#meta textual

[samasmith23]

I feel really bad for Nadia in this scene. Learning that your heroes are not infallible is always rough! Plus, Jeremy Whitley brilliantly lays the groundwork for Nadia’s later bout with bipolar disorder, and Janet’s words here are so powerful!

Also, I love the meta-commentary of how Nadia confirmed the truth about the time Hank Pym struck Janet via the Internet, since in real-life the Internet is primarily where Hank’s infamous reputation is the most talked about.

From The Unstoppable Wasp (2017) #8 by Jeremy Whitley, Ro Stein & Ted Brandt.

[monstrousparalysis]

Hey y'all! Since it's Love Loses Wednesday for all who celebrate and I have plenty of thoughts about it, here's some of those thoughts I've had for my fellow enjoyers of Chip Bastard from the insanely powerful podcast Just Roll With It!

So.

Chip being so focused on family and friends, on finding Arlin and keeping his co-captains and crew safe, while the most he ever shows interest in romance is in brief, jokey flirting that's quickly brushed aside.

Chip buying a love potion, only for it to sit unused in his inventory for literal months until it unceremoniously drops into the mouth of the Electrodon.

Chip being unnerved or even downright scared when somebody shows a sign of being attracted to him (Amanda with the marriage, Jazz and his flirting, the frantic denial to Ollie that Gillion kissing him meant anything (which was then followed by barely any change in their relationship. A typically romantic act, done as an act of love between friends, and yet those friends never did start a romance. Curious))

Speaking of Amanda and the marriage: Chip waking up one day and suddenly being expected, even morally obligated, to be in a romantic relationship with somebody he doesn't even know, for reasons he doesn't even know. And even when he clarifies that he doesn't want this, that he won't give up being a pirate with his friends for it, he still can't leave behind the expectation fully, because Amanda, and thus this expectation, is literally chasing him. Sometimes it even comes from his own friends, because no matter how much he would prefer to just Not Be Married, there's no way for him to get out of it, especially not ones Gillion would likely accept, and therefore the expectation that eventually, he'll be in a romance, is inescapable.

And even more interesting, he's not opposed to the idea of getting married in general. He wasn't wholly against the notion of marrying Igneous just for the AC boost it would give them. Clearly, the problem he had wasn't with the marriage itself, but with the fact that he was expected to form a romantic partnership.

And lastly: Chip having his literal heart ripped out of him, and staying nearly the same. Making jokes about how his heart was stolen in a way that was literal instead of romantic. Writing to his wife that if death do them part, then now it has (and doesn't it even say something that the only way for him to escape the marriage, the expectations, was to die?)

He cares for his friends just the same. He cares for his crew just the same. He wants to find Arlin just as much as ever. And his avoidance of his wife, of the expectation that he perform romance, stays the same. But even if he's the exact same, he has an excuse for this now. Because clearly, somebody with no heart couldn't feel romance, and who cares that he didn't really seem to before he lost his heart either?

Chip being aromantic, on a textual, metaphorical, and thematic level.

[princip1914]

A little hopeful moment which I missed on the first watch, but which I think is so important. Nina and Maggie come to have their talk with Crowley. Now, we all know that Crowley is Maggie—yes, sure, Nina is sarcastic and suave and cool and calls Maggie angel—but it’s obvious that Crowley is Maggie and Nina is Aziraphale. Crowley even admits it himself in the very beginning of this conversation when he tries to justify meddling to get Maggie and Nina together:

“Nina needed rescuing.” Yeah, you know who else always “needs rescuing”? Anyway, moving on.

Nina says she just got out of a relationship and it would be a disaster to get into another one right away. And then this happens:

Nina says she hopes Maggie will still be around, but she knows she can’t ask Maggie to just wait while she figures out her own baggage. There's no guarantee. And then Maggie interjects—

The parallel between Maggie/Nina and Crowley/Aziraphale is so intentional as to feel heavy handed. So what does it mean that we get this exchange in at this particular moment in the script—buried within the conversation which is the catalyst for Crowley confessing his feelings, occurring in the lull immediately before the spectacular dissolution of everything the first two seasons were building towards?

“We could have been us,” Crowley says. Crowley walks out of the bookshop. Crowley turns off their song in his car. Whatever tentative blooming thing has been building between him and Aziraphale for six thousand years appears to be very clearly over. Aziraphale presses the kiss to his lips and knows there is no guarantee they will ever have a chance to be together. There's no guarantee that Crowley will ever want to forgive him, that he will keep on waiting for him.

But.

There is.

[nomsfaultau]

“I like who I am now! Probably more than who I was. But that doesn’t mean he was bad.”

This line chokes me up. The distance of calling your past self with a third person pronoun, marking how far you’ve come, the progress of healing simultaneously making the past seem foreign, distant. And yet at the same time there’s this unending grace for that past self, giving mercy to a younger you for being hurting and scared and lashing out. Looking back having grown so much it can be easy to loath that distant, other you. But instead you show that past you kindness he because he wasn’t given kindness then, either.

Giving mercy to something imperfect and aching just feels so right for the end of the dsmp. We can’t go back. But we can miss it, and forgive.

[foursaints]

fanonwise i sometimes feel that we don’t treat barty crouch jr’s relationship to his father with the amount of nuance that it’s given in canon.

i see more evidence for their dynamic as one of a prodigal son‘s unexpected betrayal, rather than him being openly defiant from the beginning. barty jr disdains his father more than he fears him.

barty’s character is more about being Stifled than it is about being Penalized, if that makes sense. he is a docile thing on the outside. for a counterexample: sirius continuously rebelled against his parents and was punished for it, over and over. barty is more the case of a child dutifully abiding with something spiteful and ugly growing underneath his surface, larger each passing year.

barty’s revenge, and his anger, and his suffering, are all quiet things: the secret burying of a bone, the forced muteness of imperius. barty doesn’t react when he speaks about his father or sees him in disguise. he admits to never truly considering him a father, seeing more of himself in tom instead.

this is more compelling to me than casting him as a sirius-variant!! it’s a slow type of resentment— leading to torture and ending in revenge— and i like the idea of barty as someone in Waiting. he’s the deferential mirror of a man he doesn’t respect (but never truly, not inside). barty jr was a son raised to take the place of his father: obeying to the letter until he suddenly didn’t, and finally usurping him in the most violent way possible with patricide. his father wanted an heir to replace him and he created a perfect one, in the most tragically ironic way possible!! this will always be more interesting to me than a barty who is plainly defiant from the outset— it flattens him!!

[originalaccountname]

I made some funny comics a little while ago about the potential effects of Fukuzawa's ability on Chuuya's, and how it perhaps could make it revert to a pre-Arahabaki state.

I realized later that some of you lack the context for where that came from, and that I might be creating confusion, so this is a (hopefully) comprehensive walkthrough of things we learned in Storm Bringer that lead to this conclusion.

tldr; The lab created "Arahabaki" by manipulating an ability into a destructive force. That ability existed before the lab, and the nature of that ability is heavily implied to be the power to enhance other abilities through touch.

Explanation and sources below (so you can judge yourself) ⬇

- spoiler warning for Storm Bringer, hopefully written in a way that you'd understand even if you haven't read it yet -

In Storm Bringer, Chuuya meets the scientist that was responsible for Project Arahabaki, Professor N.

Project Arahabaki, N explains, was the Japanese government's secret project to create an ability singularity they could have control over and freely use as a weapon.

What are singularities? Singularities are what happens when abilities clash in specific ways and create a new, unforeseen reaction. The easiest way to create a singularity is to pit two contradictory abilities against each other to create a paradox; examples included the ability to always deceive and the ability to always perceive the truth, and to have two ability users who can see into the future (*coughs* Oda and Gide) try to one-up each other. The result is usually much more powerful than the original abilities on their own.

Some singularities are said to have been explained as god-like interventions, because of their often destructive nature. This is what inspired the name "Arahabaki", after the mythical being (here's a post of the subject and I'll it link at the end too) These events are described as very rare.

Like mentioned in that passage, there is another way to create a singularity: to have a single ability user use their ability in a way that contradicts itself. This is what the lab was trying to do.

For that explanation, Professor N gives an example. He first shows a video of a child, whose face is hidden from the camera, holding a coin (described as having a certain melancoly to it), with a moon and a fox engraved on it. The video is from one of the lab's tests. The child is made to recite some activation lines, which are directly taken from one of Nakahara Chuuya's poems, Upon the Tainted Sorrow (which does mentions a fox, as a fun fact).

The coin then starts glowing, the glow turns into a black mass, and from there the experimentation goes bad: the coin starts attracting things and absorbing them, the space gets distorted, the child's vitals flatline, panic spreads and someone calls for an emergency stop, we hear a scream. The video ends.

N explains that the child in the video had the ability to enhance the ability of others. That child then used that ability on themselves, effectively enhancing the enhancement which enhanced the enhancing, in an infinite loop. That loop created a lot of energy; the surplus of energy was so intense its mass deformed space (physics!) and it created a black hole.

Here's where it gets tricky: N claims that child died during that accident, that the child was absorbed by the black hole created by their ability. We never actually learn their identity.

But N is a lying liar who lies; he said about one and a half truths the entire book. The only reason he was telling them any of this was that he thought he'd get rid of all of them within the next few minutes. His objective was always to regain control over Chuuya, his pet project.

Plus, during the epilogue, we learn that Chuuya was assumed to have died during the war. That's what his parents think. That's what is officially recorded.

Furthermore.

Project Arahabaki was based off French research papers; someone else had done this kind of experimentation before, and their result was Verlaine.

-

Verlaine's gravity-manipulation is a singularity. Better yet: Verlaine also has a Corruption state, named Brutalization. Their abilities are the same, because the lab copied the techniques that were used to create Verlaine when they worked on Chuuya.

Here's a passage of Dazai nullifying Corruption, at the very end of SB:

"The self-contradicting skill, which was supporting the energy of a singularity". This passage confirms that the source of Chuuya's ability is, in fact, like the child's and Verlaine's, if any doubts remained. "[...] weakening the singularity's output. It wasn't long before it returned to its normal state, and the Gate closed." The Gate refers to releasing Arahabaki, it's basically a limiter, just like the passage above when talking about Brutalization. When Dazai nullifies Corruption, he gives that limiter the opportunity to come back and seal Chuuya's power away again, but does not stop the singularity, only allows it to go back to its stable state.

From all that, we can say that Chuuya's ability wasn't always gravity manipulation, but that it was another, unconfirmed ability that was exploited in such a way that it became a permanent, stable singularity that allowed him to have control over gravity.

-

Bullet point recap:

Chuuya's gravity manipulation comes from a singularity, like Verlaine, like that child;

You need a self-referencing/self-contradicting ability to create that singularity;

Such an event is rare;

There is a substantial amount of time spent describing a "random" child that was experimented on during the war;

That child created a black hole through their singularity;

That singularity was activated using a passage from Nakahara Chuuya's poems, while holding a coin that references it;

That child supposedly died;

Chuuya's parents think he died during the war;

N is a pathological liar with an agenda.

So no, there is no "confirmation" that Chuuya's ability was ability enhancement before the lab took him. But an author writes a story with an intent, so I am asking what Asagiri's intent was when writing all this, and if perhaps we weren't indirectly given the answer already.

-

What is Arahabaki (Fifteen and Storm Bringer lore, with too many citations)

My own perceived timeline of the true events behind Storm Bringer (was originally gonna be part of this part, also with too many citations)

[mxtxfanatic]

Repayment but Not Just Repayment or a Meta on the Wen Siblings' Sacrifice

Wen Qing and Wen Ning's sacrifice is probably one of the most under-discussed topics in the fandom. A few have tackled it from the viewpoint of debt—which is true and valid—but I will be coming at it from the angle of love, because although there is a debt that ties Wei Wuxian to the Wen siblings, it is inseparable from the genuine affection they each hold for him. Let's start with Wen Qing's last words to Wei Wuxian:

Wen Qing interrupted him, “I’ve never really said such things to you before. But now that it’s today, there are indeed a few things I should say. I really won’t get a chance to say them after this.” ... Wen Qing, “I’m sorry. And, thank you.”

—Chapt. 77: Nightfall, exr

Throughout the novel, characters seem to have a negative response to being told "I'm sorry" and "thank you" in serious conversation, as both seem to imply a tie of debt and accepting ownership of the debt. Jin Ling refuses to thank Wei Wuxian for saving his life or apologize to him for being disrespectful despite all the life-saving. Lan Wangji has a negative reaction to Wei Wuxian thanking him in many different scenes in the novel, so much so that Wei Wuxian comments on the fact that a lot of their bad separations were precipitated by Wei Wuxian's thanks. Even here, Wei Wuxian has a negative reaction to Wen Qing's words, especially as they come at the end of her speech about how the repayment she asked of Wei Wuxian has unintentionally led them all down a path of no-return. But Wen Qing isn't using it in this way.

As discussed here and here, the Wen siblings actually love Wei Wuxian outside of the circumstances they find themselves in. They do not tie themselves to him because of debt but because he has proven himself to be honest and genuine in a way that the other cultivators they had previously come up against had not. At the same time because of the debt, the relationship between the three is fraught with things that cannot be said lest they be misunderstood. Wen Qing never verbally thanks Wei Wuxian for bringing her brother's consciousness back; instead she treats his wounds and helps put together a family banquet in his honor where she even personally serves him food and alcohol. Wen Ning never verbally thanks Wei Wuxian for rescuing his family and bringing him back; instead he continues to act as his physical protector in both of Wei Wuxian's lives. Neither of them apologize for having implicated Wei Wuxian in the plight of the Wen remnants, as that would have been incurring another debt that Wei Wuxian would likely not accept. However, when the tentative stalemate with the cultivation world is broken with Jin Zixuan's death, none of that matters anymore. They are all at the end of the line and must make a choice: throw Wei Wuxian to the wolves or sacrifice themselves. They choose to sacrifice themselves in the hopes that it will spare Wei Wuxian:

Wen Qing’s voice was calm, “Wei Ying, we both know. Wen Ning is a knife, a knife that scares them, but also a knife that they use as an excuse to attack you. If we go, without the knife, they’d no longer have an excuse. This entire thing might finally be over.”

They can finally say what they want to say, which is that they appreciate what Wei Wuxian has done for them, that they see all that he has sacrificed, that they are willing to match that level of dedication, and that they, too, are willing to risk themselves to protect him as he had been doing for them for up to a year, now. For once, the "thank you" and "I'm sorry" isn't meant to emphasize a debt-repayment relationship. It is meant to liberate Wei Wuxian from them.

[gayofthefae]

Thinking again about "you're my superhero" and how powers use anger and sadness, not love, and how there were two words used with spite in that note, not one

"Dear Mike,

I have gone to become a superhero again.

From,

El"

She put "superhero" on the same plane as *"From"*. OH, She did not like that shit at all.

[iridescentmirrorsgenshin]

analysing haikaveh's body language and distance in a parade of providence compared to cyno's story quest 2

in Cyno’s Story Quest II Kaveh seems secure in his position as Alhaitham's equal, and as such, Alhaitham is regarded as Kaveh's equal in turn. There is no reference to the superiority of a senior's expertise as “correctness” has been disregarded, and with this, the unequal power imbalance (as discussed here). The two have surpassed this issue on their road to reconciliation. The lack of titles within this story quest serves as a means of equality between the two now that scholarly pride is no longer an obstacle between them.

As such it is interesting to (over)analyse Haikaveh’s body language and distance within A Parade of Providence and in Cyno’s story quest 2

They are the most distant within A Parade of Providence, in which the two are always separated by a physical barrier, such as a desk:

or standing at a distance from one another and on opposite sides, preventing them from facing each other directly:

or with Alhaitham being elevated upon a platform, whilst kaveh is on the ground below:

Within the event, the only time the two are physically on an even level is at the end, in which Alhaitham tells Kaveh that they have move past being “wrong” or “right”. In this, the only time in which they are physically open with each other, and on equal elevation levels, is when the potentiality for the overturning of scholarly pride is discussed, and therefore there exists the potential of a true, mutual understanding.

Comparatively, in the flashback scene within cyno’s story quest 2, Kaveh is observed on two occasions to sit on the table rather than opposite or next to Alhaitham on a divan. This ensures that the two directly face each other:

This can be seen again in the House of Daena, where, when studying, the two sit on opposite sides of the table, facing each other, as they are of equal standing:

In terms of equality, this can be speculated as physical manifestation of their aligned perspectives. Rather than one existing on an elevated level, through one sitting and the other standing, or directly sitting next to each other (which can restrict the observation of the others’ gestures and body language), the two are now on equal standing.

The only time the two are shown sitting next to each other is in Puspa’s Café, but rather than this being an indicator of inequality, it serves as a reinforcement of mutual intimacy, as the two are paired together rather than being separated in the large gathering

In this sense, this equality in elevation levels can also physically advocate for the open communication the two have now established. This can be seen in their current in game relationship as the two now fully physically reveal themselves, alongside their thoughts, to the other, rather than concealing themselves with defensive body language, and double entendre in speech. They are now open and honest with each other - mutually equals in all respect!!

(This analysis snippet is from my Haikaveh queercoding essay found here!)

[cuddlytogas]

there was some Twitter madness recently where someone left a comment on someone's art to the effect of, "Ed shouldn't wear a dress, he's a man!" which I do disagree with on principle, but unfortunately, it brought out one of my least favourite trends in the fandom

so, naturally, I had to write a twitter essay about it. and I already largely argued this in a post here, but the thread is clearer and better structured, so I thought I'd cross-post for those not on the Hellsite (derogatory). edited for formatting/structure's sake, since I no longer have to keep to tweet lengths, and incorporating a couple of points other people brought up in the replies

so

I want to point out that the wedding cake toppers in OFMD s2 aren't evidence that Ed wants to wear dresses. Gender is fake, men can wear skirts, play with these dolls how you like, but it's not canon, and that scene especially Doesn't Mean That.

People cite it often: 'He put himself in a dress by painting the bride as himself! It's what he wants!' But that fundamentally misunderstands the scene, and the series' framing of weddings as a whole. I'd argue that Ed paints the figure not from desire, but from self-hatred; it's not what he wants, but what he thinks he should, and has failed to, be.

(Yes, I am slightly biased by my rampant anti-marriage opinions, but bear with me here, because it is relevant to the interpretation of the scene, and season two as a whole.)

The show is not subtle. It keeps telling us that the institution of marriage is a prison that suffocates everyone involved. Ed's parents' cycle of abuse is passed to their son in both the violence he witnesses then enacts on his father, and the self-repression his mother teaches, despite her good intentions ("It's not up to us, is it? It's up to God. ... We're just not those kind of people. We never will be."). Stede and Mary are both oppressed by their arranged marriage, with 1x04 blunty titled Discomfort in a Married State. The Barbados widows revel in their freedom ("We're alive. They're dead. Now is your time").

But even without this context, the particular wedding crashed in 2x01 is COMICALLY evil. The scene is introduced with this speech from the priest:

"The natural condition of humanity is base and vile. It is the obligation of people of standing ... to elevate the common human rabble through the sacred transaction of matrimony."

It's upper class, all-white, and religiously sanctioned. "Vile natural conditions" include queerness, sexual freedom, and family structures outside the cisheteropatriarchal capitalist unit. "The obligation of people of standing" invokes ideas like the white man's burden, innate class hierarchy, religious missions, and conversion therapy. Matrimony is presented as both "sacred" (endorsed by the ruling religious body), and a "transaction" (business performed to transfer property and people-as-property, regardless of their desires), a tool of the oppressive society that pirates escape and destroy. That is where the figurines come from.

When Ed, in a drunk, depressive spiral, paints himself onto the bride, he's not yearning for a pretty dress. He's sort of yearning for a wedding, but that's not framed as positive. What he's doing is projecting himself into an 'ideal' image of marriage because he believes that: a) that's what Stede (and everyone) wants; b) he can never live up to that ideal because he's unlovable and broken (brown, queer, lower-class, violent, abused, etc); c) that's why Stede left. He tries to make himself fit into the social ideal by painting himself onto the closest match - long-haired, partner to Stede/groom, but a demure, white woman, a frozen, porcelain miniature - because, if he could just shrink himself down and squeeze into that box, maybe Stede would love him and he'd live happily ever after. But he can't. So he won't.

The fantasy fails: Ed is morose, turns away from the figurines, then tips them into the sea, a lost cause. He knows he won't ever fulfil that bride's role, but he sees that as a failure in himself, not the role. It's not just that "Stede left, so Ed will never have a dream wedding and might as well die." Stede left when Ed was honest and vulnerable, "proving" what his trauma and depression tell him: there's one image of love (of personhood), and he'll never live up to it because he's fundamentally deficient. So he might as well die.

This hit me from my very first viewing. The scene is devastating, because Ed is wrong, and we know it! He doesn't need to change or reduce himself to fit an image and be accepted (as, eg, Izzy demanded). Stede knows and loves him exactly as he is; it's the main thread and theme of season two!

(@/everyonegetcake suggested that Ed's yearning in these scenes includes his broader desire for the vulnerability and safety Stede offered, literalised through unattainable "fine" things like the status of gentleman in s1, or the figurine's blue dress. I'd argue, though, that these scenes don't incorporate this beyond a general knowledge of Ed's character. Ed is always pining for both literal and emotional softness, but the significance of the figurines specifically, to both Ed and the audience, is poisoned by their origin and context: there is no positive fantasy in the bride figure, only Ed's perceived deficiency.

Further, assuming that a desire for vulnerability necessarily corresponds with an explicit desire for femininity, dresses, etc, kind of contradicts the major themes of the show. OFMD asserts that there is nothing wrong with men assuming femininity (through drag, self-care, nurturing, emotional vulnerability, etc), but also that many of these traits are, in fact, genderless, and should be available to men without affecting their perceived or actual masculinity. It thematically invokes the potential for cross-gender expression in Ed's desires, especially through the transgender echoes in his relieved disposal, then comfortable reincorporation, of the Blackbeard leathers/identity. It's a rich, valuable area of analysis and exploration. But it remains a suggestion, not a canon or on-screen trait.)

Importantly, the groom figure doesn't fit Stede, either. Not just in dress: it's stiff and formal, and marriage nearly killed him. He's shabbier now, yes, but also shedding his privilege and property, embracing his queerness, and trying to take responsibility for his community. In a s1 flashback, Stede hesitantly says, "I thought that, when I did marry, it could be for love," but he would never find love in marriage. Not just because he's gay, but because marriage in OFMD is an oppressive, transactional institution that precludes love altogether. All formal marriages in OFMD are loveless.

So, he becomes a pirate, where they reject society altogether and have matelotages instead. Lucius and Pete's "mateys" ceremony is shot and framed not like a wedding, but as an honest, personal bond, willingly conducted in community (in a circle; no presiding authority, procession, or transaction).

That is how Stede and Ed can find love, companionship, and happiness: by rejecting those figurines and their oppressive exchange of property, overseen by a church that enables colonialism and abuse. Ed is loved, and deserves happiness, as he is, no paint or projection required.

ALL OF THIS IS TO SAY: draw Ed in dresses! Write him getting gender euphoria in skirts! Write trans/nb Ed, draw men being feminine! Gender is fake, the show invites exploration, that's what 'transformative works' means! But please, stop citing the cake toppers as evidence it's canon. Stop citing a scene where a depressed Māori man gets drunk and projects himself onto a rich, white, silent bride because he thinks he's innately unlovable and only people like her can find happiness, shortly before deciding to kill himself, as canon evidence it's what he wants.

(Also, please don't come in here with "lmao we're just having fun," I know, I get it. Unfortunately, I'm an academiapilled researchmaxxer, and some of youse need to remember that the word "canon" has meaning. NOW GO HAVE FUN PUTTING THAT MAN IN A PRETTY DRESS!! 💖💖)

[electricpurrs]

tex red vs blue is insanely transgender but im the only one who sees it that way because im crazy in the head.

what if there was a past version of yourself. a woman, a wife, a mother, with long hair and a sweet smile. and she died long ago. and you are her. but you are not her. you're nothing like her, but the people who knew her desperately want you to be her, want to preserve the memory they have in their minds of the woman they loved through you. but you never asked to be her, never asked to carry the burden of someone else's expectation of who or what you should be. you have a new name. you prefer to go by this one. people remark on how weird it is that it's a guy's name. sometimes the people who loved [the past version of] you call you by your old name. they are not referring to you when they say it. you live in the shadows of someone who's long gone, and you're something different now, but you don't feel like you're ever allowed to define yourself on your own terms, to be your own person, to control your own life, because you exist solely through the memories people had of you. and the longer she has been gone for, the more desperately people try to get her back, the less you resemble her and the less you know who you are, or if you ever even got to be anything at all. what i mean is that transition could have saved him

[lesbianredhoodedmercenary]

happy father's day i'm thinking about this outis line again

I always thought it was a bit out of pocket considering this isn't too long after the events of Canto III, even with how Outis was being harsher this Canto.

But I then I remembered that Outis' son is the same age as Sinclair.

Her son, who thinks that she died in the Smoke War (the in universe equivalent to the Trojan War as depicted in the Iliad and the Odyssey) because she hasn't been home in years. Her son who cannot cry out to her. And her son, who is currently in much the same position as Sinclair regarding his self-perception and ability to fight, as Telemachus refers to himself as "a weakling knowing nothing of valor" (Book 2 of the Odyssey, line number and exact wording depend on translation).

I think this line reflects more on Outis and her anxieties about her family thinking that she's dead, as well as a reference to Telemachus experiencing his own journey to manhood, much like Sinclair.

I think there's also things to be said for the parallels between Sinclair and Telemachus, even just the ones imagined by Outis. Hell's Chicken had her showing a very paternal worry over his diet (raise your hand if your dad has ever said you'll be short forever if you don't eat right). Overall, even though Sinclair and Telemachus only share the bones of a coming of age narrative, Outis is seeing connections there because she misses her family.

As with this one. Again, she's showing her hand more than she means to. Though she's talking to Dongrang, I think she's also talking to herself. Trying to reassure herself that home will always be waiting. Dongrang, however, decides not to return, but to pursue glory no matter who he hurts in the process. The Odyssey also contrasts the pursuit of glory with the desire to return home. Odysseus has to choose humility in order to return.

Outis has been keeping up a careful persona around us, but it's slipping. Her desire to return home is seeping through even as she tries to assert herself by clinging to the glory from a war that's long since ended.

[polutrope]

"Wherefore dost thou of the uncouth race of Men endure to upbraid a king of the Eldalië? Lo! in Palisor my life began years uncounted before the first of Men awoke. Get thee gone, O Úrin..."

'Turambar and the Foalóke' in The Book of Lost Tales Part II. Written c. 1919.

"How do ye of uncouth race dare to demand aught of me, Elu Thingol, Lord of Beleriand, whose life began by the waters of Cuiviénen years uncounted ere the fathers of the stunted people awoke?"

'Of the Ruin of Doriath', The Silmarillion, ed. Christopher Tolkien. Published 1977.

So I think something that gets left out of the Thingol discourse (note: no Thingol bashing on this post please), is the textual history of the chapter 'Of the Ruin of Doriath'. Most of the published Silmarillion very closely follows drafts written by Tolkien. Not so this chapter, which Tolkien only ever got to in his first draft of the Silmarillion in the historical summary tradition as we know and love it, i.e., the 1930 Qenta Noldorinwa, where he wrote:

Thingol ... scanted his promised reward for their labour; and bitter words grew between them, and there was battle in Thingol's halls.

(Consider that the Thingol of the Narn i hin Hurin, often cited as a gentler and more complex character, was written in the 1950s.)

The only other time he touched it in more expansive prose format was in the late 1910s, when Doriath was Artanor and Thingol was Tinwelint and the Silmarils barely mattered. He again mentions these events in brief annalistic form in the Tales of Years, most lately revised in the 1950s.

502 The Nauglamir is wrought of the treasure of Glaurung, and the Silmaril is hung thereon. Thingol quarrels with the Dwarves who had wrought for him the necklace.

That's it. That's all Christopher Tolkien and Guy Gavriel Kay (hired to help write this gap in the narrative) had to work with. So they took Tolkien's words where they could get them, and here you can see they took a speech Tinwelint (later Thingol, but not the same character as he developed) spoke to Úrin (later Húrin, but also not the same character) and adapted it to another context, i.e., Thingol's conflict with the Dwarves over the Nauglamir.

In The War of the Jewels (HoMe 11), Christopher writes a revealing commentary on how he put together this chapter, and expresses regrets on how it was done. He admits, "How [my father] would have treated Thingol's behaviour towards the Dwarves is impossible to say."

Now, I really dislike the 'Christopher did him dirty' line of thinking. Working through HoMe, it's obvious Christopher did the best, most faithful-to-JRRT job anyone could have done putting his father's drafts into a cohesive narrative. But, in this case, Christopher (and Guy Kay) did tinker with Thingol's character in a way that, I think, he regretted, or at least questioned. And, unfortunately, the way Thingol speaks to the Dwarves here -- a speech Tolkien did not write -- has become a huge sticking point in fandom conversations.

Yes, it's canon that Naugrim means "stunted folk" in Sindarin. There's definitely tension and mutual disdain between Elves and Dwarves, no question about it. Does Thingol call the Dwarves an "uncouth race" and claim superiority as a lord of Elves in the published Silmarillion? Yes, he does. And so yes, it's canon and it's part of Thingol's character. But it's not the only part of Thingol's character, which is the point I always see the (shall we say) appreciators of nuance returning to.

But I've wanted to make this post about the textual history of what I would consider Thingol's worst moment for a while, since I've not seen it included in the conversation before.

"Canon" in Tolkien's legendarium is hard to define, as we know. (Personally, that's precisely what makes it so creatively inspiring to me.) But I think there are some places where it's harder to define than others, and this episode with Thingol and the Dwarves is one of them.

Take it as you will.

[phoenixcatch7]

Bit of a shame I left hp before I entered svsss because one of my favourite tropes at the time was 'dumbledore calls in External Support from different fandom during ootp and they show up to grimmauld to help (and utterly upstage everyone in the process)'.

And needless to say Sqq, at any point, would have been perfect.

Like. He's a teacher too. A scholar. Secretly from the modern world so he'd have no trouble with its intricate and mysterious workings, incidentally making himself look very cool and competent in the process. He'd have So Many Opinions. He'd incite bloody war with umbridge. He'd project his feelings for sj onto Snape with a side of commiseration for his role and fate. He'd mostly pretend to know so much less about hp than he actually does (which, hilariously, he canonically name drops in svsss, AND his system is pretty heavily implied to have previously worked in, like wow). He'd be constantly comparing Harry with lbh. He'd have a running internal dialogue bemoaning the world building, the characters, Harry's fate, the general decision making process, maybe some death of the author. Geeking out about magic. Raiding the library whenever he's free.

He might bring his students as part of an exchange, he might bring a fellow peak lord if it was a serious mission (liushen anyone?) he could bring adult lbh. Maybe sqh? Or sqh could be the messenger with the system and/or mbj.

A self aware character who couldn't live with himself if he didn't at least try to change Harry's fate whether or not he actually likes the kid? He could canon that divergence before you could say horcrux. That kind, oblivious, smoking hot exotic teacher who had people ruining their lives for him in a world that was used to people that pretty and also hated him specifically?? The hogwarts students wouldn't stand a CHANCE.

Man the scenes are coming to me so strongly I almost want to write it just as a like. Satire piece or something. Just Sqq ripping everything to shreds, accidentally or not. Diatribes on the author biases. Unintentional themes. Iffy world building choices. Nothing new, but through the lens of svsss' Sqq it'd be something for sure XD.

[mai-komagata]

re: sexy stabbings

im writing this very long meta on how galadriel x sauron and silvergifting dynamics help an audience recognize different forms of seduction in a relatable way (including queer forms of seduction, which audiences are normally blind to), and how recognizing these ships isn't about "crack shipping" but about the text using the language of sexuality/eroticism/seduction to convey concepts that would otherwise be vague and not-understandable like temptation to a metal object or wounds that cannot heal or possession by an alien being as well as concept of "men in a fantasy/magical/superhero setting are not just power levels" -- ie. the strongest man should always win. Galadriel is *integral* to this because most characters in tolkien are male and audiences are pre-disposed to ignoring emotional dynamics in men other than anger and violence -- the contrast with a female romance lets an audience be like "these people, adar, galadriel, celebrimbor are more alike than distinct". (wow maybe i don't need to write it, anymore!). But since that is taking me very long to write and i keep running into queer-erasure every day i'll just say this: the reason we don't see Sauron torture Galadriel in the same way she tortures Celebrimbor is not because his relationship with them is cosmically different (obviously its different bc they are different people). Galadriel is not more "pure" or "loved" than Celebrimbor. Neither is blameless (i.e. both were ambitious) and neither is deserving of torture (nobody deserves that, even Sauron). It's because there is different symbolism to the way they are being hurt. Arrows being used as martyrdom is a millennia old way of showing homosexuality. Stabbing is metaphorical of penetration. He intended to kill both of them for denying them the Nine. Because Sauron is bad at impulse control, he takes and believes he is wiser than he is. If he wants something he will take it and then regret that he broke his favorite thing. (note he doesn't regret killing other people he doesn't twistedly love, like mirdania, or the orcs).

Galadriel had Nenya (i.e. Celebrimbor's magic, untouched by sauron) and Elrond was able to save her (love and light win the day). Celebrimbor died as symbolic for what happened to Eregion (he was alone and eregion fell).

This doesn't mean BOTH scenes aren't meant to be erotic. The stabbing is hot and the caressing of the arrows are hot. But they are hot in a BDSM/noncon way. "Do you understand what it's like to be tortured by a god?" sorta way.

Pragmatically, though, the reason we don't see more graphic galadriel is because it would make audiences uncomfortable. You can be way more graphic with gay shit and people won't be squicked than if you are graphic with m/f abuse. As i said, a good 50-70% of the audience won't even NOTICE the gay shit and think its just standard fantasy violence. The closer you make it to outright rape, the less compelling it is, because Sauron needs to both be APPEALING and EVIL in order to understand why people are drawn to the rings of power and why it is essential to oppose it.

[disclaimer: this is not anti galadriel x sauron, it is just in favor of seeing the ship in a dark way as part of the larger narrative. When I talk about shipping them in a dark way i don't mean simply its my kink, i mean this is a dark seduction story at heart. The actors are very hot, their acting is very sexy, but the function in the larger story is to display the different ways sauron tempts and corrupts people, including galadriel, celebrimbor, adar, and how sauron himself was corrupted by melkor].

[average-hua-cheng-fan]

on hua cheng's morality and self esteem

on my first read of the book, i was actually convinced that hua cheng was this amoral asshole but that's just what he WANTS you to think. hua cheng actually cares a lot about ghost city (founded to combat the injustice of ghost persecution btw), he just downplays his achievements in front of xie lian because he doesn't want to 'trick' him into liking him. he also sees any accomplishments as a direct result of dianxia's influence so it would be wrong to take credit for them. perhaps hundreds of years of playing the part of the terrible calamity skewed his perception of himself even further.

in his introduction in heaven, they say how he would "Sometimes... carry out a massacre in cold blood, and sometimes he would do odd acts of kindness" (page 157, book 1) which makes me wonder what heaven defines as "cold blood." he visibly dislikes the man who bet his daughter's life and mentions killing several tyrants. in creating e'ming, he nearly destroyed himself in order to save those mortals. on the casino in ghost city, "If I don’t control a place like this, then someone else will. I’d rather that person be me." (page 107, book 2.) he has a very strong sense of justice that he hides under 3 million layers of arrogance.

xie lian gets the ability to tell if he is lying early in the book and sees him for who he really is. they're very similar in that they have this drive to do good in the world but think about it and go about it in very different ways. hua cheng even mentions that it doesn't matter how you go about saving the common people, and that xie lian over-complicates what is right and wrong and should do what he wants... but he wouldn't turn that logic on himself :/

anyway

**this is my reading btw if anybody wants to have a discussion im 100% down