#of the narrative structure of the show

[ssaalexblake]

I'm forever astounded at all the Gallifrey/time lord society stanning that goes on in fandom? It's the monkey paw!!!! Read the small print!!!

So much of dw's canon will Entirely pass people by, literally spanning from the earlier years of classic who to the present day, if you can't identify that Gallifreyen society is rotten to the core.

The Doctor couldn't be the hero if they continued to sully themselves in a brutal empire's name.

(it's the british empire. but space. british empire bad. very bad. come on.)

[redysetdare]

Soulmates are inherently amatonormative and it's so wild how many people refuse to acknowledge that and instead go around trying to "make it more inclusive" which mostly just leads to then forcing aspec characters into a amatonormative narrative.

[the-one-that-weeps]

I find it a little poetic that, usually, plays have 5 acts, but isat has 6. And the sixth one is responsible for breaking the cycle. Like telling the viewer that "hey, it's not over. Your life isn't theatre. So go out and live."

[rafyki]

I think something that for me really sets aside Jack & Joker from other Thai dramas is its narrative structure. Thai dramas usually have a very simple narrative structure where things just keeps happening without a proper flow - I mean, something happens, it gets resolved, and then something new happen that keeps the story move; you know, all those little problems that aren't really all connected together (like, the main characters get together and then someone new appears that comes in between them; or it turns out that, idk, the family was homophobic all along, or that one of the characters actually had a complicated relationship with their family - things like these that are disconnected).

Maybe it's because Jack and Joker has a pretty solid and complicated plot, but something that I really love about it is the way everything that happens is connected, everything is a direct consequence of the characters' actions. It's like this since the first episode until the last one - the plot is brought forward by the characters' actions, everything they do has consequences on everything and everyone else. Like, Joke seeks Jack's forgiveness, so he wants to steal the ring for him, and he works with Tattoo and Hoy -> Tattoo steals the necklace which causes problems for everyone -> they need to steal the necklace back -> Jack meets Rose again, which causes everything else to happen, etc etc

Everything is connected. And I think it all comes back to one of the series' themes, which is that everything we do has consequence, that even if out intentions are good we can't predict what our actions will cause; that we live in a community and that we cannot think about ourselves only bc every time we do something that can end up influencing someone else's life. that we can't be selfish in a community.

[xbomboi]

hello Ever After High tumblr community, i humbly request your attention briefly.

so basically, i have a lot of Ever After High ideas clogging my head, ranging from misc. concepts, to plans for entire storylines/arcs. (this includes world building regarding both what we’ve already seen and what we haven’t yet seen, character arcs and development, fairytales and fairytale characters we have yet to actually meet onscreen, etc.)

i doubt anyone cares that much, but i have this vision for how the rest of the Ever After High story (in the tv continuity) would go. i have tentative plans to write this continuation using the 4 episode per story arc format that eah later switched to, while staying in line with the tone and writing style of the specials/webisodes so that it feels like it could naturally work as an official, canon continuation of the series, all while still telling a compelling narrative.

currently i have a rough outline for the first four-episode story arc that i’ve come up with (though i still have a few things i wanna workshop with it) written out. (side note: i typically write the finished draft of stuff in screenplay format, so the rough outline is written with eventually being transferred into that format in mind.)

i just wanted to post this to see if there’s any actual, palpable interest in this at all. and because my friends think i’m insane for keeping my work to myself & the select few people i’ve chosen to show it to as opposed to publicly sharing it because they at least think it’s good enough to be shown off.

so, yeah, just putting this out there incase there are people who wanna know more. i’d be willing to share the aforementioned rough outline i’ve written.

tldr; i want to write—and finish—the story of Ever After High.

[br1ghtestlight]

i saw someone on twitter saying "the ii finale is like the hfjone finale if it was actually well-written and good" which i think is sooo funny cuz for them well-written and good just means. Happy ending where all the characters r happy. and i loved both endings but they're such different shows trying to do SUCH different things and comparing them is so stupid. yes ii was angsty before they got to be happy again and yes there was no happy ending for hfjone characters cuz thats.... like literally the point of the show. Stated in bold text and everything. i cant believe people r still trashing the hfjone ending cuz they have no media literacy??

[widowshill]

the people aren't ready to hear this but angelique arbitrarily picking quentin to decide to be in love with out of nowhere, bewitching roger into marriage and then absolutely not wanting him to touch her, and constantly pursuing men's (chiefly barn's) attention only when it's clear he doesn't want her, is soooo comp het of her.

[wonder-worker]

"The division between the two families [the Woodvilles and the Nevilles] and their allies can be seen in the royal charters that they witnessed. Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville of York, while serving as chancellor and afterwards, were fairly constant witnesses to royal charters and consequently often appeared together. This was not, however, the case for other family members and friends. From 1466 to 1469, if Scales or Woodville associates like Sir John Fogge, John Lord Audley or Humphrey Lord Stafford of Southwick witnessed royal charters, then members of the Neville group, such as John Neville, earl of Northumberland, or John Lord Wenlock would not, and vice versa. Discounting the ubiquitous Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville, of the twenty-four charters issued between February 1466 and June 1469, twelve were witnessed by men associated with the Woodvilles, eight by men associated with the Nevilles and two were witnessed by no member of either group beyond the two earls at their heads and the archbishop; only two charters, both from 1466, featured associates of both families.

Such striking segregation of witnesses suggests that something more than simple convenience or availability was at play. [...] The evidence of these witness lists does show the extent of the split between the two groups from early in Edward's [first] reign and of the need for political society to work with that cleavage in the heart of the Yorkist regime."

— Theron Westervelt, "Royal charter witness lists and the politics of the reign of Edward IV"

*This is specifically applicable for Edward IV's first reign; in contrast, the charters in his second reign displayed a great deal of aristocratic and domestic unity and cohesion.

[thatscarletflycatcher]

One of the biggest problems of writing that Frasier post is that the logic of 90s comedies is not real life logic. It's not just that you can just pick which exaggerated thing to believe more (and sometimes you need to outright pick between two mutually excluding canon facts), but also the degree to which you believe anything. Which is fun for theorizing but also terrible for theorizing because to argue one way or another you need to create the fiction that the coherent narrative you are pointing out has value of truth in a universe where the value of truth is the rule of funny.

[notannascribbles]

i truly am so baffled sometimes like. were we not all rooting for adrien & marinette’s relationship to be a good thing? a healthy and beautiful and satisfying ending for both characters?? how are so many people excited about adrinette: lies and deception edition😭

[crowlore]

i remember it used to be a bit of a fandom pet peeve of mine that some people would forget that the gung ho guns and eye of michael were two separate groups with some membership overlap but then stampede came along and made the eom into a project of conrad’s backed by knives. another example of how the reboot feels like bad fanfiction.

[nyxofdemons]

four years for this show...

[commsroom]

when it comes down to it, however much i think about eiffel's memory, whatever my reasoning might be, i think there's a much simpler core explanation for why i feel the way i do. i've said before that, if eiffel did regain his memory, i would want it to happen through 'an eiffel version of change of mind' i.e. a personal inner journey where the narrative he tells himself amounts to some greater reminder, self-confrontation, and self-realization. and that's just it:

eiffel regaining his memory wouldn't be a cop out to me for the same reason that lovelace not actually dying isn't a cop out: it's not just a story beat, it's a catalyst for character development & a better understanding of lovelace as a person. eiffel has spent his whole life trying not to be the person he is, and i just don't feel wolf 359 is the type of story to let him off the hook for that, when the ending is as much about accountability (to ourselves and to others and all the ways those responsibilities overlap) as it is about hope. i think there are ways you could argue that eiffel can still be eiffel without regaining his memory, but i think i've convinced myself that the symbolic resurrection / self-confrontation and acceptance of all the people he's been in the past, in order to move forward, is the more compelling option, especially for what it parallels, and the "eiffel is still eiffel" part is non-negotiable. it doesn't even feel like a question to me.

(and it makes the most sense to me in the context of eiffel's survivor's guilt - "of course i was fine. the driver's always fine." - and tendency towards a type of self-sacrifice and self-punishment that the show ultimately denies him / that doesn't address his real problem. he thinks sacrificing himself for the people he cares about will make up for something, but it won't. having him make that sacrifice and then keep living and keep being doug eiffel, with everything that means, feels like the natural extension of constructive criticism.)

in another story, or in a more theoretical context, there are all kinds of questions you could ask about whether eiffel's memory loss means he's a different person now, but in this case... i think it's better understood in narrative terms and what it represents for him as a character than any broader philosophical conclusion about the nature of the self and human consciousness. (and it is in no way as absolute as people sometimes behave like it is, considering he still has a concept of, like... everything. but that's a whole other topic of discussion.) most importantly, i just don't believe wolf 359 is a story about ideas as much as it is a story about people, these people, and in order to (hypothetically) continue to tell a story about doug eiffel, well. he has to still be doug eiffel. one way or another.

[bumpkling]

house md has a noticeable problem with house's own philosophy and the network tv episodic story structure. the show has several patients with disabilities, neurodivergencies, differences that are socially isolating, etc., but there are also several episodes where these end up being symptoms of the patient's underlying problems, rather than being untreatable: in the socratic method, lucy is schizophrenic, except she isn't, it's a symptom of her wilson's disease. in heavy, jessica is "obese" (i use that term PURELY because the show does) except she isn't, it's a symptom of her cushing's. in merry little christmas, abigail has dwarfism, except she doesn't because it's actually a symptom of her langerhans. in remorse, valerie is a psychopath except she isn't because she has wilson's disease.

(there may be more, but these came to mind right away. and yes, even though lucy and valerie had the same underlying condition, i'm listing them both because their neurological presentations were different)

and then in line in the sand, house gives this speech about disability that seems quite progressive for its era:

HOUSE: See, skinny, socially-privileged white people get to draw this neat little circle and everyone inside the circle is normal—and everyone outside the circle should be beaten, broken and reset, so they can be brought into the circle. Failing that, they should be institutionalized, or worse, pitied.

i find it interesting to contrast this character beat with the way the show handles being different. this has (rightfully) been critiqued to hell and back, but in some episodes, the plot cannot be "resolved" until the character's differences are eradicated, to create the impression that they're "all better" and the team has successfully done their job. but in doing so, the show directly contradicts house's own philosophy. which i find fascinating.

[aliusfrater]

i need people to understand that being transgender, being transfeminine, is an entirely different thing than being made fun of for perceivably emasculating things by your older older (brotherisms)

[sisterdivinium]

Category: F/F Fandom: Warrior Nun (TV) Relationship: Jillian Salvius/Mother Superion

"It was just as impossible as wishing for a sudden refreshing shower in the outskirts of sunny, suffering Madrid during a false angel’s draught, wasn’t it? If perhaps only a bit more indecent." In unrelenting weather, it's hard not to hope for the impossible...