#like lets be clear if we keep going with this line of argumentation basically all of us in the balkans should pack our bags and

[magnoliamyrrh]

by this point when i see balkan ppl who think the solution to things is as ethnically pure as possible ethnostates whichever way this is spun i just want to hit them square in the head with a pan. the most effective way to deal with this? yea probably not. is this what i want to do? yes.

[dragonlands]

There's so much negativity around Izzy's death so I wanted to address some of the points I keep seeing thrown around.

"Izzy's death was pointless"

No, he just had his big speech about how basically they can kill him but they cannot kill the movement. That is a clear paraller to a lot of real life protestors of unjustice. He died protecting the community, he died so the community could go on.

"Izzy's death made his healing pointless"

No it didn't. Healing is always good, feeling happiness and belonging are ALWAYS worth it. We never know how long we've got, doesn't mean we gotta stop trying to be better or happier. His healing was still real. It still mattered.

"Izzy's character arc was left unfinished, it's bad writing"

Oh my god. If you open any writing guide about how to write impactful deaths, and the first thing that comes up is to leave some part of their arc unfinished. And his arc did go through quite a beautiful line, sure there could've been more but his story didn't end like, mid arc. As a writer, of course you want to make the audience sad when a character dies. It's good storytelling. Good stories are supposed to make us feel.

"Izzy died on the arms of his abuser"

Where the hell did this idea come from? Ed and Izzy have been in a toxic codependent relationship way before this show started. You could argue that Izzy was Ed's abuser, but that is not the argument I want to make here. Yes, we saw Ed driven to madness shoot Izzy on screen, but we know Izzy's the one that forced him to be Blackbeart when he didn't want it anymore. There's turmoil all around them. But the final moment is them finally meeting as people, not as components of Blackbeard.

"Izzy's death was unnecessarily awful"

His death was sad, yes, but it was quite beautiful as far as deaths go. He was surrounded by family who cared for him. He was loved, and accepted as he is. He knew his legacy will be carried on.

"They killed off the only character that showed us healing is never too late"

Did we watch the same show? That begins with then unhappy 40+ year old Stede deciding it's finally time to reach for his dreams? Where we see Blackbeard slowly gaining back his humanity? Where Black Pete starts off as toxically masculine dude but ends up in a soft gay marriage? Where most of the crew wanted to mutiny but then they realized being soft is good, actually. Jim's whole purpose in life being revenge but them learning to let that go and instead concentrate on love and fun and family. And so on. Izzy's arc is beautiful, but he's not the only person healing who thought it was too late already.

"Izzy's death was bury your gays trope"

No, what, no. In a pirate show where everyobody is queer some queer people will die. Bury your gays is about only having one or few queer characters and killing them off while the straights get their happily ever afters. This is so far from that.

Also, I want people to be aware of the phenomenon, where creators of diverse shows are subjected to more critism than those of non diverse shows. If this intrests you, Sarah Z on Youtube made a great video on it called Double standards and diverse media. Our flag means death has given us so much, queer love story with a happily ever after, finding community, nonbinary character. And the creators have always been so kind to fans, so let's show them tht kindness back. Because critizicing this one aspect can easily turn to seeming like the whole story is just unwanted. That stories like Ed and Stede's aren't worth telling. And I'm so aftraid that will happen, when just now for the first time in years we are finally getting queer stories.

Also, I understand people are sad. I am sad too - Izzy was an amazing character and his death was sad but that's just. Good writing. You can grieve, but trying to turn it into a moral or dramaturgy issue is just not a good look. And attacking the creators of this wonderful show is just horrible.

Remember - this fandom is a safe space ship 🏴‍☠️🏳️‍🌈

[whateverisbeautiful]

♥️Reveling in Richonne - TOWL

#32: The Safety (1.04)

gif cred: @riickgrimes

It was very clear up to this point in TOWL that Rick hadn't felt alive in years. But in this next scene, we learn that Michonne hadn't truly been feeling safe in years. And why? Because the only time she feels safe is with Rick Grimes. 😭

Danai wrote and delivered a line that moved me, broke me, and healed me all at the same and I have so many thoughts on it because I appreciate it so much 🥲...

So inside the gym, Rick lets Michonne know that the CRM took out the helicopter because they always destroy any evidence that they exist. Then he acknowledges that the whole building is buckling but Michonne is preoccupied with something that’s caught her attention.

When she doesn’t respond to him, Rick says, "Michonne?" and she takes hold of a note left behind by a deceased innovator, Lakshmi Patel. Michonne starts to read it aloud and it explains that this place consisted of like-minded innovators trying to live off the grid and create a new, sustained, and hopeful future.

Patel clearly lost hope in that vision saying that their motto of ‘progress and redemption through innovation’ is now like a sick joke. It’s interesting the letter then says, “I can’t face how much I have failed everyone” because that connects to something Rick feels, especially since when he chose to die he believed he died a failure.

Patel says she can’t continue to watch their mission die and apologizes. Meanwhile, Rick reads a much-needed message on the wall that says “Trust in your ability to adapt and overcome. Your past doesn’t define you.” And he def needs to hear that. 

gif cred: @clonecaptains

Michonne concludes reading the letter as Patel expresses her hope to be remembered as someone who refused to leave the world the same way she found it. And then Michonne gives a sad look at the body beside the letter seeing the somber fate of Patel. 

Michonne knows there are some connections to be drawn between this letter and Rick so she notes how it tends to not work out and fall apart when people try to save the world their own way. And just to make it extra clear she’s talking about Rick she says, “Sound familiar?”

(Side note: I like how she stays having one side of her shirt hanging off her shoulder. There’s something casual and comfortable about it plus it’s sorta like she’s trying to get Rick to realize the shirts already hanging off and he can take the rest off if he gets it together lol) 

Michonne says, “It’s just like this place. They thought they knew it all.” And then because these two can’t resist throwing some jabs in their arguments this ep she adds, “Oh except the killing of innocent people. Except that part.”

Also, I like the framing with a literal barrier between Rick and Michonne that paints the picture of the figurative barriers between them as well. Then Rick sounds the most CRM-ish he’s ever sounded when he responds saying, “The city stands.” Had me like...

And Michonne felt the same because the way she sighs - she’s so over this Commando front Rick is putting on. What happened to 'this isn’t my city'? I miss that energy.

And then Rick says, “And I’ll stop the killing. I’ll find a way.” He's so prepared to just burden himself with this mission. And Michonne challenges that, mentioning just like Patel thought she’d find a way...and we see how that worked out for her. 

Rick says, “You still don’t understand.” And the reason Michonne 'doesn’t understand' this is because it’s not the actual root of why Rick won’t go home. She can’t be fooled. And what Michonne does understand is that what Rick is proposing to do is basically, “Signing up for lifelong duty to the enemy.” But Rick rebuts that, “This is about ending the enemy.”

I love that Michonne is quick to respond saying, “This is not you, Rick.” She keeps trying to emphasize this because she knows him deeply and she knows this is not him being anywhere near his true self.

It's really fascinating to see this scenario play out where Rick has lost himself and is now back with the one person who knows him better than he knows himself, who can continually and accurately remind him that this version of him is not really him.

gif cred: @riickgrimes

But Rick thinks there are some aspects of this version of him that are authentic as he says, “This isn’t me how? That I would give everything - my hand - my life for you. That’s not me?”

gif cred: @riickgrimes

And I do love hearing Rick basically say I would give absolutely everything for you and how that's him to his core. And it is him, but also a healthy Rick would be fighting to be with her too, not just die for her.

gif cred: @riickgrimes

As Rick makes his way over to her side of the barrier he yells, “This is what I need to do to keep you safe!” Safety has understandably been such a huge priority for Rick to provide since the very beginning of TWD. And when he yells this I can hear this fear in his voice that he genuinely doesn’t think there’s another way to keep her safe than the one he’s taking.

I appreciate how passionate Rick feels about keeping her safe but also…the tone of it just needed to come down a few notches because no one should be yelling at Michonne. 👌🏽

Also, this made me think about how in the season 4 finale, Rick tells Daryl “I want to keep him safe. That’s all that matters” regarding protecting Carl after the horrible night with the Claimers. Keeping his family safe is such a driving force of Rick's character and he feels the same intense devotion to protecting Michonne as he yells that he has to stay with the CRM to keep her safe.

Her safety is all that matters to him rn and he’ll do anything to preserve it. But that’s why it’s such a perfect and impactful gut punch for Michonne to then reveal where her true source of safety comes from in this scene.

gif cred: @riickgrimes

Despite Rick's more ramped-up energy, Michonne, like she so often had done in the main show, (with that bullet moment from Clear being top of mind) approaches Rick's antsy energy with this arresting calm and beautiful vulnerability as she just melts my heart by softly telling Rick....

“The only time I feel safe is when I’m with you.”

gif cred: @figmentof

Y’all…😭😭😭 Perfection. I love it so much and it’s truly my favorite thing she’s ever told him. 😍

Before I started writing these TOWL posts I knew two lines were basically going to need a whole post dedicated to the line alone and it’s this one here from Michonne and another line from Rick in episode 5 that we’ll talk about later. There’s just so much to unpack with Michonne telling Rick that the only time she feels safe is with him. It makes total sense.

I had made a post right after episode 4 that incorporated TWD gifs of all the moments where it was evident Michonne got her safety from Rick. And I just think it’s the sweetest thing on the planet to know that in this dangerous world, the one thing that most made Michonne feel like it’s gonna be okay is Rick. 🥹 I once saw someone say Michonne makes Rick strong and Rick makes Michonne safe and I love that. Gospel truth. 💯

It’s such a big deal too because Michonne is an incredibly strong, competent, independent woman who many look at and quickly assume she can just fearlessly protect herself. And while she can protect herself, Michonne has always had so many layers to her so she’s also vulnerable and needs to feel safe and reassured from something outside of herself too. And I love that she knows she found that in Rick. 🥹

gif cred: @coolpartytimefan

Then the utter pain comes in when you realize this means for almost eight years Michonne hasn’t truly felt safe. She’s had to gracefully balance the responsibilities, fears, and expectations of motherhood and leadership as well as establish security for others and some semblance of security for herself, all without the personal safe space of her husband to turn to. It breaks me. 😥

And this is another reason I’m glad TOWL gave Rick and Michonne this space to be not just fighters, community leaders, or parents, but a husband and wife trying to find each other and themselves again.

Also, I love that she says 'the only time.' Like genuinely she’s either safe with him or not really feeling safe at all. And I feel like that’s also clear in her TWD scenes post-Rick with all the ways Michonne would cling to Rick's memory through various items. It's like she was trying to garner some sense of comfort again from the only person she ever completely let her guard down and trusted she’ll be safe with.

I remember I received a message a few months ago that touched on if I'd explore when Michonne seemed to realize that she only felt safe with Rick in TWD, how it impacted her actions, and what that evolving journey of safety with him looked like. It took me a minute to get to, but I said I would definitely talk about it, and so I want to break that all down now, right here. ⬇😊

When it comes to Michonne and her safety becoming tied to Rick. I think it happened before she knew it happened. 👌🏽

Now of course in season 3, Rick and Michonne are strangers so it doesn't happen this season. But it does seem like Michonne's inherent safety with Rick started at least budding even this early.

I especially think this because of that beloved scene in Clear where she tells Rick about talking to her dead boyfriend. That’s a very personal and vulnerable thing to share, especially from someone who didn’t even tell Andrea much about herself when traveling with her for months. (Which was a smart move considering the way Andrea stayed gossiping 🙂)

To me, it shows that somehow Michonne felt safe enough with Rick to open up about herself - I think because she recognized that she and him have qualities inside of them that are uniquely similar.

And then at the end of season 3 when Rick comes real close to delivering her to the Governor she still comes back and shows grace, trusting that she could return and be safe with them. But again I don’t think it’s season 3 where her safety is tied to Rick yet.

I think that comes in season 4.

However, not 4A just yet because I think in the first half of season 4 Michonne is absolutely starting to feel more safe and comfortable with Rick but that in itself feels unsafe to her at the time. Which is why she keeps herself at a warm distance from him.

I never lose sight of Michonne’s backstory when thinking about what’s made the character who she is because it’s so important. I know the show sorta put her losing a son and boyfriend in the background but for me it always informs so much about her, in the early seasons especially. And that’s such a traumatizing thing she had to go through and so you just know that it’s probably a lot to now be growing closer and closer to this man and his son at the prison knowing how things turned out for the man and child she lost at that refugee camp.

Michonne clearly really likes Rick and Carl in 4A but letting them in close after knowing profound loss is a bit of a fear for her so instead she’d always find ways to keep Rick at a friendly distance and stay out and about, of course for other motives like tracking down the Governor but also to run from the potential “danger” of being hurt again if she lets Rick become a safe space for her like he’s so naturally becoming. 

...But then the prison falls and so too do some of the walls around Michonne’s heart.

She tries to go back to her isolated ways after the prison but she can’t. She’s found family in those Grimes boys and she knows it and so even if she doesn’t know where those footsteps lead in After she knows she has to follow the call of her heart to be apart of something again.

In a heartbreaking scene in After (4.09), Michonne talks to Mike one more time, vulnerably saying she misses him and even saying she missed him while he was still here. It made me think how Michonne had probably also been keeping her distance from Rick out of a sense of loyalty to Mike. Just like Rick wrestled with feeling like he needed to be solely grieving Lori all the while falling hard for the katana-wielding woman that’s entered his life, I think Michonne also was subconsciously wrestling with feeling this intrinsic connection to Rick so soon after losing her family.

I really feel like Rick and Michonne’s immense sense of loyalty played a part in their slow burn being slow despite catching feelings for each other so quickly. Because while both of their former partners weren’t their person, they still weren’t just going to give up on them or abandon the memory of them, it’s not who Rick and Michonne are - they’re both loyal to the core, even to partners who weren’t loyal to them.

In some ways it seems like Mike might have stopped being able to understand Michonne, figuratively disappearing on her and giving up while she kept fighting, similar to how Lori just couldn’t understand Rick. But then Michonne and Rick met each other and felt exceptionally seen, known, heard, loved, and safe in ways that probably even surprised them towards the beginning of their bond. They finally found someone who could love them as loyally as they love, which is part of why of course their love can never be stopped or denied, not even by each other.

I think about how in season 3 Lori tells Rick he’s not a killer. But the thing is that killer is a part of him. It's not all of him but it is in him as we saw him really confronted with that side of himself at the end of season 4.

What’s beautiful about Rick's relationship with Michonne is she knows he’s a killer, even verbalizing that outright to Merle early in season 3, and she doesn’t have to deny it or change it to love him. Michonne gets that it’s in Rick and respects that as one of the many parts of him she respects and understands, not just from the outside looking in but personally. Basically, Rick and Michonne are each other's match in all the ways.

So in a beautiful act of resilience, Michonne fights the fear of being close to people again when she finds Rick and Carl in that house. And she truly embraces them as hers from here on out.

And I think here in this wonderful 4.09 moment when she finds Rick and Carl in that house is when Michonne more readily embraces that she feels most safe with Rick. 

In Claimed (4.11), I think we start seeing more visibly how Michonne's safety is tied to Rick and how she subconsciously senses it. In that home, both Rick and Michonne express that they need each other and are willing to possibly make a home with the two of them and Carl. An unspoken agreement that they're forever family now.

One of the many interesting things about that scene between Rick and Michonne in Claimed is that Michonne says she’s done taking breaks. But she wasn’t necessarily leaving the prison to take breaks, she was going on runs and hunting down the Governor. However, phrasing it as 'breaks' could imply that part of her constant trips away from the prison was her leaving to run from how close she was becoming to Rick and Carl - to “take a break” from becoming reintegrated into a family after the tragic aftermath of her last family turned her into a lone wolf.

But I love that when she said she’s done taking breaks she meant that and lived up to it. And then in each 4B scene, we see more and more how Michonne starts to draw closer to the Grimes boys and feel safe enough to be herself with Rick.

Rick gets to see Michonne's playful side with Carl, he wants to include her in family hunting excursions, they like talking to each other and smiling over dinner, and they both often check in on each other to make sure they’re taken care of.

By the end of season 4 when Michonne knows she’s okay because Rick's okay, I think she's now cognizant that she feels safe with Rick in a way that’s different than anything & anyone else. And truly how beautiful is it that in a world where safety is a true rarity, Michonne found that so fully in Rick. 🥹

Also, as I've detailed in many a post, this is also the point where I believe she's subconsciously fallen in love with him. 🥰

And where Rick’s previous wife and his former best friend/sheriff's deputy doubted his ability to keep people safe, Michonne trusts Rick wholeheartedly as a good man capable of protecting his family against anything. 

That's one of the great things about rewatching TWD Seasons 1 & 2. Those early seasons make it so clear that Michonne is a love Rick has never experienced before. We don’t just feel like their love is different we get to see it in how much more Michonne loves, respects, understands, believes in, and just all and all likes Rick as opposed to his former wife and best friend.

Last year I wrote a whole reflecting on richonne post about how Michonne and Rick rarely ever split up in TWD and were always paired up for most things. It was proof of their magnetism, trust, fondness for one another, and love.

But I like how now Rick and Michonne never splitting up in TWD is also such a clear sign of the safety they brought each other. And in season 5, that’s especially clear because they really are side by side through so much that season.

I think about when Michonne put her hand on Ricks before they entered Alexandria and how that was her way of offering comfort to him while also being comforted by his presence too. Just like Rick, a large reason she felt safe enough to walk out of that car and approach those ASZ gates after everything they’d been through is because she had Rick by her side.🥲 

The one time they’re not operating side by side with Rick hiding the gun plot from her, they both feel so weighed down by having anything come between them, and they're eager to repair the distance by the end of the season.

Michonne had felt both asleep and restless when they arrived at ASZ and part of it is because her source of safety was sorta losing his mind. When Rick begins his return to sanity - and Michonne really is a core source of sanity for him - we see a sense of safety return to Michonne as well as she declares she’ll always be with him.

I always adored that s5 'I’m still with you moment' and I love it even more now knowing that part of why she so confidently knows she’ll be with him no matter what is because Rick is who she feels safest with. 😭

In 6A all of Richonne's scenes continue to solidify that Michonne feels most safe with Rick. And when Rick goes out into the horde in NWO Michonne full-on panics because he’s doing something unsafe and her own safety just evaporates as she expresses a rare moment of disarray. 

And then in 6B we get to see a more personal and intimate way that Michonne feels safe with Rick. Even just walking around more stripped down in a robe and towel shows he’s made her feel super comfortable.

The heightened safety she feels with Rick is especially evident in their canon era - from the way they decompress on that couch before their first kiss, the way he calmingly reaches for her in the RV and it seems to immediately bring her peace, to just the safety to let herself be adored and loved on so fully by Rick’s good kind heart in all their comfy and sensual moments at home. 🥰

When she confides in Rick and tells him at the end of 7A that she only wants to go forward if it's with him - "you and me" - she means it.

And all through season 7 it’s clear she knows full well that the only time she truly feels safe is with him. It’s why she nearly throws in the towel - or throws in the sword - when she thinks walkers got to Rick in Say Yes and so vulnerably runs into his arms when seeing he is alive.

Michonne knew she couldn’t lose him on that honeymoon run. Not just 'I don't want to lose you,' she knew 'I can't lose you,' - something Rick too would grasp fully once taken from her for years. With soulmates like this, they lose each other, then in many ways they lose themselves.

When Michonne told Rick she couldn't lose him in Say Yes, I knew she felt it was because she loves him deeply but after TOWL it’s clear how she also knew she’d never truly feel safe again if she were to lose him. 😭 They are each other's security in this crazy world.

Then, after getting in that brutal brawl in the s7 finale, Rick makes getting to Michonne a priority and when he finds her against that wall, she just hears his voice and feels his touch and it looks like a sense of safety has been restored to her. And to Rick too.

In season 8, sirens go off in Michonne's head being away from Rick during the war and it’s clear she won’t be able to rest truly until he’s back.

And in that season's msf I’ve always felt it’s so clear that when she tells Judith she’ll bring her daddy back, Michonne is excited for both her baby girl and herself that they’ll have Rick back finally - the man who makes their family feel complete and safe. 👌🏽

After tragically losing Carl (which is forever heartbreaking 💔💔💔), both Michonne and Rick try to be a safe space for each other even despite their own immense individual pain.

And they do find their way back to each other, saying i love you and holding hands off to war because no matter the circumstances if they can hold each other they can feel a sense of safety.

And in s9, before Rick leaves, Richonne really feel so at home and safer than ever with each other. It’s a beautiful time for them and all their nice season 9 scenes show how Michonne is wrapped in the love and safety of her husband. Even literally just waking up with his arm wrapped around her.

When Michonne had some real apprehension regarding if the people could really band together after Negan, she always knew she could voice those concerns with Rick and he’d reassure her so encouragingly. Also for a woman to agree to get pregnant in an apocalypse - that requires feeling a lot of safety and Rick made Michonne feel safe enough to do that. 🥲

But then Rick is taken and it’s devastating. 💔 And with his absence, Michonne’s safety also goes away.

She had to bring the beautiful life they created into the world without him. And you can just imagine there were so many nights alone in bed during her pregnancy when she’d longed for him to be there. And so when she looks at Rick with the CRM in ep 3 and yells you were alive ‘with them’ in this episode, I always sense this added hurt because those CRM people, who don’t even appreciate Rick, got to be around him all the time while she was miles away longing for him to be with her and feeling unsafe without him.

And this profession that she only feels safe with him makes all those moments post-Rick where she’d still find ways to connect with him all the more meaningful because even after he’s gone, she still only feels at least a semblance of safety with him.

Be it through the ring she wears and even fiddles with on her finger when needing to think, a Sherriff action figure, the bullet shell from his gun that she always wears in her hair to keep him close, talking to him in their bedroom, and most notably wrapping herself in his clothes just to try to remember how safe she once felt in his arms.

It moves me so much how she still only felt safe with Rick even after he was taken from her. She tells Judith how she felt so lost after Rick was gone. And because she’s strong she figured out how to keep going of course, but the world became an ultra-dangerous place again so it makes sense why she’d become as cautious as she became. Nothing could make her truly feel safe until she was back with her true love.

And when Michonne is back with Rick in TOWL, you see that sense of safety start to come back. She has no clue where he’s taking her or how they’ll get out of this CRM place but she trusts him. She knows he’ll do anything to keep her safe.

But the surprising aspect is Rick will do anything to keep her safe…including trying to destroy being her safe space so that she’ll be willing to leave him and make it home. 🥀☹️

And that is exactly what we see happen as this heart-gripping gym scene continues. So my extra self has to do a part two to talk about the latter half of this gym scene.

I'll conclude this post by saying, “The only time I feel safe if when I’m with you” is such a deeply beautiful, meaningful, and memorable line. 😭 Black women, both in fiction and in reality, don't always get to express that innate want to feel safe with someone/something outside of ourselves and so seeing Michonne get to say that her safety doesn't just come from her but from her husband was powerful and lovely. 👏🏽

I forever love Danai for knowing Michonne would feel this way in her relationship with Rick and allowing her to voice it so perfectly and authentically here. This episode really was written by someone who knows Rick and Michonne inside and out and I adore the way Richonne is each other's truest safe space. 🥹👌🏽

[supermaks]

Austria obvi been a doozy to process but 1 part of the conversation thats always interesting to me is how people are taking Max and Lando's battle as a textbook example of 'dirty' racing and comparing it wid other battles that are seen as 'clean'. Heres the thing tho, the choices both those drivers made in those laps dont have 'clean' alternatives that wud have benefited them in that moment. It was an inevitable type of confrontation. At least for the most part.

Clean/dirty racing in this generation of very wide cars literally just a matter of is there a significant enough delta to give one of the cars lap advantage or not. If there is, u get something like George and Landos lil dance in Spain. One of the cars has better tire wear, is faster, so its just a matter of waiting for the right time to make a move and build a gap. Its clean because its a waiting game, its not a battle at all. But if the cars are more evenly matched, and more importantly, if the driver defending/attacking is actually willing to defend/attack, thats when it becomes too close for comfort and as racing drivers what ur basically saying is, I am willing to take that risk because I need to gain ((or I need to keep)) advantage.

Something thats also been interesting is how people have perceived each drivers role in this particular 'dirty' battle.

I been reading and watching a lot of analysis of those laps and one of the things that jumps out immediately is that theres this assumption that Max had to get out of the way. He just had to. The fact that he didnt is what made the battle 'dirty' and the onus of 'cleaning' it was on him. When u press that narrative, and u ask the simple question of why wud a racing driver even consider allowing another one to pass him, the argument turns into endangerment. It was dangerous that Max didn't let Lando pass. The tactics Max employed to defend his line were dangerous. Follow up question, why does it matter if they're dangerous when ur literally racing cars 200 miles per hour. Oh, because what Max did specifically is not allowed'. And what is that, specifically. Then the 3 ghosts of under braking past come into ur house to offer Max a chance of redemption. And u think, why are they here. Wheres the telemetry, the wheel input, the driver cam, the stewarding precedence, the actual rule, that allows some hypothetical idea of intentional harm to even enter this conversation. But it doesn't matter anymore, because it has set the tone for how ur gonna deal wid Max's role in a 'dirty' battle vs Lando's. Lando will, inevitably, become a victim of Max, not an active participant in a battle for the lead. Max's tactics are dangerous, while Lando's were necessary.

Ant Davidson starts his analysis on skypad by comparing Max setting up a corner to Baku 2018. Baku happened in a straight, and both drivers were reprimanded for it. I personally think Max shud not have weaved in a straight like that, but thats my opinion, its not reflective of the sporting rules. Late maneuvers are dangerous but they're not necessarily illegal, not just when it comes to defending, but also attacking. What Ant Davidson does in this opening analogy is setting the tone of HIS opinion. And its interesting to me that he finishes the segment, in which at several points he talks of Lando's choices in first person, wid 'I rest my case'. The fact that he had a 'case' at all and feels comfortable admitting it is kind of shocking until u realize that the objective of his 'stewarding' is to turn defending into a punishable act because Max was the one doing it, and Max is 'dirty'. In no instance are Lando's late maneuvers questioned because, we go the back to the original point, Lando was entitled to make them. He was entitled to pass. Max, however, is not entitled to defend.

Johnny herbert who was one of the stewards in Austria, said that they looked at Max's defensive maneuvering and it was 'clever' and made Lando's life difficult but it was not clear it was under braking. He said Max positions his car very well but sometimes goes beyond the drivers 'unwritten code'. Then, regarding specifically the incident in t3, he says some people claim Lando could have moved and yes maybe but he was right not to, because it showed Max he was prepared to 'fight back' and he can 'beat Max at his own game'. Lando did not complete a single overtake in Austria. Not once did he get ahead of Max where he didnt have to fall back again. But because they bumped and Max was penalized, this is a net positive for him. The underlying implication here is that anything that threatens Max's position on track is a net positive for the driver, and for the sport. About how this battle will affect Lando, Johnny says, 'up until Austria Max had always won. Now he is not winning. It will be interesting to see how Lando responds. He will now be in a better place after what has happened. He has realized he knows he has a chance of beating Max at his own game.' Lando finished a race pointless the day after he got fleeced in a sprint. I dont think this was a positive grand prix for him. I think he engaged in a few laps of hard racing wid Max that ended in a puncture for both. Thats not important though. He challenged Max. Johnny seems content wid just that.

The issue is not that Lando isnt a victim because Max is, nor that pundits are not allowed to be biased, or that Max shud not have been penalized. Whats been bugging me about the reaction to Austria is that once something like that happens and it involves Max, its no longer about what actually took place or the dynamic between drivers that allowed it to escalate, its about deciding whether or not the battle was dirty, and how is that dirtiness attributed to a single actor. It takes motor racing and turns it into the weighing of souls. And Max's will always be heavier.

[idreamtofmanderleyagain]

Let's talk about The Emperor and Stelmaine for a minute.

So, when it comes to the latest Emperor hate, the assertion that "The Emperor raped Stelmaine" or that what happened to her was otherwise "like rape," has been going around, presumably because of a TikTok video that got popular.

So let me start off by saying I get it. It's pretty infuriating, but I can at least understand the logic. I get why something in this evokes that a little for some people; She loses her agency completely, forced to work with him. In his rage at the player's dehumanizing behavior after he makes a sexual advance, he shows them this story, and says the phrase "you will take me to the brain because you have no other choice." He is speaking specifically about the forcing player's aid in the goal of destroying the Elderbrain, but the statement does come as a response to a (dehumanizing) rejection, and the brain is the main source of sexual connection for him.

So like, if I were to erase all other contexts, I can see why some people react to it like that.

Uhhhh, however....

People who make this argument always like to erase how directly interconnected the Emperor's survival is in every choice he makes, from Ansur to Stelmaine to You.

We don't know what exactly happened with Stelmaine, but if they ever developed a friendship, and she didn't know he was a mindflayer, and discovered it later, he would have had no choice but to enthrall her. If it started from the beginning, again we should consider that on his own, he has no resources or infrastructure to keep himself safe, and therefore would have targeted a politician to put his dwelling place under his own power.

But I digress. There are way too many factors in play that we know nothing about when it comes to Stelmaine. What we do know is that the Emperor is often reactive when it comes to the others in his life. He explicitly says that he fears your rejection and betrayal, and that is tied up directly in his own survival. We saw this happen with Ansur. And with both Ansur and Stelmaine, the Emperor contextualizes your relationship through both of those experiences. He is constantly waiting for you to call him a freakish monster and refuse to even converse with him, which would result in his survival being threatened.

His sexual advance itself is arguably not about sex at all, but about ensuring you develop an emotional entanglement with him so that, you guessed it, you would get invested in his survival. Immediately afterwards he gets back to talking about the goal.

It's important to note that you are free to reject this advance kindly and he takes no issue, he doesn't even pout. He only starts threatening you when you basically just call him a lying manipulative freak. To him, that belief is threatening, even if the accusations of manipulation are accurate, because it means you are uninvested in his survival and could turn on him at any point.

At this point, he notes that his methods of manipulation have improved since enthralling Stelmaine, and you should be grateful for this. An asshole statement to be sure. However, this direct correlation he makes suggests that the othering he is experiencing from the player lines up with the experience he had with Stelmaine.

It also makes it abundantly clear that after Stelmaine, he came to the conclusion on his own that he never wanted to do it again. He feels a grief and trauma over Stelmaine that he hints at, and uses to gain your sympathy. But it is THIS scene that fully reveals why he feels that grief. If he was the rapey, soulless monster people make him out to be, he would feel no grief over her, and most notably, would never have bothered putting so much time, strain, and effort into gaining the player's agreement and consent literally every step of the way. He, a mindflayer, makes a conscious choice every time you interact, to gain your support the hard way. To basically put his own survival in your hands.

For one of his kind, with the odds stacked against him no less, to choose verbal/emotional manipulation over any other tool in his arsenal, is much more notable than I think a lot of people click into. He's making a concerted, active choice against enthrallment.

Even when you push him to the point where he threatens it, he still never enthralls you. He gives himself up to the Elderbrain, rather than enthrall you. The threat was always empty.

That suggests to me that the thing that traumatized him about Stelmaine was the enthrallment.

For the Emperor - and I would like to repeat that we are talking about a mindflayer and not a irl human being - manipulation is gaining consent. In his perspective, gaining consent is what he is going through so much effort to do.

[hashtagcaneven]

Kuro's Advice for Awesome Fight Scenes

So I heard you want to write a cool fight scene. Rock on.

Running into some trouble though? No sweat, I got you covered.

I compiled this list of 8 Rules I personally use for Kickass Action Scenes for a Discord group of writers and thought it might be useful for others as well.

Rule #1 Fight scenes MUST tell an emotional story.

A fight is just an argument but with physical violence instead of words. Just like how in a musical people talk until the energy and emotion goes so high they burst into song and then when that keeps building, they all start dancing. Same concept. People argue and disagree until the emotion is so high they start throwing hands.

Fights act like any other scene where it starts with one emotion and ends with another. Emotion should flow through each move. They should ebb and flow from start to finish, raising and lowering tension to keep a reader engaged and guessing over who is going to win.

This is the bedrock of fight scenes. No amount of “rule of cool” is going to save the scene if there is no emotional heart beating through it.

Rule #2 You need personal stakes

Goes kit and parcel with Rule #1. Your POV characters have to have something on the line to tell an emotional story.

What happens if they lose? What happens if they WIN?

Go beyond JUST “oh if they lose, they die”. What happens to the character’s world if they lose. What will happen to the ones they love when they’re gone? What are the TRUE long term consequences for failure?

Even if it's a friendly (ie non lethal) competition scene, what are those stakes? Bragging rights for a proud character? Or perhaps taking their opponent down a peg?

Avoid vague generalized stakes and find what makes it personal. A knight may fight for his king and country but he also does it because he has his pride as a knight on the line if he walks away or loses.

Rule #3 Pacing is key

Action is fast paced in real life. It should be so in writing.

I personally think of my fight scenes as if they were a movie/show/play fight scene. Partly because that’s my own personal experience and partly because it helps me with pacing, especially with multiple POV characters.

Don’t spend too long on one action. Keep it flowing but have moments of pause. Real fights have moments where someone needs to pick themselves back up or two opponents need to steady themselves for the next round of assault. Use those moments to dig into the introspection of the POV. Your reader is also gonna need a breather from time to time.

With multiple POVs, I flip through them like I’m switching shots on film. We cut away from one thing to see what another character is up to in the flow of things. I flip the camera at moments of triumph or tension to keep building that emotion.

Rule #4 Let your heroes take some hits

Show off those stakes by letting your big bad character get his ass kicked a little bit.

Let ‘em get knocked around a bit to build that tension within a reader. Make them wonder how they’ll pull this off.

Superman fights are so easy to be boring because he’s basically invincible. We all yawn because we know he’s gonna win. Then along comes someone with kryptonite and suddenly it's Superman getting the beat down. Now we’re emotionally engaged because how is he going to get out of this one?

Show their competency in a fight by how well they can take big, painful hurts and keep going anyway. Show it in how they fight back or stay standing, despite the effort.

And don’t be afraid to let your heroes lose a few times. It makes their eventual victory sweeter.

Rule #5 Be clear and concise with your descriptions

Now ain’t the time to pull out your best Tolkien describing a meal impressions.

Action is fast. There are a ton of moving parts which can be severely complex and hard to follow. You want to avoid this confusion at all costs.

Use clear, specific language so the reader can visualize what is happening in their head and not get lost. Once they get lost, they will get frustrated and disengage.

Ditch the heavy metaphors. Let the movement speak for itself as the allegory. If you want to sprinkle in some flowery language, do so separate from the actual action happening in a fight.

Rule #6 Learn the basics of movement

You don’t need to know how to swing a sword with proper technique to write a sword fight (though, let’s be real, it helps). As long as you understand the fundamentals of how the weapon moves, you can write a good sword fight.

Because what makes a fight good is the EMOTION in the fight. Not just the fancy flourishes.

However, if you go too crazy and it becomes unrealistic, your readers can easily disengage.

So you don’t need to know the difference between a riposte and an ochs stance. You just need to know that arms don’t swing that way. You need to know if someone gets pushed, it can throw them off balance.

Learn the basics of human movement, and if there are weapons involved, learn at least the basics because if I see one more person say they’re wielding a longsword like it’s a small sword, you people will kill me inside even more.

Rule #7 Every action has a consequence

When someone attacks, someone has to defend (or get hit). But when someone moves their body one way, it can open them up to a counterattack.

If I lunge too far forward and overextend, I’ve left myself open for attack. If an opponent turns around, their back is now my next best target.

Pay attention to how your characters are moving. Are they opening themselves up for easy counterattacks when you don’t want them to? 

Thinking about what opening a move gives their opponent can help you write your fight scenes, as it will lead to a natural flow and chain of events.

Rule #8 Don’t be afraid to add sound

Fights are vocal. People grunt and groan and shout when they’re hit. They also make noise when they attack. The more wrapped in emotion, the louder and noisier people tend to get as they get lost in it.

During those moments of pause you add from Rule #3 is a great moment for characters to continue the verbal part of their argument

 If one character temporarily overpowers the other, let them brag. If one character gets punched in the mouth, describe the sound of the blood they spit on the ground. 

Just, for the love of the gods, don’t go all Marvel and be quip central. Don’t undercut your own tension and emotion for a quick laugh or to sound cool.

Some examples of great fights:

[zoeythebee]

How To Make Your Code Actually Good

This is about programming structure and organization. Resources online are very sparse, and usually not super helpful. Which was unhelpful to me who was struggling with code organization.

So I wanted to make this, which will explain how best to structure your code based on what I've learned. What I lay out here may not work for everyone but it works well in my experience.

These resources were very helpful for me

Handmade Hero - https://youtu.be/rPJfadFSCyQ

Entity Component System by The Cherno - https://youtu.be/Z-CILn2w9K0

Game Programming Patterns - https://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/

So, let's get started.

So first we need to cover a few terms. These are Decoupling, and Abstraction.

Decoupling

So, when we code there is only so much information we can keep inside of our brain at one time. If we kept all of our code in a single file, we would have to keep in mind every single line of code we have written thus far. Or, more likely, we would actively ignore certain lines that aren't relevant to whichever problem we are trying to solve. And miss possible errors by skipping over lines we didn't know were important.

This is bad, what we need to do is decouple our code. Decoupling just means to break something up.

We need to split our code into smaller more manageable pieces so that we can focus better on it without cluttering up our brain with useless information.

For example lets take into account a basic game loop

int main(){

bool running = true;

// Game init code

while(running){

// Game update code

}

// Game exit code

return 0;

}

Obviously in a real example this would be much larger. So an extremely good start would be moving chunks of code into different functions.

int main(){

bool running = true;

gameInit();

while(running){

gameUpdate();

}

gameExit();

}

Now, when we are working on loading the game, we shouldn't have to think about what's happening in the rest of the app. This may take moving some code around inorder to truly seperate it from the rest of the code. But it is a very worthwhile effort.

Abstraction

Abstraction is when we take complex pieces of code and put them inside of a function or structure to make that feature easier to use. Or to hide tiny details that would be a waste of time to type out over and over.

For example programming languages are abstracted away from Assembly. Which of course is a thin abstraction away from machine code.

Now abstraction is great, computer science is practically built ontop of abstracting away small details. but the point I'd like to make here is that you can go too crazy with abstraction.

If you are making a gui application, and you need to create a new button. And to do so you need to run a function that returns a new class that you pass into another function that returns a pointer to an app state that you use with the original class to interact with a gui state that takes in a general state class and a position.

You have abstracted too far away to actually getting that button on screen. And due to all the hoops your code has to go through you will face major performance hits as well. And nobody likes a slow program.

Generally my rule of thumb is one layer of abstraction. Obviously for really complex stuff like graphics more abstraction is required. But for our own apps we should strive to as little abstraction as possible. Which makes code more clear and easier to debug, if a little more verbose at times.

Note that breaking things up into other files and functions are pretty cheap abstraction/performance wise. But the number of steps your code has to go through is what's important. Like the number of objects you have to go through, and functions you have to run.

Now these are good general tips for programming. There are also other good tips like consistent naming conventions, and consistent function names and argument patterns. But that's all pretty basic good-programming-things-you-should-do.

Now when I was learning this sort of stuff, I got told a lot of the stuff I just put above. But the biggest question I had was "but where do I PUT all of my code?"

As projects grow in complexity, figuring out sane ways to organize your structures and code logic in a way that makes sense is pretty tricky.

So to kinda crystallize how I think about code organization is basically.

Pick a pattern, and stick to it

A design pattern is just a piece of code structure you repeat. And there are lots of smart people that have come up with some pretty smart and flexible patterns. Like entity component systems, and state machines.

But sometimes you have to figure out your own, or modify existing patterns. And the best way to do that is to not plan at all and jump right in.

Do a rough draft of your app just to get a general idea of what you are going to need your pattern to support. And you may have to build up a pattern, find out it sucks, and start over. The trick is to fail fast and fail often.

Grabbing some paper and trying to diagram out how you want your app to flow is also handy. But getting your hands dirty with your keyboard is the best.

Now if you are new to programming, the above method probably wont work the first time. The only way to really learn code architecture is by building apps, and when you are first starting out many of your apps are probably falling apart early on. But the more you build these apps the more you learn. The bigger the apps you make, the more you learn.

But there is something that's also very helpful.

Steal somebody else's pattern!

So I can explain this best with an example. I make games, and the complexity I have to deal with is having multiple game objects that can all interact with each other fluidly. Enemies, the player, collectibles, moving platforms. This is a pretty tricky task, and I wound up picking two patterns to follow.

The first one is a modified version of a State Machine that I call a Scene Manager.

A scene is essentially a structure that contains an init, update, and exit function and can store data relating to the scene. And I have a Scene Manager that I can dynamically load and unload scenes with. So if I need to create a main menu or a pause menu it's as easy as loading a scene.

For my actual game scene I chose to use an Entity Component System. I linked a video above that explains it very well. To summarize, an ECS use entities. Entities can contain data called components. And systems will grab any entity that has the required components and will modify that entity. For example a Move system will operate on any entities that have the Position and Velocity components.

And this has worked very well for my game. Now this doesnt solve every problem I had. I still had to fill in the gaps with code that doesnt 100% match the pattern. After all there isnt any pattern that will fix all possible issues a codebase needs to solve. For example to delete an entity I have to add it by reference to an array where it is deleted AFTER the game is done updating.

Elsewhere I used a bit of abstraction to make creating entities easier. For example i created a class that stores methods to create entities. Whereas before I was manually adding components to empty structures.

Decoupling entity creation meant I could focus on more important things. I also deal with window resizing and rendering in a layer outside of the scene. In a way that would affect all Scenes.

An Example

In the game I'm making, the most complex part of the program so far is the player update code. Which makes sense for a platformer. So the issue is simple, it's getting too long. But the other issue is things are in places that don't immediately make sense. And it's all packed inside a single function.

You can view the code as it is now here.

Our goal is to decouple the code into pieces so that it takes up less brain space. And to reorganize the function so it's layout makes more immediate sense.

So my first step is to figure out a logical way to organize all of this code. My plan is to split it up by player actions. This way all of the jump logic is inside it's own function. All of the shooting logic is in it's own function etc.

Here is the code after implimenting the pattern.

Notice how this decouples the code into more manageable pieces so we can work on it better. Also note how I am still keeping one layer of abstraction from the player update code. I also put it in a seperate file to slim down the systems file.

So the method I implemented here of observing a problem, coming up with a pattern, and implementing it. That at a larger scale is how to overall structure a good code base. Here in this small instance I found a working solution first try. But for more complex code you may have to try multiple different patterns and solutions before you find what works best.

And that's all I have to say. I hope it made sense, and I hope it helps you. Let me know if I should change anything. Thanks for reading!

[lavander-gooms]

Fellas, I think I finally got (noir) Peter Parker's age.

Alright, I know what you may be thinking, that you've read posts like this before that basically end with "erm they say he's a kid so I uhh guess he's 19" (we've all thought this ngl).

Let us begin, shall we?

This mostly began because I hated Felicia and Peter together.

I love Peter's noir comics so much, everything Peter goes through is such awesome writing and symbolism (Peter swearing to take power away from people who abuse it and then ends up abusing his own power ahgdgsgdgag) but Felicia' and Peter's "love story" weirdo lust pedo sub plot gave me the major ick.

Tbh I got tired of people defending this ship because they "didn't know Peter's age". I really wanted to prove them wrong. So I am.

And I just want to know.

Let's boogy.

Peter is referred to as a kid numerous times.

Above are most of the times Peter is called/referred to as a kid in the first comic run (which was only three issues).

I couldn't fit all of them, gosh darn Tumblr.

Anyways, it's clear that Peter appears as a child to all of the character, due to all of them referring to his as a kid. Every character he interacts with as Peter Parker calls him "kid" or "son" or "boy" (etc.). He obviously appears as/is a kid, or they wouldn't have made it a point to keep saying this.

Okay, so this means Peter's a kid. We can eliminate all ages over 21 and under 12. You were considered an adult at age 21 (age of consent was 18- https://worldhistorycommons.org/age-consent-laws -). And I think we can all agree that Peter isn't 12.

My next idea was to turn to the original age of when most Peter Parkers were bit. The problem is, it's all at scattered ages. The most common one I found was he was bit at 15.

But is noir Peter Parker really 15? No. Bear with me.

I came to this conclusion and sank to the ground and cried out in agony. Truly noir Peter Parker's age was a mystery, I thought. So I gave up.

But I was rereading the comic, and noticed a tiny tiny detail I overlooked upon my past rereads.

Here is the comic panel where the Goblin dies via spidery-Kraven, and Peter just watches. While Peter is watching, he thinks back to the time Uncle Ben snuck him in to see Frankenstein.

Okay, there are two versions of Frankenstein Peter could be talking about here.

The first Frankenstein that ever came out was the 16 minute long version on March 18th, 1910. Now, that's way further back than I think Ben would've taken Peter to go see it, as AT MOST (if he's 21) Peter was born in 1912. It is possible Ben took Peter to see a rerun of the 1910 version, but reruns were incredibly rare and the 1910 version of Frankenstein was deemed to be lost until the 1950s (I don't know WHEN it was lost). If Peter was taken to see the 1910s version as a child it could have given him nightmares. But I really doubt this is the Frankenstein movie Peter was referencing.

The second movie is the one I believe to be the movie Peter saw with Ben. This Frankenstein came out on November 21st, 1931. It fits much more with the time line, and fits the whole "couple years back" things (a couple means two to you guys too, right??).

Okay, so we know the date of the movie that Ben snuck Peter into. But, there is one very important word in that sentence. Snuck.

Either, a- Peter wasn't old enough to see the movie,

Or b- Aunt May didn't want him to see the movie.

The 1931 Frankenstein revolutionized the horror movie genre, and brought with it an outrage from the church and adults. It was censored mercilessly, and brought around the "H" rating that deemed anyone under the age of 16 was too young to see. But this came as a result of Frankenstein, in 1932ish in Britian and 1934ish in America. So when did Peter see the movie?

This is where my argument gets flimsy.

We can assume he saw the uncensored version as it gave him nightmares, so I speculatate he saw it around the same time as it's release date.

Peter was under 16 when he saw the Frankenstein movie, due to Ben having to sneak him into the movie.

OR

Peter was freshly 16 and begged Uncle Ben to let him see the movie, he's old enough isn't he? And Ben can't say no to his nephew so they sneak around Aunt May to go and see it together.

Either of these two are plausible, but I'm going to go with the second.

Mostly all the Peter Parkers were born around August/October, so we'll keep that.

On November 21st, 1931 (or whenever he saw the movie) Peter Parker is 16 years old.

Which, one year later, makes him 17. And as the comics take place January 1933, we can make the safe assumption that Peter is 17. Which means in September, he's 18/about to turn 18.

Whew. I think I got it. If you have any other stuff please give it to me 🙏

Felicia and Peter relationship study coming soon.

[blue-dream-rhapsody]

Spoilers for the end of the TYBW manga! If you’re only watching the anime, this will be in like the last two episodes of the whole show, so look away!

This is gonna sound like me being biased again (and I definitely am, don’t get me wrong) but I think I have a universally true argument here.

Renji was a weird choice to have go with Ichigo to the last clash with Yhwach.

To be clear, I’m very fond of Renji. I also think the conversation he and Ichigo have on their way there was a fantastic moment in their friendship, and want to keep it intact as much as possible. It’s just that, when I think of the magnitude of this particular moment, the literal last battle at the end of the series, it just feels odd for Renji of all his friends to have this pretty prominent spot.

Who is Ichigo teaming up with here? Aizen, the major antagonist for basically half the series. Uryu, the enemy-turned-friendly rival-turned-fake enemy-turned-genuine ally just acting as an infiltrator all along because he’s got roots in this battle. And… Renji. The Guy.

Like seriously, I’m trying to pinpoint exactly what narrative function Renji’s presence here serves, and for every one I can find, there’s just someone who does a better job? Like, okay, say he’s serving as the presence of a Soul Reaper. Except Rukia would also do that, down to the rank they have, and given her meeting Ichigo is how the series began, it would additionally be a natural bookend for her to be fighting alongside him at the end. (And obviously I am deliberately ignoring bullshit like power levels or whatever, because of the four in this alliance Ichigo’s ridealong contributes little more than a distraction while Aizen tanks the damage, Uryu fires the arrow, and Ichigo makes the cut.)

Rukia is also the member of his friend group Ichigo probably interacts with the least in this whole arc who isn’t Uryu Away For Plot Reasons Ishida (or maybe Chad, who I’ll talk about in a moment too), whereas he and Renji go through a chunk of the Royal Palace stuff together. So it seems like that final battle would be the chance to actually give her a meaningful interaction with him as, again, a mirror to the start of the series.

(Disclaimer: I don’t mean this in a shipping sense in any way, shape, or form, though you can certainly take it as you like. That’s not the only way their bond can be relevant, though. My point is simply that Rukia has more narrative importance to Bleach itself than Renji does, compared to how little time she spends interacting with the series’ protagonist in the final arc compared to him.)

So as far as all of that stuff is concerned, Rukia carries more weight, but let’s say Renji was chosen as Ichigo’s closest guy friend or something along those lines. Um. Chad??? My beloved Yasutora Sado??? Like of course Kubo seems allergic to giving Chad anything significant to do at any point past his introduction, but come on! He’s supposed to be Ichigo’s best friend! Again, I’m ignoring power levels. Maybe the combination of Aizen and Yhwach’s presence would’ve been too much for him to withstand given Fullbringer scale, but I still think he’d make more narrative sense than Renji, and that should be what matters more.

Friendly rival? Well that’s Uryu who is already there, and has a way larger stake in this than anyone in Ichigo’s friend group regardless. Less that he doesn’t meet the criteria if we can’t count Uryu, choosing Renji for this reason would just be doubling down on the same thing.

You could also argue Orihime should’ve been the one, as the one Ichigo eventually ends up with (although she at least was with him at the fight just before this, so it being someone else this time doesn’t bother me). And Renji is just, not that!

Renji goes with Ichigo because it’s in character for him, and I don’t disagree with that by any means. But this is the conclusion of the entire 74-volume narrative and I’m struggling to explain why he specifically is the one chosen by Kubo to be a part of this battle if anyone had to be at all. It’s like he went out of his way to choose the least impactful character possible to fulfill this role.

So okay, Kubo, I can play hardball. You want somebody who isn’t Rukia, Chad, or Orihime? I can do that. I’ll even give you someone who’s already right there so you don’t have to make them come running up at the last moment!

You know who should’ve gone with Ichigo to that very last confrontation? Kugo Ginjo, obviously!

Don’t leave, hold on, let me explain myself.

First is the kind of obvious thing, which is that while it was on a smaller scale than they were, Ginjo was an arc villain just as much as Aizen and Yhwach were. He’s the mastermind and the climactic battle of The Lost Agent. So wouldn’t it be fun if Ichigo had the help of the first two arc villains in defeating the third?

The quartet of Ichigo, Kugo, Aizen, and Yhwach is also interesting because they all have connections to the Reio in some form, being either candidates for the role inherently, or having attempted to become or usurp him. There’s really no one else who approaches this (barring Urahara, for the hogyoku).

But wait, you may be saying, why would Ginjo fight on the side of Shinigami if his whole thing is that he hates them? To which I say—he wouldn’t! But I think he would be willing to fight to help Ichigo. Maybe not for everything ever, but maybe for the time where if Ichigo loses, everything will very clearly fall apart, including for the people he obviously still cares about in Xcution. (Also, does he know about Soul King stuff at this point, including that the both of them are candidates to replace it? Preventing that being necessary for both their sakes might be good.)

Not to mention, this would be the first time Ichigo and Kugo can fight together consciously as Deputies. It would give us a more concrete picture of how they feel about one another now that the Lost Agent conflict is over, seeing as this gets very little resolution on either side—and give Ichigo back what it was that Kugo had almost given him during that arc, a “big brother” figure he can rely on in a desperate situation, instead of having to be that figure himself.

Plus… fixing Ichigo’s sword was really kind of just Tsukishima’s repayment, wasn’t it? Ginjo shows up and says four lines, (and probably a fifth on the way there that was “Tsukishima do the thing”) and that’s what exactly? Is that supposed to make up for the extremely personal betrayal? Is that a sufficient expression of gratitude for the respect of taking his body back from the Court Guards’ grasp? He still had to say something about paying Ichigo back because debt’s about all the obligation Tsukishima would ever respond to, but what’s his contribution other than holding that “leash”?

Also for the three of them being revealed alive like a hundred chapters ago, that sure is a whole lot of no payoff. Like for Tsukishima it’s great payoff, but for Ginjo? What was the point of the training they all did with Ganju? Was it really about Ganju getting stronger? And we never got an answer why Kukaku took them in in the first place, could that really have just been chance?

If I want to put on my conspiracy cap—I half suspect Ginjo was meant to go from the time of their reappearance, and more of his backstory was supposed to come to light/he was supposed to get some additional development. But as Kubo’s health deteriorated and he got toward the home stretch, just like it would’ve been difficult to give Rukia the proper due if she’d gone, it became too much for him to do Ginjo justice, or maybe to set up for his role in CFYOW, so he decided to not do it altogether, rather than half-ass it. (This is what I tell myself, anyway). He already has a completely justifiable reason to show up at the last minute with the need for Tsukishima’s ability. He’s been training, supposedly. He owes Ichigo something and acknowledges it. He’s thematically fitting, he’s been absent for so much time after being teased, we know he was doing something because he went looking for Ukitake, it really just makes too much sense.

I doubt Kubo is planning any out-and-out rewrites of anything significant as the anime proceeds, but if he were to tweak the ending at all, I certainly think this would be reasonable.

Anyway, we’ll see what part 2 brings. CFYOW content is getting teased for sure, so who knows what’s in store!

[characteroulette]

A study on prosecutors -- (previous) (next)

And now, some dark coffee for your jazz soul.

Okay full disclaimer upfront: I actually dislike Godot a lot. I think he's a bastard in a very unfun way and was never convinced by the game to be endeared to him. At every point he jars against me, though I understand why he would be appealing. He was designed to be cool and I can definitely see that. Many players find him attractive and compelling, but I am not one of them.

What I will say is that he was the perfect final boss to Phoenix's character arc in the trilogy. In fact, I believe that Godot is the most dangerous adversary we ever face in a mainline Ace Attorney game.

You probably understand what I mean by that if you've been following along. But still, let's start at the beginning.

Changing things up right from the get-go to set us off balance: the one to introduce us to Godot's presence is Luke Atmey, of all people. He even tosses in a line about how Edgeworth himself backed him as the best in the country, despite this being a total lie as we learn much later. It's a great setup to the mystery, however; who could this prosecutor be to even have Edgeworth's seal of approval?

Well, it turns out Godot is, in actuality, a complete nobody! Never having been in a single case as a prosecutor before this moment. It's sort of a funny play on our expectations, considering we've grown used to the spiel of prosecutors going undefeated in the courts for however many years. Nah, this guy is a total newbie on the scene.

And yet he knows our name. He knows who we are a little too well, in fact. Phoenix and we the player are rightfully unsettled by this guy's rather upfront disdain for us. It gets our minds turning; who could this man be? Another person like Edgeworth, maybe, connected to Phoenix's past?

(The game has given us all the clues we need to put it together, of course, but none of the context to fit any of it into coherency. It's so cool to see how well they set this all up from the very first trial; every piece of this puzzle was in our hands long before we could form a picture with it all.)

If you thought you might be dealing with a rookie, however, Godot makes it clear from the start that despite this being his first ever trial as a prosecutor, he's not lacking in any kind of experience. He basically runs circles around us, keeping a cool control over the proceedings and even managing to stay one step ahead of us at all times. It's like he knows our methods inside and out; it's a little uncanny just how outmatched we almost are against him. It's a little uncanny how prepared he is for every turn, how hard he battles against us and makes us work for every inch we gain. This in spite of Atmey doing his damndest to be found guilty, too!

The message is made clear upfront: you are going to have to really show that you've grown yourself in playing these games. You have to call on all your own experience in order to meet him and manage your case.

Even when you prove Ron's innocence, Godot cuts you down before you have the time to celebrate. Due to your arguments, you've ended up implicating him in a murder. A fact Godot definitely knew this whole time.

Thus ends our first trial day. And what an intro it is.

The setup of Godot as a right bastard is almost too good, in my opinion. He's a formidable opponent, refusing to give Phoenix any leeway and shutting us down at every turn. He goes so far as to restrict you to a perfect press or a single piece of evidence to present more than once! It's a very cool sort of mechanical playing around, a sort of "you better have studied up on what you're doing" advancement for the final game of the original trilogy, and for that I like it a lot! It really does feel like the culmination to every previous case we've ever charged our way through. A final test, if you will, hence my calling Godot our most formidable opponent.

It also, however, lends itself to my finding him too much of a bastard to really find likable. And we are meant to like him! I'm fairly sure, at least. He was designed to be cool and the ending really leans towards this. But I don't think it came together in the end, at least not for me.

Our second trial day is more of the same. Godot puts on the pressure and we have to fight tooth and nail to even get our point across. He gives us one chance to get it right and so we do just that. No matter the odds he throws at us, we manage in the end to prove Ron's innocence once more. And despite being thrown from his cool demeanour, it never gets to the point of a complete break in his facade, like it does for our other prosecutors. No matter how much we get Godot on the ropes, he's too smooth of a customer to ever be fully floundering.

It's a great way of showing he's cool, I'll give them that. It also goes a long way to presenting him as the determinator he is. Can you really get a more iconic line than, "I have returned from the depths of hell to do battle with you"? They gave Godot several really good lines. But he's a lot less relatable as a result. Until we learn his full deal, he's more antagonist than he is a person. His one motivating goal we ever really see from him is that he hates Phoenix and wants to destroy Phoenix completely. A goal not unique to him, really; another factor going against him feeling anything other than pure antagonist. And sure, we had our antagonists in Edgeworth, in Manfred, and in Franziska. But they had motives outside of purely crushing Phoenix. They showed their humanity somewhere in their first appearances. (Yes, even Manfred had something to him outside of pure antagonist.)

But Godot? He's a man of mystery. An appealing mystery, but one that never quite grabbed me like it was meant to.

Either way, we start the third case and come across our next truth about Godot: he's specifically seeking out trials we're heading.

It is funny how apparent it becomes that the Phoenix who blundered Maggey's initial trial was a phony due to Godot's complete disinterest in the case to begin with. If we weren't all ready keyed into this fact considering we're Phoenix ourselves, it's a hilarious little bit of character reinforcement. Godot sure does hate us! And only us, not some pretender faking as us. It's a trait that stays consistent about him and I appreciate how silly it is, even if it's just reinforcing his one main character motivation.

His methods through this trial remain the same, an unforgiving test of our skills. Though special mention to that moment where Armstrong flirts with him and he takes it in stride. Now that is how you write a smooth operator, I find that the most compelling moment Godot has. The reveal that he can't see red on white is also intriguing, another piece to this puzzle we can't quite fit anywhere. (A small aside, I realised recently that because Phoenix wears a red tie and a white dress shirt, this means Godot can't see Phoenix's tie at all. Hilarity, actually. I'm so sad this is a detail that is too silly to ever bring up, if they even realised it themselves, at least.)

But by the end of this trial, our battle is mostly with Tigre, not Godot. He chucks his coffee at us as the lights go out in the court and we see the glow of his visor. We've won Maggey's innocence, we've proved Tigre's guilt, and yet Godot is still as cool as ever.

By this point, the mystery deserves some sort of answer. Which we get once we start the fourth case and see one Diego Armando.

Now, I actually find Diego to be a much more intriguing character than Godot. They're the same in effect, cool and confident (and kinda misogynistic bastards), but Diego is the man who is alive. Godot is his shadow, and as this trial goes on you begin to understand exactly that. Diego coaches Mia through the case, encouraging her (and being a bit too condescending, but y'know. It's a trope, it's someone's cup of tea) and even getting the line which many consider one of the coolest in the series: "A lawyer doesn't cry until it's all over". Diego does a hell of a lot of work to humanise Godot, to make everything about him understandable and click into place. For that, I really applaud them.

It hurts all the more knowing what we do from case 1, that he's going to be poisoned and put into a coma. It hurts knowing that this trial ends in tragedy for literally everyone involved, despite all our best efforts to fight for the truth.

And Diego had to deal with the guilt of knowing he lent his hand towards Terry's death. He gave the man his coffee with which to drink that poison. I really do feel all his regret when he crushes the mug in his hand and turns to face Mia, his hand dripping with blood. Actually the coolest moment drenched in that overwhelming tragedy. What a great way to convey all his regrets while retaining his level-headed demeanour.

They've shown their hand and we've put this puzzle together. It's all in service of the final case of the game, in which there's so many threads to wrap up that tie together beautifully.

The fact that Godot can't make it to the first day of the trial is our first big clue, even if it fits with his character. Phoenix isn't able to make it to the trial, either. Of course Godot wouldn't show up if Phoenix wasn't there! It's a clever nod to this setup they've established and also a great clue to the truth of things. And when we finally do see him again, it's in front of the training chamber and he really shows off his true colours. He doesn't hold back in telling us how little he thinks of us, nor does he hold back against Franziska. (And how dare he, really!!) His words bite into Phoenix, though, and make him falter in his normally unwavering faith in what he's doing. It may seem ridiculous to us, what Godot says, but it's digging into that same sense of grief he and Phoenix both feel over Mia's death.

Finally, though, we can understand why exactly he holds this grudge against Phoenix; it's misplaced grief. Godot lost someone he cared deeply for, someone he felt he should have been protecting, through a perceived blunder on his part. He found out at the same time that Mia's understudy took up her mantle but also couldn't save her. And so he channelled any and all of his grief and guilt at Mia's death into hatred for Phoenix. He blames Phoenix wrongfully for Mia's death because there was nothing he could do to save Mia, so how could this guy have also done nothing? How could he not have saved her? It's a refusal to meet his grief, an insistence on only action mattering in the face of such crippling feelings, a sense of machismo that is more familiar than expected.

(Because didn't Phoenix fall into this as well when Edgeworth was presumed dead? Didn't Phoenix also misplace all his grief into anger in his refusal to confront his feelings over Edgeworth seemingly rejecting all his efforts to help him?) What I'm saying is that Takumi had a pattern to his writing grief in the original trilogy exemplified perfectly in both Phoenix and Godot's reactions to finding out their loved one had died. It's an unhealthy sort of grief, a complicated sort of coping with those emotions too agonising to deal with, and a fascinating look into a built in parallel between our main antagonist and our protagonist.

After all, if Phoenix could come to terms with his grief, if he could move on to a healthier sort of acceptance, than maybe Godot can, too.

But it's a little too late for Godot as he proves to have let that anger rule his actions. He's the one who killed Maya's mother, even if at the time she was channeling the woman who took Diego out of the world.

I also like this bit of the trial, cross-examining Maya but in actuality pressing Godot for answers. It's a neat little twist, that we use Maya as the jumping point for catching Godot in his lies. Maya's insistence in protecting him is pretty interesting, mainly because I don't understand what drives her to do so other than the fact that he protected her (they never interacted before while Mia was alive, so she only knows him from the two trials Phoenix had against him), but it is a really fascinating point in her testimony.

Again, I'm really sure we're meant to like him as well. This is supposed to make sense! As is his sharing a cup with Phoenix as the trial comes to an end. There's supposed to be that catharsis there, that acceptance of two enemies setting their swords down and coming to an understanding. I see it, but I just don't really feel it, sorry.

Anyway, yeah. I'm probably pretty off-base with most of this. I'd appreciate hearing more opinions on the coffee man!!

[tineteenieworld3]

This is off my most recent post, but I’m gonna keep talking about Mike Wheeler because I absolutely adore his character. So, we get two scenes in season 4 that really tell us, almost directly, what is going on with Mike. Of course, they’re both with Will because getting anything out of Mike when he’s with anyone else is nearly impossible. As I said in my last post, and as we all know, Mike is extremely observant and constantly aware of Will. He pays detailed attention to him.

The first time we see into Mike’s brain is the rink fight. We’ve all talked about it, but let’s do it again. For anyone with a brain (all of us) it’s very easy to understand what’s going on. Mike isn’t angry at Will, he’s angry with himself and is projecting that. We can pick that up pretty easily when he says, “you sabotaged the whole day.” He’s making very strange and unreasonable arguments or reasons to be upset with Will. He starts of their tiff by saying Will should have told him El was being bullied. In my opinion, it’s pretty clear he wants to start an argument and is angry at himself for more reasons than we can easily see. He’s not stupid, he knows why Will didn’t tell him about El, he knows it’s probably a ridiculous thing to say but it’s something, its like he’s purposefully trying to rile Will up. The douche part finally gets a full ass reaction out of Will and that’s where Mike jumps into this ridiculous argument that’s kinda out of left field.

He quickly uses El to talk about Will and says things he’s obviously been holding in. He talks about Will’s mannerisms and attitude, he moves so far away from the original point that it’s strange El was even used to begin their argument. Mike didn’t want to talk about her, he didn’t have interest in that, he wanted to talk about Will. It’s funny though because when Will easily combats what he’s saying in the first part (before the friends mic drop) Mike kinda backtracks, probably feels guilty and uncomfortable and tries to get out of it. Will is like no fuck you, ‘what about us!’

Going back to my original point, it’s easy to understand all of Mike’s actions up to that point when he says “we’re friends!” The famous line. It clicks as to what he’s dealing with. He obviously has romantic feelings for Will and that’s what’s on his mind during their whole day and fight. We his his face slip when Will says ‘what about us’ it’s a perfect example of ‘his mask fell for just a moment’. The friends line is a ‘gotcha’ moment for the audience. We can go all the way back to the airport and piece it together with ease. Mike has romantic feelings for Will and is absolutely terrified and defensive over that. That is the moment we understand Mike for the rest of the season. They basically told us straight up what was happening with him and a lot of people ignored it cause gay and not straight.

[lemonhemlock]

Your analysis was really interesting to read!

I had these thoughts about Aemond saying he was next in line.

Aegon has not been made king yet. Maybe Aemond is confident that should Aegon shirk his duties, that instead of the crown being past to his very small son, that they’d want to see him on the throne instead so they’d move the line of succession from the 1st born who is gone and uncrowned to Viserys second son.

Otto wouldn’t protest because it’d still be his grandson on the throne. Plus it might be easy to get the houses to fall in like because Aemond is of marriageable age and who wouldn’t like their daughter to be queen with future grandchildren then in line for the throne. Puts their house in good standing.

It’s why I assumed Aemond wasn’t married yet. They were waiting to use him to their advantage.

I definitely didn’t take it as a threat to the kids. He seems to be all about duty to family. Thus holding on to Aegon when it’d serve him better to let him go.

Love all the thought you put into the subject!

Hey there, thank you for your kind message! I'm glad you liked it, I needed to get it out of my head somehow. 😂 I'm going to divide my thoughts on this in three parts.

I want to preface this by saying that I don't think baby-murder is in line with Aemond's characterization at all (at least so far). He has no reason to inflict so much pain on his sister and mother by killing his niece and nephews for personal ambition. The problem is that he can't really get rid of them either, if we are to take him seriously that he's "next in line to the throne".

a) The problem is that much complicated, because, as GRRM pointed out as well, medieval succession is muddy and not really codified properly, so it's conducive to a lot of dilemmas. If you resort to the argument that the King's firstborn son is heir, then his heir, in turn, is the next firstborn son, so Viserys->Aegon->Jaehaerys. Aegon being the true heir, as the greens argue, is not dependent on whether or not he eventually gets crowned.

If he dies before his time, the crown passes down his line, not his brother's. There is also this idea that the crown passes from one monarch to another at the very moment of death, so that the throne is never actually vacant (even if the crowning ceremony didn't take place). So, if you go by that philosophy, Aegon got to be King already for a couple of hours before his "death".

There are also others that fight over the proximity to the monarch - who should inherit? the grandson/greatgrandson etc of the King or the King's second son or perhaps the King's brother, since they are generationally closer. It's all very philosophical and many different arguments can be made, but there is no one clear answer here when everyone has their own take.

The problem is that you're not just passing up one baby, you're passing over three, including two boys, just for Aemond to be King. The greens can't wiffle-waffle like that when they're trying to prove they have law and historical precedence on their side. I mean, it's not out of the question, but it could come off as a coup-within-a-coup.

The most straightforward solution would be to install a regency for Jaehaerys, until he comes of age, but that would put an expiration date on Aemond's time galavanting as King. Also Otto would just love being Regent for a baby, since he could basically do as he pleases and not have to answer to anyone. Aemond taking Jaehaerys' place kind of curtails that, so I'm not sure he would necessarily support Aemond in this scenario. My belief is that the greens would be split if Aemond really pursued the throne over Jaehaerys, when they really can't afford to get side-tracked.

b). I actually don't have a problem with helaemond. It may not be everyone's cup of tea within the green community, but I think it provides an additional layer of narrative irony that is just very compelling to me. I think your idea of keeping Aemond and Daeron as bargaining chips for marriage alliances has merit to it - also, Aemond is meant to be what age in episodes 9-10? 16? If he claimed Vhagar at 10 years old and there's been a 6-year time skip. Time is a little fuzzy in the show for practical reasons, but still. Aemond and Daeron may just have been too young to go looking for brides up to this point.

That being said, in this scenario in which Aegon disappears, I still think it would make more sense for Aemond and Helaena to marry. Helaena is a dragon-rider, remember, and Targaryens are loath to give away their dragons to other houses. It's one of the reasons they practice incest.

When Rhaenys married Corlys, she effectively endowed House Velaryon with dragons. At one point, the dragon parity between the Targaryens and the Velaryons was 2-3 (Caraxes, Syrax vs Meleys, Seasmoke, Vhagar). That's kind of crazy. Aemma's children kept dying, Daemon wasn't having any with Rhea Royce and if Rhaenys kept having them, who knows how many dragons the Velaryons would end up with? I don't think the greens would be willing to just give the female, egg-laying Dreamfyre away to another house.

To continue in this fanfiction-y vein, the only way Aemond would get to be King over Jaehaerys if he declared Helaena's children to be bastards, then legitimized them as his own. If they had additional children within wedlock, it is unclear if Jaehaerys/Jaehaera/Maelor would be relegated to the back of the line and their new siblings placed ahead.

c) Or, I suppose, he could just propose a compromise? He takes the throne, marries Helaena, names Jaehaerys as heir and just makes sure he doesn't have any additional children to supplant Jaehaerys and Maelor. That prevents them from being declared bastards and does not cause a succession crisis, because it doesn't place them in direct competition with better claimants. It's not an unimpeachable position from a legal point of view though - he'd definitely have his detractors. And it's contingent on him convincing his family to go along with it, too.

The reality, though, is that Aemond is not doing shit without Mother's approval. Theoretically speaking, if he seized the throne by force, he could do whatever the hell he wanted, but he lacks resources and political support for that. He has Vhagar, but he lacks soldiers on the ground. How would he realistically enforce this? Waltz back into the Red Keep and tell Alicent & Otto he's King now? Practically speaking, he hasn't shown himself to be that much of a rogue and has no counter-insurgency backup plan. If Alicent & Otto say no, then I'm afraid it's a no.

[mllelaurel]

My Shard read proceeds apace.

“What in the Nine Hells is a Drizzt?” - The best line of dialogue in the entire series has arrived. All other dialogue can pack up and go home. 

And then, Dwahvel’s like ‘oh yeah, it’s your murder crush. The guy you wouldn’t shut up about for a year. I can’t expect to keep ‘em all straight, you know.’ 

-

Sharlotta’s narrative continues to not impress me. Let her be competent at something she’s supposed to be competent at, instead of being batted around by every guy she interacts with. 

-

Ooop, there’s the part that mentions Kimmuriel and Rai-guy being roommates (Oh my God, they were roommates! ...I am not original.) And I think that’s the same chapter which has one of them just casually refer to the other as a friend in POV. Which I gather is a heck of a thing, given the society they grew up in. 

I’m wondering if part of how the Bregan D’aerthe works. Mostly what we see of it in this book is petty bitch infighting, but I can’t help thinking there’s a certain defiant and - basically queer for its origins - camaraderie to it, without which the troop would have fallen apart a century ago. Caring about others is transgressive, and that transgression is part of the appeal. 

-

I really wish I could do even the most basic animation, because every time Jarlaxle interacts with the Crenshinibon, all I want to do is set it to this clip from Beetlejuice the musical. 

(I found my frequency/Crystals speak to me

What are they saying?

Buy more crystals) [Insert picture of a second tower here]

To be clear, I can’t even draw a satisfying stick figure, let alone animate fuck-all.

-

Oooh, there we go. The Entreri vs. Jarlaxle fight and Jarlaxle and Entreri vs Kimmuriel and Rai-guy when they arrive is genuinely gripping. There’s a really good balance of tension and fun (beat the hell out of your friend vs. throw a giant bird at the guys trying to coup you, GJ Jarlaxle), and I couldn’t help but notice a lot of the stiffness in the writing falls away. I’d wager Bob had fun writing it.  

Okay, let me actually unpack Jarlaxle’s different approaches to the two back-to-back fights, because I think there’s something interesting here. 

You could just make the argument that Jarlaxle is being entirely hosed by the crystal in the first fight. And Crenshinibon is kind of one-track-minded and not very fun. Whereas by the second fight, Artemis has ganked the crystal, not that Jarlaxle knows it. 

But if you take the Cinnabon out of the equation, what you’re left with is, Jarlaxle expects betrayal but doesn’t take it well at all from someone he genuinely likes. As he seems to like Entreri. In contrast, I don’t get the impression he’s close to Rai-guy at all, and while he and Kimmuriel have the potential for closeness, even this early on, they are not there yet. Their betrayal is ‘sigh, intrigue has come upon me. Welp, that was inevitable. But you forget - I love a good challenge!’ Whereas Entreri’s feels like a genuine betrayal. So Jarlaxle goes dead-serious and deadly. 

-

Speaking of potential for closeness, from Kimmuriel and Rai-guy’s conversation immediately after, you can just tell that Kimmuriel gets Jarlaxle, the Bregan D’aerthe, and Menzoberranzan in a way Rai-guy explicitly does not. 

“We have to find them,” Rai-guy said a moment later. “I want Jarlaxle dead. How else might I ever know a reprieve?”

“You are now the leader of a mercenary band of males housed in Menzoberranzan,” Kimmuriel replied. “You will find no reprieve, no break from the constant dangers and matron games. This is the trapping of power, my companion.”

Kimmuriel gets how the sausage is made. And we get our first hint of why he winds up half in charge of Bregan D’aerthe over the years. 

- 

Also speaking of closeness:

“[Entreri] could easily [escape] alone, he knew, and he had the real Crystal Shard, but for some reason he couldn’t quite understand, and didn’t bother even to think about, he turned back and grabbed Jarlaxle again, pulling him behind.”

Entreri, you dense-ass tsundere. 

-

I would also like you all to know that I just retyped both those passages. Because I can’t make copy-paste from an Overdrive e-book work. Faaaaaail. 

[conflictaverse]

headcanon. the conversation with jim in 2.6

Do I ever shut up? No. I have to break down the Sam and Jim conversation in 2.6 because I cannot stop thinking about it every second of the day.

(And before I start, the amount of RESPECT I have for these two actors? They made each of these lines mean so much that is not really on paper. I believed that they were brothers with all this baggage, and I appreciate that so much.)

JIM: So, what’s new and exciting in the world of xenoanthropology? SAM: Literally everything in xenoanthropology is new and exciting. 

I think it’s pretty clear that Jim doesn’t really want to hear an answer, and Sam knows it. As is made clear later in the conversation, Jim seems to lack respect for what Sam does. Meanwhile, Sam loves his job so much that it seems to him that it should be OBVIOUS that xenoanthropology is the coolest thing ever, and why doesn’t Da– I mean Jim see that?

SAM: But instead of giving you a long answer you don’t actually care about, why don’t we skip to your news? JIM: Wow. Sensing some hostility there, Sam.

No argument from Jim about caring about Sam’s answer, but also. Sam is so intensely jealous about Jim’s early promotion that he can’t even be chill a little bit about it, god. He’s been obsessing since he found out, you KNOW he has.

SAM: Not at all. Congrats, Jim. First officer of the Farragut. JIM: Well, not for another few months. I still have to train my replacement. SAM: Still, it’s quite an achievement.  JIM: Thank you.

LIke at the end of the episode, I think Sam is trying to get Jim to say what he wants to say first. He doesn’t exactly want to start an argument with Jim (although he WILL) but he also can’t let things go if he can’t convince Jim to acknowledge an issue before Sam says it outright.

SAM: And youngest first officer in the whole fleet. Youngest first officer ever, actually. I don’t suppose you remember who held the record before you? JIM: Ah, okay. That’s what this is.

To me, Jim’s response supports the idea that Sam tries to hint his way into an argument a conversation, then gives up and just says what he thinks Jim is doing wrong. 

SAM: It was George Kirk Sr. First officer of the Kelvin.

There are LAYERS here. First, he’s supplanting their father, and he did it on purpose (as Jim basically admits later). Second, he’s zipping past Sam career-wise. Third, he’s following in their father’s footsteps in a way that Sam never will, and (worse) never could.

JIM: Dad gave you his first name, even if you choose not to use it, so I have to do something to keep up.

Jim, bless your heart, but this is such bullshit and you know it. I’ve already posted about my take on why Sam uses his middle name, but… Jim is so obviously the favorite, and Sam only got the name because he was born first.

SAM: You’re making me look… JIM: Like what? Sam, what does my ambition have to do with you?

(This is where I start screaming.) It is unfair for Sam to be upset with Jim for running up the ranks. It is. But also Jim’s response is so painful. I don’t think Sam has ambition the way that Jim does (or their father did). He wants to accomplish things and be there for people, but rank only matters to him because it matters to their father and it matters to Jim. Regardless of what Jim meant when he said it, I know Sam heard it as “if you tried harder, Dad would love you more.”

SAM: Dad has a very old-fashioned idea of what a successful career looks like, what a fulfilling life looks like, and it just so happens it looks a lot like you.

(More screaming.) He calls their dad “old-fashioned” but instead of taking that as “he doesn’t quite get me and how I live my life, but that’s okay” it’s “I can’t be as good as Jim in our father’s eyes.”

JIM: Well, if you’re so worried about impressing Dad, then why are you wallowing in a science lab? SAM: Wallowing? Seriously?

(SCREAMING.) Just… open disrespect for what Sam does. It hurts me. And for the record, this is the part where Sam fully stops hiding how upset he is behind a smile.

JIM: Records are made to be broken. I put in some legwork to beat this one. So what? 

(JIMOTHY TIMTAM KIRK STOP THAT RIGHT NOW) “I put in the legwork” refers back to the concept that, if Sam just worked harder, he could be where Jim is so why is he whining? And to be real and to be honest, I do not think that Jim really believes that. I think he knows he’s special. Yes, he worked hard, but also he is special in a way that Sam is not.

JIM: We can make the old man proud in our own ways. SAM: Or. Not at all.

(I am deceased.) After everything, Jim’s line feels really disingenuous. I don’t think he means it (since he seems very confused when Sam walks away), but after not being interested in what Sam’s been doing at his job, the “first name” line, and “wallowing in a lab”... They must both know that their father might say he’s proud of Sam too, but Jim is the one he’ll bring up to people, you know?

Also, Sam’s “not at all” punched me directly in the face and i’m suing dan jeannotte for his acting and face.

[theonefairygodmother]

I'm gonna preface this by saying I have no problem with representation. I love queer stories, especially when they're organic and natural. I'm bi, and I've had fulfilling relationships with women as well as men. Honestly, I would love a spin-off on Brimsley and Reynolds. It didn't feel.....forced. the characters were new and their story grew organically. Michaela? No. I'm trying to articulate how I feel without sounding like I hate the queer community because I genuinely don't. I appreciated Benedict's story line even if it was a little jarring. He's exploring, experimenting and that's fine. It still doesn't take away from his story. But the introduction of Michaela felt like a guy punch. It felt wrong. I've never particularly like gender swapping in stories based on an original IP, because it changes a lot of dynamics. It changes a lot of story lines. And yes, it's fiction, but I'm sorry I cannot get over it, especially when it's such a blatant case of pandering. It makes me feel as if I'm wrong to question this change and I've somehow internalised homophobia. If so, then why wouldn't I hate other queer characters or be similarly uncomfortable?

Okay I think I can make my argument clear with an example. If anyone has seen the movie Love Lies Bleeding, I think they'll get it. The sexual orientation of the characters didn't matter. It felt right. And it was not important to the story. It was just an established dynamic and we could enjoy the plot easily. It wouldn't have mattered if it was a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple, the story is largely unchanged. If Michael becomes Michaela, here's the issues I see. Who inherits Kilmartin. We've already established an estate will go to the next male heir if the current owner dies. A major part of Michael's story was his guilt over his inheritance and his imposter syndrome. His story arc taking his place in parliament. It's all gone. I mean, I know the show isn't interested in the plots other than the main character pairing but this felt so wrong. If they wanted a lesbian lead, the just make another show with original characters why force this? I'm not looking forward to Francescas season at all. I'm sure a lot of people will like it and that's their prerogative but for me, personally, the only thing keeping the story moving forward is Benedict. Maybe Eloise. But I feel like the story of the show has lost its charm and has dug itself into a hole like Disney or marvel

Completely understand your point and i don't think youre being homophobic.

Let's start from the major thing that separates you and me on the queer representation of this show: I'm a Bridgerton Netflix fan, I've read 3 of Julia Quinn's books so far and they all felt... wrong. Not because of the straight pairings but because of the normalization of violence she brings in her books. I love period books, I understand violent relationships are real and they happen, but romanticizing it is not really my deal. So basically I love how Netflix adapted the books because I hated the books, but for a reader who loves JQ stories and felt a connection to her stories, I understand the pure anger of not seeing your favorite part and favorite pairing, and worrying about how they'll adapt.

Second and minor difference between us: book adaptation. I'm a fan of adaptations, I love to see how shows change the books and how book adaptation change the series/movies. I'm the type of reader/watcher who always separates one work from the other because I want to see other visions of the same premisse, i want that work changed. And this is because I've concluded that no show will ever substitute the feeling I had when I first read the book; no book adaptation will ever be that special as the day I first watched the original movie. When School for Good and Evil was adapted into Netflix I was overjoyed even when they changed so many things, from the looks of the characters, to the interactions, to the plot organization, everything. I loved seeing things from the book and I loved seeing new and different views the writers and director had of that universe. So, even if I liked JQ's Bridgertons, I wouldn't have hated so much the changes.

Now back to the queerness: we could have had an original queer character like Brimsley and Reinolds. Cressida, though not original, could be a great representation because she checks all the boxes and her husband is of no importance since it was meanness to Penelope that made her any useful in the books. Going for the Bridgertons is also part of trying to answer the wants of the fandom (yup and i mean the lgbt part of it that crave representation, like myself). Just like they added the Yellow song or the mirror scene, Netflix is literally fucking around with fans wishes, they want to innovate the original material which they did by ruling out racism.

Now, I do understand you're sad about it. And I do understand they should have done a better job by creating new characters or adapting original lgbt books. But I'm so happy they're making a Bridgerton lgbt that I... I just want to see how fucked up or brilliant it can be. I was glad to read and write the fanfics (another one of my favorite adaptations form) and if you had told me that they would have made a Bridgerton lgbt two days ago I would have laughed at your face, I really didn't think they had the guts (or the wish of being killed by the original books fandom) to do it.

[4denthusiast]

There's a popular post complaining about the repeated unexamined use of some tropes in a certain sort of fantasy story (they turned reblogs off and I'm not quite sure what the etiquette on responding to such a post is, but I figure if I'm not specifically drawing their attention it's probably fine?), and gives "what if races were real" and "what if the divine right of kings was real" as examples. I get the point they're making, but I think both of those, if well thought through, could actually be interesting premises for a fantasy story.

In real life, psychological differences between different human ethnicities (not counting cultural stuff), if they exist at all, are pretty negligible, which makes racial tolerance and stuff mostly a pretty simple position. If everyone is basically the same in the ways that matter, everyone deserving equal treatment follows pretty directly. In a fictional world where there actually are clear differences, how to deal with it becomes a more interesting question. If a species existed that were half way, or 1/4 of the way, or whatever else, between humans and chimps, where do they end up in the range of the rights humans have vs. the rights chimps have? When animals murder each other we may be a bit sad if we happen to see it, but practically nobody considers that an actual issue like such an extremely high murder rate in a group of people would be. Again, where do you draw the line? If angels are known to be morally incorruptible and are willing to run for office, do you still allow humans to take positions of power? Do you want a world where you can trust that everyone running it will never lie or try to cheat you, if that means they're all also something terribly different from you? If satyrs chafe under the restrictions of civilization, what sort of legal framework could be used to let them live the life they want while also making sure other species can rest safe knowing satyrs aren't going to just get away with killing them or stealing from them? Does this involve physically separate regions for them to live? Is it fair to refuse to employ a fairy (they're known to be mischevious and deceptive), if you know all the other employers are doing the same thing? What level of irreconcilable violent tendencies does it take before genocide becomes the least bad option, like we do with insect pests? Or do you keep those you can alive as prisoners of war, and if so, what then? Just keep the population going forever like animals in a zoo? How many futile attempts at integrating orcs into human society does it take before you give up? Or what if it very rarely does work, but in the vast majority of cases where it doesn't, they do a huge amount of harm in the process? How much anti-racism can you get anyway in a fictional world where one of the most important arguments against racial discrimination just clearly isn't true?

(I would like to emphasise, to try to avoid misunderstandings, that I'm not trying to say any of this is true in real life, where racial differences tend to be limited to stuff like lactose intolerance and what hairstyles you can do. It's about the hypothetical. If significant racial differences where real, what then?)

I have less ideas for divine right of kings. If the heavens say this person would be a great ruler, how much do you trust the heavens (both to know what they're talking about and to be aligned with your values)? How much of the problems dictatorship causes are due to the fact that the people most likely to become dictators are bad people, and how much is just an inherent effect of the system, that even the best ruler couldn't avoid? I still feel like there are opportunities to take this in interesting directions.