#not true for example monster*%(@&$₩ sorry

[messymoonmad]

(First of all, love your content Sis 💞, your "Just a man Antinious ver" animatic WRECKED ME)

Ahem my question is, does Zeus/Poseidon have anyone they WOULD NOT attempt to seduce/flirt with? Like mortal or Goddess. For example would they ever make a move on each other's wives? (Poseidon attempt to flirt with Hera and vice versa). Or would they try to make moves on Hestia or Aphrodite? Would Poseidon flirt with Athena? Sorry for the weirdness, but I have to ask cause poseidon seemed pretty into female Zeus

Do zeus and poseidon have anyone they would NOT attempt to seduce flirt with ?

Zeus : contrarely to what most people think, I do have standards. I'm only attracted to femininity. So women and young feminin men.

Poseidon : I like women and men and anything in between and mortals and immortals and monsters. It's hard to repulse me, you'd have to be very ugly and deformed like hephaestus.

Hephaestus : good for me.

Would you make a move on each others wife

Poseidon : I'm not interested in hera she's too angry and bossy.

Zeus : we promised not to court each others wives

What about hestia ?

Zeus : She treats me like her lost son, which ruins any attempts at flirting, honestly...

Poseidon : i tried but her response was to pledge an oath to remain a virgin forever. So it's safe to say she's not very interested for now

What about aphrodite ?

Poseidon : we fucked once or twice. No kids were born from it

Zeus : *heavy sigh* .... Priapus...

Would poseidon flirt with Athena ?

Zeus : he better not >:(

Poseidon : ew. No, I hate her. And it's true that I do sometimes sleep with my enemies, but Athena is where I cross the line. I'm too good for her anyway.

Poseidon seemed pretty into female zeus ...?

Poseidon: Oh yeah, I find him hot either way and I would definitely sleep with him if I can-

Zeus : EWWWWWWW IM YOUR SIBLING

Poseidon : SO IS YOUR WIFE

Zeus : ...

[lesbicastagna]

crossdressing is always the answer for anything. if a fictional character is missing smth they should crossdress and all of a sudden your story will be good

[ratwithhands]

I'm curious. I've seen your art and something that's come to my mind is what actually got you attached with the Subway brothers. Your narrative on their different AU forms is so unique which is what brought me to that question

Alright, rat history time.

So basically back in 2021-2022, I was working on an old OC storyline (about 3 years old by then) and I was in grade 9 so I was like “A new Pokémon game? Pfft, like I care” and just didn’t watch any of the stuff related to PLA when it dropped. I still got recommended Twitter posts about it on Instagram and I ended up seeing this one.

I tried looking up Ingo cause I was like "oh, funky design, looks like a captain or something" but I didn't end up finding anything so I didn't press further. Anyways in March break of 2022, I got bored and decided to put some game streams on in the background while I drew. I saw Alpharad's PLA video and decided to watch it for a bit when I saw Ingo.

I was like "Hey you're the guy from Twitter!" and since I knew his name now, I looked him up and found his Bulbapedia article. I found him much more interesting than the rest of the PLA cast since he had history outside PLA, and I ended up reading up whatever I could find on him. I also by extension discovered Emmet this way, which only served to suck me deeper down the rabbit hole. By the end of March break I had a fan OC and 2 AUs made with more on the way, as well as a YouTube recommended page with nothing but theory videos on Ingo and decade old Submas content.

Around May I decided to decommission my OC storyline for personal reasons, and by this point Submas was starting to occupy more of my creative work anyways. Since I didn't have my storyline to put my energy into, I started funnelling literally any story ideas into Submas. This led to nonstop content for a shockingly long time, and ofc I'm still coming up with stuff now.

Long story short, I got attached to them by accident! It was a "right place, right time" sort of thing since they came in as I was starting to get sluggish with my original content and I ended up being more interested in writing for them.

As for narratives, I am effectively playing dolls with these guys. Usually the kind of stuff that I write for them is meant for OCs, but I dumped the 60+ person cast so I put that energy into them instead.

Most AUs will either have a core theme, an out of pocket idea, or both to make things interesting. Usually I just come up with a dumbass idea like "what if we brought ReBURST back for a rerun" or "what if Emmet signed a contract with an eldritch space spider" or "what if Submas could see into the future" and stuff like that, then it picks up themes as I keep writing. For some silly examples:

Burst is based on Pokémon ReBURST and the idea of human-Pokémon fusion, but there's focus on skill, how characters misperceive it, and resentment as a result. There's also a spotlight on inferiority complexes, bottled up guilt, and blind confidence depending on which main character you look at

Journal is about a diary that helps Ingo to regain his memories, and it focuses on remembrance and regret as a result of him reading it. Spotlight on lacking awareness vs hyper awareness and the monotony of living as people around you leave

Oracle is exactly what it sounds like, with the twins being able to see into the future. It focuses on cooperation and the importance of working together, but also learning how to work alone. The spotlight's on jealousy and gratitude for this one, though the latter greatly outweighs the former in this case

I also just have AUs I made to try deranged shit for funsies, like Sapioflora, Cybernetic/Z-Λ, Team Supernova, and Idol. Those are mostly for exploring goofy ideas that may or may not go anywhere.

Right anyways basically I just saw Submas after watching PLA gameplay and found the twins more interesting to write about than the project I'd exhausted by then. The narratives are like that because the AU ideas I make are actually OC concepts that I modify to fit Pokémon specifically for these two or ideas about the two that I'd like to explore. Hope that answers the question ^^*

[gffa]

i'm sorry for the sensitive subject ask, but do you watch andor? i'm curious about your thoughts on the SA scene and the discourse that's followed it regarding vader. i feel like the scene is just more blatantly showing what already been implied throughout various star wars stories/media, and that most people (namely men) getting up in arms about it are clear "empire is cool" folks. but i'm on this weird fence about the discourse that's been dragged into the convo surrounding vader. i feel like anakin clearly is opposed to that sort of violence, given the various implications from the tcw zygerria arc for example, but i find it odd to bring vader into the conversation. vader, to me, is the twisted antithesis of who he used to be as a jedi. i feel like he clearly turns a blind eye to horrors he would have opposed when he still referred to himself as anakin skywalker. what are your thoughts?

I've been thinking about this and my gut reaction remains the same--Darth "willing to murder babies, is fine with reclassifying the Wookies as a non-sapient species so they could be used as slave labor" Vader is not suddenly going to grow a conscience about sexual assault. I don't think he's necessarily in favor of it, but I don't think he would do anything about it, either. This guy is the nightmare monster who rips his way into people's thoughts--a severe and deeply personal invasion of their very being--who tortures people with whatever method, who literally killed children because it got him what he was after. As a Jedi, Anakin was toeing the line on a lot of dark acts, but I don't think he would have used this tactic--though, I suspect part of that is because he just couldn't fathom wanting to have sex with someone that he wasn't in love with. I'm firmly on the "Anakin is demi" train and that informs a lot of how I see him and his reactions to situations in this area. But, no, I can't see that he would have tolerated this as a Jedi. That's why the murdering Jedi younglings scene is put in the movie, it's not just there for shock value, but to show that Anakin has crossed the moral event horizon. He has cemented himself as Darth Vader, who is willing to do literally anything to get what he wants, no matter how heinous or unthinkable, because the dark side is all there is. There can't be sudden exceptions to that rule or that scene loses its meaning. To say that Vader wouldn't have tolerated sexual assault is wild to me, because like. That guy participated literal baby murder, multiple genocides, mind rape, enslavement of entire species, torture, etc. But sexual assault would be a bridge too far for that guy? I love Anakin and I'm willing to give a lot of leeway to that he was deep, deep in the dark side and that twists your mind and soul, it warps you and lies to you and makes you think terrible things. And I think that darkness needs to be that deep, to make the point of just how incredible it was that he clawed his way back to the light. That's so much of why I love Anakin Skywalker, someone who tried so hard to do good, who fell so deep into the darkness, who found his way back out of those impossible depths--trying to soften the edges of that just doesn't feel true to the character for me. The dark side deadens you to compassion and care for others, just because we're uncomfortable with sexual assault, doesn't mean Vader would be. That's kind of the point of the dark side, it makes you fine with things you shouldn't be. As a note to where I'm coming from--I have a lot of personal family baggage with the violent death of a toddler, so I find Vader's murder of children to not just be a meme or a joke, I find it genuinely angering and disturbing. I still feel a visceral, physical reaction when I think about it for long. So, I get why people would have an instinctive reaction to, "Anakin wouldn't accept that!" to an horrific act being depicted in front of us. But I've had to accept that my guy would do that when it comes to my horrific act being depicted in front of me. The violent death of a child is such a defining act of monstrosity that trying to say this other act is somehow A Thing Even He Wouldn't Dare Do, just doesn't wash imo. That guy already crossed the line a long, long time ago. He'll absolutely do the things that make us viscerally uncomfortable to see depicted onscreen.

[thydungeongal]

What are some good RPGs that would say are good examples of being queer?

Sorry it took me a while to reply to this!

Anyway, my favorite capital Q Queer RPGs are Monsterhearts and Dungeon Bitches. Monsterhearts is the subtler of the two, being basically a game about playing a CW style teen drama with monsters that is basically a genre mashup of Vampire Diaries, Ginger Snaps, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Jennifer's Body. The queerness is very much textual but it's more so thematic and symbolic. The game's themes are queerness and adolescence and growing up, the vehicle it uses to explore those themes is monsters, because queer teens often get made to feel monstrous for having feelings and desires that fall outside of the norm.

Dungeon Bitches by @cavegirlpoems on the other hand is much more explicit about its queerness, in the sense that the queerness is also explicitly and unambiguously written into the fiction of the game. It is a game that is very much grounded in the dungeon-crawling genre of fantasy but that asks the question of "what kind of people would actually get into the dungeon-crawling life" and answers that with "people who are otherwise marginalized in so-called civilized society, especially queer women." It's very much a game that uses the dungeon crawling lifestyle to present a dialectic between the "safety" offered by the closet and normative society, and the precariousness and danger and the undeniable thrill of living as your true self. It's a game that is resonant to me not only as a fan of dungeon crawl type games but also as a trans woman making her first small steps towards transition. It's a fucked up game for fucked up dolls.

There are plenty of other queer games too, including Thirsty Sword Lesbians, Queerz, Girl by Moonlight, Dream Askew, and many many more. I think Thirsty Sword Lesbians is the most well-known and I do own it and at the end of the day it kind of leaves me cold. It feels like it's trying to play things a bit too safe and at the same time I feel its politics of identity are just messy.

Anyway, this is something I've been thinking of for a while, but since I've been thinking a lot about queer games not only in terms of "does it have the Gay" but also in terms of "does it thematically intersect with questions of queerness," I have to mention Eureka: Investigative Urban Fantasy by @anim-ttrpgs.

So okay having been involved in the community surrounding Eureka for a while there is something about that game that appeals to LGBTQ folks, especially trans women. Now, Eureka has of course been written primarily from the point of view of disability: the main writer is disabled and the game makes it explicit that many of the supernatural elements, including the monster investigator types, are symbolic of the experiences of the disabled. But because the experiences of marginalized groups tend to intersect a lot, many queer folks also end up seeing themselves there. Vampires in Eureka are written very much from a Christian folkloric point of view so that many Christians may see them as inherently anathema even while they may still maintain their faith; something that many queer Christians may resonate with. Similarly, one of the monster types, the Thing from Beyond, is all about being an alien shape shifter trying to navigate a society that is ultimately scary and alien to them. There's also Living Dolls up in that thang!!!

There is more to Eureka that makes it appeal to many queer readers, but the main thing is this: it is written from a point of view that is ultimately empathetic of the "freaks" and outcasts. And while it does approach these topics from the point of view of disability, it is also very open to queer readings.

And this is sort of a source of gentle ribbing within the Eureka community: that the lead writer ends up writing stuff that resonates deeply with his friends and fans of the game, a significant number of whom happen to be trans women, and that this has to be pointed out to him constantly. It's really sweet and funny. (Fun anecdote: when I first came out as a trans woman he approached me in my DMs asking "So you're a chick now?" followed by a 👍 emoji.)

And I think that's a fun contrast. Many games that ultimately do not touch upon queerness in any meaningful way in their themes or gameplay will still get lauded as queer because they will use identity as a coat of paint or a part of their marketing. And at the same time someone writing candidly about their experiences of living with disability via metaphor may end up accidentally writing something that actually resonates with the lived experiences of queer people.

[olympiansowl]

One thing I find so interesting about the PJO fandom is how they actually accepted how Rick fucked up 90% of the goddesses. Even when he uses a version of a myth that specifically talks about men being idiots, he villainizes women. Like, no one complained about how fucked up is that he used the story of Hephaestus trying to rape Athena and turning it into a “poor guy cried bc he was rejected by a girl” thing?

The true story is literally Hephaestus trying to rape Athena, she fights him off but his semen falls into her skirt and cleans it with a piece of cloth and tosses it into the ground (earth, which is Gaia) and from there, Erictonio is born. And Athena raised the child as her own even tho he was the product of the assault she suffered. The guy ruled Athens.

Rick turned it into Hephaestus falling in love with Athena and crying on her lap, making her reject and KICK him plus being disgusted by the tears and the dirt.

He also used all of Ovid versions he could possibly find to fuck Athena up. Arachne doesn’t happen with Greek writers and Medusa was never cursed (or assaulted) when we talk about the OG Myth. She was already born a monster and Athena only helps Perseus kill her bc yeah, Medusa killed people.

Also, Medusa’s version by Ovid is a lot alike Cassandra of Troy story, and let me tell ya, Cassandra was cursed but it wasn’t by a woman. And when she was raped by Ajax, Athena made sure that he didn’t made it back to Greece.

Now I’m gonna talk about Demeter. Demeter, who had her daughter kidnapped, raped and imprisoned, and was turned into the typical “mother in law who hated son in law bc she thinks her daughter could do better” when yeah…she has all the right to feel angry bc her daughter was KIDNAPPED.

Artemis doesn’t hate men and her followers also don’t hate men. Feminism isn’t about hating men.

Aphrodite. I cannot even describe how dirty they made Aphrodite’s children. Like be fr one of her children helped build what it would’ve been Rome. He was a fighter. And her cabin there is just so different of what she is truly like. They should have a lot of other powers.

Also, a lot of women from the books follows the same stereotype of “omg I hate makeup it’s so girlish and I’d rather fight” like you can be feminine, wear makeup and STILL FIGHT. One doesn’t erase the other.

Another thing, but this one is about MOTHERS! I truly cannot understand the way Rick creates his women. I’m serious tho. Like, I’m sorry but sometimes it seems that his thing some goddesses (Athena, for example) are personal. The “abandoning Athens” thing, the “should’ve chosen Poseidon”, the way he wrote her as being cold towards her kids…in one of the versions, Athena was the one who saved Dionysus from Hera. She raised a child and made him a king even though he was the product of her almost rapist. She was there helping heroes all along. She fought for Odysseus for ten years.

Also, this fandom is incapable of seeing the difference between Minerva and Athena. Minerva gave Annabeth the mark, Athena had nothing to do with this. Annabeth is her favorite daughter, she made her architect of Olympus, protected her through her journey to find Luke and Thalia, disobeyed her fathers orders trying to help to find Annabeth, made battle plans with her and all…and she always claimed all of her children.

I think people just don’t like her bc she doesn’t trust Percy. And she shouldn’t. I love him, but Athena IS the goddess of wisdom after all and as such, it would be pretty dumb to trust a demigod that won a battle against the god of war when he was only twelve. Not to mention that everyone kinda thought the “preserve or destroy Olympus” was on his hands. And he tortured a goddess…I’m sorry but she was pretty much right. Wouldn’t trust someone that had the power to fuck me and my family up either. She dint made the choice based on “omg I hate my rival and his children” even more so bc she was trained by one of his children and bunch of grandchildren. She made the choice based on what she thought was less risky.

If she was so against Percabeth, I can assure you she would’ve killed Percy and probably wouldn’t even suffer much consequences. She admires some things about Percy but she was right about his flaw. And she also helped him during one of his quest to go to college. Does she loves the idea of the relationship? No. But that’s bc she is precisely the opposite of love. She doesn’t make decisions based on what her heart says, but on what her brain says. If she succumbs to the heart, then she would seize to be goddess of wisdom, reason and all of what she values. That’s why she vowed to never marry.

And, as Helenist, I do not take the myths that seriously bc when we talk about religion, I have a clear mind that those myth were made by humans who used the gods as a tool to justify some of their actions, and I hate almost all of the retellings that those authors do, but is so wild to see how much power they have on society bc now I cannot see anything about the gods without someone saying shit about them. But I do know all about the myths and I gotta say, doesn’t make much sense to use a Roman author to talk about Greek Gods. He made them dirty. Also doesn’t make much sense to use this versions of Ovid but still change it to make it more sweet for the men. Poseidon and Athena didn’t spend that much time beefing, they even have a city together (Troezen) and she definitely doesn’t hate his children. Her best friend was literally his grandchild.

Safe to say that y’all should probably question Rick on how he treats women bc I was seeing the PJO series (the cast is amazing btw, safe to say that Leah/Annabeth is my fav) and by the looks of it, saying on how he changed Athena’s personality one more time, I legit think that Annie won’t jump to save her friends on season 3, she will probably be pushed by her mother or whatever.

Another thing: apparently only the women that like and have a friendship with Percy are treated as cool. But that’s on the fandom, not the author.

I forgot to add one thing and I’m gonna fix the grammar later but the “this is for children” excuse isn’t really valid considering that we saw Gabe being aggressive with Sally, we also saw Ares being a jerk to Clarisse (which also doesn’t make sense) and the story clearly states cheating, fights, death and a lot of other terrors. If you’re gonna use a rape version of a myth bc you chose to fuck a Goddess up, then you should state that the man is to blame. In the books we see Medusa saying she was Poseidon’s girlfriend/lover…she was his lover on the og myth, not in the version Rick chose. In the version that he chose, she was clearly raped. But he erased that and replaced rapist with boyfriend. He could’ve chosen to do another path if he didn’t want to talk about sexual abuse, I can tell y’all a hundred of ways this could go, but he chose this path and changed it, favoring the man. Again.

He could’ve gone with the theogony and said what was there that basically is: she was a monster, BORN a monster, daughter of other two monsters, no one wanted to get close to her, but he did. They slept together in a camp of flowers.

Athena only enters the story wayyy after this. And, as y’all can see, no curse. Yet, he chose to go with the rape version were Medusa is a maiden, loyal to Athena, gets raped on Athena’s temple by Poseidon and Athena curses her. And what did the author do? He made this: Medusa, loyal to Athena, fell in love with Poseidon and they did things on her temple. Athena cursed her. Again erasing the men’s fault.

The hate on Athena doesn’t make any sense at all. Y’all love some other male characters that don’t have a single sense of responsibility and possibly did everything wrong in the book. I saw people condemn Athena for her treatment of Deadalus when the guy literally killed his nephew bc he was more praised than him. And Athena gave him a mark that burned and did some shit to teach him a lesson. Poseidon wanted a trial to avenge his rapist son that was killed by Ares bc he tried to rape one of Ares daughters. A RAPIST. And Poseidon is treated like and angel bc what??? He likes Percy? Is his father and got him a gift? And Athena is being hated bc she isn’t his number one fan and her Roman part decided to give Annabeth a Mark? And mind you she’s just like that with him bc she knows more than everyone else and knows that he is dangerous. A good guy? Yes, Percy is the most amazing guy. Still dangerous. Still had the power to torture a goddess and win against the god of war. And she doesn’t dislike him, she dislikes his relationship with her daughter. And even so, she didn’t stop the relationship. So yeah I won’t ever get why the women always get more hate than the men considering this.

Again, as a Helenist, I don’t take the myths seriously when I talk about the religion in general bc the Gods are superiors. They don’t have human flaws. But, as someone who knows about the myths, is safe to say I hate those stories that uses myths like that and turns it against the Goddesses and make them out to be the worst ever. All the gods deserved way better than what they got with those retellings.

[morbidlcve]

bunny love ⋆.ೃ࿔* (❀)

˚₊· ͟͟͞͞➳❥ pairings: natasha romanoff x reader

˚₊· ͟͟͞͞➳❥ word count: 0.91k

˚₊· ͟͟͞͞➳❥ requests: OPEN

˚₊· ͟͟͞͞➳❥ warnings: mentions of the red room, Natasha’s past, insomnia (if there’s anymore please let me know!)

˚₊· ͟͟͞͞➳❥ AN: hi so… i’m sorry for the inactivity, i had a lot going on and college was kicking my ass, i wrote something short yet cute and i hope you like it!!

Natasha Romanoff is not one to love openly. For most of her life, she has been reclusive and private. She is not one to gossip about what she just did, who she just saw, or what she saw someone doing. She’s a mere bystander in her own life if you will. Her life now (in stark contrast) still hangs within her. Her need to be closed off, untrusting, and unworthy still hangs within her.

Until she met you (clique, I know), it’s true. You brought her out of her shell and taught her that needing and wanting love is okay. It was rocky, the start of your relationship; many times when you wouldn’t talk for a few days, hence the reclusiveness, but she’d come back to you. You wouldn’t hold it against her, heavens no. After all she went through and the significance of the relationship you were building with her held, no, you were patient and accepting. Even if it did make you a little overwhelmed with the mood changes now and then, it was all worth it.

Every sleepless night you would endure, either waiting for her to come home or staying up with her when her thoughts got the better of her, working out (spectating) until she got tired and you took her back to bed. Every little argument you guys found yourselves in. They were minor things really: Natasha returning from a mission injured and not going to medbay, leaving you to insist that you take care of her. Natasha becoming adorably annoyed at you when you don’t send her a good morning or goodnight text (she was based in Europe, and it was still 3 AM for you), so you would have to make it up to her with lots of cuddles when she got back. Little things really.

Over time, especially with your unwavering patience and understanding) Natasha would slowly grow to become ever so slightly bolder out of the comfort of her or your room. For example, she would make your lunch and leave you a little note in the container (and crucify anybody if they were to eat it), rest her head on your shoulder when you guys were in the living area or sit on the opposite end of the couch with her feet in your lap. Baby steps.

Behind closed doors, Natasha was the most delicate person you would ever encounter, truly.

She would be so unbelievably tentative and nurturing and not at all who people think she is.

Her soul lost to the monsters who tainted it and ruined her girlhood, not giving her a chance to fight for herself. She told you she wouldn’t change what happened to her; it has made her so much stronger, and she wouldn’t be where she is today if it hadn’t been for her history. She embraces it. She’s stronger now, and it won’t happen again.

Through all the terrors of her childhood, you’d think she’d be afraid of any form of intimacy or contact. She was at first, she wasn’t clear of your intentions, she was weary. But when you came into her life, full of love, admiration and patience, she backtracked. Of course it scared her, she’d never known love like the one you were more than willing to bestow upon her. But over time, it became a sanctuary for her, a haven, a place where she could shed her masks and her troubles and show her vulnerability, and it was such a beautiful sight.

It was amazing to watch the woman who used to ghost you every time you dropped a compliment become the woman who would come home to you and just lose herself in you. Whether it was gentle loving she needed or reassurance, you were her rock.

She learned that not all people were out to get her, not everyone holds her past against her.

Her favourite way to show you how much she loves you and how much you mean to her is definitely acts of service. She will be the one to make your coffee in the morning, just how you like it, ensure that your towel is warm after your shower, and put your bookmark in your book if you fall asleep reading.

She knows you better than you know yourself. After years of watching people’s behaviour, she picks up on subtle changes in your demeanour or mood. You must believe that she will do anything in her power to help you if she can.

When you truly got Natasha to feel comfortable with you, she would always be on you, your shadow, unless she got called away. Her hand was always in yours, her hand on the small of your back, her hand on your thigh, her hand combing through your hair. You were her life source. You fell first, but you cannot deny that this woman fell harder.

She cannot express how much it means to her, you waiting for her, not giving up on her, she owes you her life, she would say, you saved her for the better.

You also have your downs like every single other person in the world, and it’s Natasha who pulls you back to her. You could be crying, and she would wipe your tears away, her forehead pressed against yours, hands cupping your face, telling you that you’ll face it together.

You were made for each other, so opposite yet so the same.

[drdemonprince]

People who are concerned about problematic or triggering kinks often couch these concerns in highly reasonable-sounding reactions and make what seems like highly reasonable requests.

They point out that lots of the most upsetting kinks may remind a person of their worst traumas, for example, and that these kinks, when played out, can resemble actual abuse so closely that the kink communities may attract bad actors who genuinely do wish to do harm.

They may allow that some kink practitioners are themselves survivors, and tolerate taboo kink's existence insofar as the correct people find it therapeutic, but they'll qualify that it should always be made clear what is fantasy and what is reality.

But ultimately, people making these arguments will assert, there are certain things that a simply beyond the pale -- across the line and wrong.

A lot of people say these things earnestly, and mean them, and I don't think they intend any harm in saying them. And in comporting their own personal lives, these guardrails may more or less apply well for them. But where it becomes a problem is in issuing dictates about how other people should act, and how kink friendly spaces should run, and how people who hold taboo kinks ought to be regarded.

Does it protect victims to view their kinks as inherently morally suspect?

Does treating a person who is forthright about their taboo desires and who has found a consensual venue to express those desires as more potentially predatory than your random vanilla cishet man help us make kink spaces that are safe?

Is it *true* having a fetish or kink makes a person more dangerous than someone that doesn't?

What's an acceptable reason to have a taboo fetish and what's an unacceptable reason? Who decides?

How might linking sexual practices that are already highly stigmatized and associated with queernees to abuse lead to increasing those group members' vulnerability?

Are communities where vetting of sexual play partners and frank discussions of consent are routine somehow more dangerous to be in than the vanilla world, where such things rarely happen?

What is a suitable way of flagging that fantasy is fantasy and real life is real life? Who decides?

Are certain real life enactments of a fantasy always wrong even when they are consensual, simply because they look bad/intense?

Which practices are okay to partake in in real life?

Who decides? Who decides? What happens to the people who violate those other people's rules?

You don't have to be interested in every kink and you don't have to visit all kink spaces. It's fine if you find certain fetishes disturbing, gross, triggering, a deal breaker, or reminiscent of your own abuse (and I'm really sorry that those things happened to you). But those entirely legitimate feelings in NO way translate to a need for anyone to place restrictions on how others play or fantasize or comport themselves in their own spaces.

Not all spaces will be for you, but please understand that for those of us who are kinky and queer, 99.9999999999% of all social spaces in the world are already viscerally violently NOT for us. Let us have our spaces to pretend to be puppy dogs and kitty cats and siblings and vampires and home invaders and monsters and rape victims and rapists and murderers and dead bodies and babies and robots and dolls and video game characters and everything else.

You don't have to like it but you don't have the authority to say we don't get to do it, and nobody should.

[cassandra-silver]

*That* scene in Six Hundred Strike is not about vengeance, it's about vulnerability ... because the Vengeance saga isn't about vengeance

To think all of this started because I was trying to determine why it feels so natural to read intimacy into the torture scene in Six Hundred Strike ... See, I'm personally not someone who reads an angle like this into things easily, but this time I found myself doing it too. And I just needed to know why.

It just made no sense for a while, because if you look at it superficially, it shouldn't make sense; it's a freaking torture scene. But I don't know, somehow, I must have felt that there was something there ... and I think I figured it out.

See, the reason why it feels so natural to read intimacy into this scene is because ... it actually is incredibly intimate. Not in an actually sexual way, but more so in a, "Imagine you were suddenly able to read someone's mind, and they yours" kind of intimacy.

It's really easy to just assume Six Hundred Strike is literally about vengeance, but it isn't. Now, please stick with me for a bit because we are going on a bit of a tangent here, but I promise we'll get back to this eventually.

The tangent I want to explore first is (as you've probably seen in the title) that the whole Vengeance saga is, ironically, about the unnecessity of vengeance and how destructive grudges and resentment can be. Think about it:

In Not Sorry For Loving You, Odysseus lets Calypso rant and then walks away without confronting her or accusing her, even telling her what she wants to hear one last time. I already discussed why Odysseus is an incredibly non-judgmental, non-resentful person in my Monster essay, and here is another excellent example of that.

Charybdis (I'm skipping Dangerous because he doesn't encounter any enemies there) is the first "monster" enemy he leaves alive since Polyphemus (Scylla doesn't count because he still "kills" for the sake of getting past her, even if it's in the form of sacrificing his men.) While one might argue that he had no choice since Charybdis is virtually impossible to kill, I think placing this encounter here might be an intentional choice especially since it differs greatly from the way that Charybdis is in the Odyssey. There has to be reason behind this change.

In Get In The Water (my beloved 🫶) we are explicitly shown that Odysseus offers Poseidon (the god who killed his whole fleet and is responsible for most of his suffering) forgiveness. The reason Odysseus has to torture him in the first place is Poseidon's own refusal of this mercy—he's literally torturing Poseidon in order to make him finally release the grudge because he has proven that this is the only way to actually get through to him. It actually shows perfectly that Poseidon's own inability to release his resentment became his downfall in the end, disproving his own "ruthlessness is mercy upon ourselves" motto as his own ruthlessness bit him in the a** this time, as I talked about in this post.

... And there is no resentment or vengeance in Six Hundred Strike either.

On one hand, it's easy to assume phrases like "For every comrade, every one of my friends, almost all of whom were slaughtered by your hand" or "How does it feel to be helpless? How does it feel to know pain?" indicate resentment, but ... not really.

We already know that Odysseus doesn't want vengeance, or he wouldn't have tried to lead from the heart one song earlier.

And then make yourself aware of something else: Not once during any of their encounters is Odysseus actually accusing or resenting Poseidon for anything.

"Almost all of whom were slaughtered by your hand" is an objective fact. It's just true. Someone vengeful may have said "I'll make you pay for all of those you slaughtered" or "All of their deaths are your fault" ... Odysseus just says, "for every comrade". He doesn't specify what he's doing for his comrades ... and it sure as hell isn't that he's (trying to) cause Poseidon pain or harm for them (which would be vengeance.)

For every comrade, he is fighting Poseidon, in order to finally reach his goal. For every comrade, he's doing everything that he has to do in order to get home, and in order to end this feud.

And then we get to the torture scene and it's ... actually so incredibly freaking intimate. Because it's not actually about vengeance, it's not about accusing Poseidon, or making him pay, or suffer more than necessary. If Odysseus were speaking from a genuine vengeance angle, he'd probably sound more like, "You killed my friends, now you pay for it. You did this to me and now it is your time to suffer." But he doesn't.

The torture scene in Six Hundred Strike is actually ... just another, much more extreme, repeat of Odysseus' lines from Get In The Water (my beloved 🫶): "Aren't you tired, Poseidon? It's been ten years, how long will this go? We're both hurting from losses, so why not leave this here and just go home?"

Odysseus tried saying it nicely ... now he's stabbing him with his own trident, hoping, practically begging, that he finally listens and accepts. Just lets them both go home.

And the thing is, this time, he isn't just saying "we're both hurting from losses" ... All you have to do is repeat to yourself Odysseus' entire monologue that he unleashes while he's stabbing him in a calmer, gentler tone and you'll see that what he is actually yelling out at Poseidon are all of the reasons why he is hurting. Sharing with him all of the pain that he probably hasn't shared with anyone ... ever.

"How does it feel to be helpless? How does it feel to know pain?" -> How does it feel to be vulnerable? I've felt vulnerable for so long without anyone to talk to or because no one truly understood me or what I'm going through.

"I watched my friends die in horror, crying as they were all slain. I heard their final moments, calling their captain in vain." -> This is why I am hurting. These are my losses.

"Look what you turned me into. Look what we've become." -> Look what I could be if I actually followed your lessons. Is this what you really want? Why can't you understand the harm that this is causing both of us?

"All of the pain that I've been through ... haven't I suffered enough?" -> Aren't you tired, Poseidon? It's been ten years, how long will this go? We're both hurting from losses, so why not leave this here and just go home?"

"You didn't stop when I begged you." -> I asked you to "Stop this, please" mere minutes ago. You didn't stop. That's why I'm doing this.

"(You) told me to close my heart. You said the world is dark. Didn't you say that ruthlessness is mercy?" -> I'm doing what you said you wanted me to do. Do you really want this? Do you really believe this? Can something like this really be mercy?

The first time I heard this, I firmly believed that Odysseus was actually crying during this part, and honestly, I believe that to this day. The canon visuals don't show us his face and I want to almost say that's intentional.

This whole scene is about vulnerability. Forced vulnerability, in a lot of ways, but raw, real vulnerability nonetheless.

This isn't just a torture scene; it's actually one of the most intimate scenes we've ever seen Odysseus share with anyone on screen. Seldom do we see him this honest in front of others (the vulnerable scene with Circe at the end of There Are Other Ways is the only other example I can think of.) Otherwise, all of his honest, raw songs are his solo songs (Monster, Just A Man, ...)

But here, Odysseus is essentially using the symbol of Poseidon's invulnerability—his trident—to force him into the most vulnerable position that he's probably been in centuries, if not ever ... and at the same time, he is being incredibly vulnerable himself. He's opening up to Poseidon in a kind of absolute way that we have actually never seen him open up to anyone.

... If that is not intimacy in its rawest, most painful, uncomfortable, and yet cathartic forms, I don't know what is.

As if that weren't sad enough... The saddest part about all of this is actually Poseidon's "Monster!" ... Because it tells us without a doubt that he is actually incapable of receiving or understanding those words from Get In The Water (my beloved 🫶). He is incapable of understanding vulnerability. All he can see is the "monstrous" act that accompanies it because that is something he knows and recognizes.

Although I believe, in the end, Odysseus did get through to him, and did get him to drop the grudge, I believe it happened on a kind of subconscious level rather than genuine acknowledgment or agreement. It's further proof of how Odysseus is capable of growth while Poseidon isn't (yet.)

Poseidon remains stuck in his ways, in his "ruthlessness" philosophy, because he isn't ready to acknowledge its flawed nature, essentially making it his own cage that prevents him from growing or moving forward. Meanwhile, Odysseus is walking away, walking ahead.

... Part of me almost wants to claim that he started begging Odysseus to stop so quickly not because of the physical pain, but because of his words. Because the vulnerability forced on him was hurting in a way that physical injuries, even from his own trident, never could. Because deep down, very deep down, he must've ... "felt" what Odysseus wanted him to understand and feel anyway.

Remember how I compared this type of intimacy to the sudden ability to read someone's mind before? I chose this analogy for a reason. What is intimacy if not using the very source of a god's invulnerability, essentially putting yourself into his divine shoes, doing what you know he would do to you ... in order to force him to connect to your mortal feelings and pains, even if he can still not truly understand them?

Here is where we see, for the first time, maybe ever, what even Odysseus and Athena couldn't do (yet), and the core reason why their partnership broke apart: a mortal and a divine genuinely understood each other's perspectives ... saw themselves in the other, even if only for a moment.

Given all that ... there is absolutely nothing I can say against kicking my feet and giggling excitedly over this scene.

[soft-pine]

spn20rewatch: 2.12 nightshifter

i am so utterly, completely undone at dean's overwhelming fondness for ronald! for his enthusiasm and effort in tracking and trying to identify what's been doing the robberies and murders. for his relief and excitement when it's proven he's not crazy. for the fact that even without tools or training, he knows something's wrong and wants to stop it!

and... this episode is when sam loses me. the first time i watched supernatural, i had such a soft spot in my heart for both of them - especially solidified by 1.02 where dean just acts as bait and sam puts his body between the kids and the monster. beautiful, i thought, what they are willing to give to strangers. i was all in.

but this. sam's distain for ronald and his gaslighting of ronald's effort and research just because he wasn't a "real" hunter (whatever that means) or that his theory about what was behind the attack sounded stupid. it took me aback and unsettled me. i don't like the layers underneath it that carry on through the show. i don't like sam's harshness at societies' human outcasts. i don't like sam's pattern of withholding the truth about monsters from the people around him- even when it poses a direct threat to them - justified by a benevolent kind of paternalism. this is hands down the harshest reaction either of them have ever had to a "civilian's" interest in the supernatural. and i just don't understand why. (i know there's this fanon belief that they are always lying to protect people from the knowledge of the supernatural but it's really not true. and in fact i have too many examples of them straight up telling people the truth to list them all.)

it's interesting to note that dean's reaction to the cops at the open of the episode:

DEAN: Friggin' cops. SAM: They're just doing their job, Dean. DEAN: No, they're doing our job, only they don't know it, so they suck at it. 

is mirrored in sam's assessment of ronald:

DEAN: Nah, I just think it's a little creepy how good of a Fed you are. I mean, come on, we could have at least thrown the guy a bone. He did some pretty good legwork here. SAM: Mandroid? DEAN: Except for the Mandroid part. I liked him. He's not that different from you or me. People think we're crazy. SAM: Yeah, except he's not a hunter, Dean. He's just a guy who stumbled onto something real.

except that dean's right. the cops aren't helping; and ronald is!

and i'm not being dramatic when i say that sam is pretty directly responsible for ronald's death. his response to ronald's (correct) pattern identification is to tell him what all the cops have been telling him - that he's crazy and wrong. so what does ronald do, all alone with only the puzzle pieces and no allies? he tries to stop the monster in the only way he knows how. imagine what could have happened if he had allies from jump?

dean's face when ronald dies is gut wrenching...

his little speech....

DEAN: Sorry, Ron. You did a real good job tracking this thing, you really did.

he's known him for maybe like 24 hours and he's already nicknaming...

dean's care for ronald is so genuine and so sweet. it's interesting in an episode where dean has maybe the most "flirtatious" (for lack of a better word) moments with separate women out of the whole show that his most emotional connection is with ronald. though he flirts with franny who is clearly interested in him, and though he hypes up checking out a woman's butt on the security cam for sam, and though sherry is very taken with him at the beginning, none of them get dean making faces full of awed delight like this.

"he's not that different from you and me." i think dean and ronald should get to watch star trek, get high, and make out. i think dean should get to run his hand through ronald's hair!

anyway shoutout to one of the top two telling sam to shut up moments in all of spn...

and shoutout to victor henriksen, don't worry dean's gonna be looking at you like that soon enough!!

[differentnerddiplomatopera]

Odydio? Maybe 🤔

*Preparing for Palamedes Stoning

*Odysseus is rambling about something or the other*

-“Odysseus”.

-“Diomedes”.

*Diomedes looks towards Palamedes

-He was dead the moment he arrived on your shores. No. Oh no. Poor man, he was dead the moment he was considered to bring you to the war effort.

-Hm.

-Odysseus. When will you kill me?

-I’m sorry?

-Early apologizes, I see. When will I meet my end, disgraced, bleeding at your feet? 

-Are you mad?

-Mad enough to understand you. 

-Hm. 

Pause.

-I will tell you.

-Tell me what?

-When you have become so insignificant, such a pathetic person. No more than a man, less than a dog. A shell of a once powerful man. I will tell you.  And then, then I will ruin you. Because you became but an empty shell of maggots and death; nothing behind those eyes, nothing meaningful coming out of your mouth. You would have become so foolish. If you try to screw me, I might add. Crossing me, as you and I have seen, is the worst mistake man has made since men were made. I will tell you Diomedes. You would have become so dull that when I ruin you, you wouldn’t know. There. Happy?

-Very.

-Are you not going to respond in kind? Diomedes, don’t tell me that head of yours is-

-You love talking, do you ever shut up? 

-If asked nicely. And given something special to earn my silence.

-I do. Have something, an idea of what I'd do.

-Please share.

-Hm. Fine. Odysseus, in the time I’ve known you, I have observed your love for games, tricks, schemes, machinations and the like.

-Oh wow-

-Hush. I will ruin your games. Tear your silks, shatter your masks, crash your festivities. I will slow down my pace, always two steps behind you, and I will drag you down. I will ruin your games, Odysseus. I will rip back the layers, peel the curtains, pray to Apollo to shine his light to expose for who you truly are. Who you are, what you are, I have no clue. But you must be dreadfully disgusting to hide behind those masks of yours. Ones that I am starting to differentiate and mark down into memory and notice. 

Be proud of me Odysseus.

-I am.

-Quiet, an interesting look on you.

*Palamedes screams fill the background.

-Promise it. Diomedes, swear it to me.

-There it is. 

-What?

-Your face, unabashed, naked. 

-You’re the monster and the most beautiful creature, Diomedes.

-The poison and the remedy, all the same, Odysseus.

-All the security I lack, and all the danger I crave.

-Somehow constant, even though you are ever changing.

-Delectable, tasting of the most beautiful wine with the sharpest after bite.

-Uncomely, vile you are, Odysseus. And the most beautiful, perfect example of magnificent I’ve ever laid my eyes upon.

-Hm.

-I never stood a chance against you.

-And it would still be true, even with your poison down my throat.

-Poison you would let me feed you, because  for some reason, you choose the option of suffering.

-Projecting your traits on me isn’t a good look.

Long Pause

-I would. Let you. He didn’t stand a chance.

Pause

Neither did I. 

Found a post, can’t find the original poster. If you find it, please let me know. Here it is.

[yarrayora]

What's your thoughts on Tsubaki and his subclasses, mainly their backstories?

i think it's great that his motto was "violence will never betray you" you know what tsubaki also have said before? that he would never betray anyone, which circles back to his statement that he's a tool of violence

and yet everyone who uses violence to try to fix things gets punished by the narrative, which ofc includes his own subclasses, with the most prominent example being their failure to stop mikuni from enacting his plan

anyway i think their backstories are great, especially higan's. if he didn't commit suicide, nobody would have believed he wasn't the one who killed his lover, because the community already judged him a criminal

higan himself clearly agrees with the perception that he's a criminal who can't help but to commit atrocities. that's why his animal motif is a scorpion, referencing the scorpion and the frog fable where the scorpion says "I am sorry, but I couldn't help myself. It's my character."

except we know that's not true. he didn't kill tsurugi and shuuhei because shamrock asked him to stop. he convinces himself he's an irredeemable monster because he knows his lover was killed because of him and he still carries that guilt with him.

[havinganervousbreakdownrn]

Hi, about the Jonathan Sims Jane Prentiss post. Elaborate.

Omgomgomg someone asking me to talk about the Magnus Archives!! Thank you thank you so much!!

Sorry, this took a while, I knew I wouldn’t be able to get out all of my thoughts on my phone, so I had to look for my laptop :)

While listening to the absolutely incredible MAG 032 – Hive, I felt that there was a strong connection between Jon and Jane’s stories (obligatory mention on how similar their names are because it feels weird in my brain).

One of the main things that really stood out to me was during Jane’s desperate recollection of her memories, Jane tries to figure out when she first heard the song of the hive, she starts with when she saw the webs in the corners of the attics entrance (which she mentions having a “different song to the hive”, I love this detail!!) to as far back as her childhood, being told by her classmate about blackheads, which she says “that image lodged in my mind forever”, she mentions as a child, she used to watch the worms climb to surface after the rain.

I think she was hearing the song then, it was hard to come to that as a definite belief for me due to her muddled her perspective from already going through the process of becoming what we would see her become, as she seems to switching from “Jane” to “The Hive” in the statement. But my belief of it comes from her breakdown over the ant infestation at her job, I want to link this to Jon’s fear of spiders, because well obliviously you don’t get such intense breakdowns over a thing that brings you comfort, so intense she was fired. Both of them gained intense fears from their childhood, Jane must’ve been terrified from that reaction, but I think if Jane experienced something on the same scale as Jon, the Hive, which we already know could dizzy her memories, could suppress that, maybe giving her relief as a manipulation tactic?

Bringing this back to Jon, there is his experience from A Guest for Mr. Spider, which we know gave him a massive fear of spiders (and very not-dooming guilt), his reaction after reading Jane’s statement is.. Well bad. I think that it is because of the similarity from Jane’s damning since childhood to his own is what causes him to admit he KNOWS it’s not natural, he can’t will up the denial that he hides behind, he even needs to lie down after it.

BUT here’s the thing that drives me up the wall about these two! I think it’s not the similarity in their stories that connects them, it is their fates. Imagine if, you are behind five, maybe six, walls of denial and logic, to keep yourself safe from your guilt and your fears, hearing a story so close to what is your own and she turns into a monster.

Mr. Jonathan “I don’t want to a mystery” Sims, who has spent a while hunting down her story to solve her mystery, only to find that.

Jane’s fears from her childhood found her and used her body to kill and terrorise.

Jon must’ve been terrified, we’ve heard about two people dying from the worms Jane spreads and it now becomes clear she has basically become possessed. She literally has that noted as one of what seems to be one of her last true actions, before she is used as a tool. Something I want to point out now because I see so many people forget this, Jon cares about others so much. The most clear example being in Colony, when after getting Martin’s statement, he lets him stay in the archives, even saying he’d asked Elias for extra security, he doesn’t turn away from the truth (that he KNOWS) and scoff at the man he is currently trying to intimidate. No, he helps him because one of the main traits of Jonathan Sims is he really cares, no matter how scared he is. The idea that he could be turned into a monster and used to kill and terrorise people as well to be turned into something he’s not (sorry, that is a hunger games reference.) is horrific, especially as he was currently being attacked by the person who’s story he can so strongly relate to.

And then when he does inevitably turn into a monster, just like him and Jane were always going to, what should be horrifying him (just like Jane’s song and the fact it made her feel loved despite it all) felt so right.

It was always going to end like this for Jon, for Jane, and Carlos Vittery from Arachnophobia but there’s less to say about him (sorry).

In short, I say Jane’s memory haunted Jon for a long time, I think his breakdown in season 2 makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons, but also because of the fear that he could be turned into a monster just like her, and that chance were going up higher every day, since he was eight.

[very-straight-blog]

idk if anyone has said this, cause I'm new to your blog, but I hate how they all say Aegon is the worst monster to ever grace the face of the earth because of 1 damn scene with Dyana. He didn't even r@pe anyone in the books! Now people are escalating and making stupid sh*t up, saying he r$pes Helaena, abuses her, like wtf???

Also how about Khal Drogo in GOT? He is a mass r*pist. He literally said he orders his men to r%pe every women from the tribe they conquer and kill every men. And they worship the damn man. They romanticizes his relationship with Dany (who he r$pes initially) and mourn his death. Like wtf man? This guy is a literal monster and people are ok with it, while Aegon allegedly assaulted 1 maid and he is the worst monster to ever live and deserve the worst of the worst. They even rejoice at Jahaerys' death! People are sick!

Sorry for the vent.

Aegon's sins are constantly being exaggerated. Any rumors become true, but only in his case. Even if you look at the other characters from the show or the book, seriously, I've seen people say that, for example, Daemon didn't want to hurt his wife, she fell by accident and it was mercy that he killed her. Like ffs. It's time to get used to it in the fandom.

[monk-of-figaro]

Sabin's Last Thoughts

I'm sorry, I have to share my heartbreak. This is heartbreaking. Don't read further if your heart is at risk of breaking. Consult your doctor before attempting to suffer through heartbreak.

To preamble an unnecessarily excessive amount, a few years ago kwhazit did an AMAZING, step-by-step, detail-filled, context-providing, wonderfully thorough translation of FF6. Like, the entire game: dialog, attack/item/spell names, monster data… more information than you'd find even in an official strategy guide. Should they ever read this, I hope they know how much I appreciate all of the work they put into it, and it's quickly become one of my primary reference sources when looking up something about the game.

Since they included translations of everything, they also included translations of events that may not usually be seen in the game, such as when you fail at a critical event.

FOR A HEARTBREAKING EXAMPLE, it's possible for Sabin to die in the World of Ruin if Celes does not rescue the child from the collapsing house in Tzen quickly enough.

The incredible @wsancho wrote an excellent post on this particular event and how the "failure" option was softened from the original concept (again, consult your doctor before reading their post about twin death).

In the final version of the game, failing to rescue the child in time results in a "fade to black" Game Over screen. Nothing is shown, only implied (thank god).

What I didn't know until recently, [no] thanks to kwhazit, was that Sabin has last lines before the house collapses on him.

The two translations definitely have different emotional weight to them. To me, Woolsey's translation's conveys Sabin meeting his demise with confidence (dare I even say optimism?) that Edgar will continue fighting to rebuild the broken world.

Meanwhile, the original Japanese text (through kwhazit's translation) feels more layered to me, like he is pushing himself to the very last moment, is angry at himself for not being stronger, and is feeling regret that he won't be able to help Edgar anymore.

So, not only does Sabin die, but his final thoughts are always about Edgar. 😭💔

Outside of the game, I think this would be true for Sabin in any scenario, even if he lives to be 94 years old and dies peacefully in his sleep.

And although I love the idea that Edgar's final thoughts would be about Sabin, I'm actually not sure they would be. Again, as wsancho points out in one of her amazing braindump posts, Edgar tends to focus on the welfare of his kingdom above all else. Because of this, I think that his final thoughts could be about Figaro and its future. Perhaps it depends on how well he thinks the kingdom would do without him.

None of this matters, of course, because as far as I'm concerned, both brothers live forever and ever and never die or suffer and are always happy and thriving END OF STORY.

[nalyra-dreaming]

Hi and thanks so much for answering my last ask, don't mean to spam! but i have some follow up questions based on your answer, so is the audience generally meant to operate like the majority of season 1 and 2 was false?

What i mean is if none of the most "incriminating" for a lack of a better word scenes never get revisited, drop scene, train scene, murder scene tower scene, trial, even antoinette with the finger thing, which I think unlikely surely we will receive some additional information for maybe a couple of these, but if we don't, the audience should still not take the events of season 1 and 2 at full face value? Doesn't that sort of invalidate the story itself? If it can all be questioned and disputed the impact for the watcher who was invested time and feelings for two seasons sort of becomes less? If that makes sense ?

And it would sort of be a cop out, for me personally I think either the series has taken a huge gamble taking 6 years to show the audience the complete story and it must land to pay off or it may remain with answers left unanswered and plot holes up to questioning in perpetuity and up to everyone's interpretation for better (or if you go on Twitter 😬) for worse?

Sorry for talking your ear off about this, promise I won't bother you anymore with this, thanks for reading 😊 😀!

Oh, bother away :)

The thing is... this is how the books are as well.

And so I do NOT see this as a "cop out", I do NOT see it as something out of the... let's say ordinary.

The Vampire Chronicles are a series of books written by vampires. Most of them by Lestat, some by Louis, Armand, Marius, and others.

They are their stories.

These stories are written for an effect, for a reason. Louis' told his to Daniel after Claudia's death, still angry and yet still numb, mourning. Lestat wrote his in an answer to Louis'. Queen of the Damned is a collection of stories of various characters but written down by Lestat. And so on.

This format includes in and by itself and per default a point of view. And an intention.

Of course these characters hide some of the truth within the narrative. Of course Armand tries to soften the blow of what he did with Claudia in his own recount of the tale. For example. Of course of course of course :)

The show does the same, in its own way.

They have Louis tell the story to Daniel, and he does it again, for a reason. Daniel has been called Louis' lifeline for the second interview, meaning Louis tried to break himself free with it. Because Louis knew deep down that some things were not true. But Louis also presents Lestat as a monster because he's angry.

I said it before, I expect the end of 1x05 to be revisited, quite often, actually, and expanded with more context. Not "just" the drop, but the dragging and spoken parts as well - and the aftermath. None of that fits with what we saw in the revisit after all, and Sam's words and the "possessed" comment in 1x06 rang all the bells in my head wrt Amel.

The train scene cannot have happened as shown, they don't need to revisit that, they gave us all the clues already.

The hotel scene and Antoinette's finger cannot have happened as shown either, there, too, the clues are all there.

Murder night... well, we have the not-fitting diary already as a clue - the only other person who can give account of that - and, more importantly maybe, DOES so in his own book - will have his say in season 3. There I do expect a revisit, yes. Maybe only a short one. But I BET Lestat has a thing to say about that.

The trial will be revisited in some kind of way as well - Sam already mentioned that he has the "original" of that scene/script, and there was an extra back then, who mentioned they filmed more than made it into the season. There, too, I expect Lestat, the only other participant still living after all, to have a word to say about it. Again, which he also does in his book.

IWTV seasons one and two... are a tale. An influenced tale.

The discrepancies are riddled through it everywhere - all the dates are off(!), the stab wounds in Lestat's back in 1x01 disappear, Lestat cannot have talked to Louis' mind directly in 1x02, and I seriously doubt that he would have let his brand new fledgling run out into the sun. Seriously doubt it.

And so on.

They put clues in - like the hair styles, imho.

So no, you can not, in fact, take the story at face value.

But... forgive me, but that is the nature of a tale, isn't it?! Louis urges Daniel in 1x01: "Let the tale seduce you." He spins a tale, with what he knows and wants to tell. Louis does not lie per intention, not really, though he, too, lies ((Jacob literally says “not everything Louis says is a lie“ in this video)) ... but more to himself - and to shield Claudia... and to downplay his part in it. He literally says that in episode 2x07, that he "played down his role in it" (Claudia's turning)... he shields himself from the ugly truth and regret and pain, and that is... all too understandable I think.

This is not a "normal show", where you can take what you see as the absolute truth. For one - what exactly did we see? Louis' imagined scenes? Or Daniel's?? Probably Louis', but you get what I mean, right? Because it was a mix of memories and edited tale, not a neutral retelling! We do NOT have a neutral camera! We have a tale within a tale, and "supposedly" only the reunion scene had a neutral camera, according to Rolin!

For ME that is part of the attraction - and frustration :) - of the show.

Because I get what you mean, but it is a HUGE puzzle also, and we will never get a "this was the truth" mock-up.

All we will get are point of views and more tales, documentaries, and, if we're lucky, neutral cameras in the "present time". And hints.

Lots and lots of hints.

And, tbh, this is very much in line with the books, to come back to the beginning.

Lestat, in his book, literally says it to the "reader": "Read between the lines."

You have to.

You have to look at what's unsaid, and what does not fit. You have to note what is out of place, or what has reasons that character does not want to talk about. This holds for all of the chronicles.

And this plays into this vexing, ingenious and frustrating show :)

I ... feel quite confident though promising that the eventual rewatch value will probably be immense. :)))

Because if they continue like this????

Show of the fucking decade.