you ask me I like what they did with him. They gave him redemption without excusing some of the bad stuff he did. And I think memory joey could grow to be somewhat of his own character. But the redemption isn’t perfect though. Even though I said the it didn’t excuse some of the stuff he did it felt like they swept the bad stuff under the rug. But who knows. Maybe they’ll fix this in future.

But enough about what I think, what don you think?

I’ve talked about this before – the TL;DR of that post is that I think this is, conceptually, a promising way to portray Joey moving forward to be better for someone new, but in actual execution it fails to do that.

TBH I’d love to stop categorising this as “redemption”… I've grown to dislike this framing, debating whether it’s a Good Redemption or a Bad Redemption or whether Joey is Really Redeemed or Not, because it assumes that Redemption™ is even what’s happening in this story. BatDR is a story where we’re given reason to believe that Joey may have had a change of heart. That’s it! We can question and analyse his supposed change of heart, but it doesn’t have to REDEEM HIM to be real, and I think measuring things on the scale of REDEEMED VS NOT REDEEMED is not only gliding over some pretty complex ideas of What Does Redeemed Mean In The Context Of Fiction (it is the sort of concept that it is so, so easy for people to have vastly different unspoken definitions for, making discussions of “he was redeemed” “no he wasn’t” especially futile), but also not really useful here.

For one thing, this isn’t a story about Joey's change of heart. Tbh, he barely features – Memory Joey can have a change of heart and work to be better if you believe/headcanon that he has OG Joey’s attitude, worldview, and personality flaws (which I do), but he has no crimes to acknowledge or repent for other than MAYBE reluctance to get involved. You might as well ask a person to repent for the crimes of their kins!! We hear about the choices original Joey made, and we can judge those choices postmortem, but he’s not here to redeem himself through this story; he’s dead.

As to the actual spirit of your question: The big thing. The really really big thing. Is that the CYCLE IS STILL GOING. It’s still going and it’s still bad and everyone in it is still miserable!! He didn’t fix that!!! The only evidence we have of ANY attempt to make it nicer in there is that he added Allison Angel, which like, “i’ve created a new life to keep you company in the torture dimension, so it’s less bad” is NOT ACTUALLY BETTER.

It’s important because it’s the only thing Joey could still try to do. He clearly doesn’t have any money to give restitution to his victims or their families, and I’m not gonna be a cop about demanding that he return the ink machine to the corporation that’s even more evil than he was. There’s not a lot of tangible steps he could take to perform penance for what he’s done, beyond fessing up publicly to his crimes and turning himself in and definitely going to jail, and like, maybe that would be a good thing for him to do, but if we’re going to hold Joey to that standard we really should be making the same demands of, say, Thomas Connor, or Sammy Lawrence in every Escape AU.

He can’t go back and un-ruin the lives he ruined years ago. But he didn’t do anything about the cycle, and that’s something that’s still happening NOW.

That was his responsibility, sapient life that he created to suffer and should have felt a huge obligation to – yet, we have no evidence that Joey was like, trying to fix it (in fact, he seemed PRETTY FOCUSED on spending his limited time creating and then raising Audrey), so every assertion that he was a changed man falls a bit flat, because being a sweet, loving person to your family and friends while running an endlessly looping torture dimension in your basement is actually quite sinister! Even Memory Joey asserts that the only reason he can’t fix the cycle now is because he’s not really the OG Joey who made it – does that mean the OG Joey could? Audrey says she wants to make the cycle kinder; could Joey have done that? Why didn’t he? We know from Allison's appearance in the original BatIM that the hellish experience of the first game IS the version that came from Joey’s change of heart, and it’s not great for literally anyone!!

Joey was a better person to Audrey, his daughter, and I do believe he genuinely loved her. If it were just that, it would be pretty good – Joey disappears from public life and stops obsessing over Bendy and instead of barging into his past victims’ lives to demand forgiveness, he just wants to be a better man and a good father to this daughter he created. That’s a compelling story, and I think it’s probably the best direction that “Joey wants to be better” could go. But once we realise he was actively ignoring suffering that he both caused and was responsible for fixing, it’s hard to take that love in good faith anymore. Joey being good exclusively to people that he likes who are doing what he wants isn’t anything new; Joey’s delight in The One Who Came Out Right feels less like a change of heart when we see Memory Joey echo his complete lack of sympathy for The One Who Came Out Wrong.

The reason it feels like Joey’s wrongdoing was glossed over isn’t because Joey needed to record an audiolog saying “I acknowledge that my actions were without excuse, and I’m deeply sorry for the harm I’ve caused” or whatever… it’s because there was something he could’ve changed, or could’ve at least TRIED to change, and he didn’t do it -- and it feels like we, the audience, were not supposed to notice that, because the story didn’t notice, either. It'd be possible to address it; like, what if Joey's change of heart instead involved him trying to fix things for the people in the cycle, and Audrey was created accidentally in that process -- then his love for Audrey would also be a picture of how far he'd come, taking responsibility for this person he'd brought into being and seeing her as a beloved daughter instead of a mistake. Or even just an audiolog where Joey says some kind of “oh god I can’t end it, it’s just going to repeat forever, what have i done, what can i do,” and it might actually feel possible to believe in his change of heart, to believe that he really tried as hard as he could and just never succeeded. But this huge thing is barely acknowledged. It's fine. He put Allison in there, so now it's fine! Don't dwell on the past!!

Anyway, like I said in my first post, if all this were intentional, I would LOVE it, conceptually. The idea of Joey Drew being a good father to Audrey who really genuinely loved her, but also was not actually a better person in a lot of ways, was still the same guy who was uncomfortable with guilt and glossed over his wrongdoing in order to prematurely Move On from the things that made him feel like a failure and focus on the relationship with his daughter that made him feel like a success, is a compelling, difficult character! The way so many people fell in love with Memory Joey just seems like, how everyone in original Joey’s life must’ve felt about him, the way they all kept believing in him despite everything, the way they wanted so badly to believe him. Impose this lens upon the whole game, and it all fits in. But since there’s no sign it’s intentional – and, with the archive, actually some signs that it wasn’t – it sort of sits weirdly. Memory Joey isn’t framed as an unreliable narrator. The tone of his final scene clearly isn’t MEANT to be dissonant.

---

So, uh, that’s what I think. I think the concept of Joey having a genuine change of heart and being better for his daughter could be good; I think the concept of Joey presenting himself as a changed man when really he is Just The Same, He Just Likes You This Time, could also be good. But he was handled clumsily enough that I think we didn’t quite get either thing, and, as usual, you have to fill in the blanks with headcanons and inferences to get one of these stories -- so which story you get kinda depends on which way you decide to interpret everything. Nothing tells us for sure that Joey didn't try his hardest to fix everything, so if you want that story, you can simply headcanon that he tried his hardest. But my personal preference is definitely for the reading where Joey believes himself a changed man because he really does love his daughter, and that's genuinely sweet!! but he remained the same man he always was, dodging guilt and responsibility in favour of a narrative that made him feel good about himself. I'm still quite proud of the frustrated little indictment Memory Joey gives him in that one creationship comic I made:

[dykepuffs]

I want to argue that Dracula is the first work of Nokiawave.

-It's heavily concerned with new technology which drives the plot: Telegrams between everyone being collated into the text, Dr Seward's audiolog on the phonograph which Mina types up, mass transit in the form of both trains and Tube, steamships (and specifically the contrast between steam and sail) and loads of minor examples.

-It's concerned with new social technologies and social change: Mina is a typist, a respectable modern job for a young middle-class woman. Jon is a clerk and is working in an exciting emerging market. Dr Seward uses all the modern methods and keeps up with theory and scientific developments. Lucy is pleased to have plenty of male friends, not just to be seeking to marry. And it contrasts this with both the "good" Old Ways - The helpful, hopeless, peasants who give Jon his anti-vampire icon, the "broad minded" but also clearly steeped in superstition Van Helsing - and the "bad" Old Ways - Obviously, Dracula and also the enslaved Roma (Who, oh god, I I have to write about them in the context of Romanian chattel slavery of Roma, which was technically abolished in stages throughout the 2nd half of the 19th century, but where emancipation came with enforced sedentarism and obligation to a landowner - And where many remained enslaved in all practical terms into the C20th, and specifically in Transylvania the effects of Maria Theresia's Four Decrees that were still in effect that meant they would both be indentured to a landowner as "new farmers" and their children would be kidnapped by the state and given to white families for "reeducation" - but most people analysing the text seem to treat them as willingly Evil Minions).

-It's full of the anxieties about what Eastern and Southern Europe will do as they "modernise and open" (ie become financially and culturally available to the West) and specifically the fear of the Rich Slavic* Oligarch (to a certain kind of British mind, anyone east of Berlin and north of Athens is Slavic, sigh) spreading their malign influence in the Capital Cities of the West. Even the touch that Dracula was once a warlord but is now a slick investor and man-about-town.

-It has lots of continent hopping, focusing on the ~local colour~ in Transylvania and the contrast between both the "superstitious" locals and the traveller who finds it all very quaint and interesting but not very serious, and between the poverty of the normal people and the wealth and seclusion of Dracula, and then likewise giving us whistle-stop tours of the interesting bits of Whitby and London, making the city as much of a character as the humans. The Westerner abroad is seen as just a natural phenomenon, but the foreigners* in Britain are notable and exotic.

- It has a mysterious superweapon/monster which is hidden around a big western capital city, where most people (and even the police and regular military) have no idea what it is and are powerless to stop it, and a lot of tension lies on the crux of "What happens if this gets out here, surrounded by all these civilians?" - In a way that treats the mythological East* as a natural place for atrocities to occur, but them happening in London is a shock.

-It has spying: Jon sneaking around the locked-up Carfax with his miniature camera, trying to take pictures to find out what Dracula is doing in there, could have absolutely been in a 1990s thriller. Likewise, meeting in Harrods to avoid suspicion because it's a plausible place for a fashionable young lady to be, surrounded by anonymising crowds.

-It has information warfare: Dracula reading up on British politics, studying maps of London, paying clerks and using shell companies to disguise his property acquisitions, and likewise the heroes using the telegram and port records and the sheer mass of paperwork generated by his activities to track Dracula, which feels like close kin to the Nokiawave staples of finding someone on cctv or by their credit card, or their car registration being flagged at a checkpoint. Jonathan lamenting the lack of an Ordnance Survey in Europe and the unmapped bits of Transylvania specifically really fits with the idea of the "Control Grid" posited by Gregory Flaxman who writes a lot about surveillance and information control in cinema.

-It has a team of both specialists and laypeople who were dragged into the action by circumstance, and much relies on their relationships. The laypeople's "unimportant" skills (Jonathan's knowledge of property and finance especially, and Mina's skills with logistics as well as her innovation and bravery in using herself as a conduit to Dracula) turn out to save the day. The team is multi-national and basically represents The Free World (TM), as well as allowing for jokes about national stereotypes.

-Mina being notably not a damsel in distress, but instead using her personal connection to the villain to absolutely ruin him in ways that nobody else could, is very much like the role of many women in Nokiawave films: She may be traumatised and in danger, more than anyone else because of the villain's obsession with her, but she's smart and deadly and willing to take risks to complete the mission.

-It ends with a massive cross-continental vehicle chase with tonnes of explosions.

[iusedtoweavecrowns]

On the oath of Feanor

Strap in for a long rambling post!

I've spent the last few days going down the rabbit hole of Bret Deveraux's blog - I'd already read his posts on the battle of Helm's Deep and the Siege of Gondor which I enjoyed immensely (I love analysing things I like and thinking about them from new angles if it's done from a friendly perspective even if it uncovers some faults (the faults in this case are mostly in the movies not the books)), this time I went in from the direction of Game of Thrones (I especially liked the posts on how the Dothraki hold up when compared with the Mongols and other real world steppe nomads - short answer, not at all) and found this post on how oaths and vows worked in the medieval times and before (ancient Rome and Greece) which got me thinking about the oath of Feanor.

Firstly, Tolkien (having of course worked thoroughly with medieval literature), really wrote in all the traditional components:

a) saying what you will do (this swear we all: death we will deal him ere Day's ending who findeth keepeth etc the silmarils (I took the text from tolkiengateway, I'm aware there's several different versions but didn't want to get into it that deep)). It's also common to name yourself in the oath which they do: it's clearly stated the relevant parties are Feanor and Feanor's kin

b) naming the godly party who is overseeing your oath (our word hear thou, Eru Allfather! and later calling upon Manwe and Varda as witnesses (I assume it's also witnessed by all the elves present, witnesses are important))

c) naming the price you will pay if you break your oath (in essence cursing yourself)(to the everlasting darkness doom us if our deed faileth)

(Another thought i just had on the wording of this particular version is if you remove the extra meat, the bones of this oath is they swear to kill anyone who keeps the silmarils from them (not just by holding them to yourself but also by casting away - the only way to be near a silmaril and not get entangled in this oath is to return it to Feanor's kin asap) and to pay the price (eternal darkness) if they fail in this task. There is no clause to absolve them of this failure through death for example (dying would be failure and result in eternal darkness?) so if you go with the idea that actually they just went to the halls of Mandos and could return from there, unless they are freed from the oath, it would absolutely still be in effect both in death (if the dead have agency - and there is presedence in the dead men Aragorn calls upon to fulfill their duty even from beyond the grave - whose very crime is breaking an oath!) and afterwards upon their return.

Thus the trap really is set and it made me think if all our modern thought on if they could have found this or that loophole or done this instead of that or just not fulfilled their oath is approaching this from the wrong perspective.

People believed in their gods. People believed in oaths, though saying belief here is perhaps the wrong word. An oath is basically a contract with a god as one of its parties and people truly did believe the god held them to it (I would imagine even more so in Middle Earth in an era where gods are literally right there and the question of belief in them is not relevant). Unless Eru themself releases Feanor and his kin (Manwe and Varda are just witnesses not the parties to whom the oath is bound) this is it. There are no loopholes I can see. And in-world people would know this and expect them to keep the oath, oaths and keeping them is on what the whole vassal system works for example. Forswearing an oath other than bringing divine punishment upon you makes you untrustworthy to the extreme (which is worse - being a kinslayer or forsworn? Either would make you a pariah I imagine).

"You swear an oath because your own word isn’t good enough, either because no one trusts you, or because the matter is so serious that the extra assurance is required. That assurance comes from the presumption that the oath will be enforced by the divine third party. The god is called – literally – to witness the oath and to lay down the appropriate curses if the oath is violated. Knowing that horrible divine punishment awaits forswearing, the oath-taker, it is assumed, is less likely to make the oath." (from the blog post)

If the oath is broken, you are breaking one of the systems on which the world functions (being able to trust someone who swears an oath of loyalty for example, knowing that this is not something anyone can simply back down from and go oh no I changed my mind actually) and if you break it and nothing happens? What does that say about the gods? For the gods' honour to remain intact they also must rain punishment upon you or all other oaths where they have been named come to question. I am not a feanorean apologist (okay I am but I'm not saying that kinslaying is good actually) but in-universe the other people around them would know and I imagine expect them to keep their oath (which once again has no back doors! no death we will deal them ere day's ending unless we like them and they actually do deserve a silmaril) and yet they do not deal death to everyone who holds a silmaril right away. They do hold back.

(This lead me down a line of thought of what if what's driving them mad there, as at least fandom likes to interpret it, is not the oath itself, what if it's the not keeping the oath? Because they are for a while there not keeping it (that they did nothing while Luthien held a silmaril is a big deal actually). Idk it's a subtle difference there but somehow it makes sense to me as an idea: what if the oath itself is not an evil entity whispering in their minds yearning to be fulfilled or whatever, it's the not acting upon it though the clauses are met - they are testing the patience of a god and of godly retribution. And whether Eru Iluvatar wants to be the enforcer of such an oath? Does Eru get a choice? (The blog post brings up that "in the literature of classical antiquity, it was also fairly common for the gods to prevent the swearing of false oaths – characters would find themselves incapable of pronouncing the words or swearing the oath properly" but Eru here has not stopped them nor sent some sort of divine message saying no I will not keep you to your oath, not until the very end.)

All this to say that it's hard for us in the modern world with a modern mindset to put ourselves in this space of mind. For us an oath is not the cornerstone of society, it's not something we believe in. We get a few oaths or vows here and there - swearing upon the bible to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth (at least they do that in American dramas), marriage vows, I recently encountered a soldier's oath of loyalty from WWI - are these still a thing? But they are just words to us, words you can break without divine consequences. Our words matter less to us in this way.

We think automatically that the honourable thing would be to break the oath and you know not go to war against innocent people (although honour is another category we don't put much faith into any more. We think of goodness but that's not the same thing). But I think in-world it really is a much harder dilemma because breaking an oath is about the least honorable thing you can do. And you are cursed. The oath doesn't need to be an evil entity like the One Ring for it to matter immensely and have great power. The oath itself doesn't need to be like an evil spell that affects the people who took it. The weight of it, the maddening distressing quality of it, can just be the dilemma, the eternal questioning it forces you into - to do horrible things but keep your word, your honour (you could argue the upholding of your word is the most important thing you have - even if you lose all worldly possessions your word's trustworthyness can't be taken from you unless you break your word yourself)(but can you keep your honour by doing something dishonorable?) and your literal safety from divine punishment or break it and save lives for the price of your own and if divine punishment doesn't kill you, being able to exist in the society. When your word, your oath, can be broken, how could you be trusted in literally any situation? (As a side note from the blog: "In the ancient world you might try to mend fences by consulting an oracle as to how to expiate the guilt of a broken oath (to be clear, you are mending fences with the offended god, not the mortal you made the agreement with)" - I now crave fics where the Feanoreans do decide to forswear the oath and are not like idk immediately swallowed by eternal darkness so they go on a wild escapade of Making It Up To Eru). In any case this is peak tragedy material - like prophecies that fulfill themselves in the effort to avoid them oaths too are meant to be inescapable. And the First Age is definitely a tragedy.

To end, a quote from the end of the blog post stressing something the author brings up often because we as modern people tend to struggle with it:

"People in the past generally believed their own religion. One of the most common – and most dangerous – pitfalls I find myself helping my students to navigate around is this one: assuming that because we don’t believe a given religion, no one of any sense at the time could have either. This is of course, when you think about it, obviously untrue. Moreover, it reduces people in the past from complex intelligent humans with agency to dummies who just didn’t know their stupid religion was stupid (it wasn’t, they weren’t).

What many of these examples of bungled oaths show is a kid’s understanding of how swearing and vowing works – they are little more than ‘pinky-swears.’ But societies in the past where these rituals were common believed they were effective – meaning that the ritual of oath-taking made the promise so given more trustworthy, more binding, more dangerous to break.

///

A formal oath, properly uttered and secured with appropriate sacredness, was a powerful, binding thing. These are people, after all, who thought the divine retribution on the other end of breaking that oath was very real. Even if we don’t believe that, we should take their faith seriously – if for no other reason than failing to do so often renders their behavior into nonsense."