#okay these analogies are getting stupider and less relevant but you get it right

[juney-blues]

I refer to everything in dragon ball as "dragon ball" even the latter half of the story which was adapted into the second anime series called "dragon ball z" to let you know I'm a huge dipshit and idiot nerd

[singingwordwright]

So what do you think the A plot for 3b will be? I’m hoping whatever it is has to do with Jonathan being the main villain because I’m kind of over Lilith. Does she have a big role in the books?

Okay, I’m going to put this behind a cut for book-based potential spoilers.

Okay, so in order to speculate on where I see the show going for the rest of season 3, I sort of have to recap the plot of the books back half of the six-book series.

(forgive me if you’re expecting my usual level of snark when recapping book events; I don’t have it in me today.)

We already got most of the major analogs to City of Glass in season 2b, in the fact that Jonathan was undercover among our peeps as Sebastian, infiltrating their operations, he attacked Max (though Max didn’t die) kissed Clary, Malahi was a traitor, Valentine killed Jace, raised Raziel, and Clary used Raziel’s wish to bring Jace back. That all happened.

But what DIDN’T happen on the show was that Jonathan, because of his combination of angel and demon blood, was able to bring down the wards around Alicante, and Valentine had an army of demons he was controlling with the Mortal Cup, which he intended to use as leverage to force the Clave to capitulate. Instead, the Clave formed an alliance with the Downworld factions (aided by a rune Clary created that would allow Downworlders and Shadowhunters to temporarily share abilities) and fought a big battle against the demons, and the Downworlders used this alliance as leverage to demand seats on the High Council and a greater say in Shadow World affairs.

Those are all still important events and even though they didn’t happen when the rest of the City of Glass events happened on the show, I think they could still come into play, the Shadow World uniting to fight Jonathan instead of Valentine.

Now, what we’re seeing on the show right now in season 3a is mostly borrowed from City of Fallen Angels. The introduction of Jordan Kyle, the Mark of Cain, and Simon being somewhat related to the events which resulted in a girl becoming a vampire and that girl being obsessed with him is a CoFA plot. Lilith invading Jace’s dreams and it causing him to dream of harming Clary and Jace seeking treatment from the Silent Brothers is another CoFA plot. CoFA ends with Lilith succeeding in raising Jonathan from the dead, but Lilith is destroyed (well, banished really, like Azazel in 2x12) during that same sequence of events.

However, I suspect (or at least HOPE) what we’re seeing in the form of the Jace/Owl plotline is a heavily adapted version of the events from City of Lost Souls, where following his resurrection, Jonathan basically is the dominant personality in a warped form of the parabatai bond that Lilith forged between him and Jace. So Jace basically fucks off to parts unknown and acts as Jonathan’s accomplice for the entire book until Clary finds a way to sever the bond by stabbing him with a sword burning with heavenly fire, thus filling Jace with heavenly fire (because he wasn’t enough of a special snowflake character and oh look there’s my customary snark) that then becomes relevant later on.

At any rate, I’m HOPING we won’t see that dark-parabatai plot play out for long, if at all, because it was stupid on a number of fronts and honestly, one half-season of WE HAVE TO SAVE JACE a year is as much as I can take.

BUT what I do think WILL happen in season 3b is some version of Jonathan’s scheme from City of Lost Souls, which is to get a corrupted version of the Mortal Cup made (called the Infernal Cup) which he then fills with Lilith’s blood instead of Raziel’s, and when he makes Shadowhunters drink from it, their souls are basically destroyed and they become his Evil Minions of Evilness, also known as the Endarkened.

Now, the Edom plotline people have been clamoring for is from City of Heavenly Fire. Basically, in order to leverage the Clave into handing over Clary and Jace, Jonathan kidnaps Jocelyn and the werewolf, vampire, and warlock representatives on the Council (Luke, Raphael, and Magnus, respectively) in an attempt to fracture the Clave’s relations with their new Downworld allies so that the Clave stands less of a chance if it comes down to war.

Alec, Clary, Jace, Izzy and Simon mount a rescue mission, which leads to the survivors of this endeavor getting trapped in Edom. Magnus offers Asmodeus his immortality (which would mean his instant death) to get Alec and the others out of there. It doesn’t end up coming to that because someone else makes a trade with Asmodeus instead. 

Obviously, as I’ve said before, I don’t see that happening. We know that Magnus is consulting with Lorenzo alongside Alec as of episode 3x09, and we know that he goes to Edom willingly, and we know that he’s back by episode 3x11, because Harry was filming in the Institute and Magnus’s loft in behind-the-scenes pics and videos taken around the time they were filming 3x11. So yeah, the Edom plotline as it exists in City of Heavenly Fire isn’t going to happen.

At least not yet.

So, in answer to your question, what do I see as being the season 3b “A” plot and will it heavily feature Jonathan as the villain?

Yes. I think (hope) we’re going to skip over most of City of Lost Souls and the dark-parabatai plot. Jace and Clary as the carriers of the “A” plot will be trying to track down and stop Jonathan, who creates the Infernal Cup and starts amassing his army of Endarkened. I think we’ll see him working the the Surprise Ally he has from the books–though dear god hopefully not in the same way–and I HOPE we’ll see the second battle of Alicante (since we didn’t get to see the first one against Valentine and his demons from City of Glass) complete with Alliance rune.

I hope that we’ll see Alec and Magnus spearheading the Downworld/Shadowhunter alliance to stop Jonathan (it was Luke and Jocelyn in the book, and it could be Luke/Maryse now, except I don’t know how that would work with Maryse’s excommunication.)

I think the “B” plot is going to be focused on Magnus preparing to pay whatever IOU he writes Asmodeus when he goes to Edom at the end of 3a. Season 3b will probably end with Asmodeus coming to collect and Alec/others frantically scrambling to find a way to get Magnus out of the bargain he made.

It’s possible the season may end on the cliffhanger everyone was expecting for season 3a, with Magnus being taken to Edom to pay his debt. In the end, whatever bargain Magnus makes isn’t going to stand for long before whatever he sacrifices will be returned to him in exchange for something else (possibly the same something as in the books.)

[ijustliketorantsometimes-blog]

Just Because I don't Agree With You Doesn't Make Me a Fucking Liberal

      The internet is an amazing invention of mankind that allows people all over the world to connect to each other leading to a variety of conversations with all kinds of different people. Unfortunately  many of those conversations end up being kind of fucking stupid because regardless of age, ethnicity. sex. nationality and so on humans in general are self absorbed, biased, jack asses that have a limited understanding of how the world as a whole works and even less how to form a proper argument. Seriously we need to make debating a  a required course for public education or something because it gets pretty annoying after a while. Anyway one thing I notice that often happens particular during periods of political tension such as elections or the aftermath of a mass shooting is that people make assumptions and a lot of them which you know what they say assuming makes you an ignorant ass moron. Wait that isn't the saying? Well screw it I am sticking with it.         Now to set the stage for this particular story we shall start with a little background information. See I have habit that when someone posts something on things like facebook that is completely devoid of any logical base regardless if the conversation involves me or not I feel the need to explain why what they said was completely wrong and pointless. Think of it as retribution for me having to suffer through seeing something so stupid on my feed. Anyway so I have a facebook friend who is quite pro gun control and Liberal in general which is whatever, he can do whatever he wants. The whole topic of gun control and gun rights is something I dislike getting into because It is more often than not an issue argued with emotions rather than logic and both sides tend to be a little too extreme. I'll will tell you right now that everyone having a gun is just as poor of an idea as it being illegal for anyone to own a gun. The answer to reducing needless firearms related death probably requires ideas from both sides as well some that neither side every considers because deep down that is not their main or true goal, but that is not the point.                               So somebody responds to my friend's pro gun control status with a poor analogy. They said that if you are going to ban guns you should also ban pressure cookers since they can be used to kill a large amount of people too. I am a big fan of analogies so when people sit there after a bad one and seemed to think they said some smart shit I  feel the need to correct such confusions.                                                                                                                 Now dear reader please tell me you understand why this analogy is terrible. If you do understand please feel free to skip to the next paragraph if not then listen and I shall explain. The reason is simple, when someone uses a gun to kill a living being it is in fact fulfilling it's primary function. regardless whether you use it to hunt for food or protect your family it's function is to launch metal projectiles to pierce flesh which often leads to death. In short guns are designed to kill things or at least put some nasty holes in them. Now a pressure cooker is not, it is designed to heat up and cook things, normally food. In short a pressure cooker's design and function is to cook. Using it to kill people usually involves modifying it for a new functions to turn it into explosive though i suppose you could beat people over the head till they die but you can do that with most things.  Guns come off the shelf able to kill people once you load some ammo into it while pressure cookers come off the shelf able to cook food once you add some water. Okay are we good? well if not screw it I did my best, well not really but the best that I am willing to at the moment so you are just going have to live with your ignorance I guess.        Of course the person responded but instead of addressing why his analogy was not complete garbage or accepting that it was trash  instead mostly blabbed off the standard rehearsed pro gun rights rhetoric that most gun right advocates default to which is one of the reasons every single damn gun debate turns into a stupid pointless conversation that America has been repeating since the day I was born and that shit makes me fucking crazy. Like I wasn’t even talking for or agaisnt gun control I just speaking out about his illogical  and poor analogy. He did at some point managed to make some kind of argument among his walls of pointless and irrelevant text. Of course I quickly shoot down his weak argument or at least the parts that were remotely relevant which was not much as everything he said did not refute anything I said.  Before I knew it I was being called something along the lines of a stupid liberal and assumed a lot about my life and beliefs. Of course most if not all of them were wrong because while most people think they have the ability to infer and analyze others words and actions well people actually tend to suck ass at it from my experience. eventually the conversation broke down and became a mess. I ended the conversation explaining that nothing he said changed the fact that his analogy was fucking stupid and that he might want to learn how to argue better preferable by learning basic reading comprehension because by that point we where having two completely unrelated discussion because of his lack of ability to read and make reference to what others say.        The thing is i have seen this happen multiple times, like no joke I have ran into quite a few people who seemed to only know how to discuss with a certain framework and if you don't fall into it they have no ability to have an actual conversation. Like they assume if you disagree with them then you must automatically must be a part of some opposite group of thought or ideals. Like bro it has nothing to do with liberals and conservatives  or pro this or that. It has everything to do with you being a idiot or at least misinformed but I guess that thought doesn't cross most people's minds. there are probably a lot of reasons for this but this rant has gone on long enough and would require covering topics about psychology and sociology and honestly i am not ready for that.So to conclude just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I am fucking Liberal you stupid shallow minded fucks. P.S going try to have future entries not be so long though It honestly is going to vary based on my mood and the topic at hand