#parallels abound

[intermundia]

anakin's unparalleled ability to become his vehicle, to extend his awareness beyond himself and mesh into the machinery, disappearing into the environment of the race, the battle, and reacting with superhuman unconscious skill and reflex—it's been with him since he was a small boy, and continued well into his adulthood. it's a fundamental part of who he is and how he interacts with the force, the context in which he excels beyond any other human. he doesn't have to reason, doesn't have space to even think, he's bigger than himself and transcends himself. qui-gon told him to feel, not to think, to trust his instincts, and this is the only time when that advice is completely valid. when anakin is a pilot, he can forget about all his pain and fear. he can be really free to lose himself, and become the best version of himself at the same time.

[queerlyillogical]

watching daredevil while reading kafka’s the trial in english is like just how much can we ponder catholicism’s effect on justice and morality systems

anyways matt murdock my beloved but he is sometimes a dumbass and josef k. my beloathed why are you the way that you are

[motherfracker]

Seeing the flashbacks in 7x08 sheds so much light on Bobby's reaction to certain events during the show.

Why Bobby treated Buck the way he did after the embolism and the lightning strike. It's so much more than just being an overprotective parental figure.

The first time was this fear that Buck was in front of him, coughing up blood and dying. He couldn't save his father from dying, but he sure as hell could try and save Buck. And do everything in his power to make sure he remains safe and out of danger.

And then Buck dies after being struck by lightning. He sits vigil at his bedside when he knows there's a chance that Buck will pull through. And he comes back. So, of course, this time, he treats him differently; of course, he overcorrects and gives him slack in his performance review. Of course, he's gentler with him, Buck woke up. And his father didn't.

Their relationship is so complicated in that Bobby views Buck as his son, but he's also been this trigger for the trauma he experienced with his father.

What happened with his father also reinforces why Bobby struggled so much with being unable to sus out Jonah. Bobby put on his headphones and didn't notice what was happening in his house.

[stonergirlfilmcanon]

sorry going back to this people don't understand how fucked gaslighting is and generally downplaying the impact of psychological abuse. but think about how isolated Louis is. think about how long it's just been the two of them. think about how Armand fosters a paternalistic "protective" environment for Louis (his "prison of empathy") and how the one time we see Louis try and access emotional support outside of Armand pre-Dubai (making a connection with Daniel, speaking about Lestat and Claudia, two big no no zones for Louis and Armands relationship) he is brutally punished. Think about how Louis can't trust his own mind, how he needs Daniel (just like he needed Claudia with Lestat) to help make sense of his story. Like... how must that feel? To be trapped in a cage, being told it's for your own good and believing it. Internalizing the victim blaming (apologizing to Armand for his attempt, "I don't consider myself abused") because to realise after so many years together, a relationship predicated on running away from a past abusive relationship, that it is the same would be for it all to crumble. Which is why the finale is so powerful -- it's Louis taking back control.

basically . can we talk about this shot.

[petrichal]

Personally I want Garp to break out with Pudding and punch Blackbeard as hard as he can as a last Fuck You before he can finally keel over but maybe that's just me

[deliriousblue]

mama gogo, episodes 1 and 2

was sufficiently convinced by the flashback sequence that i had to go check mdl to convince myself it was at all plausible for ciize to be playing her daughter (cris was 41 at the time!)

she's so concerned about her trophy that she doesn't even notice them taking her daughter's laptop (you can see it in the scene! barely.) and when she complains about losing not just the thing she needs for school but all the work/data stored on it annie scolds her for having been born. women who kinda suck 💖🥰

and at the same time. the instrumental cover of ว่างอยู่ playing as she’s trying to put the broken award back together. oh girl ://

perhaps i'm particularly knee-jerk about this coming off the crimes of theory of love, but feeling very fond of jojo for making earth the star host of pramote's club. yeah <33

this fantasy sequence where she's staring at the half-naked men on the stage but what she's coveting is the money. i love herrrr

i. feel like i'm learning things about jojo tichakorn. twice is a pattern you know?

on a slightly different tangent. walk with me for a second here. annie telling auto to use his talents to work for her at a job centered around attracting/seducing people or else she’ll send him back to prison. now where have i seen that before.

went in with appropriately low expectations of the dancing quality overall (they're. fine. it's really not the point) but toptap is genuinely quite enjoyable to watch!

also love every single one of her outfits but especially the way much of her styling very much parses to me as from a couple decades ago. forever tied to a past version of yourself when you felt like you were powerful and important i know that's right !!

[frodothefair]

I like Eowyn, Eomer and Faramir now too.

Bring on the protective, slightly patronizing brother-sister dynamic. So anime.

Bring on the mutual healing and romance in a hospital ward. Not sure if that’s anime but it’s still one of my favorite things.

[amateurvoltaire]

For the past six years or so, this graph has been making its rounds on social media, always reappearing at conveniently timed moments…

The insinuation is loud and clear: parallels abound between 18th-century France and 21st-century USA. Cue the alarm bells—revolution is imminent! The 10% should panic, and ordinary folk should stock up on non-perishables and, of course, toilet paper, because it wouldn’t be a proper crisis without that particular frenzy. You know the drill.

Well, unfortunately, I have zero interest in commenting on the political implications or the parallels this graph is trying to make with today’s world. I have precisely zero interest in discussing modern-day politics here. And I also have zero interest in addressing the bottom graph.

This is not going to be one of those "the [insert random group of people] à la lanterne” (1) kind of posts.  If you’re here for that, I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed.

What I am interested in is something much less click-worthy but far more useful: how historical data gets used and abused and why the illusion of historical parallels can be so seductive—and so misleading. It’s not glamorous, I’ll admit, but digging into this stuff teaches us a lot more than mindless rage.

So, let’s get into it. Step by step, we’ll examine the top graph, unpick its assumptions, and see whether its alarmist undertones hold any historical weight.

Step 1: Actually Look at the Picture and Use Your Brain

When I saw this graph, my first thought was, “That’s odd.” Not because it’s hard to believe the top 10% in 18th-century France controlled 60% of the wealth—that could very well be true. But because, in 15 years of studying the French Revolution, I’ve never encountered reliable data on wealth distribution from that period.

Why? Because to the best of my knowledge, no one was systematically tracking income or wealth across the population in the 18th century. There were no comprehensive records, no centralised statistics, and certainly no detailed breakdowns of who owned what across different classes. Graphs like this imply data, and data means either someone tracked it or someone made assumptions to reconstruct it. That’s not inherently bad,  but it did get my spider senses tingling.

Then there’s the timeframe: 1760–1790. Thirty years is a long time— especially when discussing a period that included wars, failed financial policies, growing debt, and shifting social dynamics. Wealth distribution wouldn’t have stayed static during that time. Nobles who were at the top in 1760 could be destitute by 1790, while merchants starting out in 1760 could be climbing into the upper tiers by the end of the period. Economic mobility wasn’t common, but over three decades, it wasn’t unheard of either.

All of this raises questions about how this graph was created. Where’s the data coming from? How was it measured? And can we really trust it to represent such a complex period?

Step 2: Check the Fine Print

Since the graph seemed questionable, the obvious next step was to ask: Where does this thing come from? Luckily, the source is clearly cited at the bottom: “The Income Inequality of France in Historical Perspective” by Christian Morrisson and Wayne Snyder, published in the European Review of Economic History, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2000).

Great! A proper academic source. But, before diving into the article, there’s a crucial detail tucked into the fine print:

“Data for the bottom 40% in France is extrapolated given a single data point.”

What does that mean?

Extrapolation is a statistical method used to estimate unknown values by extending patterns or trends from a small sample of data. In this case, the graph’s creator used one single piece of data—one solitary data point—about the wealth of the bottom 40% of the French population. They then scaled or applied that one value to represent the entire group across the 30-year period (1760–1790).

Put simply, this means someone found one record—maybe a tax ledger, an income statement, or some financial data—pertaining to one specific year, region, or subset of the bottom 40%, and decided it was representative of the entire demographic for three decades.

Let’s be honest: you don’t need a degree in statistics to know that’s problematic. Using a single data point to make sweeping generalisations about a large, diverse population (let alone across an era of wars, famines, and economic shifts) is a massive leap. In fact, it’s about as reliable as guessing how the internet feels about a topic from a single tweet.

This immediately tells me that whatever numbers they claim for the bottom 40% of the population are, at best, speculative. At worst? Utterly meaningless.

It also raises another question: What kind of serious journal would let something like this slide? So, time to pull up the actual article and see what’s going on.

Step 3: Check the Sources

As I mentioned earlier, the source for this graph is conveniently listed at the bottom of the image. Three clicks later, I had downloaded the actual article: “The Income Inequality of France in Historical Perspective” by Morrisson and Snyder.

The first thing I noticed while skimming through the article? The graph itself is nowhere to be found in the publication.

This is important. It means the person who created the graph didn’t just lift it straight from the article—they derived it from the data in the publication. Now, that’s not necessarily a problem; secondary analysis of published data is common. But here’s the kicker: there’s no explanation in the screenshot of the graph about which dataset or calculations were used to make it. We’re left to guess.

So, to figure this out, I guess I’ll have to dive into the article itself, trying to identify where they might have pulled the numbers from. Translation: I signed myself up to read 20+ pages of economic history. Thrilling stuff.

But hey, someone has to do it. The things I endure to fight disinformation...

Step 4: Actually Assess the Sources Critically

It doesn’t take long, once you start reading the article, to realise that regardless of what the graph is based on, it’s bound to be somewhat unreliable. Right from the first paragraph, the authors of the paper point out the core issue with calculating income for 18th-century French households: THERE IS NO DATA.

The article is refreshingly honest about this. It states multiple times that there were no reliable income distribution estimates in France before World War II. To fill this gap, Morrisson and Snyder used a variety of proxy sources like the Capitation Tax Records (2), historical socio-professional tables, and Isnard’s income distribution estimates (3).

After reading the whole paper, I can say their methodology is intriguing and very reasonable. They’ve pieced together what they could by using available evidence, and their process is quite well thought-out. I won’t rehash their entire argument here, but if you’re curious, I’d genuinely recommend giving it a read.

Most importantly, the authors are painfully aware of the limitations of their approach. They make it very clear that their estimates are a form of educated guesswork—evidence-based, yes, but still guesswork.   At no point do they overstate their findings or present their conclusions as definitive

As such,  instead of concluding with a single, definitive version of the income distribution, they offer multiple possible scenarios.

It’s not as flashy as a bold, tidy graph, is it? But it’s far more honest—and far more reflective of the complexities involved in reconstructing historical economic data.

Step 5: Run the numbers

Now that we’ve established the authors of the paper don’t actually propose a definitive income distribution, the question remains: where did the creators of the graph get their data? More specifically, which of the proposed distributions did they use?

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to locate the original article or post containing the graph. Admittedly, I haven’t tried very hard, but the first few pages of Google results just link back to Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, and Tumblr posts. In short, all I have to go on is this screenshot.

I’ll give the graph creators the benefit of the doubt and assume that, in the full article, they explain where they sourced their data. I really hope they do—because they absolutely should.

That being said, based on the information in Morrisson and Snyder’s paper, I’d make an educated guess that the data came from Table 6 or Table 10, as these are the sections where the authors attempt to provide income distribution estimates.

Now, which dataset does the graph use? Spoiler: None of them.

How can we tell? Since I don’t have access to the raw data or the article where this graph might have been originally posted, I resorted to a rather unscientific method: I used a graphical design program to divide each bar of the chart into 2.5% increments and measure the approximate percentage for each income group.

Here’s what I found:

Now, take a moment to spot the issue. Do you see it?

The problem is glaring: NONE of the datasets from the paper fit the graph. Granted, my measurements are just estimates, so there might be some rounding errors. But the discrepancies are impossible to ignore, particularly for the bottom 40% and the top 10%.

In Morrisson and Snyder’s paper, the lowest estimate for the bottom 40% (1st and 2nd quintiles) is 10%. Even if we use the most conservative proxy, the Capitation Tax estimate, it’s 9%. But the graph claims the bottom 40% held only 6%.

For the top 10% (10th decile), the highest estimate in the paper is 53%. Yet the graph inflates this to 60%.

Step 6: For fun, I made my own bar charts

Because I enjoy this sort of thing (yes, this is what I consider fun—I’m a very fun person), I decided to use the data from the paper to create my own bar charts. Here’s what came out:

What do you notice?

While the results don’t exactly scream “healthy economy,” they look much less dramatic than the graph we started with. The creators of the graph have clearly exaggerated the disparities, making inequality seem worse.

Step 7: Understand the context before drawing conclusions

Numbers, by themselves, mean nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I could tell you right now that 47% of people admit to arguing with inanimate objects when they don’t work, with printers being the most common offender, and you’d probably believe it. Why? Because it sounds plausible—printers are frustrating, I’ve used a percentage, and I’ve phrased it in a way that sounds “academic.”

You likely wouldn’t even pause to consider that I’m claiming 3.8 billion people argue with inanimate objects. And let’s be real: 3.8 billion is such an incomprehensibly large number that our brains tend to gloss over it.

If, instead, I said, “Half of your friends probably argue with their printers,” you might stop and think, “Wait, that seems a bit unlikely.” (For the record, I completely made that up—I have no clue how many people yell at their stoves or complain to their toasters.)

The point? Numbers mean nothing unless we put them into context.

The original paper does this well by contextualising its estimates, primarily through the calculation of the Gini coefficient (4).

The authors estimate France’s Gini coefficient in the late 18th century to be 0.59, indicating significant income inequality. However, they compare this figure to other regions and periods to provide a clearer picture:

Amsterdam (1742): Much higher inequality, with a Gini of 0.69.

Britain (1759): Lower inequality, with a Gini of 0.52, which rose to 0.59 by 1801.

Prussia (mid-19th century): Far less inequality, with a Gini of 0.34–0.36.

This comparison shows that income inequality wasn’t unique to France. Other regions experienced similar or even higher levels of inequality without spontaneously erupting into revolution.

Accounting for Variations

The authors also recalculated the Gini coefficient to account for potential variations. They assumed that the income of the top quintile (the wealthiest 20%) could vary by ±10%. Here’s what they found:

If the top quintile earned 10% more, the Gini coefficient rose to 0.66, placing France significantly above other European countries of the time.

If the top quintile earned 10% less, the Gini dropped to 0.55, bringing France closer to Britain’s level.

Ultimately, the authors admit there’s uncertainty about the exact level of inequality in France. Their best guess is that it was comparable to other countries or somewhat worse.

Step 8: Drawing Some Conclusions

Saying that most people in the 18th century were poor and miserable—perhaps the French more so than others—isn’t exactly a compelling statement if your goal is to gather clicks or make a dramatic political point.

It’s incredibly tempting to look at the past and find exactly what we want to see in it. History often acts as a mirror, reflecting our own expectations unless we challenge ourselves to think critically. Whether you call it wishful thinking or confirmation bias, it’s easy to project the future onto the past.

Looking at the initial graph, I understand why someone might fall into this trap. Simple, tidy narratives are appealing to everyone. But if you’ve studied history, you’ll know that such narratives are a myth. Human nature may not have changed in thousands of years, but the contexts we inhabit are so vastly different that direct parallels are meaningless.

So, is revolution imminent? Well, that’s up to you—not some random graph on the internet.

Notes

(1) A la lanterne was a  revolutionary cry during the French Revolution, symbolising mob justice where individuals were sometimes hanged from lampposts as a form of public execution

(2) The capitation tax was a fixed head tax implemented in France during the Ancien Régime. It was levied on individuals, with the amount owed determined by their social and professional status. Unlike a proportional income tax, it was based on pre-assigned categories rather than actual earnings, meaning nobles, clergy, and commoners paid different rates regardless of their actual wealth or income.

(3) Jean-Baptiste Isnard was an 18th-century economist. These estimates attempted to describe the theoretical distribution of income among different social classes in pre-revolutionary France. Isnard’s work aimed to categorise income across groups like nobles, clergy, and commoners, providing a broad picture of economic disparity during the period.

(4) The Gini coefficient (or Gini index) is a widely used statistical measure of inequality within a population, specifically in terms of income or wealth distribution. It ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates perfect equality (everyone has the same income or wealth), and 1 represents maximum inequality (one person or household holds all the wealth).

[nabi-unveiled]

Symbols Abound in Futtara Doshaburi

Overthinking things is my bread and butter, and this show is a feast. There's something to be said in that both Kaori and Fujisawa have touched and cared for Sei's feet at this point.

Feet are an interesting symbol. In many cultures, feet are considered dirty. To care for someone's feet is considered a sign of hospitality, respect, and even caregiving.

But even if feet are the "lowest" body part, they play an essential role. Feet take you where you want to go. For now, the feet are coming home.

We take our toenails for granted, until they get broken. And then it's incredibly painful.

For a long time, Sei was ok in this relationship. But now he's not. The relationship is broken. But just like his toenail, his plan had been to just accept it and keep on walking. It's painful, but he'll deal.

But Hagiwara won't let Sei ignore it. He keeps asking personal questions. He questions Sei about his relationship. He questions Sei about his foot. He's forcing Sei to pay attention to and deal with the broken toenail. Hagiwara openly admits (to Sei) that he wants more from his own relationship. He verbalizes his incredulity at Sei's situation.

He openly states that Sei's situation is unlikely to change.

Hagiwara doesn't let Sei brush it aside. He keeps asking questions, telling Sei that it'll hurt him more if he lets it go, and pushing Sei to take action.

And now we have both Kaori and Fujisawa paying attention to, touching, and washing Sei's foot. Foot washing carries a lot of symbolism - of respect, of care, of sacrifice. All of the things that Fujisawa used to provide for Sei. But Sei got that help from someone else this time. He's no longer needing Fujisawa to care for him.

Kaori notices that Sei is pain. She's working on repairing the nail, but Sei still thinks she's cruel.

Yes, he's thinking about Hagiwara. But it parallels his relationship as well. Fujisawa KNOWS Sei is in pain. He KNOWS Sei is unhappy.

It's why Fujisawa keeps changing the conversation. It's why he buys the TV. He's trying to keep the nail/relationship from breaking further.

There's something to be said in that while Kaori is repairing the nail, she's also disinfecting it. The disinfectant gets mentioned by both Kaori and Fujisawa.

With all of the "libido is a swamp" references, it's not too far-fetched to read into this act. While Kaori and Fujisawa both care for their partners, they're both sanitizing their relationships. It stings.

But Sei doesn't want or need to be sanitized. His desires are beautiful.

Which brings our current conflict in full view. The characters don't just want different things out of their relationships, they need different things. And everyone knows it.

Which makes me wonder about Fujisawa's comment to Sei to "not even think about meeting up" with the mystery penpal.

Is it jealousy? An argument could be made.

Is it possessiveness? A need to control Sei? There's a lot of evidence for that too.

Or is it that Fujisawa is also feeling the pain of this broken nail? That's he's worried just like Sei about what will happen if he pushes on it.

If it's no longer painful, what does that mean?

After all, he knows why Sei fell in love with him.

He knows that Sei no longer needs a spokesperson.

He knows that what Sei needs now, he can't give.

And he knows Sei.

So is Fujisawa trying to control Sei? Or is he terrified of what this all means? Knowing full well what would happen to his life and relationship if someone else started meeting Sei's needs.

It's not an unwarranted fear. The feet are now moving away from home.

(Edit: The proofreading of this post got delayed thanks to a sick kid and the sheer number of shows that drop on Sunday. In that time, @respectthepetty made this excellent post about Fujisawa squeezing the toenail. It's a great read. Highly recommend.)

[can-i-get-a-yippee]

The parallel between Buck immediately being able to fall asleep on Eddie’s couch with lights on and noises abound bc it was the one place where he felt comfortable after the lightning strike (even more so than his own home) vs him only being able to sleep there by having to distract himself with another warm body and making the place borderline unrecognizable in the dark once Eddie’s gone…. Interesting….

[tripleburger]

Three of my favorite things are when a show’s opening sequence tells the audience outright what’s going to happen, when sweeping thematic parallels exist between characters, and when mythological and etymological references abound. Many spoilers up to S2E6 and crack theories below because Severance does it all best.

Like many Severance theorists, I believe Gemma is in a coma or is otherwise completely brain dead. She is the Eurydice to Mark’s Orpheus. Mark is special because Gemma is special because her body and brain were well preserved. Unlike Lumon claimed, the title sequence implies that in the accident her car sunk into frozen water, a cold harbor. Because of this, her file is called Cold Harbor and she has more time than most before her body, brain, and file expire. Lumon staged her totaled car beneath the tree, burning it to hide the evidence and the removal of her actual body. Her husband, who loved her so much he choked on her ghost, consented to or was coerced by the company into splitting his own consciousness to escape her memory. Then his Innie somehow managed to make enough progress on her file to have her semi-dead body and partially reconstructed brain actively work on the Severed Floor as an almost normal wellness counselor. The opening sequence shows a car sinking under the ice of a frozen lake, and I believe it’s Gemma’s, not Cobel’s. Mark’s new focus on taking down Lumon will distract him from finishing her file, Cold Harbor, and it will expire. She will expire. Eurydice won’t walk out of the underworld because Orpheus looked back.

Then there’s Helly, the second drowning woman, a more tangible and present Eurydice who may still be lost in the end, a parallel to Gemma. The season 2 title sequence shows Helly R and Ms. Casey beneath Mark and under the water, running away from him in opposite directions. He can only follow one at a time. Helly is depicted under water in the pineapple bobbing sequence of the Lumon propaganda video and again when Irving waterboards Helena/Helly during the ORTBO. In one title sequence basement elevator shot, Gemma literally becomes Helly, all blurred into one person from Mark’s partially reintegrated perspective, just like how he sees Gemma’s face when he has sex with Helly and Helena. Their fates are tied.

The S2 opening sequence is full of babies and Helly/Helena is certainly pregnant. The last baby in the opening sequence has a Kier head, another Eagan for the family dynasty, courtesy of Mark. In the opening, Mark’s own reintegrated head morphs into a portrait of the Malice Ram typically associated with Helly, symbolizing their union in the form of a baby, and Mark watches the painting being carried away. Then the camera pans over to Gemma’s car half-sunk in the water. He can follow the Malice goat (Helly and their child) or follow his Bride of Woe (Gemma) into the lake. He can’t do both.

In S2E5 there is a faceless character (Petey? Fields?), apparently a Lumon doctor, who travels to the sub basement while whistling Gordon Lightfoot’s “The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald,” a song about a real shipwreck with no survivors and how Lake Superior never gives up her dead. The Lumon painting “Kier Invites You to Drink of His Water” depicts Eagan looking out over what appears to be the Great Lakes as if he owns them. Superior—Kier—will never give up his dead. Gemma will sink under the cold water, too deep to retrieve.

But aspects of Gemma may live on. Ms. Huang, the only child in the show with a major role, is not depicted directly in the opening sequence. Other than Cobel, no Lumon employee is (unless you count Helly/Helena as one person, which should be illegal). I think Ms. Huang is likely not Mark and Gemma’s lost child, as some theories speculate. She may be a clone of Gemma, given the apparent goat cloning happening in Mammalians Nurturable, though that’s a stretch with the timeline and her age. This would be more likely if Gemma had been working for Lumon for years prior, much like Burt seems to have been involved with Lumon as early as 20 years ago despite the Severance procedure only being 12 years old. I don’t have a grand, unifying theory of Ms. Huang except to say that her surname translates from Chinese to mean yellow, gold, bright, shining, or phoenix, which is interesting when tied to Gemma. Lumon doctors could potentially take Gemma’s finished Cold Harbor file, which is stored on her Severance chip, and implant it in Ms. Huang’s brain, a true resurrection of both body and mind, exactly what Lumon needs to restore its founder, Kier Eagan.

Another interesting breadcrumb is Ms. Huang’s handheld water toy of Kier swimming with rings. It has green rings (Woe, the Bride), blue rings (Malice, the Ram), and red rings (Dread, the Crone), but no yellow rings (Frolic, the Jester). Milchick tells Ms. Huang, “You must eradicate from your essence childish folly” before truncating this statement to simply “Grow” while punishing himself for failure following his performance review. If the Gemma clone theory is true, Lumon may want Ms. Huang to mature faster (removing folly and frolic) to ensure Gemma’s adult consciousness can successfully integrate with Ms. Huang’s preteen brain. Gemma is the closest they’ve ever come to fulfilling Kier’s wishes. The phoenix has to rise again.

Now for Devon, absolute queen that she is. Mark outright calls her “Persephone” when she asks him to name her. She’s the Queen of the Underworld, the wife of Hades (Ricken, who I hope isn’t actually evil), splitting her time between the living surface and the dead world below. Devon’s a mother, she’s associated with life giving and pregnancy and caring for her little brother at the lowest point in his life. In the myth, Persephone is so moved by Orpheus’ music and plight that she convinces Hades to give him a chance to save Eurydice, as long as Orpheus doesn’t look back. I think she’ll convince Ricken to use their new “in” with Natalie, the Board, and Lumon to help Mark, however tragically it ends.

Last but never least, Harmony Cobel. The blank, glowing face staring down at a book of the grassy goat field, watching Mark and Helly heads roll around the pasture. Innie Mark carries Outie Mark into this field, illuminated by Cobel. She’s not done watching them and, quite literally, has Mark on the brain. The sequence then follows the Mark in her head to the basement elevator. I believe that Cobel is Apollo, god of light, prophecy, and music (she sings!), in the Orpheus and Eurydice analogy, a parent of Orpheus himself. This is not to say that Cobel is literally Mark and Devon’s mother, though I’d love to see that madness, but that she views Mark as her son, often mentioning her own mother when they chat. She wants Mark to thrive like Apollo wants Orpheus to thrive. Extending this comparison to the Greek gods of the Orpheus myth, you have Milchick as Hermes, the messenger god so fond of his big words, the god who travels the world (on his motorcycle), and leads souls to the Underworld. Hermes takes Eurydice back to hell when Orpheus turns around to see her one last time.

[abyssalaerlocke]

Eventually his soulmate reincarnates as a durzagon — Tav

(durzagon are half duergar, half devil, and return to hell when they die, like Yurgir)

Tav was always told their father was a tiefling, so when they die the first time and appear back in the House of Hope, they're confused and assume it's Raphael's doing

(which, bringing them over quickly once he met, recognised, and realised what they were, was more intentional than normal — since the nautiloid passed through Avernus, their last location otherwise would be somewhere high in the sky, with no nautiloid to catch them)

Now, every time they die, they show back up in his home, and have to ask him to take them back, and all their companions get to see their sleazy situationship drop them off

One time they show up in the middle of a meeting with another devil, and Raphael is so used to hiding them protectively that he shuffles them off to the boudoir to be a more private respawn point

But durzagon are actually revered in hell, and often become leaders in whichever society they're raised in, so this is absolutely the best incarnation for their relationship to work out, as something unhidden and long-term

He just needs to convince Tav they have a desirable future ruling the hells with him

What if, uh, Raphael was soulmates with a mortal who kept reincarnating

And his '1000 concubines' of Haarlep's forms are just his soulmate's previous forms, which he revisits in between their relationships?

Or maybe he obsesses and stalks but doesn't let himself get too close, too attached, let the devils see his weakness and target you to get to him

He just lets Haarlep sleep with you and then uses Haarlep as a proxy for his emotional/sexual needs

[ragnarokhound]

hello my sweet. quick question: are you doing the kids easter baskets or shall i (easter in this sense is the nondenominational candy eating, egg hunt holiday). I will be saving extra cadbury eggs for us.

okay. I think we all deserve a crack fic concept this march. Imagine this: jaytim, but it’s an ides of march AU. Jason is Caesar, Tim is Mark Antony, etc. Very dramatic, right? Jason gets to die tragically, betrayed and abandoned by those he trusted (👀) Tim gets to monologue about how caesar(jason) was a just and honorable man. He takes up his mantle and cause. cinematic tragic parallels.

Except. EXCEPT. This is ACTUALLY a jaytim theater troupe AU, and the play they’re doing is none other that Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Jason and Tim are acting rivals in the troupe (like not enemies, but neck and neck) andJason is sooooo mad that Tim got the role of Mark Antony, because now Tim gets to deliver the Monologue™️, and Jason gets to have SO FEW lines and get stabbed. Anyways, as is tradition for theater troupes, they end up banging at the afterparty or something. (next summer the troupe does hamlet and jason and tim get cast as hamlet and horatio. the homoerotic subtext is thru the stage roof on this one.)

Hello darling, way ahead of you [pulls out the heinous carrot Easter baskets I found at Joanns' store-closing clearance sale. The walls appear to be assembled from uncannily realistic carrots. They will haunt the dreams of all who see them.]

AKKDNSA ILL ADMIT, YOU HAD ME IN THE FIRST HALF

I love this concept. I can see the opening of it perfectly, written as though the events of the play are actually happening... slapping my response under a cut because [deep sigh] it got long:

Full-on descriptions of Jason's Roman funeral and his bloodless lips that Tim sorrowfully gazes down at before he turns to the assembled people gathered around Jason's tomb. Then he opens his mouth and starts giving a speech that sounds exceedingly familiar and Shakespearean. The poetically described funeral then follows the rest of the scene line by line from the play and we start to go 'now wait a second'-- and then the audience claps as the curtains close on the scene. It was a play all alonggg

Cut to the after party. I'm making pretend that the after party is like, at the theater and not a secondary location because it's fun. Jason takes his congratulations with a charming smile, but he is definitely seething inside as he watches Tim be showered in accolades. His friends on the set see right through him (I'm thinking a mix up from the usual suspects - maybe Kon or Cassie who are also friends with Tim but became friends with Jason during production lolol and possibly Jaime or Kyle Rayner in addition) and tease and roll their eyes at him, and get him another beer.

Tim and Jason have a banter-filled conversation later in the night, at that sweet spot when the party is still going strong, the music is loud, and folks are starting to show off (stage fighting and improv'd dances abound) loose with alcohol and the triumph of a successfully wrapped production. They snipe at each other with backhanded compliments, and things are getting heated-- until the guys doing four-man floor-jousting (who the hell busted into the props room--) crash into them.

Tim gets doused in what remains of Jason's drink, Jason gets slathered in nacho cheese (neither of them were eating nachos) and their argument fizzles spectacularly as they help each other up, snickering at each other and at themselves. They walk together to their dressing room to clean up-- they both still have a change of clothes in there.

(OF COURSE THEY SHARED A DRESSING ROOM. THE BELLIGERENT SEXUAL TENSION WAS BOTH UNACKNOWLEDGED AND OFF THE CHARTS.)

As they walk, their banter smooths out-- less defensive, more genuine:

Tim: I thought I was gonna throw up on opening night, I was so nervous Jason: are you fucking for real, I thought you were trying to psych me out T: no! Watching-- uh. J: yeah? Come on. Don't leave me hanging T, sheepish: ...watching you run drills calms me down J, sputtering a laugh: flattering as that is, Drake, respectfully? That's the gayest shit I've ever heard. And we did Kinky Boots last year T, laughing as he shoves him: shut up, just forget I said it, okay? J: absolutely not, I'm gonna remember this forever.

They get to the dressing room still laughing at each other, and get changed. Only, this time, there isn't the rush of scene changes or hair and makeup, or anyone else who wants them out in ten (thank you, ten). There's nothing to distract them from each other's proximity, and everything that's been slowly boiling all season, ramping up all night, comes to a peak. One second, Tim's peeling himself out of his wet dress shirt, the next, Jason's right there, and he's looking at Tim's mouth.

"You've got," Jason says, cutting himself off to swipe a thumb over the corner of Tim's mouth, like he's just fixing his makeup, like he's done for any number of his stage partners before. Tim thinks Jason did it for him just last week. "There." Tim's mouth falls open anyway, his tongue catching against Jason's thumb. He tastes cheese dip, and the salty drag of Jason's skin. Jason pauses with Tim's face in his hands, holding Tim in place. Tim fights the urge to swallow as saliva gathers at the site of intrusion; as back and forth, Jason slowly smears his bottom lip wet. "...there," Jason says again, low and wanting. Tim leans in and kisses him.

...aaaand then they bang in the dressing room like they've low-key been wanting to do all season, glory hallelujah amen 🙏🙏🙏

(Next year as Hamlet and Horatio they keep ad libbing a Lot of touchy feely stage direction and the director does Nothing to stop them lmfao their chemistry is bonkers and it's getting butts in seats 😌)

[crimeronan]

hey kitkat, if its not too much trouble, could you make a propaganda post for the silt verses? I've been seeing you talk about it a lot (i have spoilers marked dw) but im afraid to look up anything about it. is it horror? all i know about it is val <- horrible woman(?) so im intrigued. was wondering if it'd be possible for a silt verses post a la that trc post you made a while back

OH, ABSOLUTELY. i think about 95% of my followers have no idea what this media is about, so this ask is very exciting. i'll preface it by saying that i think it's edged out the dreamer trilogy for my favorite story Ever -- it's exactly on par with the first two books in terms of Reading My Heart Off The Page.

the premise:

the silt verses is a now-complete horror-tragedy narrative podcast set in a fantasy world that has many parallels to our own. this fantasy world is embroiled in late-stage corporate capitalism and is ravaged by the effects of colonialism, war, and oppression.

in this world, gods are created through sacrifice and belief. there are thousands of them, with thousands of individual religions.

the problem is that gods must be fed through human sacrifice. and if they aren't fed, they die.

and people are very invested in keeping their gods alive.

sacrifice is considered a necessary part of society, something that's as essential as breathing. the idea of simply not making sacrifices is considered a violent, radical, leftist anarchist position that is simply unsustainable. or so the state would have you believe!

but. SOME gods have been outlawed, and worshiping them WILL get you killed by the government.

the state says that it's because these gods are uniquely evil, and too dangerous or sadistic or wild to be fed.

in actuality, gods are outlawed when they don't serve the state or corporations' purposes. the question at the heart of the worldbuilding is always, "is Anything you've been told about the gods and the magic true? how much of this world is socially constructed? who benefits from the way things are?"

Metaphors Abound.

-

the cast:

the first season follows four key narrators; the second season introduces a fifth; the third a sixth.

-

carpenter - sister carpenter is an older woman who was born into an outlawed river-worshiping faith. she has seen her entire family murdered by the state, including her brother, parents, and grandmother. she briefly left the faith but returned to the parish because she had nowhere else to go; her relationship with her river and her church is complicated at best.

carpenter begins the series as a """devout""" disciple of the river parish. in actuality, her faith has been slipping for a Long Time. she's no longer certain that she loves this god she's been killing for for her entire life.

she begins the series investigating some unexplained "miracles," aka Deeply Fucking Horrific Murders, that appear to have been done by her god.

alongside her is brother faulkner.

-

faulkner - faulkner is a kid, somewhere around 19 or 20 years old when the story starts. he was NOT born into the river faith, but was instead called to it, back when he was still a rural farm boy living with his father and brothers. his first sacrifice was his brother, who he drowned on the farm. he later left home to find the parish.

faulkner has been with the parish for a pretty short period of time, but he truly IS a devout fanatic. because of this, he does not get along with carpenter. the two of them bicker a lot. carpenter thinks that faulkner is a stupid country bumpkin who's naive and full of starry-eyed optimism, and he annoys the piss out of her.

faulkner is not a dumb country bumpkin.

but he knows how he sounds and he knows how he looks. so he plays the part of the starry-eyed child with ease.

he is planning to kill carpenter.

he knows she's slipping, he knows she's losing her faith, and he wants her dead. he's been asked to keep an eye on her because the parish knows she's slipping, too.

uh oh!

-

hayward - investigating officer hayward is a police officer in the religious homicides division of the greater glottage police force. this police force has jurisdiction over outlawed gods. hayward's job is to find outlawed gods, arrest/kill their worshipers, and report them to the government.

he is the main antagonist of season one. crucially, he's a Good Cop - he's friendly, affable, funny and likable. he's kind of a dickhead bastard, but in the way that the protagonists of Cop Tv Shows (TM) often are. he offers to "help" the people he's arresting. he's good at playing the role of a good guy who just needs to uphold the status quo for the good of society.

but. he is, first and foremost, a cop. and the narrative has a Lot to say about cops. and about other people whose job is to Enforce The Law.

so. don't think that him being a Good Cop means that he's Actually a good guy or that he's not dangerous to the protagonists. Hoo Boy.

-

paige - paige duplass is a corporate boardroom executive who works for a marketing firm that creates gods. her job is to do all the marketing and branding for new corporate mascots. what does the god look like? how does the worship work? how are the sacrifices made?

but her company's profits are waning. and they need to return value to the shareholders.

so. they're going to kill their employees.

not paige, of course! she's a highly valued member of the team. she just has to keep everyone calm and be a kind, upbeat manager while the Layoffs approach. everything is fine, everyone. we aren't going to kill you :) don't worry :) just keep smiling :)

the horror of this gives her a crisis of conscience; after all the murder goes down, she leaves to go on a long drive.

which becomes longer still when she's taken hostage by carpenter and faulkner.

-

shrue - season two introduces shrue, a spineless liberal politician who runs on a """left-wing""" platform but really could not care less about anything except polling numbers. they're willing to do rotten, ugly propagandist things for their campaign -- including killing the river god. and all of its followers. for the good PR! :)

not great news for carpenter, faulkner, or their people.

but then shrue experiences Actual Violence up close for the first time. and it Shakes Them To Their Core.

and, well. suddenly they're not so comfortable being a spineless liberal politician anymore.

too bad they've locked themselves into their role and cannot fucking escape it!!

-

val - introduced in season three, VAL is the saint of a god of liars, purposefully created by the government for use as a weapon. she is the remnants of a woman who killed herself to serve her country. she does not remember who she is or what else she wanted, aside from her mother's approval.

as the saint of a god of liars, whatever VAL says becomes true..... as long as someone is there to listen. you're a loyal soldier? no, you died of a tumor as a child. you're a politician begging for mercy for the sake of your infant child? no, your baby has an insatiable taste for flesh and ate your sorry ass. etc

she's a monster and a sadist; she enjoys killing people to try to fill the emptiness in her. she is in terrible pain all the time and does not understand why. and she is becoming increasingly disillusioned and sick with herself, the government she serves, and the Utter Pointlessness of all this systemic violence.

but how do you break a cycle when you Are the cycle?? how do you get better?? how do you change anything??

much to consider.

-

overall, it's as close to a perfect story as it gets imo. literally every detail is carefully, painstakingly chosen to further the themes, arcs, characterization, etc. the plotting is suspenseful, the horror is Deeply Fucking Scary, the storylines are gutwrenching, the voice acting is spine-chilling, and the characters are So Fucking Compelling.

also, i get frustrated by representation-first fiction recs, but if you get this far and want to know: it's Deeply queer. faulkner, paige, and shrue are all trans (shrue is they/them, paige is a post-transition trans woman, faulkner is a trans guy who's recently started T). carpenter is aroace, there's casual representation and normalization of trans n gay people throughout the ensemble cast.

and more importantly, it's just. So Damn Good.

@valtsv @deermouth you two are the other main silt verses bloggers i know, so if you want a pitch for your followers.... here is this!

[nerdishpursuits]

I don’t think @midniteowlet is wrong when she tells me Marta’s journey of self discovery and empowerment needs to culminate with her choosing Fina. And it needs to happen in spite of Fina’s well-meaning but misguided intentions when it comes to Marta’s marriage of convenience. Marta’s journey needs to culminate with her choosing Fina above all else now, or in the future.

And the more I think about their current situation, the more it makes sense. Marta choosing Fina and rejecting Pelayo’s offer would be the most validating declaration of intent Marta could ever make: I know this is hard and I know we’re risking it all, but I’d rather face the danger with you than, once more, become trapped and subjected to the whims of a man.

Fina pushed for this marriage out of fear but she needs to learn, like Marta did earlier in their relationship, that making choices out of fear leads nowhere good. And fear? It currently abounds. But they can face it all, together. After all, without fear there cannot be bravery … or so they say.

All this pre-wedding angst is also making us think there’s a 50/50 chance of the wedding happening. For drama purposes, it might. But if we consider parallels and character growth, the most sensible path would be for Marta to do a 180 and send the Olivares’ packing. It makes no sense to drive the angst to such levels and not come up with an unexpected plot-twist.

Marta is a very logical woman and she’s so damn good at compartmentalising, especially when there’s a plan she needs to follow. And this time? This time it’s a plan Fina herself convinced her to follow, so all the more reason to acquiesce. However, Marta’s every instinct is screaming at her this is wrong and were she to go through with it? The shackles of this marriage would become almost impossible to break (unless tragedy struck).

Let’s also consider the storm that’s brewing regarding the company, because it’s spreading like wildfire. The fuse has been lit and they’re all sitting on a powder keg. If anything, this is reason enough to, at least, postpone the wedding. Given the workers growing malcontent? It would look bad for the de la Reina to celebrate a high-society wedding. After all, they also need to be a contrast to Joaquin. It remains to be seen.

And speaking of the wedding. Pelayo, for once, went against mommy dearest by informing her Fina is definitely coming to the wedding. I think it’s obvious enough that Clara won’t rest until she’s had her way. Or tried her damn hardest to impose her will. The level of hypocrisy this woman possesses is truly astounding. I understand that as a mother she’s concerned for Pelayo, but her meddlesome ways only sow discord and malcontent. To have the gall to confront Fina, yet again, in order to remind her of her place? By all means, someone remind Clara it’s Pelayo who is inserting himself into an established relationship and not the other way around. The third wheel here is Pelayo, and never Fina. And it's also Pelayo who stands to profit the most, which Clara is all too happy to omit as she’s spreading her web of lies and deceit.

As for Fina? I was expecting that feisty character to warm up her engine yet, lo and behold: there’s a chance Clara might guilt-trip her into not attending Marta's wedding? Alarm bells indeed, especially considering Clara tells Fina to keep their conversation to herself. No one whose intentions are good would ask for that. And Clara knows very well that if Fina talks to Marta? Well, her plans go to hell in a hand-basket. And what better way to divide than to prey on Fina’s fears and encourage a lack of communication. The kind of manipulation this woman is capable of is not only infuriating but hugely problematic. Were the wedding to happen, this woman’s presence would definitely be a threat.

Doña Clara: Know your place

Fina: Indeed. It’s ON TOP. Of things. But mostly on top of Marta.

On a more positive note? Can I say how it never ceases to amaze me how healthy Fina and Marta’s relationship is? Fina left the storage room in a whirlwind and one would have expected her to burst into Marta’s office, angry and demanding answers. Instead, she calmly voices her fears and doubts. No reproaches, no making assumptions. She simply asks Marta to explain the why of her decision to leave Fina on the sidelines of preparing the wedding gifts. And this type of communication? It leads to an incredibly emotional exchange, a desperate reaffirmation of a love that consumes them whole and culminates in their own wedding vows.

I’m also curious if the show will end up in a Gervasio’s choice kind of situation with Mafin. I know that’s rather bleak but it would make for good storytelling. As things currently stand, the Merino believe theirs is the moral high ground and that they’re entitled to the company as if it were their inheritance and theirs alone. So if they had to face the same choice as Damián? Would they truly choose differently or would their ambition blind them entirely? Oh, the possibilities.

In the meantime, I’m glad the bathhouse project has been postponed, as Marta always said it should be. Not holding my breath that they’ll ever admit to being wrong though.

Of course, things rarely go as we expect them to. I’m sure there’s some surprises ahead. Some we’ll have seen coming, others not so much. Until now, the show has been very good at avoiding the obvious. Thus, I’m hoping they continue down this path.

I’m still waiting for the scenario where Marta gets hurt. Fina had her turn, now it stands to reason it’s Marta’s. We all know she’ll live, of course, but I’d take that stray bullet if it means there’s no damn wedding. In fact, considering Marta is going toe to toe with Jesús these days, I wouldn’t discard the possibility of her getting hurt by accident, especially if Jesús has an altercation with the Merino and Marta gets caught in the crossfire.

On a separate note? Kudos to Marta for being so kind to Maria and offering her support and understanding in spite of what happened. Also, that mountain of gifts for the wedding? Marta looks more and more desolate surrounded by them.

As for Marta and Fina’s office scene? It’s one of the most heartbreakingly beautiful scenes the show has ever delivered. And it packs such a gut punch precisely because it’s so relevant and relatable. It also manages to educate without being pedantic and that’s saying something.

Not only does it showcase the hardship and injustices LGBT couples experienced throughout history but also sheds light on a situation that’s, sadly, still ongoing for many people, people who just happen to love differently.

On a final note. Marta and Fina’s love is as pure as love can be. No God or laws of men could ever dictate otherwise or make them feel ashamed. The fact that they don’t consider themselves less in a society that condemns them at every turn? It speaks volumes about their character and commitment to each other.

Random, but this shot needs to be in a museum: those Angel / Fallen Angel vibes are insane. Marta with Fina, desperately wanting to protect her woman.

Marta without Fina

P.s. that new promo they released has everyone looking either miserable, furious or a combination of both … doesn’t look like a successful wedding to me.

Also, I’m in favor of whatever makes Pelayo and Clara look like they’ve eaten something sour.

Then we have Marta looking like she’s headed to her execution and Fina’s devastation is simply heart wrenching.

Good times ahead. I need the storm to unleash already because this level of angst? As fun as it is, it’s also exhausting. Timeout, people. Timeout.

[hoursofreading]

I found myself watching a mind-bending YouTube documentary on the New York sewerage system, about which, to my considerable shame, I knew nothing. Despite what you say, it seems to me that an artist and a sanitary worker actually have much in common. Just as the New York sewerage system is a critical pillar of public health, so too is art, and although art may not literally protect a city from plague and pestilence, it does, in its way, make the world we inhabit that little less noxious. And without pursuing the comparison to absurdity, art has its equivalent trials – blockages abound and gloomy artistic ‘fatbergs’ clog the pipes of inspiration, yet still we gallantly gather up the brown water of experience and rinse it through the purifying vats of our imagination! It is safe to say that our occupations have their parallel challenges, mine abstract, yours actual. Brian, if by chance you dealt with any of my bodily waste whilst I was visiting New York in the nineties, as it travelled along with the 8.3 billion gallons of daily waste water, running through the 7,500 miles of sewerage pipes, then I want to acknowledge your efforts and say, with the utmost respect, thank you and God bless you! For if God exists, then He exists in the sewers as in the stars, and in the end, in our own hellish ways, we are each at His service, engaged in the grim business of preventing the world from drowning in its own excreta.

Nick Cave