#please note: if you want to convince me of a theory i've said is bad this is the level of textual analysis i'm looking for

[glitter-stained]

Damasio, The Trolley Problem and Batman: Under the Hood

Okay so @bestangelofall asked me to elaborate on what I meant by "Damasio's theories on emotions in moral decision-making add another level of depth to the analysis of UTH as a moral dilemma" and I thought this deserved its own post so let's talk about this.

So, idk where everyone is at here (philosophy was mandatory in highschool in my country but apparently that's not the case everywhere so i genuinely have no clue what's common knowledge here, i don't want to like state the obvious but also we should recap some stuff. Also if I'm mentioning a philosopher's or scientist's name without detailing, that means it's just a passing thought/recommendation if you want to read more on the topic.)

First thing first is I've seen said, about jason and the no killing rule, that "killing is always bad that's not up for debate". And I would like to say, that's factually untrue. Like, no matter which side of the debate you are on, there is very much a debate. Historically a big thing even. So if that's not something you're open to hear about, if you're convinced your position is the only correct one and even considering other options is wrong and/or a waste of time... I recommend stopping here, because this only going to make you upset, and you have better stuff to do with your life than getting upset over an essay. In any case please stay civil and remember that this post is not about me debating ethics with the whole bat-tumblr, it's me describing a debate other people have been voicing for a long time, explaining the position Damasio's neuropsychology and philosophy holds in this debate, and analyzing the ethics discussed in Batman: Under the Red Hood in that light. So while I might talk about my personal position in here (because I have an opinion in this debate), this isn't a philosophy post; this is a literature analysis that just so happens to exist within the context of a neuropsychological position on a philosophical debate. Do not try to convince me that my philosophy of ethics is wrong, because that's not the point, that's not what the post is about, I find it very frustrating and you will be blocked. I don't have the energy to defend my personal opinions against everybody who disagrees with me.

Now, let's start with Bruce. Bruce, in Under The Hood and wrt the no kill rule (not necessarily all of his ethics, i'm talking specifically about the no kill rule), is defending a deontological position. Deontology is a philosophy of ethics coined by christian🧷 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The philosophy of ethics asks this question: what does it mean to do a good action? And deontology answers "it means to do things following a set of principles". Basically Kant describes what are "absolute imperatives" which are rules that hold inherent moral values: some things are fundamentally wrong and others are bad. Batman's no-kill rule is thus a categorical imperative: "Though Shall not Kill"🧷, it is always wrong to kill. (Note that I am not saying Bruce is kantian just because he has a deontology: Kant explained the concept of deontological ethics, and then went up to theorize his own very specific and odd brand of deontology, which banned anything that if generalized would cause the collapse of society as well as, inexplicably, masturbation. Bruce is not Kantian, he's just, regarding the no kill rule, deontological. Batman is still allowed to wank, don't worry.)

In this debate, deontological ethics are often pit up against teleological ethics, the most famous group of which being consequentialism, the most famous of consequentialisms being utilitarism. As the name indicates, consequentialist theories posit that the intended consequences of your actions determine if those actions were good or not. Utilitarism claims that to do good, your actions should aim to maximise happiness for the most people possible. So Jason, when he says "one should kill the Joker to prevent the thousands of victims he is going to harm if one does not kill him", is holding a utilitarian position.

The debate between deontology and utilitarism has held many forms, some fantastical and some with more realistic approaches to real life like "say you're hiding from soldiers and you're holding a baby that's gonna start crying, alerting the soldiers and getting everyone in your hideout massacred. Do you muffle the baby, knowing it will suffocate and kill it?" or "say there's a plague going on and people are dying and the hospital does not have enough ventilators, do you take the one off of the comatose patient with under 0.01% chance of ever waking up to give it to another patient? What about 1%?", etc, etc. The most famous derivative of this dilemma, of course, being the infamous trolley problem.

This is what is meant when we say "the UTH confrontation is a trolley problem." The final confrontation at the warehouse is a variation, a derivative of the utilitarian dilemma that goes as follows: "if someone was trying to kill someone in front of you, and that murder would prevent the murder of thousands, should you try to stop that murder or let it happen?"

Now, here's a question: why are there so many derivatives of the trolley problem? Why do philosophers spend time pondering different versions of the same question instead of solving it?

My opinion (and the one of much, much smarter people whose name i forgot oops) is that both systems fail at giving us a satisfying, clean-cut reply. Now, most people have a clean-cut answer to the trolley problem as presented here: me personally, I lean more towards utilitarianism, and I found it logical to pull the lever. But altering the exact situation makes me change my answer, and there is very often a point where people, no matter their deontological or utilitarian velleities, change their answer. And that's interesting to examine.

So let's talk about deontology. Now my first gripe with deontology it's that it posits a set of rules as absolute and I find that often quite arbitrary. 🧷 Like, it feels a little like mathematical axioms, you know? We build a whole worldview on the assumption that these rules are inherently correct and the best configuration because it feels like it makes sense, and accidentally close our mind to the world of non-euclidian ethics. In practice, here are some situations in which a deontologist might change their mind: self-defense killing, for example, is often cited as "an exception to the rule", making that rule de facto non-universal; and disqualifying it as an absolute imperative. Strangely enough, people will often try to solve the trolley problem by deciding to kill themselves by jumping on the tracks 🧷 which is actually a utilitarian solution: whether you're pulling the lever or you're jumping on the tracks, you are choosing to kill one person to stop the people from being run over. Why does it matter if it's you or someone else you're killing? You're still killing someone. Another situation where people may change their answer would be, like "what if you needed to save your children but to do so you had to kill the ceo of united healthcare?" Note that these are only examples for killing, but the biggest issue is that deontology preaches actions are always either good or wrong, and the issue with that lack of nuance is best illustrated with the kantian problem regarding the morality of lying: let's say it's the holocaust and a family of jews is hiding in your house. Let's say a nazi knocks on your door and asks if there are people hiding in your house. You know if you tell the truth, the jews in your house will be deported. In that situation, is it morally correct to lie? Now, Kant lived before the Holocaust, but in his time there was a similar version of this problem that had been verbalised (this formulation is the best-known derivative of this problem btw, I didn't invent it) and Kant's answer, I kid you not, was still "no it is not morally acceptable to lie in that situation".

And of course, there are variations of that problem that play with the definition of killing- what defines the act of killing and can the other circumstances (like if there's a person you need to save) alter that definition? => Conclusion: there is a lot more nuance to moral actions than what a purely deontological frame claims, and pushing deontology to its limits leads to situations that would feel absurd to us.

Now let's take utilitarianism to its own limits. Say you live in a world where healthcare has never been better. Now say this system is so because there is a whole small caste of people who have been cloned and genetically optimized and conditioned since birth so that their organs could be harvested at any given moment to heal someone. Let's say this system is so performant it has optimised this world's humanity's general well-being and health, leading to an undeniable, unparalleled positive net-worth for humanity. Here's the question: is this world a utopia or a dystopia? Aka, is raising a caste of people as organ cattle morally acceptable in that situation? (Note: Because people's limits on utilitarianism vary greatly from one person to another, I chose the most extreme example I could remember, but of course there are far more nuanced ones. Again, I wasn't the one to come up with this example. If you're looking for examples of this in fiction, i think the limits of utilitarianism are explored pretty interestingly in the videogame The Last of Us).

=> Conclusion: there is a lot more nuance to moral actions than what a purely utilitarian frame claims, and pushing utilitarism to its limits leads to situations that would feel absurd to us.

This leads us back to Under the Hood. Now because UTH includes a scathing criticism of Batman's no kill rule deontology, but Jason is also presented as a villain in this one, my analysis of the whole comic is based on the confrontation between both of these philosophies and their failures, culminating in a trolley dilemma type situation. So this is why it makes sense to have Bruce get mad at Jason for killing Captain Nazi in self-defense: rejecting self-defense, even against nazis, is the logical absurd conclusion of deontology. Winick is simply taking Bruce's no-kill rule to the limit.

And that's part of what gets me about Jason killing goons (aside from the willis todd thing that should definitely have been addressed in such a plot point.) It's that it feels to me like Jason's philosophy is presented as wrong because it leads to unacceptable decisions, but killing goons is not the logical absurd conclusion of utilitarianism. It's a. a side-effect of Jason's plot against Bruce and/or, depending on how charitable you are to either Jason's intelligence or his morals, b. a miscalculation. Assuming Jason's actions in killing goons are a reflection of his moral code (which is already a great assumption, because people not following their own morals is actually the norm, we are not paragons of virtue), then this means that 1) he has calculated that those goons dying would induce an increase in general global human happiness and thus 2) based on this premise, he follows the utilitarian framework and thus believes it's moral to kill the goons. It's the association of (1) and (2) that leads to an absurd and blatantly immoral consequence, but since the premise (1) is a clear miscalculation, the fact that (1) & (2) leads to something wrong does not count as a valid criticism of (2): to put it differently, since the premise is wrong, the conclusion being wrong does not give me any additional info on the value of the reasoning. This is a little like saying "Since 1+ 3= 5 and 2+2=4, then 1+3+2+2 = 9". The conclusion is wrong, but because the first part (1+3=5) is false, the conclusion being wrong does not mean that the second part (2+2 =4) is wrong. So that's what frustrates me so much when people bring up Jason killing goons as a gotcha for criticizing his utilitarian philosophy, because it is not!! It looks like it from afar but it isn't, which is so frustrating because, as stated previously, there are indeed real limits to utilitarianism that could have been explored instead to truly level the moral playing field between Jason and Bruce.

Now that all of this is said and done, let's talk about what in utilitarianism and deontology makes them flawed and, you guessed it, talk some about neuropsychology (and how that leads to what's imo maybe the most interesting thing about the philosophy in Under the Hood.)

In Green Arrow (2001), in an arc also written by Judd Winick, Mia Dearden meets a tortured man who begs her to kill him to save Star City (which is being massacred), and she kills him, then starts to cry and begs Ollie for confirmation that this was the right thing to do. Does this make Mia a utilitarian? If so, then why did she doubt and cry? Is she instead a deontologist, who made a mistake?

In any case, the reason why Mia's decision was so difficult for her to make and live with, and the reason why all of these trolley-adjacent dilemmas are so hard, is pretty clear. Mia's actions were driven by fear and empathy. It's harder to tolerate sacrificing our own child to avoid killing, it's harder to decide to sacrifice a child than an adult, a world where people are raised to harvest their organs feels horrible because these are real humans we can have empathy towards and putting ourselves in their shoes is terrifying... So we have two "perfectly logical" rational systems toppled by our emotions. But which is wrong: should we try to shut down our empathy and emotions so as to always be righteous? Are they a parasite stopping us from being true moral beings?

Classically, we (at least in my culture in western civilization) have historically separated emotions from cognition (cognition being the domain of thought, reasoning, intelligence, etc.) Descartes, for example, was a philosopher who highlighted a dualist separation of emotion and rationality. For a long time this was the position in psychology, with even nowadays some people who think normal psychologists are for helping with emotions and neuropsychologists are for helping with cognition.(I will fight these people with a stick.) Anyway, that position was the predominant one in psychology up until Damasio (not the famous writer, the neuropsychologist) wrote a book named Descartes' Error. (A fundamental of neuropsychology and a classic that conjugates neurology, psychology and philosophy: what more could you ask for?)

Damasio's book's title speaks for itself: you cannot separate emotion from intelligence. For centuries we have considered emotions to be parasitic towards reasoning, (which even had implications on social themes and constructs through the centuries 📌): you're being emotional, you're letting emotions cloud your judgement, you're emotionally compromised, you're not thinking clearly... (Which is pretty pertinent to consider from the angle of A Death in the Family, because this is literally the reproach Bruce makes to Jason). Damasio based the book on the Damasio couple's (him and his wife) study of Phineas Gage, a very, very famous case of frontal syndrome (damage to the part of the brain just behind the forehead associated with executive functions issues, behavioural issues and emotional regulation). The couple's research on Gage lead Damasio, in his book, to this conclusion: emotions are as much of a part of reasoning and moral decision-making as "cold cognition" (non emotional functioning). Think of it differently: emotional intelligence is a skill. Emotions are tools. On an evolutionary level, it is good that we as people have this skill to try and figure out what others might think and do. That's useful. Of course, that doesn't mean that struggling with empathy makes you immoral, but we people who struggle with empathy have stories of moments where that issue has made us hurt someone's feelings on accident, and it made us sad, because we didn't want to hurt their feelings. On an evolutionary level (and this is where social Darwinism fundamentally fails) humanity has been able to evolve in group and in a transgenerational group (passing knowledge from our ancestors long after their death, belonging to a community spread over a time longer than our lifetime) thanks to social cognition (see Tomasello's position on the evolution of language for more detail on that), and emotions, and "emotional intelligence" is a fundamental part of how that great system works across the ages.

And that's what makes Batman: Under the Hood brilliant on that regard. If I have to make a hypothesis on the state of Winick's knowledge on that stuff, I would say I'm pretty sure he knew about the utilitarism vs deontology issue; much harder to say about the Damasio part, but whether he's well-read in neuropsychology classics or just followed a similar line of reasoning, this is a phenomenally fun framework to consider UTH under.

Because UTH, and Jason's character for the matter, refuse to disregard emotions. Bruce says "we mustn't let ourselves get clouded by our emotions" and Jason, says "maybe you should." I don't necessarily think he has an ethical philosophy framework for that, I still do believe he's a utilitarian, but he's very emotion-driven and struggling to understand a mindframe that doesn't give the same space to emotions in decision-making. And as such, Jason says "it should matter. If the emotion was there, if you loved me so much, then it should matter in your decision of whether or not to let the Joker die, that it wasn't just a random person that he killed, but that he killed your son."

And Bruce is very much doubling down on this mindset of "I must be stronger than my feelings". He is an emotionally repressed character. He says "You don't understand. I don't think you've ever understood", and it's true, Jason can't seem to understand Bruce's position, there's something very "if that person doesn't show love in my perspective and understanding of what love is then they do not love me" about his character that I really appreciate. But Bruce certainly doesn't understand either, because while Jason is constantly asking Bruce for an explanation, for a "why do you not see things the way I do" that could never satisfy him, Bruce doesn't necessarily try to see things the way Jason does. And that's logical, since Jason is a 16 years old having a mental breakdown, and Bruce is a grown man carrying on the mission he has devoted himself to for years, the foundation he has built his life over. He can't allow himself to doubt, and why would he? He's the adult, he's the hero, he is, honestly, a pretty stubborn and set-in-his-ways character. So, instead of rising to the demand of emotional decision-making, Bruce doubles down on trying to ignore his feelings. And Jason, and the story doesn't let him. Bludheaven explodes. This induces extremely intense feelings in Bruce (his son just got exploded), which Jason didn't allow him to deal with, to handle with action or do anything about; Jason says no you stay right there, with me, with those emotions you're living right now, and you're making a decision. And there's the fact Bruce had a mini-heart attack just before thinking Jason was dead again. And there's the fact he mourned Jason for so long, and Stephanie just died, and Tim, Cass and Oracle all left, and the Joker is right there, and Jason puts a gun in his hands (like the gun that killed his parents)... All of that makes it impossible for Bruce to disregard his emotions. The same way Jason, who was spilling utilitarian rhetoric the whole time, is suddenly not talking about the Joker's mass murder victims but about he himself. The same way Jason acts against his own morals in Lost Days by sparing the Joker so they can have this confrontation later. That's part of why it's so important to me that Jason is crying in that confrontation.

Bruce's action at the end of the story can be understood two ways:

-he decides to maim/kill Jason to stop the insupportable influx of emotions, and him turning around is his refusal to look at his decision (looking away as a symbol of shame): Bruce has lost, in so that he cannot escape the dilemma, he succumbs to his emotions and acts against his morals.

-the batarang slicing Jason's throat is an accident: he is trying to find a way out of the dilemma, a solution that lets him save his principles, but his emotions cloud his judgement (maybe his hand trembles? Maybe his vision is blurry?). In any case, he kills his son, and it being an accident doesn't absolve him: his emotions hold more weight than his decision and he ends up acting against his morals anyway.

It's a very old story: a deontologist and a utilitarian try to solve the trolley problem, and everyone still loses. And who's laughing? The nihilist, of course. To him, nothing has sense, and so nothing matters. He's wrong though, always has been. That's the lesson I'm taking from Damasio's work. That's the prism through which I'm comparing empathy to ethics in Levinas' work and agape in Compté-Sponsville's intro to philosophy through.

It should matter. It's so essential that it matters. Love, emotions, empathy: those are fundamental in moral evaluation and decision making. They are a feature, not a bug. And the tragedy is when we try to force ourselves to make them not matter.

Anyway so that was my analysis of why Damasio's position on ethics is so fun to take in account when analysing UTH, hope you found this fun!

[graceofgondor]

hi! so everyone is sharing their hot takes and since i've agreed with pretty much every one you've shared, i need to know your opinion on this: unless i missed something in the book, i don't think chris and ginny are actually friends, like i think ginny views chris as her brother's girlfriend more than anything. don't get me wrong, i think they like each other and enjoy each other's company but just aren't close. i kind of disagree with the take that she's a bad friend, simply because i don't think she's a friend at all you know??

idk it just came as a bit of a shock when i joined the fandom and everyone seemed to assume they were besties. i haven't seen anyone mention this and i just want to know if i'm alone in this lol

hi!! tysm for the ask <33 yk I love to yap loll

(i actually love that you brought this up because i completely forgot to address this on my hot take post.) i actually have sorta complex feelings about this so allow me to explain!!

I do think Chris (in theory) is not a great friend, BUT that is assuming she and Ginny are friends to a certain degree. I typically operate under that assumption in discussion simply because most of the fanbase does and that's just my general take on said assumption.

As far as what I think in general?? It's kind of unclear. I definitely don't think they're close if they are friends, but from what it seems, I agree they aren't very close at all. It seemed like Chris kind of wanted to push Knox in Ginny's direction as a "favor" so to speak, not really because they were close and she cared about that sort of thing.

The main reason I don't think they're best friends is for one: it's clear they are very different types of people. Chris is a cheerleader/popular/preppy type girl (to put it bluntly), while Ginny is more soft-spoken, independent, and matter of fact, worrying more about the theoretical than the superficial (it's clear she doesn't try to put on a "persona" or sugarcoat things to please anyone) while I think Chris cares alot more about appearances. This is all very evident to me even in just the deleted scene we have of them at the Danburrys. When Knox asks Chris about Chet, Ginny gives her a kind of "seriously??" type look, while Chris just kind of smiles, answers, and brushes it off. And later in the scene, she blatantly notes to Knox that Chris and Chet are going to park, which, is a weird thing to say if you're trying to keep up appearances. It makes it evident that she's not, and not only that, but it seems she's unphased/unimpressed by the notion to begin with.

This is evident at the party too, where it's clear once again that Ginny isn't impressed by Knox, and she doesn't exactly try to hide that fact, even to his face—unlike Chris, who obviously put up with way more. I don't think Ginny is one to appreciate people who are fake either, because she's so real about everything, and she doesn't go out of her way to get noticed by people like that. (This all plays into her appreciating Charlie's approach toward her later on but that's a different conversation for another time.)

Anyway, for two: it's the same reasons I think Chris would (in theory) be a bad friend. She encourages Ginny to audition for the play, yet she doesn't go for her, rather, she goes because Knox convinces her. She completely ditches her at the party too, when its evident Ginny doesn't really have other people to hang out with, she just kind of wanders around. If they were really friends, Chris probably wouldn't do that, and she also would certainly care significantly more that Ginny got a large role in the play.

But to tie those together, I think you're right. In that, if anything, Ginny views Chris as a surface-level friend. She may gossip with her a bit or keep up with general life things, but I think like Knox, and like most other people, she isn't impressed by them, she doesn't really entertain the superficial personas. She's not exactly a social-outcast, but I just think she's smart, and she cares more about things with substance. (Hello—there's a reason she did Midsummer and Chris didn't) And that's why they aren't close, they just have wildly different priorities.

If you've read My Lady Ginny (which, alot of my anons have so that's why I bring it up haha) you'd notice I kind of ignored Chris alot of the time. Ginny only talks to her a couple of times over the course of a few months (mostly just for convenience/advice), and Chris doesn't go to that play at all. It was honestly a fine line for me to walk because I was unsure just how close to make them, especially after the events of the film/book. Did Ginny even know what Knox did at the party?? (I mean, she's smart like I said so it's likely she would find out) And if so, would that affect their so-called "friendship"? I don't think it would impress her, and I definitely think it would be weird with Chet afterwards, not that they seem inherently close either, but overall, it's just murky waters, and no one really talks about it. I think it would be likely that Chris' relationship with Knox would only push Ginny further away, not only because Chris broke up with Chet, but also because Knox in general isn't someone Ginny is particularly impressed by, and yet Chris decides to date him after what he did.

Anyway, to make a long story short... I think you're right. They aren't close. To me, they're surface-level friends, friends of proximity, and I think post-canon wise, that only wanes further. Chris doesn't get Ginny on a deeply personal level, and she's a very opposing personality, so as a result, that friendship isn't likely to go further in my mind.

As far as the fandom thinking they're best friends/special friends—to put it bluntly, I think both Ginny and Chris, (but moreso Ginny) are just plainly mischaracterized.

[the-obnoxious-sibling]

I know you like shuggy but do you think there’s anything that makes you ship mishanks? Do you think their bond is also special and deeper? They do have history and some ppl think Mihawk was in shanks crew at some point. What are your thoughts on them? They are even more popular than shuggy so there has to be sth since so many ppl see them in this way

Have to admit, I've always been kinda indifferent to Mihawk as a character. (When first reading OP back in… god, 2003? oh my god, I'm ancient—anyway, I was a very basic Zoro girlie who only saw Mihawk as an obstacle to his dream.) Though I do find Vampire Swordsman Living In A Pirate World to be very fun, aesthetically, as a character I find him pretty inscrutable & hard to care about.

But it's not like I don't see it. Mishanks isn't for me, but it's not just a "two beautiful men smirking at each other" ship.*

Mihawk, like Buggy, thinks of or brings up Shanks in moments when he really doesn't need to. (Mentally apologizing to Shanks for fighting Luffy! What on earth.) Shanks can convince Mihawk to relax and have a drink with his crew, though Mihawk is almost always shown to be alone and happy that way.

But so much of their dynamic and history has to be read between the lines, and I find that frustrating. I want answers! Canon answers!!

Like: why did they have those epic fights (which even Whitebeard spoke of with respect) when they were younger—was Shanks trying to take Mihawk's title, or were neither of them at the level of the World's Greatest yet? (Side note, I would love to know who Mihawk beat to get that title and when.) Does Mihawk refuse to fight Shanks these days because he thinks a one-armed swordsman is a bad fight? Or is he trying to preserve the memory of their last fight as near-equals?

(Or… I can't speak to all of Shanks' fights since he lost the arm, obviously, but in present day it's notable that he only pulls out his sword as the nuclear option. I wonder if Shanks just can't do casual, fun fights anymore, the same way he can't relax on enemy ships.)

Was Mihawk ever a member of his pirate crew? I for one can't see him as an ex-Red-Haired Pirate—for one because he's such a goth loner it seems like a bad culture fit, but for another because I think it would have been brought up in canon. The Marines made Buggy a Warlord because of his history with Shanks; if Mihawk had been a member of his crew, wouldn't that make Buggy redundant? That said, I can see Shanks trying to use their fights as a recruitment tool—"If I win this time, you'll join my crew!"—but I don't think it worked out.

Basically, I'd say there's a decent ship there in theory, but for me to get into it I'd need a lot of things that have been left implicit to be spelled out.

Which could happen! Maybe Buggy going after the One Piece and dragging Mihawk in his wake is going to force him to reveal a hidden detail about his history with Shanks that makes him reluctant to fight him anymore…

*Though imo that is part of why they're more popular; for a long time gay ships in English-language shonen fandom (& probably others, but I'm just speaking from my experience) were exclusively about basic-ass hotties. You'd have to ask me about my days in Naruto fandom if you want that salt, though. (Please don't. That's such a dark path to ask me to go down.) Another reason is that we see Shanks & Mihawk interact in present day hundreds of chapters before Shanks & Buggy. Early interaction = early establishment of the ship = long fandom history/staying power.

[old-school-butch]

JFC why are you making me defend Israel?

I have lots of problems with Israel and am North-Americanlly torn about the whole idea of protective religous-ethno-states and the whole idea of any indigenous national claim to modern-day statehood, but will you please put more effort into not being brainwashed. There are so many nuanced discussions to have but step 1 is critically thinking about what you're hearing.

Source 1 - comes from Dawn news, huh. Who's that? Oh look, a 'news' broadcast from Pakistan. Do you wonder how that landed in your feed? I mean, do you normally read Dawn news for your information about global events? No? Think a little bit about the information war being conducted - someone wanted you to see this and that someone was probably not a person, but an organization. Also, the the most DAMNING statement they could get from the American-official-I've-never-heard-of-before was that Israel has released documentation supporting their claims and Hamas has not. Yes, you have to watch the ENTIRE thing to hear all that. It's 1:13 seconds, just hang in there.

The reporter-I-guess suggests sending in international investigators. No, Mr. America says, it's not appropriate. He doesn't say why (in this clip, remember there are always editors at work) but think about possible reasons. A ground invasion is imminent so the team is going into an active warzone, and for what? Israel has already released its sources. Hamas hasn't given any so I guess you're hoping they would send in theirs? They interviewed with the NYT and said all the evidence has evaporated. Well that sounds fishy, but you want to know, right? You're a skeptical, reasonable person who doesn't like the idea that information is being covered up.

Ok, so why are you swallowing this story about the bombing in the first place? What evidence convinced you? Think carefully because none has been produced. You're watching a terrorist media campaign. Did you even notice that your skepticism for the U.S. government is seamlessly connected to Israel? Read some history about this conflict and this entire area, it's incredibly interesting especially about how alliances have shifted over time and how many different factions there are.

Next step - we read the opinion of Noah-I've-never-heard-of and his theory about the REAL reason Mr America doesn't think an international investigation team makes sense. It's actshually because the UN Goldman Report from 2009 found something bad about Israel, which is why evil doers never go before the International Criminal Court and get the CIA (?) to prevent this, because it makes them look bad. Please don't skim past that wrangled logic - there's so much to unpack. So... Israel is so powerful they are never investigated, but we know from the 2009 UN investigation that they were bad. But now the CIA stops them I guess? Also, the U.S. is a proxy for Israel I guess, and they are basically one state despite a significant history suggesting otherwise.

Third screenshot - What did the report find? Well, that war crimes were committed in the period, which the screenshot notes. Committed by whom, you might ask? You have to read a little more to see it was by both sides. (But more so on Israel's - the occupation was truly a shitty thing and Israel was forced to finally end it in 2015, but it doesn't sound quite so definitive so the screencap uses 3rd person, passive voice to let you imagine the details). Anyway, go actually read the report. Or at least read the Wikipedia. Don't just let yourself fill in the empty gaps with supposition, because you are being drawn through an increasingly false narrative.

The last screenshot is some notes - we don't know who from - but it's supplied by the anarchistmemecollective because that sounds like a completely human entity, and the notes are supposed to be an anti-Zionist Jew providing legitimizing critique of Israel's genocide on your behalf. Don't worry - blaming Israel for genocide (it's mentioned twice in the notes and absolutely meant to put that word in your brain - again without any evidence, just the suggestion is planted... Israel-genocide). And you're walking away with what?.... Israel bombing, Israel bad, Israel genocide. You're accepting all of this vague truthiness without evidence, listening to highly motivated people working in an information campaign targeted at young progressive like yourself.

Look, Israel isn't bad because Hamas told you they were bad. Israel has its problems and has made many transgressions, but this particular war? Hamas started it and Hamas hasn't stopped - the rockets are still flying, their soldiers still fighting and hostages are still being held. Hamas didn't prepare or safeguard its citizens and is discouraging them from evacuating. The invasion (I watched the go pro footage released from Hamas fighters on Telegram channels) was an Einstazgruppen-level extermination event, only smaller by scale but not intent. The fighters approached civilians in crowds, at a bus stop, hiding in latrines, hiding under tables, in their homes - and machine gun them down. Hack at a few not-quite-dead people on the ground, toss a grenade in a room, burn some people alive, kill entire families. Sort out which women are for raping on site and which will be taken as hostages, and a few guys who definiately got the memo to make a photo op of them NOT killing an old lady in her own home. But the footage was brutal and raw, and they were proud of it just like Isis, before it all gets taken down. And then somehow the Economist interviewed the leader of Hamas who said no civilians were killed in their invasion which - I mean... it's incredible to lie that boldly with so much footage flooding the internet. I didn't realize when I watched the footage at the time that so much would be removed because it was 'too graphic' or 'too political' or 'violated policies' or I would have downloaded as much as I could. The start of this war was a brutal, personal and vindictive assault on Israeli citizens that was designed to trigger Israel's collective trauma about the Holocaust and pull them into war.

Hamas welcomes the deaths of its people. It plays well for them on social media. Don't cheer them on.

21 Oct 23

[utilitycaster]

I assumed Laudna fled Whitestone around the fake VM Sun Tree execution time, wound up in Blightshore and then became a Hollow One. That would explain her origins and her current condition. Also the animosity/weird vibes towards VM and Percy specifically. According to her, Laudna named her dead rat Pâté because the de Rolos all had “weird ‘P’ names” but Percy was the only one. That sounds like she knew of him or had heard his name recently enough to make it stand out among the multiple de Rolos. So maybe she had family/friends executed in place of VM at the Sun Tree, knew it was because Percy had angered the Briarwoods and didn’t stick around for the rebellion.

So, I get this is very much a thinking out loud kind of thing and there are admitted assumptions and maybe's in here; what I think might be helpful for the fandom at large is a thorough examination of the text. I've put it below a cut because it's a lot.

On the subject of 'P' names: Percy is the third of his name. At the very least, there have been several past de Rolos with that name. They are the rulers of Whitestone; even if the previous Percivals had died before Laudna was born she likely was aware this was a family name. We also know that Cassandra's middle name is Johanna, which was also her mother's name; it's not unlikely that someone else in the family had Percival as a middle name and used it openly. We cannot safely assume Laudna knew of Percy de Rolo III specifically/most recently.

On the subject of Hollow Ones and Blightshore: Hollow Ones are at least from what we know so far specific to Blightshore, and I'm of two minds regarding whether to handwave it away (note, anon, I do really respect you including it and this is just becase I've decided to turn this into a somewhat comprehensive post of Things In Laudna's Story).

In favor of including it: GIVE ME MORE BLIGHTSHORE LORE DAMMIT.

In favor of handwaving it away: the Blightshore lore is that betrayer gods/age of arcanum magic corrupted the land and that is basically what was going on in Whitestone.

I will say that the lore from the Explorer's Guide to Wildemount (p 181) is that Hollow Ones generally awaken days after they died.

Laudna's actual story:

(starting from 1:32:32 on the YouTube video for 3x2)

Laudna: Oh, well, I'm from Whitestone originally. Think I mentioned that. And the de Rolos were rulers for a time in my youth. And then there was a horrible coup when I was a young woman and they all sort of died. I don't know, just gone. Guess that's what happens when people want your political power.

Orym: But they came back.

Laudna: Did they? Oh, I don't know.

Imogen: What do you mean, they came back?

Laudna: I went far away from Whitestone and never looked back.

Orym: Oh, yeah. Lost son showed up.

Laudna: Hmm? Good for him.

Orym: Found his sister, brought it back.

Laudna: How do you know all this?

Orym: Uh.

Laudna: I know you're from Tal'Dorei.

Orym: Yeah. I mean, it's not a secret, really. It kind of spread.

Laudna: I became a bit of a recluse after my time in Whitestone. Didn't talk to people much and they didn't want to talk to me.

...

(starting from 1:36:02, after Bertrand has talked about Vox Machina)

Laudna: Well... Whitestone was nearly turned upside down looking for them, at least when I was there.

I don't really read any animosity towards Vox Machina here; a little towards the de Rolos perhaps, but in a sense of "fuck people in political power"; she doesn't seem any more enamored with the Briarwoods.

Essentially, the part that doesn't add up is that Laudna claims to be both aware that Vox Machina were coming to Whitestone and unaware that a de Rolo was involved, but the Whitestone Rebellion included prominent and repeated uses of the de Rolo crest, which Laudna would presumably recognize:

(Episode 1x31 on YouTube, which is split up into parts for Reasons Unknown; this is literally the first thing said in part 2)

Keyleth: And I cast my Skywrite spell...and I use the smoke in the distance and as it's rising up into the sky, start drawing out the de Rolo family crest in the smoke.

Keyleth does this again several times; this is two days after the party arrives and one day after they would likely be first known as a present threat, ie, precisely when the Briarwoods would be tearing things up looking for them (vs. stringing up the Sun Tree to intimidate them).

Other Whitestone Occupation Notes

It's stated in episode 1x30 that escape during the occupation was nigh-impossible; the Briarwoods have the city on complete lockdown and those who died simply became part of the Briarwood's army of undead.

Conclusions/Further Discussion

Nothing really quite fits the timeline we know.

- If Laudna left during the chaos of the initial coup she wouldn't know who Vox Machina was.

-If Laudna was around during the rebellion, she would likely know Percy had returned.

-If Laudna did not leave during the initial coup she'd know at least something of the Briarwoods, even if she didn't know about the retaking of Whitestone

What makes the most sense to me is one of the following:

Laudna is not lying, and she either died during the initial coup and for some reason became a Hollow One rather than a mindless undead under Briarwood control, or else just managed to hide via other reasons (possibly related to her warlock pact) and was able to remain in hiding for the occupation (ie, becoming a recluse) such that she was aware the Briarwoods were in control but didn't really have details about them. She then quietly escaped early in the rebellion without noticing the details of who had returned, but had heard the name "Vox Machina". If she was still properly alive when she escaped, she perhaps ended up in Blightshore later and became a Hollow One there. It's a little convoluted but at least it doesn't contradict anything. A Sun Tree connection isn't impossible under this timeline, but it's wholly speculative.

Laudna is lying for some reason, yet to be determined; at that point we don't know what is true from her story so anything is totally speculative.

Laudna is in some way an unreliable narrator; very plausible but again at that point we don't have any reliable information.

Marisha got a detail wrong. This is something people weirdly tend to skirt around when talking about the show and it's always like, we know for a fact Matt has made math errors with dates or Travis forgot to use Relentless Endurance early on; the cast are people, it's okay to acknowledge they make mistakes.

[bookofmirth]

ok so this might come off as a bit rambly so please bear with me lol

i've noticed that the acotar fandom has this incessant need to be right when it comes to canon and it really sucks out the funness of fandom. shipping is supposed to be fun but when it comes to this fandom, it's almost like a competition to see who will be more right when the books come out. engaging with theories/predictions about characters and the plot is supposed to be exciting but when it comes to this fandom, some of the theories/predictions are problematic at worst and nonsensical at best. like how can you say with your full chest that you're so confident about where the series is heading in the future because of this or that theory when you're stuck in the past and refuse to see what all of the text is telling you in the present. it doesn't make sense. the selective reading is so strong that it has me looking sideways sometimes lol

i guess my question is why do you think the fandom is so divided when it comes to ships right now? i've seen people say this wasn't the case for feysand and nessian, so what's the difference here?

Oh boy Brielle, I have some thoughts on this. It's complex.

To be clear, I am not saying that this applies to literally every single person who ships a certain way. This is a commentary on the fandom as a whole, and there are always exceptions.

This got really, really long, so I'm putting it under the cut.

I think that one of the main draws of this series, and of sjm's writing in general, is her ships. I think that people get very, very attached to their ships.

I also think that sjm does NOT fully think through some of the choices that she makes when writing. See: the way that she takes from all these different cultures and mashes them together, which could be seen as disrespectful of their origin. She has retconned things, like Mor being queer and Lucien being Helion's son. I think that she thoroughly thinks about some of the aspects of her books, like Rhys's reaction to sleeping with Feyre for the first time, but then really half-asses other aspects of her books, like Mor coming out.

Then, we have your good old misogyny and homophobia - people in the fandom don't like Mor because she hurt the poor bat boy's feelings when she didn't sleep with him, and they don't have a mating bond, but she's never really told Azriel "no", and so every single moment of pain that Azriel has felt in 500 years is Morrigan's fault. And Mor's experience as a closeted queer woman who feels unsafe around the people she should trust the most is completely disregarded by the fandom.

Finally, I think that a combination of these factors has created the monster we know as e*riel, and that the fandom is perpetuating its own mythology.

What all of this comes down to, and the real reason I think that the fandom is behaving this way right now, is that e*riel is dead. It's never happened, it's not going to happen, but because we don't have the clear closure we got with moriel (where people would be accused of homophobia for continuing to ship it), people are still trying to figure out any possible way for e*riel to become canon, though every single sign points to it being a non-issue.

This weird thing where people have to be "right" all the time, and the way that "right" = "canon" is a relatively new development. It's as if everyone in this fandom forgot that they are in fact in a fandom, which inherently diverges from canon.

However, I think that the need to cling to canon is because the alternative would be to admit defeat and say "well, even if it doesn't happen I will still ship e*riel, it's fine, I will live with that." But they don't want to do that. In response, they look at canon so hard that they are reading the white space between the letters to create their theories, which as you noted as largely nonsensical and often fail to take into account who the characters are as individuals, how they are connected to other characters, and why it would or wouldn't be appropriate for them to be involved in various plots.

People could say, as eluciens having been saying since day one, "I really ship this thing but I can see that it might not become canon". But they don't say that. They literally refuse to see any other possibility than e*riel becoming canon.

You pointed out that people are stuck in the past - absolutely. The number of reimaginings I have seen of scenes where either Azriel or Elain has literally zero to do with the scene, but people try to shove one or both of them in there. And this from books ago. People are stuck on the Truthteller scene, and refuse to acknowledge that neither of them have acted on their feelings, whatever those might be, for years. And they ignore the fact that once Elain and Az do act, it goes horribly wrong.

Here are the facts as of right now:

ACOSF is the most recent book. In that book, sans extra chapter, those two had no interaction other than looking at one another.

If we include his POV, then he said it was wrong, we got confirmation that nothing has ever happened between them, she returned his necklace. Elain was aroused, but that does not mean she was ready to even have sex. "Yes" to a kiss is not "yes" to every single sexual act Az can think of. They parted on awkward, bad terms after a scene in which it seemed like they were about to start something. Yikes. Unlike Wings and Embers, they did not end that chapter still thinking of one another. After they part ways, the omniscient narrator does not mention Elain, or Az thinking about Elain, again.

His POV occurs months before the end of the book. They do not interact after that.

Elain has a mate she has not rejected, nor accepted.

So anyway, your question was why are people like this. lol. I think the fandom created a monster, and that monster is clinging to life. It can't accept the idea of morphing into a non-canon ship, though it never was canon in the first place. It had just convinced itself that it was.

There are other aspects to this, that have to do with gwynriel and elucien.

Gwynriel is a new ship, it's almost guaranteed to happen, people are super excited to ship it and give Gwyn all their love. I'm sure they would rather create content for that ship than argue about whether or not it's going to be canon, but they are in constant defense mode. Some people honestly didn't like e*riel before because they don't like Elain, or because they don't like Azriel, and those are valid reasons for not liking it. Why people ship gwynriel doesn't matter. The tone of the discussion is, unfortunately, being shaped elsewhere, which I will mention below.

Elucien is an old ship, older than e*riel. I can speak from this perspective - personally, I have been holding my tongue for 4.5 years. I have been letting people live, and just talking about the things I like. Then when acosf came out, it was like I could finally say all the things I had been thinking about Azriel, because I now had proof that the things I thought about his character (and because of that, about e*riel) now had solid canon foundation. This is 4.5 years of me holding in a lot of shit and finally being able to say it. Sometimes yes, I might take joy in having been right.

I think that a few people are clinging to canon, and that sets the tone for the discourse in the fandom. Someone says "according to page whatever, blah blah blah" and people feel the need to respond, and then it turns into and "I'm right" contest instead of... a fandom... A lot of us like debating. To me, it's fun. But when Person A starts a conversation that's about canon and it actually ignores canon, it's hard to let that conversation go by and just keep creating whatever we want to create. Instead, we respond, and so the tone of the conversation is shaped by what Person A decided to say.

I also think that there is a lack of distinction between theories (what will happen in the future) and meta (analysis of what we have now).

There is also a lack of "I" statements. Opinions are being stated as fact.

idk if there is a way to make it better, other than to just go back to ignoring one another. This whole situation makes me want to throw out every single canon ship I like and create exclusively non-canon content, just for spite. Except I really like doing meta, and so I don't want to. I guess for my point, I'll just keep doing meta, keep creating different content, and keep reminding people that they aren't here to continue perpetuating canon, but to play with it.

[rayraylovesbuckybarnes-blog]

The Weird McCall Wolf Moon Part 2

After getting Showered i didn’t do anything with my hair all i did was tie it in a bushy tail i barley had time to do any kind of make up, Scott left like half a hour ago and that’s new for Scott he doesn’t usually care He was favoring his side when i saw him maybe it was from the fall or maybe it was from the one thing i don’t wanna think about “The Alpha” i whisper.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It took a lot of begging but i managed to get my mum to drive me i just called her mummy and started sucking up to her and finally im in my first class English bleck. Scott’s acting weird and hes got his eye on the new girl as she comes in, someones got a crush then he passes her a pen and she is thinking ‘How did he know?’ so that’s even more reason to put a point on the Alpha theory.

Yay bell ooh Scott’s in his own world time to sneak attack, I tip toe behind him and just as im about to jump on him Stiles has to be there “Hey Raven”.

“I hate you” i glare at him and he looks at me confused They are watching the new girl Allison i think her name is and of course Lydia’s there sucking up because she has nice clothes then the jock freak Jackson Lydia’s boyfriend shows up and starts kissing her, Ugh Jackson and Lydia make me wanna throw up. “ Can someone explain to me how new girl is here all of five minutes and already hanging with Lydia’s cliq” Rebecca says curiously ** That’s her name in this story**.

“ Cause shes hot, beautiful people hurt together’'Stiles so smugly put while staring at Lydia. Scott’s staring at Allison again while Rebecca and stiles are arguing about Lydia never been around a ugly person, Its kinda creepy Scott’s staring i mean. Im reading Lydia’s thoughts and shes thinking about sex,Jackson and party on Friday or Sex with Jackson at the Party on Friday. Lacross practice is soon and Scott wants me to be there he’s convinced hes gonna make first line this year.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

” Ugh why must you drag me here you know i don’t do sporty stuff’’ i loudly complain And of course im ignored,“But if you play i won’t have anyone to talk to on the bench” Stiles was moaning about this from the time it took us to get here until now.“I can’t sit out again my whole life is sitting on the sidelines this year i make first line” Scott’s trying to get his positivity across. I turn around and i see coach throwing gear at Scott its hilarious.

“Anyway you wont be alone i’ll make sure i have a seat behind you so we can talk and you can complain about how you wanna be on the team but you’re not sure enough of yourself bla bla bla’'I say to Stiles trying to cheer him up. ’'yeah great nice speech not helping but its good to know i have your sarcastic company’'Stiles said smirking. ’'oooooooooh im offended” i joked but i know how to get to him wait for it, wait for it “OW WHAT THE HELL RAVEN!” Stiles yelled while rubbing his head where i just made a lacross ball hit him. “ Hey that’s what you get for OW!” he just slapped me upside the head’’ you are so gonna pay for that later’’ i say while smiling evilly he knows its bad when i do that. He looks terrified “ Please no pain physically mentally maybe physically no” he looks so scared i can’t help but smile “meh we’ll see”.

Me and stiles look over just it time to see Scott catching balls like crazy and not missing a single one its incredible.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

“EWWW! Really Scott you had to take the wet route” ignored’’ I don’t know what it was it was like i had all the time in the world to catch the ball, and that’s not the only weird thing i can hear stuff i shouldn’t be able to hear, smell things’’ Yup the Alpha got him “Smell things? Like what?” Stiles asks’’ Like the mint mojito gum in you’re pocket’’.

“ What i don’t even have any mint mojito-” then rest assured Stiles pulled out some gum “Ew dude how long has that been in there that you forgot about it?’'i asked disgusted ’'So all this started with the bite?” Stiles is still amazed about the gum, “ what if its like a infection like my body is flooding with adrenaline before i go into shock or something?” Scott asked worried. “ you know what i think I've actually heard of this its a specific kind of infection-”

“you have?”

“shhh” then he mouths follow my lead,i just nod “Are you serious?”

“Yeah yeah i think it called lycanthrope” I actually had to look away from laughing hey gotta play dumb right. “Whats that is that bad?” oh Scott you really need to get out more “ Yeah its the worst but only once a month on the night of the full moon” i say then me and Stiles start Howling like wolves. Scott then slaps us both and walks away “hey you’re the one who said you heard a wolf howling” Stiles says trying to defend himself. “There could be something seriously wrong with me”

“I know your a werewolf GRRR” Stiles really cant growl’' OK come on Scott you know we’re joking’’ I hope, i heard someones thoughts and tuned Scott and Stiles out 'Im guessing that’s one of the guys who lost the inhaler- Oh great the girls here to’ Its that same deep voice that carried me home “RAVEN!” Scott yelled “ huh, what” he pointed behind me and sure enough i turn around and someone there.

I got a proper look at him now hes about 6ft1,light stubble, black tousled hair and wearing mostly black and lets just say hes super hot. His eyes though i could have sworn they flashed bright blue, “psst” i turn back around to see Scott and Stiles doing hand movements l like come closer my child its weird. When i get over to them the guy finally speaks “ What are you doing here hm this is private property” he tells them not looking at me, “ sorry man we didn't know” Stiles is scared. “Yeah we were just looking for something but forget it’' Scott says annoyed then the guy throws something and again Scott catches it no problem when he opens his hand and the inhaler is there and the guys is walking off ’'Hey Scott i’ll be right back” i run off before he can protest.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

“Hey!” i yell the guy seemed to have heard me cause he turns around “What” he glares at me “You were kinda harsh back there don’t you think?’'he walks over to me ’'What of it”

“W-well uh”

“What hm what are you gonna do? You’re just a girl” he smirks and that sparks something inside me “ Well this girl could probably kick your ass” i stand up in front of him and look him dead in the eyes 'She’s brave I’ll give her that

“Well?’'he glares at me and walks back

’'WAIT!”

“what” his back is still turned to me

“What’s you’re name? Im Raven”

“Derek” and he walks off, Great now back to Scott.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Im in bed watching G-force and as i look out my window i had to do a double take i see glowing blue eyes just like the ones i thought i saw on Derek. I look towards my door as someone knocks but when i look out the window again the eyes are gone, “ come in!” mum walks in looking tired as hell “ Hey just to let you know im gonna call it a night, um Scott has the late shift at the vet so don’t wait up” she says “ i wasn’t planning to but goodnight you look like you could use some rest” she comes over gives me a hug then shes off. And back into bed i go i turn off the TV and all i can think about is those Blue eyes Unfortunately my dreams are filled with the mass of fur and those red eyes.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

“Scott where are you?” Im in the boys locker room looking for my brother probably not a good idea but hey i need to talk to him.

( Dream/Flashback)

Im running in the woods and i hear the Alpha growling while chasing me 'You are mine Raven’

“No!” i continue to run its no use he jumps on me “ Please don’t hurt me”

He growls 'Will you be mine?’ I whimper “Yes” He moves his head down and bites my stomach.

“AWOOOH” (My version of a howl)

I wake up gasping for air why did i say yes to him? I shake my head rubbing my face, I look to my window and see Scott running into the woods “Scott!” no reaction i try to follow but hes long gone “Damn it”.

( End of Dream/flashback)

I hear something getting slammed against metal “WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON WITH YOU MCCALL!” Jackson yelled “WHATS GOING ON WITH ME YOU REALLY WANNA KNOW? WELL SO WOULD I, I CAN SEE, HEAR AND SMELL THINGS THAT I SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO SEE HEAR AND SMELL. I DO THINGS THAT SHOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE IM SLEEP WALKING THREE MILES INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE WOODS AND IM PRETTY MUCH CONVINCED IM TOTALLY OUT OF MY FREAKING MIND! Scott yelled back Jackson’s not buying it good ’'Huh you think your funny don’t you McCall? i know your hiding something im gonna figure it out, And i don’t care how long it takes.” Then another slam of metal “Scott?” Aaand he’s gone brilliant(note the sarcasm).

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Now as the good sister i am i decide to go to the stupid lacross practice. “SCOTT!” Stiles voice really shouldn't go that high but hey it gives me a laugh. “ Im playing the first elimination man can it wait? Scott asks. ” No just hold on OK the lab results came back from the hairs on the body, it was animal hair-“

’'look i gotta go”

“ No Scott your not gonna believe what it was, it was a wolf”.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

“COME ON”! i yell as Jackson knocks down Scott. Scott right away gets up and starts kicking ass at this,WOAH he just did some kind of side/back flip, Stiles has his curious face on. OH NO.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

“OK keep calm for what your about to see” i whispered to myself. Knock,knock. “Ray-Ray” Stiles says excited. “ Stiles you know i hate that name.”

“exactly” he smiles evilly. “Anyway the reason i called you, look at this I've been up all night doing all this research and im pretty sure Scott's a werewolf” he looks at me expectantly. “A werewolf what come on Stiles that’s ridiculous” i suck at lying. “ HA! you believe it too, so what do we do?”.

“ OK well first we need to tell Scott and he’s not gonna believe us i mean come on would you?” i asked knowing the answer. “YES!” he yells. “yeah but your on the crazy train so you would” he looks at me with fake hurt “Fine i’ll call Scott”.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

About a half hour later Scott shows, “Get in here” me and Stiles yell “Ginyx you owe me a hot chocolate”. ignored “what is this about the body did they find out who did it? poor Scott he has no idea ’' No they’re still questioning people even Derek Hale” Stiles says and my heart jumps at the mention of Derek. “Oh yeah the guy in the woods” the hot guy in the woods ha good thing they cant read my mind. “Yeah yeah but that’s not it OK” Stiles is getting annoyed “what then?”

“ Remember the joke from the other day, not a joke anymore’' Scott looks lost ” the Wolf the bite in the woods’’ my mind flows back to the red eyes.

(Flashback)

'What a pretty little thing i have big plans for you’ That voice i know that voice, blurred images screaming people flames.

(End of flashback)

“WOAH! SCOTT STOP!” i scream as i see Scott holding Stiles up against the wall ready to punch him, “AAGH’' Scott screams as he lets Stiles go. I wait till Scott is gone before i speak ’'Stiles the chair” i whisper as i see claw marks “We are so screwed” we say together.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

“MOM” i hear Scott yell “Whats wrong?” and of course i run in and nothings wrong, ew except my brother in nothing but a towel. “Im just gonna go” i say as i run back to my room “what to wear, what to wear”. So i just go with Black skinny jeans, Dark purple tank that shows a little stomach, grey ankle boots about 4 inch heel and a little black swede shoulder jacket. Make up purple and silver smokey eye just a chap stick on the lips and no blush, Hair straight and just dyed the ends brighter red earlier. I look over my self in the mirror pleased with how i look i say “ Its go time”.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stiles picked me up about 20 minutes later. When i got in his geep he tried to act all James bond and i just lost it i couldn't stop laughing.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We arrived at the party 15 minutes later and im kinda judgy when it comes to party's so here’s my checks. Good music? Check, Lots of people? Check, And some sluttyness? Check. Jackson and Lydia are pretty much dry humping each other less than 5 feet from us. Stiles looks Disgusted/Upset, What he see’s in her i will never know.“Im gonna go look for Scott” I yell to Stiles “I’ll go look that way call me if you find him” Stiles yelled back.

After looking for a good bit Something strange or should i say someone strange shows up. “Derek!” He seemed to have heard me because he looked over at me. I walk halfway to him He walks the rest not looking pleased Geez does he ever smile. I stop and he just stares at me, Everything happens so quick after that his hands are on my waist and my arms are around the back of his neck “So crash high school party’s often?” i ask looking away could i be more geeky, “No” he almost growls. 'Why is she trying to talk to me? Shes here for the same reason as me’ Hes thinking “What reasons that?” Oops out loud, OUT LOUD! “What reason’s what” he asks, Quick just make something up “Um why don't you crash high school party s more often?” I giggled. He looks unimpressed “ALLISON!” i yell thankful for the distraction. “I gotta go” I turn around and hes gone “Raven right?” I nod “ Scott’s told me about you” she explains. “Where is he?” I ask “I don't know he just took off” she says upset. “ Hes not usually like this i promise and he really likes you, don't be too hard on him” By this time we're outside and our car is gone, “ Can i give you girls a ride?” OH OH i know that voice, OH NO i know that voice. I turn around and Derek's there,“ Um” Allison mumbles “ Sorry how rude of me im a friend of Scott's my names Derek”.

“No-” He cuts me off with a glare and gives me a shut up and play along look, “Yeah, Sure” i say to him and Allison.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The car ride was awkward to say the least after we dropped Allison off, “My house is just round here” i say pointing to the left “I know” he says then mumbles to himself “great just great”.

“How do you know? And what the hell was that back there about being Scott's friend?” I ask annoyed, “Just drop it before i make you walk”. And i shut up its cold and i really don't wanna walk, 5 excruciating minutes later he drops me off and i barely get the door shut before he speeds of “Bye to you too” i grumble.

Wait the car is here I rush in looking for Scott but hes not here.“ You know what? Im going to bed i’ll deal with his ass tomorrow.” Again why must i talk to myself, Maybe im the one riding the crazy train not Stiles.

After Stripping down to my underwear and tank top i crawl into bed and drift off.

So that’s episode 1 finished. Derek’s a bit of a jerk huh.

-Ray