#one of the protagonists of the actual book

[therenproject]

Why LGBTQ+ Representation Matters (And Why It’s Not Too Much to Ask)

LGBTQ+ representation matters. I mean, wouldn’t it be nice if LGBTQ+ characters were more than just a rarity? If they were given the same depth, care, and attention as other characters instead of being reduced to stereotypes or sidelined to the background?

Representation isn’t about “taking over” the media landscape. It’s about reflecting the world we actually live in, a world where LGBTQ+ people exist, thrive, and have meaningful, diverse experiences. Seeing that reality reflected on-screen or in a book is powerful, not just for us in the LGBTQ+ community but for everyone. It normalizes the fact that, hey, queer people are just people, and that’s really not a big deal.

For those who think seeing a gay or trans character is somehow upsetting or “too much,” let’s break it down a little further. Imagine growing up and watching all your favorite movies and shows but never seeing a single character that truly reflects who you are. Imagine feeling like your existence is either taboo, a punchline, or just doesn't exist. That’s the reality a lot of LGBTQ+ kids grow up with. And even as adults, it’s exhausting to keep being told, either directly or indirectly, that our stories aren’t “mainstream” enough to matter.

Now, think about how validating it is when you do see someone like you portrayed in a meaningful, authentic way. Suddenly, you don’t feel so alone. You don’t feel like there’s something wrong with you. It’s a reminder that your story has value, too.

And it’s not just about representation for us. It’s for everyone else, too. When people outside the LGBTQ+ community see more diverse characters and stories, it breaks down stereotypes and helps create understanding. It challenges assumptions like “all gay men are flamboyant” or “all lesbians are masculine.” When media shows us without only using the stereotypes, and instead as people with complex emotions, relationships, and lives, it helps the world see us for what we really are: human.

And let’s be honest: representation doesn’t hurt anyone. No one’s forcing you to watch a show with a trans protagonist or a movie where the love story is between two women. But their existence shouldn’t be a big deal either. If you’re okay with countless rom-coms about straight couples or action movies where the straight man gets with the straight woman, why is it a problem if the hero happens to be queer? If seeing a gay or trans character makes you uncomfortable, maybe it’s time to ask yourself why. Because the truth is, they’re just living their lives—on-screen and off—like everyone else.

When we have better LGBTQ+ representation, we create a world where kids can grow up seeing that it’s okay to be themselves. We create a space where ignorance and fear are replaced with understanding and compassion. And isn’t that something worth striving for?

At the end of the day, it’s not about making everything gay. It’s about making media a little more real, a little more inclusive, and a lot more human.

[dungeonsposts]

This really reminds me of the people who say they are fans of The Lord of the rings basically because it makes them feel smart or Superior. When in reality they aren't really fans of Lord of the rings so much as they are fans of looking Superior to others.

I have had many of those sorts of interactions with folks who play things like vampire the masquerade and for years it gave me a bad taste in my mouth. Whenever I would see a vtm book or see people even playing vtm. They believe that because their game is about more than kicking ass and getting treasure that it somehow made them Superior or a little bit better.

Like me and my group were childish little knaves simply pretending to play an RPG while they were the big bad grown ups playing a real man's tabletop RPG. Meanwhile, almost every time we would play at this game shop one or two of these people would always hang around our table for at least 30 to 45 minutes listening to us because we were having such a blast.

And even within the dungeons and dragons community, there is plenty of elitism as you have said. Most of it that I have experienced is edition. Elitism. You have the 3.5/pathfinder guys who think their version of the game is the be all end-all and the rest of us are again little children. I have even found myself thinking very similar things towards people who played 4th edition in the past until I actually read a little bit of fourth edition and played a couple of sessions of it and there are things about it that I really like such as the minion system, which gives bosses a bunch of little one HP minions that basically make the party feel like the protagonists from The Lord of the rings series just mowing down enemies by the hundreds

About your post about perceived elitism, would be it be accurate to say that it is the D&D players who are (or desire to be) elitist? In a delusional sense?

Because it REALLY does sound like people who want to be smart, insightful, wield knowledge like power and prestige, without ACTUALLY doing any work or going out of their depth. Because, like, so many D&D posts tend to go into rule thumping and the like, regardless of what's going on.

I wonder if that ties into the fear of being seen as ""childish"" for playing make belief without the D&D coating. "No, MOM, it's for REAL adults look I can quote RULES from a BOOK"

I have written about this before, but like while D&D players are not elitist as a rule there are many little manifestations of elitism that are pretty prevalent parts of present day mainstream D&D culture. These include the idea that the dungeon crawl, the game style that D&D best supports, is somehow pedestrian and that games must somehow offer something more to justify themselves as "real" RPGs, as well as well the perceived separation between "roleplaying" and "roleplaying." D&D culture is full of toxic memes like this that have originally arisen out of looking down at D&D and which D&D fans unironically regurgitate because they feel the need to justify that their D&D isn't that bad, old D&D which is nothing but combat and contextless dungeon-crawling.

It does also tie into a desire to play pretend with your friends but with an air of there being something more to it, while also having absolute disdain for the medium and its artistic potential. But I feel the clearest manifestations are the toxic "roleplaying not rollplaying" memes.

And yes, it also betrays a very myopic understanding of RPGs as a medium. It's all very silly.

[aethersea]

it is funny though how kids' shows are so so so careful about death, no one's ever killed except MAYYYYBE the big bad, all those random side characters are fine, here have a quick shot of them before we leave just so you know they really did survive that 50-foot drop into a stormy sea,

and meanwhile kids' books nearly all agree that it's not an adventure until it has a body count.

[gwandas]

The thing is I have no issue admitting Nesta verbally abused her sister in the beginning of the books. My issue is y’all acting like Feyre hasn’t gotten her sister back like 10x over by now. Any claim that Nesta the war refugee is abusive towards Feyre the monarch is sooo unserious like I have to laugh.

Idk why people ignore that the second her sisters turn fae, Feyre over here is talking about exercising her power as High Lady on them as if they ever agreed to be one of her subjects. Even before they turn fae, she's willing to try using mind powers on them and you want me to feel bad for Feyre because Nesta is mean? Feyre who is actually physically violent while Nesta is not?

Getting mad at Nesta stans for "coddling" Nesta while you're coddling Feyre is so asdfghjkl I'm sorry but I actually respect Feyre as a character which means acknowledging the imbalance of power. She won in the end! Nesta is doomed to serve her sister and her brother-in-law who hates her for all eternity. And she's going to do it too so she can atone for the endless guilt she feels! Congrats, take a victory lap instead of writing endless essays on chapter one of a book that came out in 2015.

[jonsnowunemploymentera]

And remember kids, the next time someone tells you, "George R. R. Martin wouldn't make Jon Snow the typical fantasy hero because that's cliche".....

Oh yes he would!

One viewer wants to know what character would you play (on the show)? GRRM: If I could magically clap my hands and become a different person, it would be cool to play Jon Snow who's much more of the classic hero. Everybody wants to be the classic hero! ABC Interview, 2014

GRRM: And the character I’d want to be? Well who wouldn’t want to be Jon Snow — the brooding, Byronic, romantic hero whom all the girls love. Meduza Interview, 2017

In fact he already has ☺️

[prolibytherium]

I never touched it but I feel like i only ever hear positive things said about song of achilles.. in (rough strokes at least) what makes it dogshit to you?

Okay it's been a while since I actually read it so some of this might not be spot on accurate. Sorry if at any point I say 'the book never does xyz' and it actually does once or twice but I think my underlying criticisms are accurate

-Patroclus is made into like this soft gentle tender quivering little yaoi boy. In the source text, he's shown as compassionate and moved by the suffering of his own men (and apparently having some medical skill, tending to the wounded in the camp), but very much invested n combat and very, very good at it (pages worth of descriptions of the guys he's killing left and right). In this, the arguably more complex character from this 8th century BC text is flattened into Being A Healer, he doesn't want to go to war he just wants to help people, he only goes because Achilles has to but he doesn't want to fight he's a HEALER he's a gentle lover NOT A FIGHTER who just wants to help he just wants to help everyone around him he HEALS while Achilles is a doomed warrior who is so good at fighting and KILLING its a DICHOTOMY GUYS!!!LIKE THE BEAUTIFUL SUN AND MOON DOOMED LOVERS SO SAD patocluse HEALER . (I Think he's specifically characterized as being BAD at fighting but might be misremembering)

-I don't remember much about Achilles' characterization I think it just makes him less of a jackass while not adding anything of interest and levels out into being mad boring.

-Not getting into the literal millenias old debate whether the mythological characters Achilles and Patroclus were being characterized as some type of lover by the original oral sources of the Iliad or its Homeric writers. We will never know. We don't even know what (if any) culturally accepted conventions of male homosexuality existed in bronze age Greece (we know much more about their descendants). But there are some interesting elements of their characterization in this direction, with how unconventional their relationship is WITHIN the text itself- Patroclus is described as cooking for Achilles and his guests (very specifically a woman/wife's job), Achilles chides Patroclus like a father, but there's also scene where Achilles' mourning of him directly echoes a passage of Hector's wife mourning her husband, Patroclus is explicitly stated to Achilles' elder, and is overall treated as his equal or near-equal, closest confidant and most beloved friend (to the point that pederastic classical Greeks would debate over who was erastes (older authority figure lover) and who was eromenos (adolescent 'beloved')- many took it as a given that this text depicted their present-day cultural norms of homosexual behavior but it existed so Outside of these norms that it had to be debated who was who). Their relationship is non-standard both within the text and to the descendants of the civilization that wrote them.

Basically what I'm saying is this book had opportunities to like, explore the unconventionality of the relationship (being presented here as explicitly lovers), explore the dynamics of why Patroclus wants to do 'women's work' (besides being a tenderhearted softboy), the weird dynamics where they take on paternal roles to each other but also roles of wives, how they feel about being this way, and just kind of Doesn't. Which I guess isn't an intrinsic fault (because it omits much of what I just talked about to begin with). it's just like.... Lame. This book takes jsut abandons everything interesting about the source text in favor of flattening it into bland Doomed Yaoi.

-The conflict that sets off the core story of the Iliad is Achilles and Agamemnon fighting over Briseis, an enslaved Trojan woman taken by Achilles as a war-trophy, Achilles spends most of the story moping because he was dishonored by his 'trophy' being taken. Achilles and Patroclus and everyone else are raping their captives, all the women in the story are either captured Trojans (or in the case of the free women within the walls of Troy, soon to be enslaved, and are slave owners themselves). Slavery as an institution and extreme patriarchal conventions are innate to the text and reflective of the context in which it was developed. You cannot avoid it.

But obviously you can't have your soft yaoi boys doing this, so the author has them capturing women to Protect Them from the other men. Their slaves are UNDER THEIR PROTECTION and VERY SAFE (and they might even Like And Befriend Them but I might be misremembering that. Briseis does though). Our heroes have apparently absorbed none of the ideals of the culture they exist in and the author seems to think "they're gay and aren't sexually attracted to their captives" would translate to them being outright benevolent (also as if wartime sexual violence is just about attraction and not part of a wider spectrum of violent acts to dehumanize and brutalize an accepted 'enemy')

In the source text, Briseis mourns Patroclus as being the kindest to her of her captors, who tried to get her a slightly better outcome by getting her married to Achilles (which probably would be the Least Bad of all possible outcomes for a woman in that situation, becoming a legal wife instead of a slave), and wonders what will happen to her now that he's gone. This is a really really sad, horrible, and compelling dynamic which could be fleshed out in very interesting ways but is instead is tossed entirely aside in favor of them being Besties. Like brother and sister.

All of the above pisses me off so much. If you don't want to engage in the icky parts of ancient/bronze age Greece then don't write a retelling of a story taking place in bronze age Greece. I'm not gonna get mad at children's adaptations of Greek myths or silly fun stories loosely based on them for omitting the rape and slavery but it is SO fundamental to the Iliad. If you're not willing to handle it, either fully omit it or better yet set your Iliad inspired yaoi in an invented swords-and-sandals setting where you can have all your heartbreaking tragic doomed lovers plot beats and not have to clumsily write around the women they're brutalizing.

-The author didn't seem to know what to do with Thetis and she made her just like, Achilles bitch mother who spends most of the story trying to separate our Yaoi Boys (iirc her disguising Achilles as a girl and hiding him on Scyros is made to be more about getting him away from Patroclus than trying to save her son from his prophesied doom in the Trojan War) until she sees how much they loooove each other and I think helps Patroclus' spirit get to the afterlife or something in the end?

-This is more of a personal taste gripe but it has that writing style I loathe where the prose feels less like a story and more like an attempt to string together Deep Beautiful Hard Hitting Poetic Lines that will look great as excerpts on booktok (might predate booktok but same vibe). It's all very Pretty and Haunting and Deep but feels devoid of real substance.

I really like The Iliad and The Odyssey in of themselves. They're fascinating historical texts that give a window into how 8th century BC Greeks told their stories, saw their world, interpreted their ancestors, etc. And genuinely I think these texts have 'good' characters, there's a lot of complexity and humanity to it.

WRT the Iliad- all of the main Achaeans are pretty fascinating, the one singular part where Briseis Gets To Talk and laments her situation is great, Achilles fantasizing that all of the Trojans AND the Achaeans die so he and Patroclus alone can have the glory of conquering Troy (wild), Achilles asking to embrace Patroclus' shade and reaching out for him but it's immaterial (and the shade being sucked back underground with a 'squeak' (the squeak kinda gets me it's disturbing and sad)), Hecuba talking about wanting to tear out Achilles' liver and eat it in a (taboo, exceptioally pointed) expression of rage and grief for his mutilation of her son's corpse, just one tiny line where the enslaved women performing ritual wailing for their dead captors are described as using it as an outlet to 'grieve for their own troubles' is heartrending, etc. A lot of grappling with anger and grief and the inevitability of death, a lot of groundwork laid for characters that could be very interesting when expanded upon in the framework of a conventional novel.

And Song Of Achilles really doesn't do much with all that. I know a lot of my gripes here are kind of just "It's different from the Iliad", I would have thought of it as mostly mediocre and forgettable rather than infuriating if it wasn't a retelling (and I DEFINITELY have strong biases here). But I think the ways in which it is different are less just a product of a retelling (of course there's going to be omissions and differences) and more a complete and utter disinterest in vast majority of its own subject matter, to the book's detriment. I think a retelling has a point when it EXPANDS on the source, or provides a NEW ANGLE to the source. This book doesn't Really do either, it just shaves off the complexity of its source material, renders the characters into a really boring archetype of a gay relationship, and gives very little else. Its content boils down to a middling tragic romance that has been inserted into the hollowed out defleshed skeleton of the Iliad.

Bottom line: I definitely would not be as mad about it if I wasn't familiar with the source material but I think it's fair to expect a retelling to Engage with/expand on its source, and I also think it's weak purely on its own merits. This book was set up to disappoint Me specifically.

[quatregats]

I've been thinking about how to push Hornblower to his breaking point recently and I think the best way to do it would be to put his compassion and his duty in conflict in a way where he could either be a good person and put his naval career in jeopardy, or be a tyrant but maintain his position. I think that these often come into conflict in the narrative, but he always finds some sort of loophole and manages to worm through without having to sacrifice either ideal. I think that it would be really fun to push him into a corner and make him choose, though. I can see both scenarios leading to interesting results.

[talaofthevalley]

I have no clue why they didn't make Amity more akin to a rival character instead of a bully. Because it would have solved A Lot of problems in regards to Amity and Willow, and Lumity becoming a thing.

The thing is that Lumity feels Super Weird at the start when Luz is trying to befriend Amity long before the girl shows any remorse for bullying Willow and making up for it. And it's not something easily brushed off when Amity is introduced being condescending and a dick to Willow. The bullying isn't something of the past, it's still going on.

Willow comes off as an afterthought in this dynamic, when she's the one who's been wronged by Amity the most. Their arc never feels like it resolves itself either, it just kinda peeters out.

If you've watched Little Witch Academia, Diana is who I think Amity should have emulated more. Diana is the top student at the school, she's stern and no-nonsense, a bit stuck-up, she comes from a prestigious family, she gets in conflict with the protagnoist, Akko, not because of bullying but because they have very different personalities and butt heads because of it. Akko considers Diana her rival, but this is one-sided on her part.

Willow and Amity could still have been friends in the past, but Amity instead pointedly ignores Willow's existence after their friendship has ended. She doesn't call out her friends for bullying Willow(that would make it seem like she cares) but she doesn't participate or encourage it. She's still not a good person, she still has to apologise to Willow, but changing their relationship from 'active bullying' to 'pretending Willow doesn't exist' would do a lot going forward for them I think. Still terrible, but more palatable in my eyes.

[just-an-enby-lemon]

I think we need more stories about how even if you are genuinally a bad person or did something truly atrocious that does not justify the suffering of the mordern Prison Industrial Complex and how prison more than punishment should be about making sure if not all at least most people can go back to society and never do crimes again.

I mean it. Most stories about how bad prison is either follows a thief that did it out of necessity or an innocent man wrongfully arrested and we should think of those people ofc. But we should also think about how prison is not supposed to be karma is supposed to help society (plus we need more assistencial programs to suport victims of violence as well asap).

[resident-wof-expert]

Snowfall: *the only IceWing who didn't change her mind after the mass-empathy spell in Book 10*

Opal's ghost, shaking her head: Tsk, tsk, tsk...that just won't do.

Opal: *repeatedly beats her over the head with empathy until she gets the message*

[tropicalcontinental]

I just wanna say I really like your collinlock16/andrewgaming67 crossover art ^_^

Gah, thank youuu 💥💥💥 (this is all a little bit jarring lol, not in a bad way of course, just kinda crazy people like my silly little blog) Have a rando snippet of a fic I'm working on as a bonus (can you guess what crossover it is :P?):

“Let's just go to the house. May have something more useful than that.” He clears his throat, groaning. It doesn't alleviate the soreness. Then promptly remembers he's recording, because that was needlessly loud,

“Sorry. I'll just cut that if I…”

He trails off, mouse flicking towards spruce planks on the ground. Another sign that says condemned in all caps. Cool,

“Okay, another useless sign--! Why is this even here? And there's fences around this place but they don't even connect to a gate. Like,”

Andrew runs up to the small area illuminated by torches, and mines a fence repeatedly, “what's the point of this if it's open over there? At least there’s torches to prevent mob spawning-- but still!”

He doesn’t consider himself a good Minecraft player, but at least he finished his little cobblestone wall perimeter around his house,

“It's like that one Adventure Time episode where the Ice King is-is trapped in that cell but it only has two bars! What are these fences going to keep out? Like oooh! Look at me, I'm waltzing right in this half-assed property line!”

He then stops his stride, mouth clipping closed because what's his problem?

[lexalovesbooks]

I love the Anna/Quinn/Max trio so much, all three of them are fully convinced they’re the protagonists of a YA fantasy series and have no issues with doing all the rule-breaking and authority-figure-ignoring that comes with that, meanwhile the adults (aka the actual protagonists) are stuck in an endless and agonizing loop of trying to impress onto them that they are too young for this and need to stop throwing themselves into danger in their attempts to help out (the kids do not listen, they will never listen, they are Protagonists)

[talesfromthebandgeekmafia]

DISTRESS DISTRESS just started Night Watch I DO NOT LIKE THESE IMPLICATIONS

[hyperlexichypatia]

Obligatory Disclaimer #1: Yes, there is a lot of misogyny in the way people talk about the "likability" of female characters. Women in stories can and should be complex, flawed, nuanced, and human, not (just) "likable" (or "sexy" or "mother" or whatever other one-dimensional trope).

Obligatory Disclaimer #2: Yes, I know that an opinion expressed by a character in a story is not necessarily being supported by the narrative itself, or the author, and that people with piss-on-the-poor reading comprehension get this wrong. Good reading comprehension means being able to tell the difference.

Now that we've got that out of the way.

Doesn't it seem like "Female characters don't have to be LIKABLE, you illiterate misogynist!" is often a Privileged Feminist way to silence criticism of... very mainstream bigoted attitudes being presented uncritically in the narrative by being put in the voices of designated "unlikable female characters"?

I love a complex, nuanced, flawed female character. I love an outright villainous female character. I love a character whose flaws and prejudices are slowly picked apart by the narrative. I do not love having the classism, sizeism, and ableism I deal with every day served back to me in Feminist Fiction.

I do not love trying to point out "Hey, this award-winning book you all love, I don't actually like the way the protagonist talks about the working-class fat man. Or the younger woman with anxiety. Or the acquaintance with a disabled child and, like, linoleum floors or something." (Why do I just have all those examples at the ready?)

And being met with "Female characters don't have to be LIKABLE, you illiterate misogynist. Try reading some Serious Literature instead of your fanfic romance YA smut beach reads!"

"Uh, okay, well, it's not so much about the character being likeable as about the way the narrative doesn't seem to challenge the character's, I must reiterate, very widely held prejudices, that makes it seem less like a depiction of a flawed character and more like an uncritical replication of those very widely held prejudices --"

"It's a LITERARY PERSPECTIVE, GOD, didn't you go to SCHOOL? Do you think Lolita is a love story? Do you think Fight Club is about how awesome fighting is?"

"Well, no, but, for example, the way the character was so emotionally abusive to her fat daughter and her neurodivergent son --"

"Uggggh, you don't understand ANYTHING, women don't have to be PERFECT MOTHERS, she's supposed to represent HOW REAL WOMEN FEEL in the face of UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS OF PERFECT MOTHERHOOD!"

"So... the unquestioned-by-the-narrative elitism, classism, sizeism, ableism, and ageism are supposed to be... going against societal expectations?"

"OBVIOUSLY! That's how REAL WOMEN REALLY FEEL!"

"I'm a real woman, and I don't feel that way."

"UGGGGGH, YOU ILLITERATE MISOGYNIST, FEMALE CHARACTERS DON'T HAVE TO BE RELATABLE!"

[nyatbinary-81]

okay. @evil-eyedlurker lets try this again since tumblr ate my last draft.

Part 1: Setting the Stage.

Before we begin, I'd like to recommend reading the book for yourself. There's a free copy here on archive.org. I'd also like to point to my previous post for some context if anyone reading this post is new here. You may also want to watch Dual Process Theory's take, as I agree with pretty much all of their arguments.

You have the appropriate context for this? Good.

Now then.

Within the logbook, there are three known writers: Red Pen, aka Michael Afton; Faded Text, aka Charlie Emily; and Altered Text, aka CC/Cassidy Afton.

There are also, however, three identifiable names: Mike, Cassidy, and Dave. Popular fanon will tell you that "Cassidy" is Faded, as well as being the Vengeful Spirit and the second Golden Freddy spirit. It will now also tell you that CC's name is Dave, previously mstaken to be Evan.

I am here to tell you that popular fanon is, as popular fanon tends to be, wildly off the mark.

As per my last post, I dismissed Cassidy as a little girl for two reasons: firstly, that she has no narrative significance before whenever the logbook takes place, and secondly, because Faded asks too many specific questions to be a stranger. The logbook came out after Pizzeria Sim, and introducing Cassidy as such an important character this late in the story is nonsensical.

But...my theory leaves out Dave. Who is Dave?

Put a pin in that for now. We'll get there. For now, let's talk about Michael Afton.

Part 2: Why?

In my last theory post, linked above, I asked a question that I found to be forgotten: why? Why does faded ask such specific questions? Why is there so much puppet symbolism? Why would CC know the name Cassidy? Why are there so many tidbits that never get mentioned?

I have some new ones today: Why is Mike here? Why are Charlie and Cassidy in his book? Why is the name Dave important?

For simplicity's sake, we'll start with why Charlie and CC are talking. Based on the imagery of the Puppet and birthdays on pages 31 and 98, as well as "The party was for you" (103), it's most likely to set up the Happiest Day, placing this before...whenever that happens. Before Pizzeria Sim, at least.

(Fig. 1: The Puppet/Happiest Day symbolism.)

So...if that's the goal, why is Mike important? Sure, he helps spell Cassidy's name, but only the last couple letters. And of all the available grids, "Dave" is spelt in the Foxy grid. The one animatronic that is associated with Mike.

(Fig. 2: Available grids.)

To me, this implies the name Dave is important for Michael to remember. But why?

...Why would Michael need to remember anything? Surely he remembers, right? I mean, he references the Nightmares and casual bongos and exotic butters and the Bite. Surely, surely that means he remembers!

(Fig. 3: Michael's references.)

Reread all his answers again, all throughout the book, knowing this takes place after Sister Location, during the time he's hunting down his father. Tell me what's missing. (Or you can trust me to tell you, I suppose.)

Mentions of his family, right?

In fact, he's not even the one to bring up the Bite. The logbook brings it up for him; he just responds to it.

Throughout the book, Mike is unresponsive and noncommittal. His doodles exist in the corners and margins, he rarely responds to either the book or Faded's questions directly, he even crosses out his own name. The only thing he repeatedly emphasizes throughtout the book is SURVIVAL. In all caps, SURVIVAL. CERTAIN DEATH.

(Fig. 4: Michael's scribblings as per the previous paragraph.)

Interestingly, he commonly writes about leaving leaving. Such as running away, locking up the animatronics, going on vacation, or dying. This directly contrasts his established desire to find his father, which implies he hasn't gotten that motivation yet.

Michael has been scooped by the time the Logbook happens. Michael, like most spirits, forgot. Forgot less than Cassidy and perhaps the MCI, for whatever reason, but forgot nonetheless.

And Charlie is here to help him remember, the same way she's helping Cassidy remember.

Specifically, she wants him to remember the name Dave, spelled out via the coordinates of the answered questions. The first one of which is answered by Michael, long before Cassidy says "I'm scared" as a potential alternate answer.

Part Three: Fandom Really Needs to Learn to Re-examine Fundamentals.

Take that pin out of "Who's Dave" and "Why is Dave important" from earlier, because it's time to answer those questions.

Okay. So, we've established a few things.

Dave is not one of the spirits in the logbook.

Charlie is pushing for Michael to remember the name Dave.

Michael has lost his memory, and has yet to gain the motive of finding his father.

If all of this is true, "Dave" must be connected to Michael's motivation: finding his father.

But we already know his name! William Afton, as established in...in......uh.........which game was it again? Sorry, hold on, let me just check my sources...*shuffling papers*...oh! Here we go! William Afton's name was established in the novels...and...and for the entirety of The Silver Eyes, he's referred to almost exclusively by his alias, Dave. To my knowledge, his first name is never confirmed in the games.

...What if we've been wrong in accepting that his name is William Afton? What if he is Dave, and it's not just an alias?

Allow me, once more, to set the scene.

Part Four: FNaF is a story. Let's treat it as such.

The date is [REDACTED], just after Michael's scooping. His corpse gets up without him, shambling around with metal for bones and vague remnants of children's souls for a pilot.

Michael himself is stuck in a security logbook; a paltry little thing given to him by his employers, like a twisted joke. He writes and crosses out his own name, and doodles in the margins for a bit.

Charlie, ever the attentive soul, joins him, bringing the Crying Child with her. Two brothers, one memory, or something like that. She begins gauging what he remembers: Does he know who he is? How he died?

Michael doesn't respond. He doesn't need to. It's not hard for Charlie to piece together what happened, especially given his shambling corpse ranting and raving about their revenge.

So, she begins to push Michael to remember his killer. She starts with the nightmares (do you have dreams), the first thing he did. She follows up with his resemblance to his father (what do you see), but Michael goes unresponsive, possibly catching on to her game. Ever the stubborn one, that. Instead, CC responds. So she switches gears, roping CC into helping her spell out both names by directing her questions to him, until Michael finally helps spell Cassidy.

Next to the wordsearch where Cassidy remembers is a mirror; one to reflect EVAD (spelled in CC answer order) into DAVE. Two brothers, one memory, as the saying doesn't go.

Michael's corpse lies cold and empty on the ground, Ennard having escaped into a gutter. He can't move on, not yet. There's only one option left for him now.

Michael looks into the mirror.

And his eyes open purple.

.

also it would be really funny if davetrap had an alias in the games timeline and it was william/will miller THANK YOU AND GOODNIGHT!

[greenerteacups]

Which is your favourite and least favourite harry potter book?

while i think Prisoner of Azkaban is the best on a technical level, my favorite is Goblet of Fire. because it's a fucking blockbuster. like, this is a book that is firing on all cylinders, trying to do a million billion things at once, and it executes the fuck out of basically everything. besides the fact that it dives deeper into character dynamics than any previous book (ron and harry! hermione and ron! hermione and krum! sirius and harry! ron and percy! etc!!), it's a massive expansion of the universe: it opens up whole new wizarding hemispheres, new countries, new cultures, TONS of new characters, the Quidditch World Cup, the Triwizard Tournament, the Ministry of Magic's bureaucratic politics, the Old Guard death eaters, and the beginning of the Order of the Phoenix. it gives us Fleur and Krum and Mad-Eye Moody and Cho and Cedric and Charlie Weasley, and the first taste of Snape's backstory, not to mention pensieves and mermaids and fucking dragons, like sorry, are you seeing this shit??

and then, finally, it gives us the beginning of the second wizarding war. it gives us the graveyard scene and Cedric Diggory's sacrifice, one of the best and most important moments in any book ever, because it's the whole story in a nutshell, and it's also the moment that the plot starts. Goblet is the crux of the entire series, and it nails almost everything. (the exception being the Moody plot twist, which... I did not love, but like: must a conclusion be "good"? is it not simply enough for a story to plow headfirst off the rails in a wildly entertaining direction, and then end? i think it is.)

so those are what I see as the Objective Goods of Goblet. my Subjective Goods are: i love a tournament arc, i love a GAME, i love a set of rules and rituals and ceremonies and opportunities to demonstrate character through contrasting behavior in response to pre-ordained challenges and rule sets. i love you Yule Ball, i love you prom arc, i love you dressing characters up in silly little outfits and making them take each other on dates, i love you teenage drama and misunderstandings and jealousy and teenybopper romantic subplots. i love you goblet of fire.