#like the OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES. like so!!!

[tyrannuspitch]

been looking at some images today, time for my wildly uninformed opinion. the difference between celtic and nordic knotwork is Like So:

[nerdygaymormon]

Scriptures for queer people

I like that the scriptures show life is messy and complicated. God works with really flawed people and they learn to measure up and do amazing things. The scriptures are full of contradictions as people try to figure out God’s will and how it applies in their situation. 

God is an out-of-the-box thinker who wants to be inclusive. The scriptures teach me that God values a relationship with me, will adjust things so the gospel works for me and my situation, and God can help me do amazing things.

The scriptures show that God’s people are a mess and often get it wrong. These are the chosen people? In that case, I’m doing alright.

Instead of concentrating on all the specific answers & rules, I look for the overarching themes of the scriptures, I can apply those principles in my life and to my life’s situations.

I think most people view the Bible as decidedly anti-queer because certain “clobber passages” are regularly used against queer people. A closer inspection of those “clobber passages” shows when put back in context they’re not quite what people think. For example, ‘don’t have gay sex...as part of worshiping a pagan god.’ For the record, straight sex that is done as worship of another god is also condemned, but nobody goes around saying all straight sex is banned.

There’s queer-positive scriptures that are usually ignored because they don’t fit the anti-queer narrative people want the Bible to have.  

Some principles & teachings are more important than others, we can use the more important ones to help us think about the rest. The Bible emphasizes love, equality, & justice, we can use these to filter which messages are important for us and which should remain in the past as part of ancient cultures. For example, the Biblical principles of loving other people as yourself and treating others how you want to be treated should cause us to dismiss slavery even though the Bible allows it. Would forbidding someone from marrying who they love while allowing yourself that opportunity fit with the Biblical principles of love, equality, & justice? No.

We’re also taught in Matthew 7 that good principles don’t bring forth bad results (“a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit”). If teachings are bringing forth bad outcomes for a whole group of people, then we should discard those, they aren’t good.

I'm not claiming to be an expert or that people should agree with my interpretations. I'm simply sharing how I am thinking of these verses when I apply my viewpoint and experience as a queer Latter-day Saint

————————————————————

Genesis 1 & 2 - Adam & Eve AND Adam & Steve : The purpose of this story isn’t to discount being gay or trans, in fact queerness fits into this story

Genesis 2 - Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil : Humans have been messing up what to do with the concept of good & evil. Gender roles are a result of the Fall

Genesis 3:20; Genesis 17:5 & 15; Genesis 32:28; Numbers 13:16; Matthew 16:17-18 - Changing Names : The Bible has much to teach about our obligation to respect a person’s name

Genesis 4:9-10 - Your Brother’s Blood Cries Out to Me from the Ground : The blood of queer people is crying from the ground

Genesis 6:9 - Noah’s obedience led to destruction : Kindness & Inclusion are more Important than Obedience

Genesis 7:2-3 - Noah and the Ark : Some people point to the animals on the ark as proof God only honors male/female pairings, however for many animals Noah didn’t just bring 2 of them but 14, which offers opportunities for diversity

Genesis 9:13-16 - Rainbow : Queer people carry the promise of the rainbow

Genesis 9:20-27 - Noah & Ham : It’s wrong to use this passage to justify the enslavement or servitude of people, and to be against love between consenting gay adults

Genesis 12:1-3 : A blessing to all families - If we choose to harm rather than bless queer families, then we are not the people of God

Genesis 16 - Hagar : We may still be required to deal with difficult situations, but we have a God who hears us, a God who knows us

Genesis 19:1-11 - Sodom & Gomorrah : It’s ironic THIS story is used against queer people when its message is the opposite

Genesis 19:26 - Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt : She became a memorial to the destruction of two cities and likewise we need to witness and bear record of the suffering and marginalization of queer people

Genesis 21 - Hagar, Part 2 : God finds all of us in the wilderness

Genesis 22 - Rejection of Ishmael and Binding of Isaac : We aren’t asked to sacrifice our queer children, doing so may cut us off from God

Genesis 25 - Jacob & Esau : The great blessing didn’t belong to the manly man but to the effeminate one

Genesis 34 - Rape of Dinah & the Response : Diverse viewpoints are needed in positions of power & decision making

Genesis 38 - Tamar : It is a sin to deny people fair treatment & they are justified to find solutions to when basic rights are denied

Genesis 37-46 - Joseph Sold by his Brothers into Slavery : Life gets better and there may come a time for forgiveness and reconciliation

Genesis - The Bible teaches that wealth is destructive

Exodus 1 - Pharaoh Seeks to Murder the Hebrew Baby Boys : Defying the oppressors to protect the innocent and the vulnerable is the right thing

Exodus 3:14 - I AM THAT I AM : I am who I am

Exodus 3:15 - The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob : Why not say “the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob”?

Exodus 10: 7-11, 24-26 - Passover is an annual reminder that we do not negotiate at the expense of others : Civil rights aren’t to be given sparingly, we fight for all.

Leviticus 18:5 & Ezekiel 20:11 - Doing what You Need to Live : Living is more important than obeying commandments

Leviticus 18, 20 - Lie with a Man as with a Woman : These verses forbid Jews from engaging in male-male sex done as part of pagan worship

Numbers 9:1-14 - Second Passover : God finds ways to include people

Numbers 21:6-9 - The Brass Serpent : The people’s tradition of not worshiping idols made them misunderstand what God wanted from them. What traditions do we have that blind us from what God wants for us?

Deuteronomy 22:5 - Cross Dressing : This verse isn’t about performing drag or living as a trans person, it’s meant to avoid harming others

Deuteronomy 23:17 - Whores and Sodomites : The word “sodomite” is used for male prostitutes

Lessons from Moses’ life for Queer Folks

Judges 4-5 - Deborah : A woman prophet? What else is possible?

Judges 19 - Murder of the Levite’s Concubine : Despite this horrific story, we don’t condemn heterosexuals & heterosexuality

Ruth & Naomi : The Bible celebrates this relationship of 2 women

1 Samuel 16:7 - The Lord Looketh on the Heart : Gender & orientation are matters of the heart and God knows us for who we are

Jonathan & David : The possibility this is a same-sex relationship blessed by God is why this story has been a favorite of queer Christians

1 Kings 14:24; 1 Kings 15:12; 1 Kings 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7 - Sodomites : The Hebrew Bible condemns worshiping a different god

Esther : By ‘coming out,’ Esther changed how the king viewed a marginalized group, and gender non-conforming people are the unsung heroes of this story

Book of Job : God had a different path for Job, and queer believers know God has a path for us

Psalms 27 - With the Lord’s Strength, We don’t need to Fear : The Lord won’t abandon us even if our parents do

Psalms 126:5 - Shall Reap in Joy : Life gets better

Psalms 133:1-3 - How Pleasant it is for Brethren to Dwell Together in Unity 

Psalms 139:13-14 - I am Fearfully and Wonderfully Made : Our sexual orientation & gender identity is woven throughout our bodies

Proverbs 6:16-19 - The 7 Things the Lord Hates : Being Queer ain’t on the list

Isaiah 3:9 - Declare their Sin as Sodom : Sodom’s sins are not taking care of the poor or visitors & not feeling guilt for committing sins (notice being gay isn’t one of the sins of Sodom)

Isaiah 43:1 - I have Called Thee by Thy Name; Thou art Mine : God is with us no matter whether our church is

Isaiah 51:1-2 - Abraham and Sarah are Intersex? : A traditional Jewish understanding for why they’re infertile is that they were intersex

Isaiah 54:2 - Enlarge the place of thy tents, and let them stretch forth the curtains : We need to make room for not just more people but for more diversity 

Isaiah 56:3-7 - Eunuchs Welcomed by God : God’s way is radical inclusiveness, God doesn’t marginalize people

Jeremiah 1:5 - Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee : You are not a mistake. God loves you and intentionally made you into who you are

Jeremiah 16:1-2 - God tells the prophet Jeremiah not to marry nor have a family : How does this fit with the Latter-day Saint idea of exaltation where marriage is required? Maybe we need to expand our vision of heaven

Jeremiah 29:1, 4-7, 11 - God Plans to Give You Hope and a Future: God’s plan includes blessing & prospering You

Ezekiel 16:49-50 - Two types of forbidden things, To’evah is forbidden for Jews and Zimah is an injustice or a sin : The gay sex acts prohibited in Leviticus 18:22 & Leviticus 20:13 are to’evah, not forbidden for anyone but the Israelites

Daniel - Daniel & Ashpenaz : God supports a loving gay relationship

Hosea 6:6 - God desires mercy, not burnt offerings : True religion isn’t about practicing rituals, it’s about extending love and mercy

Joel 2:28 - Restoration of Gospel Leads to an Increase in Knowledge : Science is providing knowledge about queer people

Amos 5:23-24 - God Wants Justice, Not Our Hymns : Enough with the talk, let’s enact real change to achieve justice

Micah 6:8 - the prophet says, "What does the Lord require of you?" To go out and kill your enemies because God is vengeful. No!!! The prophet Micah says. "To do justice, to do kindness, and to walk humbly with God." : Are we just & kind to our queer siblings?

Malachi 4:6 - The human family is going to be united : if queer people are excluded then the whole is cursed

Socially Queer Jesus & Disciples : Queerness fits naturally with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ

Matthew 1 & Luke 3 - Jesus’ genealogy : Think what it this means for chosen family 

Matthew 1 : Joseph chose mercy over the Law - Joseph preserved Mary’s dignity and life

Matthew 2:1-12 : The Magi visit the Christchild :The Magi knew of the Savior’s birth but not those who read the Hebrew Bible. Knowledge, wisdom, and truth come from many sources and those inside a religion may be blind to what is apparent to others 

Matthew 4 - Denying Identity is a Tactic of the Devil : Understanding who we are is an important part of facing the challenges of life

Matthew 5:30 : And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee : if a church continues teaching queerphobic things, it may be necessary to cut it from your life in order to survive and thrive

Matthew 5:21-48 - Ye have heard that it was said...But I say unto you : Jesus is saying this text has been interpreted one way, but He is giving a better way. With all that God taught about loving others and about all being alike unto God, what is a better way to interpret how we treat and love queer people?

Matthew 5:43-48 - Love Your Enemies : These verses refute the idea that the two great commandments to Love God and to Love Our Neighbor are in conflict 

Matthew 6:9-13 - The Lord’s Prayer : We’re meant to build heaven on earth. There’s an idea that queer people will no longer be queer when they die and then can have joy and all the blessings. That’s wrong! We’re to have joy in THIS life. We’re to have justice in THIS life. We’re to have all the blessings in THIS life. We’re to be treated alike in THIS life. 

Matthew 6:27 - Can’t change your height or extend your life just by thinking about it : Queerness is not something we can simply choose to change. Thoughts, prayer, & faith aren’t going to change this part of who we are 

Matthew 7:9-12, 16-20 - If his Son Asks for Bread, Will He Give Him a Stone? : Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive

Matthew 8:2-3 - Jesus touched the leper : Contact with queer people heals others of their anti-queer bigotry, which leads to the question of who actually needs to be healed? 

Matthew 8:5-13 - The Centurion and his ‘Servant’ : Jesus holds up a gay man as an example of faith for all to follow

Matthew 9:18-26; Mark 5:21-34; Luke 8:41-56 - Woman touched the hem of Jesus’ garment : She persisted in getting what she needed. Queer people have to persist to get what they need

Matthew 10:29-31 - God knows of every sparrow that falls to the grown and has numbered every hair of your head. You are worth more than many sparrows : You can trust that God isn’t squandering souls, isn’t creating queer people while simultaneously condemning them for being queer

Matthew 12:50 - Who does Jesus proclaim as brother, sister, and mother? : Chosen Families

Matthew 13:24-30 - Parable of the Wheat and the Tares : This parable teaches that the wheat and the tares can’t be separated until the very end. That to pull up tares would also uproot the wheat. Whichever one we are, we’re inseparable from each other. We can’t remove them without removing ourselves. Only Christ can tell them apart and will separate them. However, a lot of people think they can tell, and unsurprisingly, they always think they’re the wheat, and often they assume queer people are the tares

Matthew 14:22-23 - Peter Walks on Water : Queer people need to believe in ourselves, that’s when miracles happen

Matthew 15:7-14 - But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men : Some churches are misguided and teach the biases of humans rather than God’s true message of love

Matthew 15:10-20 - The things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them : Racist, transphobic, and homophobic words make us unworthy

Matthew 15:21-28 - Yet the Dogs Eat of the Crumbs which Fall from their Master’s Table : God’s love is so expansive it can surprise and stretch even Jesus Christ 

Matthew 17:1-9; Luke 9:28-43 - Jesus Comes Out : Jesus revealed the deepest truth about Himself to His closest friends

Matthew 18:6 - Do not Offend the Little Ones who Believe : Being queer isn’t the problem, it’s the church experience that is broken and defective

Matthew 19:5-12 - Marriage & Eunuchs : Jesus declares men who aren’t attracted to women are exempt from a male+female marriage

Matthew 19:16-23 - Obey the commandments to have eternal life : There is no commandment to live a heteronormative life

Matthew 20:1-16 - Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard : Queer people are relying on the goodness of the Master to bless us the same as others

Matthew 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-25 - Jesus curses the fig tree : The only time Jesus cursed a fig tree was for not being fruity enough, maybe we should contemplate on that as we consider how to love our LGBTQ+ neighbors

Matthew 21:31 - The Publicans and the Harlots go into the Kingdom of God before You : Church leaders are setting themselves up to go from ‘First’ to ‘Last’

Matthew 21-27; Mark 11-15; Luke 19-23; John 12-19 - Final Week of Jesus’ Life : Many lessons from Jesus’ life apply to queer lives

Matthew 22:23-32 - When His disciples asked about marriage and about whose wife someone will be when they reach heaven, this was Jesus’ answer, “You are in error because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage, they will be like the angels in heaven.” : Sounds like no heterosexuality in heaven. Sorry.

Matthew 22:36-40 - The 2 Great Commandments

Matthew 23:37 - Even as a Hen Gathereth her Chickens under her Wings : Jesus uses feminine pronouns and imagery to illustrate His role

Matthew 25:1-13 - Parable of the 10 Virgins : the foolish bridesmaids listened to those who said they weren’t worthy to meet the groom

Matthew 25:14-30 - Parable of the Talents : telling queer people not to “act” on their queerness is akin to telling us to bury our talent and to go back to the Lord without doing anything with it

Matthew 25:31-46 - Jesus will use how I Treat Others to Determine if I Inherit his Blessings : Mistreating queer people isn’t a qualifier for Christ’s blessings

Garden of Gethsemane : Asking for help & seeking emotional support is Christlike

Easter : Jesus' resurrection can be read as a coming out story. Jesus came out into a changed body and new way of life. Likewise, queer people come out into a new identity and can never go back to what it was before. Others may look back and see your empty tomb that contains your deadname & the misgendered identity of how they saw you, but they'll also see your life reborn as you move forward in your new identity.

Mark 1:10-11 - God Knows Us, We aren’t a Mistake : Many queer people get messages of love from God

Mark 1:32 - Jesus is teaching that under certain circumstances it’s okay to break the rules about the Sabbath.

Mark 2:1-13 - Friends Lower a Paralyzed Man through the Roof to be Healed by Jesus : Better to break the house than to break the person

Mark 2:15 - Jesus invited sinners & disciples to His house and fed them : We also can invite people to our homes for meals as way to show we love them and want them in our lives. As Ben Schilaty likes to say, “Love the sinner, invite them to dinner.”

Mark 2:27 - The Sabbath was Made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath : We don’t have to break ourselves against the commandments. They’re for our benefit, not our harm

Mark 9:17-27 - This is a story of demonic possession which causes the individual to act in strange ways, and when the demon(s) is cast out the person is healed : Today we use medicine and counseling because we understand diseases and mental health issues. When we know better, we should do better.

Mark 10:46-52 - Ask People Questions and Listen : “We need to listen to and understand what our LGBT brothers and sisters are feeling and experiencing”

Mark 12:30-31 - Love God and Love People : There’s no greater commandments. How do we love queer people, and do they recognize how we treat them as love?

Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4 - The Widow’s Mite : Jesus condemns making the widow impoverished and the same applies to queer people who are asked to sacrifice who they are

Mark 13:24-37 - Fig Tree’s Leaves Show Summer is Near : Members are trying to build a church that’s more inclusive of LGBTQ+ people. Maybe summer isn’t near, but perhaps is is Spring as it seems the winter chill is thawing

Luke 1:27 - Mary is a virgin : The Greek term parthenos normally referred to an unmarried woman of marriageable age, because in their society an unmarried female typically hadn’t yet had sex. As a missionary, I learned the Korean language does the same thing, all unmarried women of marriageable age can be referred to as a virgin, even though some unmarried women have had sex. If we keep with the tradition that Mary was in fact a virgin as we think of that term in English, and she did not conceive through ordinary means but through the Holy Spirit produced an offspring without a human father, then that raises some interesting possibilities. For example, the Y chromosome is inherited from the biological father, which calls into question how is Jesus a male? Could this suggest Jesus is trans?

Luke 1:37 - Nothing is impossible with God...except for LGBTQ+ people getting into the Celestial Kingdom, at least that’s what some Christians believe

Luke 1:78-79 - Give Light to Them that Sit in Darkness : Going from the darkness of the closet to the dayspring when we learn our Heavenly Parents love us

Luke 2; Matthew 1:18-25 - Nativity Story : Queer people can see ourselves in this story

Luke 2:52 - Jesus Increased in Wisdom and Stature, and in Favour with God and Man : Jesus didn’t marry, as a church we need to reprioritize what is important 

Luke 3:12-14 - Jesus was able to meet people where they were at. He didn't ask the Roman soldiers to stop being a Roman Soldier. Jesus told him to be just and virtuous in his soldier duties. How does this apply to queer people?

Luke 3:23 - Jesus began His ministry at age 30 : There’s no rush, come out when you’re ready

Luke 4:16-30 - No prophet is accepted in his own country : Jesus understands the hardships & joys of ‘coming out’

Luke 4:17-21 - What did Jesus come to do? : Do we liberate or oppress queer people? Do we share God’s abundance with them or withhold it?

Luke 7:36-50 - Woman who Anoints Jesus’ Feet : Queer people’s tears wash Jesus’ feet 

Luke 10:25-37 - The Good Samaritan : Members of the church avoid the injured man, or perhaps are even the ones who hurt him

Luke 13:24-30 - The First Shall be Last and the Last First : We’re gonna be surprised at who gets into heaven

Luke 14:15 - an ass or an ox fallen into a pit : Under some circumstances it’s okay to break a commandment/covenant

Luke 15:1-7 - The Lost Sheep : The 99 sheep are also sinners but they think it’s just the 1 who is lost

Luke 15:8-10 - The Lost Coin : The woman’s joy at being reunited with her lost coin is like God’s joy at being reunited with a queer person.

Luke 15:11-32 - The Prodigal Son : Queer People go on a journey similar to the Prodigal Son

Luke 17:34-35 - One Shall be Taken, and the Other Shall be Left : There shall be two men in one bed; two women shall be ‘grinding’ together, some of them are saved and some aren’t

Luke 22:10 - A Man Carrying a Pitcher of Water : A man not conforming to gender norms is mentioned without any negative connotation

Luke 22:33-34 - Paul will deny Jesus 3 times : What if Jesus tells Paul to deny Him so that he would live to lead the church? Queer people sometimes deny being queer in order to be safe (especially when they’re in the closet)

Luke 22:50-51 - After Peter Slices Off a Man’s Ear, Jesus says “No More of This!” and Heals the Man’s Ear : One day Jesus will say to those who harm queer people, “No more of this!”

John 1:11 - His own received him not : Many queer people experience being rejected by their families and loved ones

John 3:16 - Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life : Despite what some teach, Jesus didn’t come to earth to condemn us, but to save us. Unfortunately, some Christians add “unless you’re queer, in which case you can’t have eternal life”

John 4 - Jesus meets a woman at a well and points out she has had 5 husbands and now lives with a man to whom she is not married : What’s interesting is Jesus doesn’t call her to repent or command her to stop sinning. Contrast this with purity culture. 

John 6:37-39 - I Shall Lose None of all Those He has Given Me : The Church may cast out, but Jesus does not

John 8:2-11 - Woman Caught in Adultery : Jesus stood with the woman, not the religious leaders

John 9:1-3 - Who sinned, the blind man or his parents? : We all have inherent value and should be respected and loved

John 10:10 - I am Come that They Might have Abundant Life : A Harvard Study found Relationships are key to happiness, as are having good health, being educated, having coping skills, and giving back to the community. This is how to have joy, don’t deny this to queer people. 

John 11:43 - Jesus Helps Lazarus to Come Out : Coming out of the closet can feel like going from being dead to coming back to life, or to being fully alive

John 13:23 - John, whom Jesus Loved, is Laying against Jesus’ Breast : Could John & Jesus be in a same-sex relationship?

John 13:26 - Jesus feeds Judas : Jesus never excluded Judas, Judas excludes himself. So why does the church exclude queer people and treat us as enemies?

John 13:35 - By This Shall Men Know Ye are my Disciples if Ye have Love One to Another : To be Christian is to love others, including LGBTQIA+ people

John 14:1-3 - “In my Father's house are many mansions...” : Christ doesn’t tell queer people there’s not a place for us

John 20:15 - Supposing Him to be the Gardner : Jesus is our Gardner

Acts 1:15 - Peter has a dream where God commands him to consume food that his religion considers “unclean.” Peter is reminded that it’s God who gets to declare what is clean and may even contradict the law : This passage shows that God’s promises and beloved community are not defined by our own rules or boundaries, or even by our understanding of God’s law. God is constantly drawing us to love our neighbors

Acts 8:26-39 - Apostle Baptizes Eunuch into the Church : The early Church welcomed queer people. When will the modern Church allow queer people to fully participate?

Acts 10:15 - What God Hath Cleansed, that Call not thou Common : People who were traditionally excluded are welcome

Acts 10:34 - Peter declared “God shows no partiality”

Acts 17:28 - God has a Womb : Do we use the image of God to see the Divine in all of us or do we use God to diminish others?

Romans 1:20 - To Know God, Look at the Things God Created : What does the diversity of different sexual orientations & gender identities tell us about God?

Romans 1:26-27 - Vile Affections : People us this against gays, but it’s really directed at straight people

Romans 8:38-39 - Nothing Separates us from God’s Love : Nothing can separate us from the love of God. Not church leaders, not metaphorical muskets, not the church

Romans 10:12 - There is no distinction between Jew & Greek, the same Lord is the Lord of all, bestowing riches on all who call on Him

Romans 13:10 - Love Does no Wrong to Others : If church is causing harm, then it is not doing the work of Christ and God

1 Corinthians 1:27-28 - God Chose the Lowly Things of this World : Things look different from the margins than they do from the center

1 Corinthians 3:16 - You are the temple of God : The actual temple is our bodies and it's beautiful the way transgender people get to co-create with God in building their temple 

1 Corinthians 4:3-4 - We’re often told not to judge others, and not to let others judge us, but it’s easy to forget we shouldn’t shouldn’t judge ourselves. Work hard, do your best, and let yourself be forgiven. When we repent, the Lord forgives and forgets all of our transgressions, so we should allow ourselves the same peace of mind. Stop beating yourself up, It’s okay, let it go

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - The Unrighteous Shall Not Inherit the Kingdom of God : No one believes Paul is condemning sex between heterosexual couples as unrighteous, we shouldn’t assume He’s condemning relationships between people of the same gender

1 Corinthians 7 - We Shouldn’t Force Ourselves to be Celibate if We have Sexual Desires, Instead We Should Channel our Sexual Appetites within Marriage : A great argument for Christians to accept & celebrate gay marriages

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 - All the Members are One Body : The church needs its LGBTQ+ members, without us the body of the church is incomplete

1 Corinthians 14:10-13 - So Many Kinds of Voices in the World : It takes every voice for the choir to sound beautiful, no one is without significance

1 Corinthians 15:41 - Glory of the Sun, Moon and Stars : The sun, moon and stars all appear in the same sky. Could this mean we’ll all be together?

Galatians 2:1-5 - Gentiles are not Required to become Jews : Gentiles are accepted as they are and not forced to lose their identity by becoming Jews. Likewise queer people should be accepted as we are and not required to live as cisgender straight people

Galatians 3:28 - Ye Are All One in Christ Jesus : The scriptures say that all our diversity is welcome by Christ

Galatians 5:22-23 - There is No Law Against Love : The law doesn’t distinguish between gay and straight love

Ephesians 5:22-33 - A marriage between a man and a wife is used to symbolize Christ’s relationship with the church : If the church is made up of its members, we are the bride of Christ, we are in a marriage relationship with Christ. Which is an interesting concept for cis hetero men, they’re in a same-sex marriage with another Jesus

Colossians 3:9-11 - There is not Greek & Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, slave & free, we’re all one in Christ : We can continue this metaphor to say there is not difference between cis & trans, or gay and straight, you’re all one in Christ

1 Timothy 1:8-10 - Whoremongers...Them that Defile Themselves with Mankind...Menstealers : Condemnation of men who use boy prostitutes, and the slave dealers who procured the young boys and sold them into prostitution, in other words a condemnation of pedophiles, not as some claim of all homosexuals

1 Timothy 3:2 - Husbands of One Wife : Paul is not trying to address questions about sexual orientation or gay marriage in this verse

2 Timothy 3:1-3 - Without natural affection : Hateful, shaming, rejecting behavior by a parent to a queer child certainly sounds like the opposite of “natural affection” and was prophesied in the New Testament

1 Timothy 4:1-5 - Forbidding to marry : This is about people in the congregation leaving the faith because of what’s taught at the pulpit, teachings which happen to not be in line with God’s will . If you're against people of consenting age getting married, it seems like this is a test to show who's on the wrong side.

James 1:27 - Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is to care for orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world : Pure religion is not about hiding away in an ivory tower and discussing eternal truths--it's about being out in the world and living those truths by caring for people. We can come closest to Christ not by studying and memorizing His words but by loving the way He loved "that when he shall appear we shall be like him" (Moroni 7:48).

1 John 4:7-8 - He that Loveth not, Knoweth not God; for God is Love : Any genuine love comes from God. Unfortunately, Christians have created many laws against love

1 John 4:20 - If you hate others then you don’t love God : Quote this verse to any Christian who is yelling scriptures at you for being queer

Jude 1:7 - Going after Strange Flesh : Some use this to condemn homosexuality, but what would be the word for a married person going after “strange flesh,” aka “another flesh”? Adultery

Revelation 4:1-4 - There’s a Rainbow Around the Throne of God : Confirmation that queer people make it to heaven

1 Nephi 2:2 - God tells Lehi to leave the land given to his ancestors, leave behind the temple, leave behind extended family, and go on a new path : Many queer people also get this message, to leave behind the church and family which are hurting them

1 Nephi 4:6-19 - Nephi Kills Laban : What does it tell us about God that He is chill with murder but not two men or two women in love? Maybe it’s the believers that are mixing up what is okay and what is not

1 Nephi 8 - When Lehi tastes the fruit of the tree, which symbolizes the pure love of Christ, he wants his family to experience with him : God’s love isn’t meant to be experienced alone

1 Nephi 16:2 - the guilty take the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center : The truth about how church hurts queer people can be hard for believers to hear 

1 Nephi 16:10, 26-29 - Liahona : They had the Brass Plates, but that wasn’t enough. 

2 Nephi 2:25 - Adam Fell that Men Might Be; and Men are that They Might have Joy : A Harvard study found relationships are key to happiness, also helpful are good coping skills and giving back to the community. This is how to have joy

2 Nephi 26:33 - All are Alike Unto God : When will the Church embrace all people?

2 Nephi 31:20 - Love of all men : those who try to make sure they don’t love us too much so that it’s clear they don’t condone all our choices, they are the ones breaking the fundamental commandments.

Jacob 5 - Allegory of the Olive Tree : Fruitful trees start producing bad fruit and wild olive branches are grafted in : It’s interesting that good fruit comes from margins of the vineyard, which is not the expected place. The Lord operates in places we don’t even know about

Omni - Two Queer Authors? : This book is written by 5 different men, 2 of them have no sons to whom they could hand it down. Could that be because they’re queer?

Mosiah 3:19 - Putteth off the natural man : It’s natural to feel uncomfortable around people who are different from you. Try putting off your natural reaction and learn to see us as God does.

Mosiah 9 - Zeniff sees beyond the biased teachings : It’s hard to hate people up close

Alma 7:11-12 - That He May Know How to Succor his People : The atonement lets Jesus know how to help us

Alma 17:24-25 - Ammon & King Lamoni : They love each other

Alma 19 - Abish : Abish was closeted, God used her to upend social norms

Alma 32:9-10 - What Shall We Do? For We are Cast Out of Our Synagogues : Queer people can worship God whether we’re allowed at church or the temple

Alma 34:34 - We’re still queer when we’re resurrected

Alma 37:6 - Who are the small and simple? : Queer people who were considered small and simple were the ones strong enough to break the rules of masculinity and femininity which made it safe for the strong and powerful to come out as queer

Alma 41:10 : Wickedness never was happiness : What makes you joyful is not wicked

Alma 53:2 - Captain Moroni and General Lehi : Could Moroni and Lehi love each other as more than just as friends and soldiers, but as family?

Alma 56:16-17 - Helaman and the 2000 young warriors show up and boost the soldiers’ morale : I can easily imagine feeling beat up and defeated by the nonsense of church folk, and then the arrival of a few more queer people would lift me up and feel like those who be with us are brave and fabulous and what we have is worth defending and affirming.

Alma 60:5-10 - Captain Moroni’s opening words could be a cry of marginalized people and a damning indictment of complicity or participation in their oppression

Ether 6 - Jaredite Barges are Driven by the Winds to the Promised Land : All 8 barges made it to the Promised Land and each made a separate journey

Ether 12:4 - Hope for a Better World : What would a better world look like? A place where we’re all treated alike and allowed personal dignity

Ether 12:27 - I Make Weak Things Become Strong Unto Them : To become strong, people must acquire a positive self image

3 Nephi 28 - The 3 Nephites : Could they be queer? It’s a possibility

Doctrine and Covenants 1 - Purpose of revelations to Joseph Smith : How is the church doing in these purposes in regards to queer people? 

Doctrine and Covenants 38:25-27 - If Ye are not One Ye are not mine : Bad news for the homophobes, transphobes, and all those who oppose their queer siblings

Doctrine and Covenants 46:3-6 - Don’t Cast People out of Church Meetings : Don’t cast out queer people but instead to provide a place that is safe, welcoming and inclusive will require big changes

Doctrine and Covenants 49:15-17 - Whoso Forbiddeth to Marry is not ordained of God : This is a rejection of requiring life-long celibacy and affirms that getting married is approved by the Lord

Doctrine and Covenants 74 - Sometimes apostles teach their own opinions as commandments : Sometimes apostles actually are teaching things opposite of the Lord’s will 

Doctrine and Covenants 78:5-6 - If Ye are not Equal in Earthly Things Ye cannot be Equal in Obtaining Heavenly Things : We could seal gay couples today if we wanted to, that would help make things equal on earth.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:33-34 - Fulness of Joy Contingent on Connectedness of Spirit & Body : Transitioning can be part of a person’s journey towards godliness

Doctrine and Covenants 121:41 - Priesthood doesn’t give Authority and Power over Others : It’s how you treat others

Doctrine and Covenants 128:18 - We cannot be pro-family and anti-LGBTQ+ at same time : Everyone talking about being exalted without their LGBTQ+ family members WON’T BE.  If same-gender couples and trans people aren’t exalted, NO ONE will be. 

Doctrine and Covenants 130:2 - And that Same Sociality which Exists among Us Here will Exist among Us in Eternity : Love will prevail

Doctrine and Covenants 131 - Eternal Life : Nothing in this section excludes queer people from obtaining Eternal Life

Doctrine and Covenants 132 - New and Everlasting Covenant : There’s no reason to think queer relationships were meant to be excluded from being sealed

Doctrine and Covenants 137:7-9 - We will be Judged According the Desires of our Heart : Queer people will not be judged for not completing opportunities not open to us

Moses 6:31 - Enoch doesn’t See Himself as God Does : When queer people accept ourselves it opens 1000 doors of possibility

Moses 7:28-40 - What makes God weep? : God weeps when we don’t have love for one another

Joseph Smith--History - God can be found outside church

Articles of Faith 2 - Adam’s Transgression : Elder Oaks classifies gay marriage as a transgression, not a sin, what are the implications of that?

Articles of Faith 8 - Scriptures only as Good as the Translation and Interpretation : Has the Church & Christianity been interpreting scriptures using fear, ignorance, and personal bias in a way that’s harmful to queer people?

Articles of Faith 13 - Doing Good to All Men : Harming queer people and denying them the promises & blessings made to others is the opposite of what this church claims to believe

Proclamation on the Family - It doesn’t say what most people assume it does. Queer people aren’t discussed at all in this document

Criteria by which Christ will Evaluate our Lives

[cavegirlpoems]

Hey I found your blog through the animation post, and I've been having a lot of fun reading through your thoughts on ttrpgs. I played 3.5e in high school but I am admittedly very ignorant about the medium as a whole so it's really cool to see someone's much more knowledgeable takes. I've wanted to get into it more, but life seems to get it the way.

I will say I think there's one benefit of actual plays getting big that's worth taking about: the comparison to video games. Game breaking and exploiting design quirks is a major part of modern video games, see speedrunning or basically all of Minecraft, where the entire point is pushing the game past what it was meant for. Good (video) game design requires that to be accounted for, embraced or tactfully hidden, but regardless it's axiomatic that in a game involving free movement you *supposed* to dig through all the nooks and crannies, that's the point

Listening to some DND podcasts was what made me realize you're not actually supposed to play ttrpgs like that, that there's a fundamental principle of collaboration that exists within the medium that doesn't in video games. After all, you can have a successful tabletop session with the whole party trying to break the rules or find corners of the map that didn't get fill it. At a certain point they all have to buy in or the game doesn't work.

Or maybe I'm wrong, idk you're the expert. Anyway, I like your writing, keep it up

I think you're pretty spot on. A lot of toxic (or just sub-optimal) behaviours you see come from fundamentally forgetting that you're here to collaborate, or not buying into the basic premise of the game. Of course, the thing about ttrpgs are that there are a lot of different ways to have fun with them, and different players come to them for different reasons. Some people want an overarching story. Others like inhabiting a character in a more unstructured way. Others like exploring a setting. Others like the feeling of accomplishment from overcoming in-fiction challenges. Others want to be rewarded for using the game mechanics skillfully. Somebody who's here for a big epic story and somebody who's here to explore every space on a wilderness map are going to but heads every time "should we take a detour" comes up; this is why it's important to get that buy in for the game. And, I will say, I've played some games where mastering the game mechanics and playing tactically was the point! And had a lot of fun doing it, even. (I remain a big fan of D&D 4e). If everybody rocks up to a 4e table wanting to get into the minutiea of team synergies and character builds so they can beat really fucking hard encounters (and the GM enjoys running that sort of challenge game), you can have an absolute blast! But, the point is that even here everybody is collaborating for a particular experience, and a player who kept banging on about character arcs and refused to support their team-mates in combat because "it's what my character would do" is playing disruptively, and makes the game less fun for everybody else. It's a very varied medium, is the thing.

[folklauerate]

I’ll say something else while I’m here-one of my biggest issues with Bridgerton s2 was the lack of cohesiveness. Jesus Christ no one is upset with characters making unlikable decisions and if you want a wedding for the sake of drama, Shondaland, have a fucking wedding, but make it earned! And on top of that, the wedding episode had the fucking audacity to be boring as shit! Just all trodding on and operating off of the assumption the viewer would be aghast and would sit through nearly an hour of boring yawn snooze because there were “stakes” and it seemed like the main pair might not get together. Like for fuck’s sake have as much drama as you like but at least make it well written! Instead the wedding episode is a dirge and not because it’s a reflection of some character’s mental state or any seemingly deep reason, no; it’s like they decided there would be a wedding and shrugged when it came to getting the character’s there. It doesn’t count as good writing if you’ve spent the past months/years trying to wrap your head around or write fic around the reasons why x decision by y characters make sense to fill in gaps that shouldn’t be there in the first place and that’s all this fandom has done.

People’s issue with side plots taking up too much time isn’t really that they take up too much time-it’s that none of them follow a set of overarching themes of the season and feed into them or a main storyline in a significant way, giving the illusion to the viewer that they’re completely separate from the romance at the core and therefore taking away from it, as opposed to everything being harmonious.

On top of that, the characterizations are so fucking varied and there’s a large tonal shift between s1 and s2 in terms of the way the Bridgersibs interact with one another. Siblings can fight and be rude and whatever to one another but for them to turn into completely different people out of nowhere is so ??

And on the topic of characterizations-WHERE WAS KATE’S??? Anthony gets 28363938 motivations for why he is the way he is and then is honestly left floundering with all of them, until you’re honestly a bit ?? as to why he can’t marry for love, and then you get Kate who is just… There. Why can’t she marry for love? Why is she hellbent against marrying? Why is she prioritizing her family’s finances and Mary/Edwina above herself? What conversations did she have with her father before he died to make her this way or was she always like this? What were their lives like in India? I could keep going! At least in the book you get some half hearted “I’m too ugly and old to get a match” reason but in the show no one is going to fucking believe Simone Ashley is too ugly or old to get whatever lord she wants 😭✋ and THEN???? To top it all off-Kate and Anthony don’t have a single meaningful discussion around an entire eight episodes!!!!! Not one!!!!!!!!! What fucking growth happens between them fucking and the coma and then their fucking dance to have them propose? If the actors themselves had to invent all these so called secret conversations their characters had in between everything to make things make sense, I really don’t think that’s a hallmark of good writing. They rush that happy ending in there at the end and it feels like they forgot they had to end the fucking show with these two characters together and they just said “fuck it let them kiss” and that’s what we got. WHAT CONVERSATION OF SUBSTANCE DID THEY HAVE. And what fucking argument can you make that it’s okay that it didn’t happen on screen??) NONE!!! It’s TV! It’s a VISUAL FORMAT??? Oh my god.

I told myself I wouldn’t rant about this, just redirect people to walle’s thoughts on this, which is (in her own words) how she sat shiva for the fucking wreck of what Bridgerton s2 is. Walle if you don’t know wrote a thousand cuts and s2 was the nail in the coffin for her. It was so so so bad. It went against such basic principles of storytelling. The writing was so abhorrent. It was insane. And to defend it feels more insane it feels like you’ve been taken hostage by this damn show and you’re writing thinkpieces on tumblr and twitter to make it make sense!

What grates me is that it really could’ve been good. The juice was there. The actors are amazing. The production team is clearly so so dedicated and hard working. IT WAS ALL THERE. Honestly the way the show was marketed in the trailer feels completely different from how it came out and I have to think there was some fuckshit going on behind the scenes given the large tonal shift during/after ep 4 and CVD’s hasty and odd departure.

[hexagr]

Lately, I've been reading about Sumer, Egypt, Assyria, Asia, Greece, and various early human civilizations. In the past, the general notion of 'religion' once entwined art, science, and ethics. That is to say that religion has, by and large, been a quasi-unifying way of viewing nature as one dynamic, connected thing.

Modernity seems to have abstractly tried to separate these ideas and isolate them into their own realms, as if they exist independently of one another.

This is kind of ironic. Because today we know from both physics and plain observation that ideas and things are interconnected. Denying this is absurd.

Knowledge itself, like great art and science, is often forged through great adversity. This is counter-intuitively good. One can get an understanding of a culture from how its inhabitants view both its ancestors and the hard-earned knowledge that's been passed down from generation to generation. Or, failing that, inquiring about where, exactly, it gets its knowledge from.

And physical and spiritual traits tend to be entwined, too (medical issues aside). One tends to accompany the other. For example, traits at a spiritual and metaphysical level get reflected at the object level. Thus, we can observe that the morals or values of a culture are sometimes reflected in the outward appearances, behaviors, and artistic creations of the people. Many of these principles are surprisingly generalizable.

A culture is the sum of this and more. Categories of things like these can reveal how a culture organizes itself. How it reproduces itself—not just sexually but memetically. It's customs and practices. How it records itself, thinks of itself, and artistically expresses itself. And what it permits and forbids.

Religion is like culture. And culture is almost indistinguishable from religion.

The main difference, I think, is that religion is encompassing in the sense that it has functionally served as a container for science, art, and itself for much of history.

In this way, religion is like an overarching organic structure that has served various functions in structuring ideas as well as social order.

Furthermore, every culture and subculture is a sort of quasi-religion, even if it doesn't explicitly identify as one.

Some claim that we have transcended religion, that we have eclipsed the past, and that we have left even our primitive shadows behind. But I don't think this is true at all.

It's religion all the way down. We still worship; we still play primal games; and we still play with fire and blood, albeit in different ways. It's just today that we're a primitive culture of Simians with computers. Some might say we are savage robots.

Others assert we are more highly evolved and know more today than ever before. And maybe, in some ways, we do know more. But in some other ways, it seems we have forgotten many of the obvious things that we once knew.

*This post is not a claim that religion is intrinsically good. It's an observation that religion, in the context of antiquity, was organic—and that in the spirit of functionalism, it served a purpose—that it was once (and still is, to some extent) a container for many things. But knowledge, science, ethics, and so on are collectively dynamic and evolving things. And we can all agree that nobody would want to live in a universe where people are put to death for wearing the wrong clothes or some other frivolous triviality. To say that humanity was completely better off at some point in the ancient past is blasphemy against human progress.

[katarh-mest]

the real overarching theme of Apothecary Diaries

It's anti-primogeniture: The first son isn't necessarily the one that should inherit everything.

(Spoilers for the novels released into English up to volume 10-ish, with some speculation beyond that, so I'm putting this all behind a cut to keep those who are anime only or manga only safe unless they wanna read it.)

The idea that the "first son should inherit it all" in some cultures (although ironically, more often in Western than Eastern cultures) fails to take into account a lot of different variables.

Sometimes the first son (or only son) isn't suited to the job and there is no one else who can do it. (See: the former Emperor.) That's why his mom ended up becoming Empress Regent and ruling in his name, and doing the unspeakable in the hopes that one of the young girls might still bear her a grandson. (In any other clan, she could have just adopted a branch family member, but doing so with distant relatives in the Ka clan would have probably caused a civil war, since they were all in other named families.)

Sometimes the second son is far more suitable to the job, and the first son has talents that would be better placed elsewhere (Lahan vs Lahan's Older Brother.) The oldest brother might be in denial about it, but it's clear to everyone around them that that boy belongs on a farm, not trying to arrange family members like pieces on a shogi board like Lakan or Lahan are capable of doing.

Sometimes there's only a daughter, and she is perfectly suited to take over the job, if only someone would give her the proper training and the opportunity! (I believe that eventually Maomao will be the head doctor of the Rear Palace, taking over Luomen's original family business, so to speak. Even if she's also forced to become a princess consort in the process. The two positions are not incompatible.)

Sometimes the oldest son is suited to some parts of the family business, but not other parts. (Jinshi would probably be okay as an actual ruler, but as a monogamist to the core, finds the idea of a harem of concubines repulsive.) And so he wants no part of it and wants out of the line of succession.

Sometimes the family business really should be handled by the ENTIRE FAMILY - see the three sons of the metalworker. Only the youngest son had the talent of their father, but the two older sons had their own roles within the family business, and between the three of them, the business will thrive.

It's really an examination of the family version of the Peter Principle - it's entirely possible to force a family into extinction by making people unsuited to govern fail upward.

Speculation time:

The Yi clans and the Shi clans fell because their families got too ambitious. They wanted to rule for the sake of ruling, instead of focusing their talents on their historical strengths, and supporting the family that did currently rule.

Now, when the former emperor and the empress regnant were still in power, it made sense to consider trying to seize the throne - the succession hinged on a lone surviving male (the current Emperor) and it appeared that the Ka clan was in danger of dying out because of the "curse" that kept killing his children (leaded facepaint.) The Yi clan were wipe out by the Empress Regnant (still waiting for the details on that in the next volume or two) and the Shi clan plotted to take out the last surviving threat, the Moon Prince. That plot failed because of Maomao.

Unfortunately for them, the current Emperor is suited for the job of ruling the country, and knew what shogi pieces to send to stop them from their rebellion.

[machine-saint]

i remember seeing a post here a while ago about the phrase "how are you?" when asked in situations where an accurate response is not expected (this is called 'phatic' speech), and how many people (esp autistic people) view that as unintuitive or frustrating. if I remember correctly the original post implied that "fine" is the only typical response, but I don't think that's true! i would judge all of these as acceptable responses to a "how are you", arranged roughly in order of positive to negative. note that this is based solely on my own experience as a speaker of "standard American English" and may not translate to other languages or cultural contexts.

great!/awesome!

pretty good

doing good

alright/same old, same old

eh.

been better

hanging in there

i don't want to talk about it (important: needs a humorous/self-effacing tone)

i think the overarching principles here are that

on an emotional range of 1-10, you should be between like a 4-6. expressing excess positive emotion is less of a violation than excess negative emotion, though.

avoid going into detail; don't reference specific events, and try to avoid responses that would invite prompting

responding with "you?" or "how are you?" is polite, and the other person will be expected to follow the same rules. afterwards, conversation continues. if one person expressed a negative sentiment, a short vague "hope things get better" or similar at the close of the conversation is generally acceptable.

the closer you are with the other person, the more detail is acceptable; if there's time pressure (you're talking with a cashier), you generally want to elide details.

i'm not a linguist so i can't go into theory, and I might be wrong, but I hope this helps!

[comicaurora]

If you were to actually write a tournament arc (be it in Aurora or a future story) fashioned in your own preferences and ideas, what would it be like?

Oh boy. That's an interesting challenge, because there are so many factors to the Tournament Arc that I just don't like on principle-

Foregone conclusion. If the tournament is centered on a final battle with the Super Scary Big Bad, as they so often are, the heroes are just killing time before they get there, and at least one of the heroes is guaranteed to get to the final round. If the stakes of the tournament are too high, the conclusion is set in stone from the outset. If the heroes are being forced to participate for hostage or supervillain reasons, their victory becomes narratively assured. If the heroes aren't being forced to participate by narrative necessity, then the whole thing becomes an even bigger waste of time.

Formulaic. There's only so much you can mix up a tournament format - environmental hazards, minigames, ring-out rules - and without that, it's just a linear series of fights. Can give the heroes a chance to show off their unique movesets, but narratively they're just ticking up a progress bar before they can get to the end.

Fuckton of characters. Tournament needs meat for the grinder, let's make several dozen characters to throw at the heroes of which maybe five will be memorable enough to recur later. Better make sure they all have interesting gimmicks too - otherwise the formulaic fights will become even more formulaic!

None of these are particularly enticing for me, so in order to construct a tournament arc I actually liked, we'd need to find some way around them:

To avoid a foregone conclusion, the tournament stakes can't be a simple boolean value with "heroes win" and "heroes lose" tied inextricably to things like "heroes save hostage" or "villain destroys entire world." The easiest way to do that is to remove "the heroes" as a single unified participant. It's not a question of whether good will triumph over evil, it's a question of which characters will win and under what circumstances? Part of the reason I liked the tournament arc in MHA more than most is the actual overarching victory was basically irrelevant and our protagonist got eliminated in the quarterfinals, because it was actually all about character development inspired by that fight. So splitting the heroes up, letting them work independently and making their opponents something other than a monolithic antagonistic force would probably help to reduce that issue.

Some tournament arcs also make things more interesting by having a single loss not categorically eliminate a character from the running - the Dark Tournament arc of YYH was pretty good about this, despite being way too long, since it meant protagonists could actually lose fights without being kicked out of the arc entirely, which was a very smart way to keep the tension going, since only a few fights became foregone "either the heroes win this one or they die" situations.

The problem of fights being formulaic can also be addressed here, although I think the more relevant way to fix that is to simply make sure the tournament doesn't drag on for too long. Like, three to five fights is probably the max number we can really focus on. But we can also dodge the formulaic-ness accusations by making sure the fights have more going on than just "which action figure gets mashed harder." This is where most tournament arcs solve things by making a lot of unique gimmick characters with weird powers (so the heroes can't just smack em around the same way every time) and by giving the heroes either handicaps or new abilities/powerups they're still figuring out. This makes the choreography more interesting, and honestly even a really boring plot can be significantly brightened up by extremely cool fight choreography. "They fight and [character] wins" is a single line in the screenplay that can translate into something very spectacular in the execution. But this is, again, something they did in the YYH Dark Tournament arc, and that was still way too much tournament arc, so I think plotline fatigue is a problem that can't entirely be solved by finding new spices to pepper onto the same bracket structure.

You can, of course, also add emotional stakes like "this character's self-worth is tied in with their victory" or "this character is being manipulated by someone else" or "this character is having a personal crisis and handling it poorly" or even something really basic like "the other people in this tournament think we suck, let's prove them wrong."

The "fuckton of characters" problem isn't intrinsically an issue, because it can also be an opportunity to create and introduce a lot of very interesting secondary characters, but it does unfortunately lock them into an extremely artificially constraining plotline. The problem with a tournament arc is it is literally the same subplot template over and over again until the finale inevitably breaks the format. It's an extremely rigid scenario to lock a character-driven story into, and no matter how individually rad parts of the fights are, the overarching structure is repetitive and it limits the characters' ability to shine. Ultimately, no matter how neat or complicated a new character is, they only exist in the arc to be defeated and then get out of the way of the plot. They can have cool stories when they show up later, but in the bounds of the tournament arc they're just more obstacles.

On paper a tournament arc should be a fantastic way to elaborate on a character. The number one recipe for cool character moments is putting that bitch in a Situation and seeing how they handle it, and "a bunch of different fights with different enemies with different powers and different rules" sounds like an ideal Situation Gauntlet. But practically speaking they're all the same! Outside a tournament arc, the stakes of a fight can be anything and the victory condition can be anything. The heroes can bypass the fight, talk down the antagonist, plan a heist, turn the bad guys against each other, organize a prison break, hide and be sneaky - they can find allies, negotiate with political leaders, get captured or rescued, protect someone from pursuit, navigate a hostile and unfamiliar environment, outwit a super-persistent predator, join an underground resistance movement, run off for an angsty solo arc - but within the confines of a tournament, no matter how wacky that tournament might be, everything boils down to a fight with a clear-cut victory and defeat condition. The space of characterization carved out by this format is very, very narrow, so I think legitimately the only tournament arc I would uncritically enjoy is a short one.

[cookii-moon]

so like I made an element post several months ago and. found it today (because I don’t post much right now lol) and was thinking about it so I tried making a chart of how I think elements might be related

I didn’t put the new elements in the “tree” simply because. I think it’d render this entirely irrelevant by the time part 2 comes out. and. I have zero clue how to sort them Ngl.

(Tbh I was very torn on whether to just do elements in general or elements by like elemental masters. Because. the two are very different for me. So I did do an alternative version but I scrapped it cuz it made no sense and I didn’t like it but I’ll show it at the end)

The lines just show there’s some relation between them. Sometimes elements can control eachother, sometimes only one can control the other, etc.

LORE DUMP UNDER THE READ MORE!!!

basically I think that the elements existed in ninjago BEFORE the FSM came into existence. If there was an ocean there has to be a sea floor. If there was a storm there has to be lightning, so on and so forth. The elements always existed and have always been intrinsic parts of ninjago. This might also apply to some of the other realms, specifically the first realm probably also abides by this. Since several native species in ninjago have elemental traits plus. Wojira. it’s probably always been present to some degree, just not usually in humans. So while the original elemental masters of creation may have gotten their powers from the FSM, the elements themselves exist in a lot of places and have always been present in the realm. In fact I think a lot of the “secondary” elemental masters probably got it from the environment somehow like the way water and wind ems seem to have gotten it from wojira (? Tbh I don’t remember much of seabound since I never rewatched it and that part of the lore had tons of plotholes iirc so it was really hard for me to follow)

Gravity, light and time are the most “overarching” elements because they mainly define a lot of the basic principles of the world and so without those elements the others can’t really exist. Especially gravity. Time and gravity are related since time is affected by gravity.

Mind and amber are sort of their own things. Amber is manmade (apparently??? I think I read the comic but I don’t know if it’s still considered canon and I forgot most of it lol ) so it isn’t actually related to any other element even if you would sort of think it was.

mind is really confusing because it’s not really a physical thing or related to any sort of foundational law or… anything, really. It’s just very isolated from the other elements and not really. Connected to any of them. So tbh I’m just gonna shove it with amber in the weird squad.

Also here’s the original list that was based around origins. I think it looks cleaner but it definitely makes a lot less sense.

I mostly scrapped it bc I didn’t like the placements of gravity and stuff or the fact that a lot of related elements weren’t depicted that at.

Sooo yeah that’s the elements chart ig !!! I’ll probably add image descriptions tomorrow I’m too tired

also excuse my extremely poor handwriting

[drakeanddice]

DM Burnout is a D&D Problem

This is a trad-game problem and I’m tired of pretending that it’s not.

The implied structure of Dungeons & Dragons in which an authorial/managerial Dungeon Master provides content to a number of passive/experiential players who provide little to no input into the cycle of adventure creation, plot development, and experience tailoring is a direct cause for the phenomenon of “DM Burnout.”

I say implied up there because, like much of the game, the structure of a D&D game is mostly a matter of “you’ll know it when you see it.” Sure there's a section in the book that lays out the responsibilities, but the book's already told you to ignore it if it feels wrong a couple of times by this point. So really, structure is oral tradition and folkways, passed down by a neighbor kid or an older sibling, or the internet. But the basic fundamental principle is fairly inviolate; the players create characters, and the GM creates an adventure for them to go on. The Players play their characters, and the GM plays everything else, to include the impartial arbiter of the fiction. That’s about all we get. It’s not a balanced equation from the get go.

The installation of a single authorial voice, providing the framework for the players, their context, and their boundaries is heavy. That single brain at the table has to create content ahead of time, present it, and then ensure that the players don't stray. Or else, they have to pivot and adapt real-time, either exploiting their prep or improvising whole cloth. In combat encounters, they have to make decisions for multiple characters, enemies and allies both, and often present those choices as rational and plausible rather than optimal--because the oral tradition of the internet veers toward the death of Player Characters being a fail state. And moreover, they must contextualize and narrate the results and moves of not only their pieces on the board, but also often those of the player. Any collapse down to "17 hits, it does 9 slashing damage" is a reduction of interesting tactical combat to slog.

Players are, on the other hand, expected to show up and react. The content is provided, they make choices in reaction to the content, and the game proceeds. If, perhaps, they did some creative writing and crafted a backstory for their character, it is incumbent upon the DM to weave that into the overarching plot. Otherwise, it's purely an exercise in passivity.

DMs are increasingly called on to provide accessories and sensory input beyond just their narrative and roleplaying performance. Maps, minis, tokens, music, soundboards, mood lighting, handouts, item cards, "scent-scapes" apparently. More plates to spin. More steps to the dance that a DM is expected to perform every game night.

I get it. It's fun. It's a labor of love.

But it's labor.

Eventually, you get tired. One week you realize that you're swamped. One week you don't feel like getting a lukewarm reaction to your labor. One week you're not in a good headspace to graciously lose to your players again. You're burnt out, and you need some time to recapture the joy.

I've never heard a story about a D&D player burning out. I've never seen a person, with martyred pride call themselves a "forever player." Though they're quick to say that the DM is also a player.

The DM is not a player. They are providing play. They are a single point of failure, the single authorial voice who provides content and context for every part of the game.

The thing about single points of failure, they wear out faster. Distributing strain preserves a machine. Redundancy is good. D&D is not built this way. It is a simple machine, a single pulley-- a single brain-- supporting the weight of the fiction.

You cannot be surprised that you can't find a service-minded DM to run this game for you long-term. You should not be surprised when the average length of a D&D campaign is 6 sessions. You shouldn't be surprised that many DMs have an antagonistic view of players as agents of chaos. You certainly shouldn't be surprised that a service industry has sprung up around paid DMing almost exclusively around D&D and its inheritors.

Because if you can endure it longterm and not be reduced to a ragged nub by the friction of being the sole authorial voice, you have a marketable skill. Get paid.

Tldr: D&D tells the DM to prep, improv, adjudicate on the fly, and dance for the amusement of passive players and then wonders why DMs are hard to find. DMs do this dance and then wonder why they're creatively worn-down. This is not a place of honor. This is just the service industry in your free-time, and you deserve better.

[crooked-wasteland]

How would you rank every HB episode from worst to best?

This took me some time to think on, but thank you for the ask.

So all the Helluva Boss episodes ranked worst to best (in my opinion):

The Circus

I have to place the season 2 premiere as the worst episode of the entire series, simply because it cemented the direction the story was going to go with all of the worst ideas floating to the top. The relationship mystery between Stolas and Blitz gets watered down to a childhood crush based on nothing. It is love at first sight, but then the writing performs gymnastics in order to justify Stolas’ attraction after the fact. It’s so painful in Seeing Stars and Oops how the writers really want us to believe that Stolas liked him as a person first and that is supposed to be shown in how Stolas thinks Blitz is funny when no one else does, but the series of events in the Circus will forever undermine that narrative. He finds Blitz funny because he is attracted to him. Not the other way around.

Aside from the issues with the overarching story, the entire structure of the episode fails. The idea of Chekhov’s Gun is one I believe holds merit as a fundamental tool. If you are going to introduce something like theft, acknowledge the danger of the event, repeatedly draw attention to the theft, and then just never mention any sort of natural conclusion to that plot point. If anything, Blitz returning to Stolas’ home 25 years later to do the exact same thing, necessitated a coming full circle moment of that particular plot point. The failure to identify even the most basic of narrative principles that was a solid through line of character, story and themes told me everything I needed to know about how the series was going to be handled.

Stolas’ song is a poorly-performed nonsensical word salad that I found lacked any cohesion to the character in the previous episode or the next. It’s an ugly song with maybe 2 decent verses where Stolas acknowledges that this was all playing pretend, but that eventually goes nowhere.

Additionally, Stella was officially ruined as a character, which ultimately ruined Stolas as a character. By not giving Stella depth, Stolas was also stripped of any depth or complexity. His reason for staying is dumbed down to “for the child”, and Stella’s motivation is thrown out the window in favor of “she’s awful and please don’t try to make her understandable, because then what if Stolas is held accountable for anything?” Stella is too important a character in Stolas’ story, to make her one dimensional is to make Stolas less interesting. Everything is interwoven in a story, pulling a thread in one place unravels the garment elsewhere.

In a single episode, it encompasses everything that is wrong with the series, past and future.

0/10

Seeing Stars

To be honest, I feel Seeing Stars is most people’s worst episode due to some sense of denial when the season premiered and expected the show to at least continue with some kind of coherent story/timeline. I don’t think it would be as hated if Medrano had tightened up the narrative and made Seeing Stars connect to Ozzie’s more.

However, I would still put it at number 2, even if it had. Mainly because Seeing Stars is the worst sense of characterization and dynamics I have ever seen. And when you are trying to sell a character-driven story, some kind of consistency is required. This episode cemented Loona as being an abusive, manipulative, and entitled “bitch” of a person. Octavia is written like she is 13, not 17. Blitz and Stolas have the darkest timeline where Stolas continues to sexualize Blitz after being told off in the last episode and seemingly acknowledging that he defined the dynamic without any input from Blitz. Then forces him on stage despite Blitz being on the verge of a panic attack. But most of all, it has Stolas and Blitz both completely forget why they are even in this situation, because they are supposed to be looking for Octavia.

There was no lesson Blitz needed to learn, if anything he needed to be instilled with more self esteem where possible. And Stolas already had this story arc done much better in Loo Loo Land. His character actively regresses to redo the exact plot thread, but worse. Much like The Circus, Seeing Stars set the stage for what we could look forward to in regards to the series from here on out, and the utter disrespect leveled at the original 6 episodes.

That’s not even counting how the episode is the exact same plot and story beats as Loo Loo Land, highlighting the extent of how creatively bankrupt the series is.

.5/10

Exes and Ohs

If it comes to personal most hated episode, it would be Exes and Ohs for me. The only reason it is number 3 and not number 1 is because it is a narrative cul-de-sac where the larger story is not affected by it at all.

However, it is still an objectively awful episode. Starting with the premise. The whole plot is a stolen South Park joke. It’s the Steal underpants episode, stretched out into something longer, and not nearly as funny. If you are wholesale ripping off another show, that’s plagiarism. This episode is creatively bankrupt, shouldn’t exist, has no purpose and serves no benefit. People try to argue that it has value due to Moxxie’s backstory, but what does it even serve? Sure, I know it now, but not a single character does. Millie doesn’t even find out. Even moreso, Millie’s entire connection to Chaz goes nowhere and is for nothing. We never know how, when or why she dated Chaz, it's shown she hates him, but she doesn’t even kill him. The whole episode would have ended exactly the same with Crim killing Chaz once he realized the shark demon was lying about having money.

It’s not good when the major complaints of the episode are actually what is saving it from being the worst episode.

2/10

Musical Special

The retconning of this episode, changing who Fizz was as a child to try and justify his uselessness in Oops retroactively is beyond frustrating. There is so much I could go on about in terms of character, but just focusing on this episode.

Mainly, the mildly perturbing extent Medrano goes to hetero-normalize her queer relationships. Every single relationship in the series is stereotypically designed as “Protector” and “Protected”. Stolas, Fizzarolli, and Moxxie are all characters who require constant support and protection from other factors in the plot.

Stolas needed to be protected from Striker. Moxxie needs to be protected from most things in his plots. Season 1 it was the fish monster, Striker, the agents, and finally Ozzie and Fizz. Season 2 we have him needing to be defended from his father and Chaz.

This episode it's all about Fizzarolli and him needing to be defended from his crippling low self-esteem that is only relevant to have him needing to be saved from something. The flashback serves to further retcon Fizz’s personality because a strong and confident performer doesn’t need to be saved from anyone, and in order to have the codependent romance where Fizz needs Ozzie, we need to fundamentally weaken him as a person. It’s a special episode, so the argument that it doesn’t need to exist is rather moot. Regardless, the characters and story are worse off for its addition to the narrative.

2/10

Queen Bee

Another special episode, so the argument of narrative value is once again disregarded. I dislike this episode for how one dimensional every female character is in this story. It highlights all the ongoing issues with misogynistic writing. Loona’s character is a wildly swinging pendulum from being antagonistic towards Blitz to being endeared with little motivation and ultimately being reduced to the caretaker of men. When she and Bee get into an argument, she only deescalates when she sees Tex be uncomfortable. The initial hostility itself is founded on nothing, Loona is immediately resentful of Bee because she’s attractive and people like her, specifically Tex. And her being sweet towards Blitz is entirely based on the fact that her relationship to him makes her look good due to his accomplishment of beating Beelzebub in a drink-off. It doesn’t read sincere, but rather she would look bad if she didn’t take care of him after identifying him as her “dad” when it suited her.

This entire episode works to assassinate Loona’s character and any hope of her being likable and growing. Everything about her motivation is purely selfish and consistently reinforced in big ways, so moving forward it will be very hard to realistically prove she does anything for not her own benefit.

The song was nice for about one minute, then it became unbearably repetitive.

1.5/10

Western Energy

This episode was altered and rewritten, which doesn’t inherently make it bad. It’s just that it was changed due to fans pointing out the glaring plot hole that is why Stella would want to kill Stolas when a divorce would benefit her more. Instead of critically assessing that question and focusing more on world building to create a logical justification for Stella’s actions, the writers shrug their shoulders and just can’t think of anything. It’s a special form of fridge horror as a writer to realize the major plot that was intended to push Blitz and Stolas closer together was so underdeveloped that when at all questioned resulted in the entire plot being unwritten. It’s transparently bad writing, but worse yet is that it is lazy.

This episode is what I use to show an example of how fans inject headcannon and plot into the series that the creators have no interest in spending the energy on. This isn’t James Cameron’s Avatar where there is a massively rich world around a lackluster story that has been crafted with such detail that it feels alive. Helluva Boss, and in extension Hazbin Hotel, have no world building and resort to the most superficial answers to any narrative roadblock at the expense of the characters and understanding their motivations. It shows resentment for not just the audience, but writing as an artform.

3/10

Ozzie's (with season 2 context)

I had to put Ozzie’s on the list twice due to this episode in specific having vastly different reads and reception before and after season 2 premiered. After The Circus, the episode loses all continuity with the original season. Stolas is pining and lovesick over Blitz, he doesn’t actually care about his wife and daughter leaving him. He just wishes more than anything to have his rugged peasant return his affections.

It is a plummet of quality and character in this episode that only comes to fruition with the understanding that Stolas has had an unreciprocated crush for two and a half decades.

With the context of season 2, Stolas doesn’t actually care about his daughter and how his affair, the marriage falling apart, their status, etc. affected her and his family. He only cares about the little boy he got a crush on, who his father rented out like a Lexus and then 25 years later Stolas demanded sex from. Stolas has a complete personality change and isn’t at all who he was the entire series to this point. Everything you thought mattered to him doesn’t, the ways we have come to expect this character to react to things is suddenly entirely different. His expectations are unexplainable and so far out to left field than what we previously established. This is one of the worst written episodes based on the major retconning of a keystone character and no effort being made to connect these changes in the narrative.

This was the warning shot we didn’t know we were given.

1/10

Spring Broken

Spring Broken to Unhappy Campers are the range of utterly ambivalence I have.

The song is poorly incorporated into the episode. Verosika isn’t ever fleshed out. Tex and Loona start off cute, and you can see a starting point of a dynamic between Loona and Blitz and you want her to treat him better while also recognizing that he infantalizes her constantly and doesn’t ever treat her like the adult she is. Could have been really good writing if it went anywhere. This episode establishes Loona abuses Blitz and does so intentionally because it gets her her way. It isn’t malicious, but immature and incredibly cruel, and there is a desire to see her become a better person and grow from this point.

Too bad.

4/10

C.H.E.R.U.B

I know this episode gets a ton of criticism for being a joke/filler episode that goes too long. And that is absolutely correct. However it is still better in that being filler, it is not seeking to be anything more than it is. It is just some dumb fun with a few jokes that come anywhere close to landing. But it doesn’t harm the characters or their stories, unlike the rest of the list up to this point

3/10

Oops

This episode is a hard one to place because I consider the first 7 of this list to be bad episodes. Then 8-12 are those that aren’t good with varying scales of enjoyment on my part. However I think Oops is neither good nor enjoyable. But it has some good story ideas that deserve some credit, regardless of how the writing and pacing consistently tries to undermine them.

The scene of Blitz and Fizzarolli in the alleyway is contrived and feels confused, but it does manage to land some points such as Fizz’s insecurity of being owned by his partner (too bad that goes nowhere and is immediately ignored in favor of Fizz NEEDS Ozzie, so essentially ownership is good actually) and Fizz hanging Blitz’s insecurity and guilt over his head.

The forced engagement, rapid fire pacing, and immediate resolution thoroughly dismantles any good points the episode started to set up. I have to admit the animation is pretty solid, people worked very hard on this for less pay than this quality deserves. But this episode struggles to find a place it belongs on my list because. It almost sees the light only to bury its head in the sand writing-wise.

2/10

Unhappy Campers

Unhappy Campers sits in the same pool with Oops and how it is objectively a terrible episode, but the portions involving Blitz and Barbie are genuinely interesting and I think relatively well done when compared to the rest of the season. Millie has some fun moments herself, though the whole portion of the episode surrounding her and Moxxie could have been cut and it would only serve to elevate the material overall. So even if she is the best part of the worst portion of the story, it still isn’t something I deem worth salvaging.

It would have been an excellent 5 minute episode.

2/10

Murder Family

It’s the first episode. It did well reintroducing the characters from the pilot. It had enough intrigue to see where it would go and how it would expand the world and characters. It. Was genuinely fun and impressive for a YouTube animation, with horror notes and black comedy. There was a sense of character that we could maybe get to know over time and see them struggle and change. It started off very superficial, which was fine.

The blank canvas of what could have been.

5/10

Ozzie's (Before season 2)

Having to remember Ozzie’s premiere after an entire season of thinking we were getting to know the characters, their dynamics, personality, wants, etc. So the personality change in Stolas is given more leeway as LooLooLand set up that he really wished he could find love and his wife and daughter leaving has changed his routine to the point he is in a depression. It even seems Stella took the staff with her in the separation and he’s genuinely all alone.

So him sitting in front of a television asking why nobody will love him makes sense and doesn’t feel out of character when given the room to rationalize and try to piece together the character from past instances. Additionally, him becoming overjoyed at Blitz calling him out is just as easy to rationalize away. I recall watching the episode and interpreting that Stolas was needy, desperate and earnest, not for Blitz, but just in general. And Blitz making himself available to Stolas is why Stolas tries so hard to make this pretend date legitimate. It also explains Blitz’s own utter disinterest in the scenario.

Ironically, looking back, Blitz feels like an Audience insert with how utterly confused and dismissive he is of Stolas’ targeted affection. He sees their relationship like the audience does: one of convenience and mutual benefit. Blitz calling Stolas out is him cashin in on this messed up coercive sex deal they have. Him calling Stolas out and using him for his own gains is only seen as fair in his eyes. And Stolas’ attempts to legitimize the date is a continuation of his own hedonistic selfishness. So when Stolas tries to leave Blitz or otherwise removes himself by covering his face, Blitz’s anger and resentment is valid. Because there’s a lot of confusion taking place at the moment, but Stolas is responsible for all of it and instead runs away.

The exact same escapist behavior that ended up with him in bed with Blitz in the first place.

This is all really compelling drama and without the codependent neediness of the second season, it ties together in what feels like a real season finale for the characters. Everything up to now was a prologue, an introduction of the world, characters and conflicts. Ozzie actually took the characters and faced them off against each other directly. Showing all of their worst traits and building more intrigue to Blitz’s past and his relationships. This was an episode of great potential when it was first released.

7/10

Loo Loo Land

I’ll be honest, the more I think on this episode the more I believe its placement is more out of pettiness than actual quality. While a song that made me invested at the time, You Will Be Okay is a poorly written musical song. Specifically in how it fails to actually build on the themes we were having presented. Because if you really listen to it, the song foreshadows how little Stolas actually cares about Octavia.

The only part of the song that builds character is the one when he speaks of how his marriage is cold and loveless and how “all [his] stories have been told, except for one.” Which one would think that untold story has something to do with Octavia. He’s singing the song for her, to her. He’s presumably alluding to the fact that she’s his only joy in life.

But the very next line is talking about Armageddon. Like the end of everything, the death of the universe, some heavenly judgement. That’s why everyone and their off brand YouTube clone was talking about Stolas dying at some point in the series. Because the song fails to adequately communicate the character and his feelings and how that wraps into the plot. It’s a pretty song to the ears, but fails as a musical.

Additionally, I feel I may still have such a soft spot for this episode in how it often contradicts the current direction the story has attempted to go. Details, dialogue, timeline discrepancies, all of that has continued to hinder the second season in trying to retcon the entire story to this lesser version of itself and Loo Loo land as an episode is just so tightly written that it has become a thorn.

All the portions with Blitz and RoboFizz are great. Great character, great foreshadowing (to nothing unfortunately), great pacing. Those scenes have some legitimately funny jokes. Stolas stole the show it seems, much to the series detriment, but the real stellar parts of the episode were for once the actual main character.

6/10

Truth Seekers

This episode would have been my favorite due to Blitz’s bad trip and the animation involved throughout. However, the fact that the show has entirely dropped the relevant and interesting portions of the episode, overused and abused Stolas’ demon design since this episode, and the animators have since been confirmed to not be paid fairly for the work they do, this gets to be number 2.

Like Loo Loo Land, Truth Seekers is a primary source of contradiction in the new direction the story has gone and a constant reminder of how little work has been put into the narrative. It’s one of the strongest episodes of the series as a whole, but it has been almost entirely retconned.

I have seen some mention of the agents returning to the story and if that does come to pass, this will be hilarious in trying to reconcile what parts of Truth Seekers is canon and what isn’t any longer. And the realization that all the best parts are the ones ending up on the cutting room floor.

7/10

Harvest Moon

Striker was an intimidating figure. Genuinely. There was a real sense of weight to this episode in the animation and visual storytelling. It’s a solid episode for what it is and far and above better than even Truth Seekers because it required Medrano and her staff to actually address the episode and make obvious efforts to retcon it. That is how solid an episode this is.

Stolas is not too creepy and dominating, but nor is he seen as the delicate princess who is always crying over some guy who doesn’t return his feelings. He is fun, and it starts the nudge towards maybe something a bit more amicable on Blitz’s end.

Millie absolutely deserved more time for her character seeing as they were staying with her family and she having an episode of standing by her husband and defending her choices in who she loves would have been far more engaging than Murder Family pt. 2, Moxxie lacks confidence and self esteem forever and always.

The song was so inconsequential. It was a funny segue with Striker basically upstaging Moxxie at every turn, but that doesn’t actually go anywhere when in regards to the plot overall.

And Stella putting a hit on her husband, to his face, was hilarious and would have been so interesting to have seen it played more than a joke. Like Stolas knows she wants to kill him, and he is just vaguely fine with that. Maybe thinking his letting her try to kill him would have her stay and not file for divorce. Have it been this macabre comedic sitcom where she’s always trying to kill him and hates his guts for being a subpar husband, but he takes it as some kind of tit-for-tat and plays along with it. She gets to send assassins after him, he gets to have sex with his rugged assassin imp. It’s a ridiculous level of absurdity that still allows for all the characters to be dimensional.

That got a little away from me there. Basically, this episode was the strongest overall. Animation wise, writing wise, story potential wise. This episode is the most solid Helluva Boss episode.

7.8/10

[tinfoilhatsss]

Naomi is actually an antagonist

Most people have different theories about Naomi from BSD, so I thought I'd put my opinion in.

First off, Naomi is NOT an author like the rest of the BSD cast. Her namesake comes from Jun'ichirō Tanizaki's novel 'Naomi'. I'm going to be speculating about the connection between the novel and the BSD character, but I actually haven't read the novel myself. I'm taking my information from the summary.

The two members of the Armed Detective Agency without an author's namesake are Naomi and Haruno. (As seen down below)

Both are characters from the novel 'Naomi'. I'm just going to be focusing on Naomi for now, as she plays a bigger role in the novel and in the BSD plot, so I have a better understanding of the character.

Anyways. Naomi and Tanizaki's relationship has never really made sense to me. Asagiri is known for humanising his characters and making sure that all of them have motives, even some antagonists. For example...

Mori, although as asshole of a character, has an overarching need for the greater good. Although he has made some pretty hurtful decisions to get there, it's with a 'good' cause in mind

Fitzgerald wanted the book to revive his daughter to try and piece back together his family by improving his sick wive's mental state

I know this doesn't really apply to Fyodor and Fukuchi, but I have no doubt that by the end of the arc, their actions will have some sort of reasoning to them.

So WHY did he write Naomi and Tanizaki into some sort of seemingly incestuous relationship? Either or both of the scenarios below could explain their actions:

They're faking their romantic intentions

They're fake siblings

It still doesn't answer the question of what their relationship adds to the plot. It could be written with the intention of humour in the end, but Asagiri has stated in an interview that he's a fan of Chekhov’s Gun (the principle that all elements of a story are essential), which means he most likely wrote their relationship with a specific intention.

If Naomi holds a similar characterisation to the novel she is from, then her relationship with Tanizaki might not be as caring as it is made out to be.

In the novel, the character Naomi is actually the antagonist. The protagonist is an older man who becomes obsessed with Naomi and her Westernised personality. (Note: the book is set in post ww2 when America took part in the colonisation of Japan and thus became a large part of the culture there.)

The protagonist, a salaryman named Jōji, plans to gradually groom 15-year-old Naomi when they meet at a cafe. Her true nature is revealed to be incredibly manipulative. She eventually reverses the power imbalance and Jōji ends up completely submitting to her every whim.

This makes me question her role in the plot of BSD. Especially now that we actually haven't seen her in a long time (the entire Decay of Angels arc). Most BSD characters are based on the protagonists of their novels (Oba Yozo and Dazai), if not the author themselves.

Naomi being represented by the Antagonist makes me wonder if she is in fact a threat to Tanizaki. I would say that she is an ability, but Dazai has touched her before, so it's been confirmed she isn't. Could she be made by the book? Is she controlling Tanizaki, a mastermind in disguise? I think there must be more to her character than we see, or else Asagiri wouldn't have written her in.

she looks kind of sinister in the manga yknowww...

[jvlianbashir]

Ok so I’ve now thought about this, and after a tiny deep dive into what each suit stands for and this is my suggestion for you to consider. (The four suits were meant to symbolize the four “pillars” of medieval society)

Hearts symbolizes the church/clergy: TOS, it’s the thing everything else is built on, it established star trek’s ideology and it’s the most idealist

Spades symbolizes the military/aristocratic class: TNG, I think it makes more sense. If only because Picard is Like That. My explanation for this isn’t super strong but the vibes are there

Diamonds symbolizes the merchant class: DS9, obviously. They’re the shopping mall at the airport.

Clubs symbolizes the peasant class, or if you want to be less openly hierarchical about it, agriculture: VOY, let’s be real, they’re doing the backbreaking work to survive here. They don’t have anybody else supplying them with what they need so they’re cooking food, scrounging for resources, etc

ohhhhh very cool to learn the lore and history of card suits! thank you!

my only gentle counter proposal for hearts is that DS9 is definitely the trek that comes to mind for me regarding the discussion of faith, religion, and clergy (at least if we are speaking literally as opposed to sense of idealism and philosophy/principles.)

more than one of the main cast are religious or even function as central religious figures themselves, with sisko being the Emissary for the bajorans and odo being a Founder, who are revered by the vorta and jem'hadar as living gods. the first officer is openly devout and we have more than one space "pope" character for the bajorans who are plot-critical. the ferengi religion is also explored in relative depth and their cultural/spiritual leader is featured prominently as well. even the primary antagonist dukat sets himself up as a cult leader and later as a physical vessel for the spirits of the opposing side of the bajoran religion.

from the beginning the prophets and the bajoran faith are deeply woven into the core of the story.

that said, i definitely agree that TOS establishes the overarching ideology of trek and is most faithful to it and i like DS9 being aligned with the merchant class as well, with how many civilian (and merchant!) characters it has in its cast

[kaurwreck]

i'm so curious if you have anything specific you would like to say about your processes regarding mirroring different bsd character's mannerisms and methods of speaking, because 👀 (-> person who recently picked up writing bsd fic but struggles wrt matching character voice as a rule). completely fair if it's something that you either have said all you intend to about for rn or if it's something you would prefer to engage with only in more direct conversation though!!

oh, all i ever want to do is talk about writing as a craft; i'm delighted to chat about it.

much of what I do for bsd is the same as I do for characters in other fics. I'm never aiming to necessarily mirror the characters as they appear in the source materials, because I write fanfiction to explore the characters outside of the confines of canon. instead, I aim to recreate the "look and feel" of the characters, so they still feel like themselves, even when adapted to my authorial voice and lenses of interpretation.

There are a several principles of canonical interpretation that I use to guide my characterizations, which I've listed below.

Characters are storytelling devices that serve the canonical narrative's key themes. Even if I'm writing outside of canon, I'm not going to be able to make them feel like themselves without first understanding canon (genre, themes, tone, thesis, etc.) and the characters' roles in the context of canon.

Characters are comprised of component parts (such as goals, motivations, flaws, experiences, preferences, skills) that, if conflated, obscure or make it very easy to misidentify their behavioral patterns.

Characters are designed and written intentionally. There is no random detail; every scrap of canonical information survived multiple drafts, rounds of revisions, and editorial scrutiny for a reason.

If I don't understand why a character behaved the way they did, or if the "why" seems out of character or incongruent with the overarching narrative and themes of the story, then I assume I'm missing details; I have misunderstood some aspect of either the character or the context; my bias or experiences are clouding my perspective; or I am operating from a false premise or place of ignorance. This is especially important for engaging with works outside my own cultural context, and for cultivating discernment, emotional intelligence, sincerity, compassion, and curiosity (which are core to my values).

I continue to deconstruct and reconstruct and reconcile characters and their narratives, constantly testing the patterns I've previously identified against new information or canonical material, and refining or reworking them accordingly. In other words, I remain flexible in my interpretations, and I continue applying those interpretations to ongoing canon. I don't want canon to validate my interpretations, I want to understand canon.

To write characters that feel like distinct, whole people, I observe people, myself and others, both granularly and holistically, with insatiable curiosity. Otherwise I risk writing my own ego, patterns, and mannerisms over and over. That doesn't work for me, because I write and read to explore the expansiveness of existence, not to force existence to fit into the narrowness of my present perception.

You only asked about characters' mannerisms and methods of speaking, so many of the above principles may seem out of scope. They're not. If you only observe patterns without analyzing their causes and context, you'll, at best, only ever be able to caricature them, but never replicate, adapt, or expound upon them.

But, with the above principles in mind, my process for learning to write characters' manner of speaking includes revisiting their canonical dialogue to identify their (1) speech patterns like vocal rhythm, pace, intonation, and pausing (sources of which may vary based on the medium, e.g., narrative descriptions and punctuation for written canon; expressions and other characters' reactions for visual canon; etc.); (2) vocabulary, dialect, frequently used phrases, favorite filler words; (3) nonverbal modes of communication (e.g., Chuuya screeches like a vixen in heat when he's either in Corruption or really, really, really riled up by or in regard to Dazai).

Then, I note variations in (1)-(3) across interactions with other characters and in different settings, noting where, how, and potentially why those changes occur (e.g., Kunikida doesn't usually use honorifics, but he does for Ranpo and Fukuzawa; it's explicitly because he immensely respects them and desires to learn from them, the former perhaps because of the latter).

For Japanese speaking characters, I research which type of keigo they use in canon, and which particles of speech indicating tone they commonly use, and why/when/to whom they code switch. I don't speak Japanese, so I generally rely on analyses provided by native speakers, but I also listen/read the raws to confirm the formality or type of keigo they're using in situations relevant to whatever I'm writing. For other languages and dialects too, the process is roughly the same; I look for resources from native speakers and translators that provide insight into patterns I wouldn't otherwise hear or recognize as a monolingual English speaker. I don't do this with any intent to try and replicate them, but to better and more precisely adapt the character's speech patterns to the English version of them. For example, I've noticed a lot of MDZS/Untamed fanfiction writes Lan Wangji speaking very brusquely. This is because he does so in Chinese. But in Chinese syntax, his short sentences indicate his formality and noble character. In English, which requires packing way more context into sentences than Chinese, short sentences with minimal context can come across as informal, clipped, and sometimes rude/dismissive/abrupt.

There's also the matter of code switching, which transcends any one language, and lends lots of insight into our relationships and dynamics. We do not usually talk to our best friends the way we speak to strangers, for example. Our accents and dialects also shift with our settings; I'm from the Deep South, you call EVERYONE "ma'am" or "sir" if they are even slightly older than you or you otherwise respect them; using "ma'am" or "sir" where I currently live is liable to offend someone. Paying attention to this in characters can really, really help you capture them across contexts. It's also just generally respectful to engage with the cultural and linguistic context of the stories you love.

For their body language, it's very similar to the above, in that I revisit canon, note patterns, and compare contexts. (Also still salient are my notes about culturally specific details and code switching -- body language, like any form of communication, is also informed by our upbringing and cultural backgrounds.)

Then, I write, revisiting my notes and canon as necessary, but mostly focused on drafting. During revisions, I more carefully compare my dialogue and body language against canon, and pay closer attention to refining my dialogue to sound more like the character. Sometimes I watch or read relevant canon before writing specific dialogue so that the rhythms are fresh in my mind.

I'm never trying to erode my own authorial voice, and I make all sorts of choices with how I adapt character voices to my writing style and preferences. But, I can do that without compromising the character's "look and feel" because I've done the above work to understand the essential elements of their communication, and how those elements relate to their overall characterization (essential to which is applying the principles I listed at the outset to the speech and body language patterns I notice).

But, like, all of this amounts to just revisiting canon a lot and connecting patterns in the characters' speech and body language with their characterization + being curious about the cultural layers you may be missing.

Also, with regard to bsd, I recommend reading, even if just in snippets, works by the irl!authors, since Asagiri almost literally quotes them sometimes, and certainly uses the irl namesakes' authorial voices to guide the tone, inflections, and speech quirks of the characters he writes. (I love, love, love to invoke irl!Chuuya's symbolist and sometimes bewildering habit of mashing together imagery and bastardizing words/turns of phrase in ways that are nonsensical when taken literally, but which are evocative or meaningful in the tone, atmosphere, and meter of his poetry. I'm not as clever as him, so I'm silly with it, but nevertheless, it sparks joy.)

I have no idea if any of this is helpful, but it's how I enjoy approaching it. I'm also inclined to think it works for me; the element in my fics I'm complimented on the most in comments and feedback tends to be my characterizations.

[haveyoureadthisfantasybook]

FAQ: read before submitting

[plain text: FAQ: read before submitting]

a note re series: I am more than happy to queue up an entire series on request! if this is what you want, please indicate that explicitly in your submission, especially in cases where the first book in a series and the series as a whole have the same title. otherwise I need to ask for clarification, and it slows down the process of getting your submissions queued up.

where do I submit books?

submissions are currently closed!

[plain text: submissions are currently closed!]

[here. before you submit books, though, please check the list of books that have already been posted or queued. (note: if you’re using the mobile app on an Android phone, you may have to copy the link into your browser in order to access it.)

when submitting multiple books, please submit all of them in a single ask so it’s easier for me to keep track of, especially if you’re submitting them anonymously. also, please include the author’s name!]

what counts as having “read” a book?

did you finish the book? then you’ve read it. if you did not finish the book, you have not read it.

do audiobooks / having a book read to you count as having “read” a book?

do you think you’ve “read” the book? then you’ve read it. I’m not here to police your experiences or your relationships with physical books / ebooks / audiobooks / whatever.

does [graphic novel / manga / manhua] count as a “book”?

for the purposes of this poll, a book is a prose narrative, so graphic novels and other visual media with text do not count as “books”.

does [“novella” / “novelette” / short story] count as a “book’?

if a short story was originally published in a single issue of a periodical, in a multi-author anthology, or as part of a single-author collection, I will most likely not accept it unless it has subsequently been published as a standalone volume of more than ~75 pages. if you submit a text where this applies and you think it should be accepted anyway, please elaborate on why with your submission.

however: if a short story was originally published in the form of a standalone volume (i.e., not as part of a collection of texts), then yes, under normal circumstances that counts! I don’t care if it was a 10-page pamphlet or a 1000-page behemoth: if it was first published on its own, including as an ebook, it’s a book.

you can see my more detailed guidelines for short fiction here (link is to the sci-fi poll blog, but the principles are the same).

the one exception is things like (e.g.) The Fellowship of the Ring, which is explicitly the first volume of a single, larger book — in a case like this you would submit The Lord of the Rings, rather than its component volumes.

I encourage you to submit short fiction to @have-you-read-this-short-fiction even if it’s not eligible here!

does [short story collection] count as a “book”?

for the purposes of this poll, no, unless the stories are linked into some kind of overarching whole. simply sharing a common setting does not qualify (so Le Guin’s Tales of Earthsea would not count as a “book”).

what about [series] as a whole?

no. this blog is asking about single books. feel free to submit multiple books in a series if you’re so inclined, though!

what counts as “fantasy”?

if you think something should count as fantasy, feel free to submit it. I haven’t read every book, and I have a flexible definition of the genre. there are, however, limits to my flexibility — if you send me The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet (real, incomprehensible example I’ve seen on a list of “fantasy” recommendations), it’s not getting posted.

if you send me a liminal fantasy like Haïlji’s The Republic of Užupis, especially if it’s not easy to determine from reviews or online information that the book has a fantastic element, it would be helpful if you indicate what aspects of the book mark it as (broadly) fantasy.

note that I am definitely willing to include works of science fantasy like Tamsyn Muir’s The Locked Tomb books. I will not accept Anne McCaffrey’s Dragonriders of Pern books. they’re science fiction, and I will die on this hill.

I also will not be accepting any books by J.K. Rowling.

what about sci-fi?

there’s a blog for that. :-)

does it have to be in English?

no! I read a number of languages and would be more than happy to include books in any language. the demographics of tumblr mean that you’re probably unlikely to get an overall “yes” result for something not in English unless it has a very popular English translation, but I’m always happy to help publicize stuff — and maybe get some book recommendations in the languages I read. :-)

you can see links to all the language tags on this blog here.

could you add more options to the polls?

I’ve considered multiple possibilities and seen many different arrangements of options on different poll blogs, and I’ve concluded that I want to keep things as simple and straightforward as possible, so I will be sticking with just yes and no.

why don’t you include blurbs for the books in these polls?

there are both practical and ideological reasons for this. tl;dr, it’s a lot of work, presents logistical problems for books not originally published in English, and there are books and authors that I categorically don’t want to promote beyond showing people the cover.

————————

check the #faq tag for additional questions and answers.

[thewadapan]

Launch codes to nuke "73 Yards" from orbit - Doctor Who review

CW: discussion of rape

So I've been watching a lot of Moffat Doctor Who lately, which is broadly dogshit, but each new episode of Russel T. Davies' return to the show's helm is really pushing the boundaries of what it means to create bad television. I actually would believe that this is part of a grand plan to destroy the BBC from the inside, by blowing millions of pounds on a singularly dreadful Disney+ show, but RTD's original run on Doctor Who was also much worse than people are typically willing to acknowledge, so this is obviously nonsense.

"73 Yards" has apparently proven very divisive, with some people lauding it as one of the best Doctor Who episodes in ages (this means nothing to me, I didn't watch any of Chibnall's stuff), and some people taking a CinemaSins-esque "look at all these plot holes!!!" approach to criticising it. This essay definitely resembles the latter, but I want to clarify right away that I don't care about plot holes in and of themselves. If a story coheres on a metaphorical level, I can overlook nonsense plotting. Any given Doctor Who episode, including many of my favourites, will have at least a few major plot holes. It's like swiss cheese, the holes are the hole point!

The thing is, this episode is like a block of swiss cheese which is all holes. As in, there's no cheese there, just an empty plate. It neither furthers the overarching plot of the series, nor reveals anything substantive about the characters. If you watch Doctor Who for the vibes, you can perhaps get something out of the spooky images and buy into the intended emotional content of each scene. That has unironically always been the best way to watch Doctor Who and enjoy it without becoming incandescent with a kind of impotent, essay-provoking fury—so genuinely, good for you if you're able to do that. I just kind of think that it's possible for television to be good, so.

The episode is titled "73 Yards" for the distance our companion du jour, Ruby Sunday, finds herself at all times in this episode from a strange indistinct cognitohazardous woman, who follows her at a "semperdistance" (a word coined by the episode in an excruciating scene where an old lady goes, "well, I don't think there's a word in the English language like that, so to coin one from Latin, it would probably be 'semper distant', meaning 'always distant'"). I knew immediately what this title referred to the moment the woman appeared—great, I roll my eyes, at some point Ruby is going to walk past a really big ruler, and she'll go oh my word, why that woman, she's exactly 73 yards away from me!

At the start of the episode, the Doctor and Ruby step out of the TARDIS and—after a very conspicuous bit of exposition about a dangerous future Prime Minister from Wales—they almost immediately accidentally break a magic circle. Doctor Who has always struggled with one dissonant bit of narrative convenience, which is that no matter where the TARDIS goes, there's always some horrible ghastly supernatural alien shit going on. While writers have attempted to justify this in-universe, really it's just the anthropic principle of the show's narrative: if the TARDIS were to arrive in a normal boring inoccuous place, why would we watch that episode? We have to take it for granted that they're going to stumble onto something—and RTD increasingly seems disinterested in wasting time explaining the contrivance each episode—so in this case, it's that a magic circle happens to be right there underfoot and they step on it. Call it a "coincidence", fine, I gather that's what the series mytharc is about this time around. Now, later in the episode, the story seems to want to strongly suggest that the curse is a consequence of Ruby's actions—she has disrespected the magic—but as originally presented, it seems more like she's completely oblivious to the presence of the magic until it's too late. Ruby doesn't actually exert any agency in this introduction, nor in most of the episode, so the breaking of the circle fails to reveal anything about her character. By the same metric, I think most ordinary people would behave pretty much the same way, so this really tells us nothing about who Ruby is.

At this point, the Doctor disappears because of magic. The TARDIS remains, but without the Doctor, is inaccessible to Ruby. In just the preceding episode, "Boom", one of the many scenes in its already-bloated denouement saw Ruby being given a TARDIS key, which she tries in this episode, and it doesn't work, showing the viewer that this is spooky magic bullshit. I think this is bad showrunning, because the ending of "Boom" seriously needed trimming, so why bother if it only creates the narrative busywork of needing to show "and the key doesn't work" in this one? Why not have the Doctor give her the key after an episode with a beat similar to this, where Ruby needs to get into the TARDIS but can't, and he wants to stop it from ever happening again: "don't worry, the TARDIS doors will always open for you from now on!" As written, it strikes me as very clumsy plotting.

Ruby walks down the cliffside and encounters a hiker, who is actually the mysterious old lady who's recurred in every episode of this series in seemingly unrelated circumstances. This mytharc structure is the only kind I have ever seen RTD even attempt; Moffat rarely does better, but at least on occasion will take a token stab at tying the mytharc easter-egg into the themes of his series or individual episodes. (The crack is really, really good for this.) This time, Ruby recognises the woman on some level, to clue an inattentive audience into the fact that "ah, I guess this character was in the previous episodes, and maybe I was supposed to notice, because that might be relevant in some future episode!" No threat of it being relevant this episode, of course. Anyway, this hiker makes a bit of fuss about how Ruby's not dressed for the weather. I don't recall if the episode intends to suggest that the weather has suddenly turned evil after the circle was broken, or if Ruby and the Doctor arrived on a windswept cliff by accident, or if Ruby really is just ill-prepared—none of this is interesting.

Poor Millie Gibson has been given nothing but terrible material this episode, but where better actors have managed to salvage this kind of fare in prior episodes, she's not really up to the task here. Apparently this was the first episode she filmed for the show, which is a baffling decision—how is she supposed to establish the character without any series regulars to bounce off of? Why would you lead with an episode that's very pointedly building off a relationship developed over the course of the rest of the show? Regardless, between the script and Gibson's performance, not a single interaction where she talks about her stalkerly apparition to another person is remotely plausible as a way any real person would actually behave in this situation. I'm not even sure she tries to approach the follower at any point? She clearly tries to communicate with it, but it refuses to acknowledge her. This is Ruby's fifth adventure with(out) the Doctor, it should by this point be obvious that the woman is supernatural, dangerous, and related to the magic circle in some way: but the episode at this point seems to suggest this hasn't really occurred to her yet. Or, perhaps, that it has occurred to her, and she just thinks the hiker wouldn't believe her—but then if she does already think this is spooky magic, why does she throw the hiker under the bus by asking her to go talk to the entity? The entity ignores the hiker, and then lo and behold, the hiker is suddenly subjected to some kind of supernatural effect that causes her to flee screaming. How unexpected!

Oh well. Ruby continues to the village and goes into a pub, commencing the worst scene in the episode by a significant margin. In terms of set design, this pub is the kind of sterile nondescript establishment The World's End mercilessly lampooned, but I don't get the impression this was the intended effect. A half-dozen stereotypes inhabit the bar, all seeming to know each other, all dropping their individual interactions to singularly focus on Ruby from the moment she arrives. Again, they make fun of her for not having a coat. Ruby politely asks the innkeeper if they have any rooms going, and the innkeeper names a price. Ruby has no cash on her, so she asks if she can pay with her phone. Incomprehensibly, the innkeeper feigns ignorance of the entire concept. The idea here is that the episode is trying to trick you into thinking they've actually arrived in the early 2000s, before contactless payments were a thing. Ruby tries to rephrase the request, and the innkeeper remains committed to the bit. Finally, Ruby tries to explain that it's to do with online banking, and—this apparently being the desired reaction—the innkeeper at last reveals, ahah, it was all a ruse! Of course I have a contactless card machine. Everyone in the bar laughs at Ruby's supposed prejudice, and the innkeeper is implied to overcharge her £5 for a glass of Coke.

Look, I've been to pubs like this, and if the bartender tried to pull this shit on me, if everyone else in the room made it obvious they didn't want me there, I'd walk out and find another pub. And there'd be one, because I refuse to believe there's a single coastal village in this country with just a single pub, and if I told the people there what had just happened to me, they'd almost certainly be like—what the fuck? Or maybe, oh yeah, we know those guys, they're notorious freaks in the local area and everyone hates them. I'm sorry, who the fuck in any service job would pull something as mean-spirited like this? Like of course I could see it, if we're talking about an absolute scumbag customer, someone who walks in and spits on the counter and orders you to wipe it up. But I just don't think the scene as written remotely sells the impression that Ruby is behaving in a way that could possibly be construed as offensive towards anyone. Instead—and I realise why this isn't the case, but—it kind of does just create the impression that they're the ones prejudiced against this clearly-lost English girl?

And the episode isn't even done. Next, another old lady at the bar reacts to Ruby's fear of the magic circle by pretending to believe in the supernatural, rattling off a bunch of local folklore (which, in the wider context of the episode, turns out to be entirely true). At the mention of "fairy circle", a young girl laughs and points at her goth friend, saying "you can ask him about that!" to implicitly call him a homophobic slur. Everyone in the bar seems onboard with this old lady's yarn, and when there's a loud knock on the door, they all react with seemingly genuine terror. FUCK! It's Mad Jack, here to kill us all! The goth says something like, "He'll kill me first! You know why that is, don't you?" No, go on, Russel, why is that? Because he's gay, and he thinks that Mad Jack is homophobic?

Finally, the big surprise: this person outside, banging repeatedly on the unlocked pub door, is actually just a guy carrying a big tray of Cornish pasties. To a small Welsh pub. With like four customers in. In the late evening. And instead of, like, just barging in with the tray, or even setting down the tray to poke his head in and ask for some help, the guy has apparently loudly knocked multiple times while carrying this tray in both hands for some customer or member of staff to invite him in. What is he, fucking Dracula? Anyway, big laugh from everyone in the pub. Can you believe this Ruby girl thought that we believe in witchcraft! What a stupid twit! The old lady calls her a racist to her face. I can't believe what I'm watching. RTD is Welsh, of course, and I'm English, so maybe through some lens of demographic essentialism I have to assume that he is simply expressing something here which I can never understand, because racism is something which transcends my understanding, it transcends race, it's really just to do with when there's a foreigner. Isn't this all so very miserably misanthropic? Doesn't it just want to make you blow your brains out?

But fine, whatever, I can accept this stupid caricature land that we've suddenly been deposited into. Hey, maybe it's part of the mytharc, maybe breaking the magic circle has sideways transported us into a dimension where everyone is a prick. Genuinely, the allegory for this episode is meant to be something along these lines, but practically every other scene in the episode has people behaving perfectly kindly towards Ruby right up until the exact moment they directly confront the entity, so clearly this isn't even an attempt at interesting metatextual bullshit, this is just these people behaving according to their supposed nature. Taking all that for granted, we can imagine that perhaps the little arc for this sequence will be that Ruby makes peace with the Welsh, is meaningfully enlightened in some way about her own internalised bigotry, or whatever, and they finally warm to her.

Pff, so we can imagine! No, we cut to a day or two later, and the innkeeper insists with real venom that Ruby is forbidden from staying in the pub any longer, because one of the other regulars (scared by the following lady) refuses to return so long as Ruby is there. She takes a train back to London and we never see any of these characters again. Oh my fucking lord.

The next two sections are just recapitulations of the supernatural conceit. Arriving back at home, there's a lengthy scene where Ruby listens to her mum make misandrist remarks about how the Doctor, like any man, probably just wanted to lock himself in his shed, nevermind that the Doctor was literally just a woman, nevermind that the Doctor is totally nonbinary now for real in a way which will matter to the narrative and mean something. For some fucking reason, Ruby decides it'll be a good idea to experiment on the supernatural old lady who appears to strike mortal terror into anyone she talks to with her own fucking adoptive mum who she loves more than anything. The old lady strikes mortal terror into the mum, who flees from Ruby and kicks her out of the house. Next, Ruby meets up with Kate Lethbridge-Stewart, a character who for me is roughly equivalent to a walking textbox which spans the screen with a helpful disclaimer reading "THIS EPISODE OF DOCTOR WHO IS CURRENTLY PISS DRECK," so it's obvious to anyone watching that the episode is piss dreck. Kate, supposedly the most competent member of Britain's best government agency, idiotically sends a whole taskforce to intercept the cognitohazardous entity while remaining in contact to facilitate the spread of any cognitohazards. Hasn't she read There Is No Antimemetics Division? Steven Moffat certainly hasn't, at least according to his lawyers, but at least he seems capable of thinking about his fictional thought-hazards for more than two minutes to work out how characters might try to act around them. Where this kind of conceptual bullshit is usually a hallmark of one of Moffat's better episodes, for RTD it's definitely an indicator that shit's going to get very stupid. Kate Lethbridge-Stewart decides she wants nothing to do with Ruby. In a slightly better version of this episode, the soldiers literally holding guns would physically open fire on Ruby, forcing her to flee.

That's one of the things about Doctor Who which has always consistently floored me: even in earlier series where they're clearly straining against the budget, the show is constantly failing to thoughtfully devote its budget towards anything narratively compelling—speaking both on the micro-level here, within each individual episode, and in a more general sense of "why do they keep giving these hacks so much fucking money". It also floors me how, despite clearly having Disney bucks behind it, the show somehow looks worse than ever, desaturated to shit with flat lighting and sterile compositions. Despite being a present-day Britain episode—or perhaps because of that—the budget for this episode oozes off it, with countless sets polished to a mirror-sheen, tons of costume work for Ruby, a whole military taskforce. But woe betide we edit some stock muzzle flashes onto these guns in Adobe After Effects! Wouldn't want this episode getting too exciting, now would we?! I can see how this episode is attempting to say something about fear and alienation—basic themes which Doctor Who has explored countless times before in significantly better episodes, and even mid episodes by RTD like "Midnight" (see, it's even in the title)—but with that being the case, if you're going to do a whole thing about nukes anyway, why not just show the government just fucking shooting at the poor girl? Is that image too politically-charged for the BBC? No, actually, tell me, why exactly would the BBC object to such an image?

Ruby retreats oop Norf and we enter a montage intended to make it obvious to everyone watching that yes, Ruby is not going to be stuck here without the Doctor for hours, or days, but rather for years. In the same breath, of course, it immediately makes it obvious that nothing which happens in this episode will ever stick or matter in any in-universe sense, because it'll all be reset in some way, so the best we can hope for is that the events of the episode will teach us something about who Ruby is as a person. (In the formulaically-similar Rick & Morty, a consistently better-written and more thoughtful show than Doctor Who—stop booing me, I'm right, I'm not even going out to bat for Rick & Morty it's just that Doctor Who is usually rubbish—plotlines like this happen roughly once a season and will always, always stick... or if they don't, the fact that they don't will crush you somehow.) RTD's wondrous imagination fails to conjure a single idea of what Ruby does as a person in this time. She is depicted dating a series of interchangable men who are not the Doctor, being distracted by the apparition unceasingly signing at her from the corner of her eye. Finally, she catches a news report about a Welsh politician called "Mad Jack"—the name of the fae entity supposedly contained by the magic circle—which she takes as a sign that the plot is finally being allowed to begin.

She joins Mad Jack's campaign team and he immediately makes it clear that he is a slimeball who hates foreigners and really really wants to just fucking nuke everyone. Of course, Mad Jack isn't running for an actual real-world political party, he's running for some fake political party which has no realistic views whatsoever, even if yes I'm sure there's a lot of foreigners the Tories really would like to nuke if they thought they could get away with it. There's an incomprehensibly unconvincing news segment where Mad Jack delivers implausible rhetoric about phone apps and the cost of living, in 2046, which is so close to making some kind of meaningful satirical point that I'm going to scream. When Mad Jack speaks to Ruby for the first time, she practically sics him on this other woman in the campaign team. Again, the episode fails to commit to explicitly saying what it is that Mad Jack does to this woman, but it's probably that he rapes her. Later, the other woman vaguely tells Ruby that Mad Jack is definitely "a monster". Towards the end of this sequence, one of the male campaign members later suggests that Mad Jack is going to be hosting a "wild" party and that he's invited this specific woman by name, implying that he's planning on raping her again. Shortly after, that guy explains how Mad Jack is finally going to be getting the nuclear launch codes for real, and for some reason this is what makes Ruby go, oh fucking shit, it's go time babey! She gives a heartfelt apology to the other woman for not intervening against her presumably-rapist sooner. Then she walks out into the middle of the venue to stand exactly 73 yards away from Mad Jack, and finally he notices the old woman. The old woman strikes mortal terror into him and he resigns immediately, averting the bad future the Doctor recounted at the very start of the episode. Again, all of these characters basically disappear from the episode at this point.

I cannot stress enough how much I hate everything about the implied rape stuff here. After it happens, Ruby appears to be made aware of it, appears to already have a plan to send this guy to the shadow realm—and yet she does nothing! The narrative ultimately presented is that she chooses to overlook this for the greater good, to prevent a miscarriage of justice, because she has to be sure the guy is a horrible nuclear rapist. And the thing that really gets me, what really blows my mind, is that the way she plans on dealing with Mad Jack doesn't kill him, it doesn't send him to jail or anything, all it does is end his political career. Dude is fucking fine! She knows he'd be fine, because she's seen this before with dozens of other people by this point, with her own mum. And hell, she literally has foreknowledge that the guy will become the most dangerous Prime Minister ever. So why doesn't she just pull the trigger right away? Why couldn't she just have a modicum of female solidarity with this other complete non-character victim? Assuming I'm not completely insane, it's staggering to me how closely Ruby's behaviour mirrors the real-world narratives that get trotted out whenever some public figure is involved in a sexual assault scandal. It deeply depresses me that our protagonist, supposedly at forty, would make these choices.

Anyway, Ruby grows old, and finally they switch out her laughably-youthful forty-year-old makeup for an elderly actress. She revisits the TARDIS, which is now effectively a grave for this alien she went on four adventures with sixty years ago, and says some nondescript words. Then she's seen dying in a future care facility, and in what's maybe intended to be an ironic beat, a young nurse assumes that she doesn't know how voice-operated lights work. Ruby protests because obviously we had Alexa or whatever in 2024. The nurse leaves, and in what's definitely meant to be the big emotional climax of the episode, the old Ruby expresses feeling as if everyone in her life has always abandoned her, but that she nonetheless has constant company in the form of this inexplicable old lady ghost. In a genuinely spooky moment, the lights flicker on and off, and we see the old lady—now facing away from Ruby—slowly approaching her, like a Weeping Angel, until Ruby reaches out her hands...

...and finds herself back on that cliff in Wales. Except this time, she's looking at the TARDIS, at the Doctor and herself stepping out of it. She waves at herself, and we finally hear the old lady saying "don't step! don't fucking step you dumb ass!", and this time, young!Ruby notices the magic circle just in time to stop the Doctor from breaking it. Old!Ruby, her own ghost all along, disappears, her purpose apparently fulfilled at last, and it's implied young!Ruby has some vague awareness of her lifetime spent in this circle.

So hang on, if it was just Ruby all along, then what the fuck was she saying to all those people to strike mortal fear into their hearts? What the fuck did she say to that hiker? And why would she choose to say it? I legitimately don't give a shit what the answer is meant to be, I know there isn't an answer, what I'm saying is that if you're going to do a twist like this, then it needs to actually serve the narrative: it needs to recontextualise the events we've already seen. In this case, it's just not fucking good enough to say "ahah, it was Ruby all along!", because that's meaningless, there was nothing Ruby-like about the old woman's behaviour throughout the episode, and nothing to explain why her behaviour would've changed to be like this. In RTD's grand political morality play, what the fuck does it mean that Mad Jack's omnicidal campaign was undone by Ruby's old-lady future-self ghost saying something which we never get to hear? Maybe RTD means to suggest that it is impossible to stop these monsters in the real world, because of course, magic like this isn't real in the real world.

And seriously, why the hell did the Doctor disappear—the old lady didn't talk to him! Did she beam bad psychic thoughts at him or something so he'd flee in mortal terror despite being 73 yards away? The episode is uninterested in these questions, and certainly doesn't care to give us anything concrete about how the spell works. Look, I don't even care who Mad Jack is, obviously he's just another guy like the Toymaker or the Maestro or whoever the fuck is going to be the next one of these all-powerful impotent demons, but give me something. Everything that happens in this episode happens "just because", or through Ruby's passivity, rather than through character actions or self-consistent setting details.

I've seen it suggested that all of the inexplicable dialogue in this episode, from the point of the magic circle being broken, is actually just Ruby exerting her own beliefs on reality. Through this lens, the people in the pub go through such incomprehensibly wild behavioural shifts as a diegetic result of Ruby's own gut feelings about how they should be acting. Similarly, Ruby's mum and Kate Lethbridge-Stewart are only reacting the way Ruby feels they should, deep down. I find this argument unconvincing because it's never explicitly mentioned or alluded to in the episode itself, so if this were what was going on, it would immediately be an order of magnitude more subtle than any other bit of writing in RTD's entire series so far. There's been little to nothing in previous scenes with Ruby's family to suggest these kinds of feelings are even latently present; she seems quite secure with her adoptive mother, simply harboring natural curiosity regarding her biological mother. (My girlfriend, who watched this episode with me, and who I have promptly abandoned to write this incendiary review, suggested that a subtler approach with Ruby's mum could've been much more effective: perhaps her mum simply suggests that it's about time Ruby moved out, they can't really afford to keep looking after her, isn't she old enough, wouldn't it be good for her anyway?) Rather than it being some kind of deft narrative masterstroke, the simplest explanation for these scenes being uneven and unrealistic is that RTD is an uneven writer who has always written extremely wooden character interactions in this vein.

This episode invites comparisons to various fascist-Britain political pieces from RTD, such as his plotline with the Master/Harold Saxon. I generally don't think those episodes of RTD's were very good anyway, but this one is objectively worse. Ruby's plotline, meanwhile, is most closely reminiscent of "The Girl Who Waited", one of the better episodes from Moffat's tenure, written by Tom MacRae. In that episode, our companion at the time, Amy Pond, winds up stuck living out years of her life along in a facility. She plays directly off her younger self, and the episode revels in the dramatic irony that everyone involved—both Amys, Rory, the Doctor, and you, the viewer—know it's a foregone conclusion that the older Amy will be wiped away, sacrificed to the status quo. It's fucking fantastic stuff. It's visually arresting. It's emotionally harrowing. Yes, the makeup department struggled almost as much to make Amy look forty as it did with Ruby, but both effects are better than the CGI homunculus that the Doctor became in "The Sound of Drums", so who's to say if they're good or bad.

This episode depressed me thoroughly. I thought the implied rape was a flippant inclusion, and if RTD wasn't willing to do it justice, it shouldn't have been in the episode at all. I thought the stuff in the pub painted an unrealistic and uncharitable picture of what people on this island are like to one another. But these feelings aren't why I think this was an objectively bad episode. I just cannot conceive of a lens where this episode isn't objectively bad, because I believe I fully grasp the themes it was attempting to convey—xenophobia, superstition, abandonment—and reckon there are many aspects of the plot that fail to communicate those themes in a self-consistent way. The nonsensical object-level plot and the intended allegorical throughline are in constant conflict with one another, rather than supporting one another.

Worst of all, I think RTD has continued a running trend of failing to achieve even his most basic mission statement with this new series. He's been determined for Doctor Who to veer more towards fantasy, more towards escapism, more towards feelings of unrestrained joy and wonder. Yet practically everything decays towards deconstruction, if not the exact opposite of presumably the intended message. Nonbinary furby Beep the Meep is actually an omnicidal little monster. The episode about the joys of music is practically devoid of it. There's an episode entirely about the horrors of war and capitalism where like half the cast just die. Rape is something that it's best we don't talk about, at least not in anything more than veiled terms, because that might be inconvenient for people who are more important than you. Isn't this fantastic? Aren't you escaping? Look, "Space Babies" is by no means a perfect episode, but it has come closest to fulfilling the mission brief. At least it made me smile. "73 Yards" is no fun, and no good.

If you enjoyed this review, you can find more of my writing over on Letterboxd. If you didn't, then... sorry?