#rampant theorising here stand clear

[animazi]

whoa look at me talking about the acolyte wow... I dislike commenting on currently airing shows largely because there is so much that is still a mystery ooh what could happen next, and this is very true for the murder mystery only the victims aren't who you think show.

this is an upsettingly long post ostensibly about how I think there will be a mae pov flashback, and really about how I think osha's flashback that we have now is not the full story, which is fairly obvious, but I've put way to much thought into getting together what passes for textual evidence for it. read at own peril contains much yapping about e3.

anyway. episode three. time to comment on the currently airing show. beautiful stunning cinematography - different director Kogonada, and yeah. wow. very pretty. a lot more obvious Symbolism shots, which I am a sucker for icl, and in general some very beautiful stuff this is, and I will go to bat for this theory (please please please be right c'mon leslye do this for me) half of the flashbacks, and it is all from osha's point of view. right ok. so. entertain me here. some people on twt have noted how there are some shots in flashback scenes in the trailer that we haven't seen yet, and this + torbin's scar and the one word title (all other episodes have been two words, with each clearly corresponding to mae or osha) + the fact that this episode is so visually distinct and Kogonada is directing e7 too + what I am about to talk about wrt mae and osha all leads me to think 'yeah, this is half of the flashback', and the other half is probably going to be the bit people get antsy about yay.

now! the mae and osha stuff - I think that Destiny (that's the name of this episode btw. I have so many thoughts about the jedi and agency as ever. that is a separate yap though) is going to be the less controversial of the two largely because, bear with me just lining up this wasps nest in my aim, it is 'pro-jedi' so to speak. the jedi are good, not bad. osha restates time and time again her desire to not be a witch, to explore the world, and the jedi are her way of doing this. sol is kind and saves her, and the jedi are nice, if strict. they stop her from having to do the ascension, a ceremony she really didn't want to do, and they saved her. now. for the disclaimer. I don't think the jedi are evil and bad, I think they are flawed as an institution, and that is the angle I am fairly certain the acolyte is going for - they care more about the legality of the situation rather than the 'moral good' of the situation they are in aka mae really does not want to leave, even if osha does - it would surely cause far more harm to take them both as the jedi pretty clearly intend to do. that in mind. I also think everyone is sleeping on how incredibly fun and biased these two (more on this later) flashback episodes will be. hands up if you've seen the last duel, anyone, anyone? well the last duel is a film about uh. the violent sexual assault of a woman in medieval france. and it is framed through three different accounts of the events as told by our three leads: jean (the husband), jacques (the rapist), and marguerite (the victim). marguerite's account is presented by the film as the actually accurate one, it is The Truth, but it is also the last version we see, so for the first two thirds of the film we have watched two clashing narratives, with no clear indication of who is right. the story of the acolyte is one inspired by leslye headland's relationship with her sister (linky link) a relationship where both sisters believe fully that they are in the right - if osha's account is 100% the truth, this really doesn't seem to track and the show looses most of its emotional depth, and while yes, sure, external material doesn't mean that the show will unfold this way, I am willing to bet (please please please please please) that it will. now. onto the actual content of this episode that I think supports my theory - aka osha's (clear) bias.

I am going to start with what I think is the strongest point, and work from there. so. basics. please remember that osha has spent the last 14 years of her life knowing that mae set the fire that killed her parents, the same fire that traumatised osha to the point that she was unable to continue her jedi training and had to take an illegal and dangerous mechanic job, and yet she still clearly loves her sister - I would guess from this information presented in e1&2 that mae and osha had a close bond before, and yet the flashback shows almost the opposite. osha chafes at mae's constant proximity, at the 'born as two but always one' line, they are near constantly fighting, mae seems like an out and out psychopath, freezing a space hummingbird and deliberately setting the fire in an attempt to kill osha (in funny news. the fortress had so many osha violations no wonder she wanted to leave hahaha I am a comedic genius). why does osha miss the shot then, in light of this? well, the thesis of this theory post is that osha is not remembering in full 4k HD honesty - again, she has spent most of her life certain that mae essentially killed her parents and indirectly ruined her dreams of being a jedi, and this lack of clarity about the truth comes through in how she acts towards mae. now. my evidence for this? largely vibes based, and could just be poor writing, but what is star wars (prequels edition esp) if not reading heavily into interesting writing :D largely here my hmmm moments all stemmed from how conflictingly Destiny (the episode) presents mae. she is at once a known freezer of space hummingbirds (but osha doing the exact same just for less time is fine?) and setter of fires while vowing to kill osha to prevent her from leaving, and also osha's clearly loved sister - yes they fight, but again, osha misses the shot that would have brought mae into jedi custody (custody that she fairly explicitly trusts). now, my hypothesis here is that osha looking back on these events as coloured by her knowledge of what mae will do unconsciously is framing mae as more in the wrong, inherently bad etc to make sense of mae's actions. now, additionally supporting evidence I will present to the review group is how vehemently osha (who is saved by and goes on to become a padawan to a jedi) supports the jedi, in a way that seems to have been, to me at least, argued before with mae. the girl has been drawing the jedi logo in her notebook, her love of the jedi is pretty apparent in this episode. and yet the witches pretty clearly fear the jedi and what they bring with them. they disagree with the jedi perception of the force - and this disagreement is not framed as wrong by the narrative thus far, the republic and jedi quite literally have banned them from ensuring the longevity of their coven - so why is osha so firmly convinced that the jedi are good? :warning: violent and unconfirmed theory :warning: through the lens of osha being biased as someone who was saved by the jedi, and clearly wanted more than life in the fortress, osha reframes her 'siding' with the jedi in childhood as a more 'moral' stance; the jedi and good, and mae, who burnt down her life, is bad; a conflict between (understandably) overprotective parents + a clingy sister and osha who wants to be her own person with her own identity (oh look a Theme) gets morphed into a conflict between the jedi (an identity osha later takes on, and still clearly largely adheres too, insert textpost about how despite leaving osha is still bound by core jedi principles e.g. compassion) and the witches (an identity osha never feels connected to and actively tries to leave behind).

I will also say I think you can see all of this in the title of the episode, Destiny. why is this the title? certainly its a break from e1&2 'lost/found' and 'revenge/justice', where they are descriptors of what osha and mae are (either literally as in being found or enacting). destiny does not fit this mould, and I think is a rather interesting framing of all this. it is osha's destiny to become a jedi, but for that to happen, mae seemingly must get cast as the villain, without any room for doubt or her side of the story. also, there is the fact that agency is such a big part of this episode (aww its my reoccurring favourite star wars theme). osha's lack of individuality/separation from mae, the way she feels unable to refuse the ceremony she clearly doesn't want to. the jedi (really just sol. I have so many thoughts about sol) offer osha the choice that she wants, and yet the 'sanctity' of that choice is taken away from her in the violent death of the coven and the burning down of the fortress. sol says if you wish you will train as my padawan, but she can never return to the ruins of the fortress, she must go to coruscant. logically and emotionally yes I understand this, but the show has made a point about how the jedi order does not really give you transferable skills - is the same not true in the other direction? osha has no family now, functionally nowhere to go that isn't the jedi order. the question is will you be my padawan, not will you be a padawan. destiny (or at least the actions of others) has made it so that the agency she just received has been dashed on the rocks. and to refocus on the actual topic of this post, that theft of autonomy was pretty directly down to mae, and so how else to process that other than casting mae as a villain.

now, in the show about troubled sororal relations (I restate my earlier link) there naturally has to be another side to the uh. sororal relations than just osha's. also I bet its going to be called 'choice' or some shit to mirror Destiny and the other episode titles and highlight the differences in worldviews of osha and mae, jedi and witch

this is all, of course, to go without even saying the unclear reasons for why mae set the fire. was she just evil and possessive, or (as the server posited) being controlled or mind tricked or startled or even was there some palpatine level manipulation going on by the master. questions that a mae specific flashback would answer.

anyway. good show I like it when the star wars makes me think about stuff even when it is 2am and I should be sleeping. watch literally none of this be true

[jenniferdiazisatransgirl]

Bi Taylor Theory

Hey guys, So I’m not big on theorising about the sexual orientations of celebrities given they are you know, real people but Taylor Swift released her 8th studio album, “folklore” recently. Not only does this album take me back to my days of high school, feeling very reminiscent of the old Taylor Swift, it also has an interesting song in it called “Betty” and before reading through this I advise listening to the song.

So a warning not to pass this point if you haven’t listened to the song.

So I have always had a suspicion that Taylor Swift maybe bisexual. But her public life has always been very boy crazy and while she has certainly show allyship in her songs, going as far back as the music video for “Mean” on the album “Speak Now”. There has really been nothing but I think she might be bisexual to back up this suspicion.

And really, in an ideal world Taylor being bisexual would not matter, but in the world we live in today where discrimination against LGBT people remains rampant, having arguably a superstar like Taylor amongst our ranks would be amazing. Plus I think, if Taylor is bisexual, “Betty” may reveal some of the politics in Big Machine and Nashville during the time of her early career.

So the song “Betty” focuses on what appears to be a Summer romances between Taylor and a girl called Betty, up until a point where Taylor refers to herself as being a guy called James. Which then suggests she is singing this song from the point of view of a guy called James and not her own point of view. So a romance between Betty and James.

And it may seem at this point the Bi Taylor Theory is proven moot but I need to dig deeper into this to get my thoughts across. So in the chorus there is a group of lines that goes like this;

“In the garden would you trust me If I told you it was just a summer thing? I'm only seventeen I don't know anything but I know I miss you”

We here this 2 times before any mention of it being from the point of view of a guy called James. To me, it reads almost as if Taylor intended her romance with Betty to be an experiment but her feelings ended up developing into something more.

The song also mentions Taylor hating the crowds and seemingly describes a school dance where, Betty can’t find Taylor and Taylor maybe after building her confidence comes to find Betty dancing with a guy. Taylor also mentions the worse thing she ever did, was what she did to Betty. This makes me wonder if perhaps she outed Betty which would be a truly awful thing to do, but maybe I am also jumping to an awful conclusion. Maybe standing Betty up was actually the awful thing. Taylor feeling shame in her attraction to Betty, standing her up at the school dance and making Betty feel ashamed in who she is.

I did consider not including the outing theory as I wrote it, but I kinda like to show my entire thought process, as my followers will know.

Now, we can move onto James in which the lines go;

“I was walking home on broken cobblestones Just thinking of you when she pulled up Like a figment of my worst intentions She said "James, get in, let's drive" Those days turned into nights Slept next to her but I dreamt of you all summer long”

So this is the first indication this isn’t Taylor, but supposedly someone else’s point of view, a man called James, who while being infatuated by Betty is with another girl.

Now, perhaps Taylor was singing from another person’s point of view. But let’s imagine for a second she wasn’t, let’s imagine she was writing from her own point of view.

In this Taylor is 17 and near the beginning of her career in the country music scene. Taylor has a habit of writing song after song about her exes, romances and failed romances and I would assume, she would have written this song back then with the intent to either have the song released on either her debut album “Taylor Swift” or “Fearless”. Bare in mind, Taylor didn’t become a worldwide sensation until “Fearless”, she is still a small time country artist and Nashville isn’t exactly known for its liberalism. She has yet to have the level of artistic control she does now over her music.

Maybe Taylor threw that verse in to throw people, make it appear as if she were writing it from a guys point of view when in reality she was writing it from her own. And maybe Big Machine decided it was still a bit too on the nose and people would realise it was in fact her point of view she was writing from.

And for my final point, Taylor in the final verse sings;

“So, I showed up at your party Yeah, I showed up at your party Yeah, I showed up at your party Will you have me? Will you love me? Will you kiss me on the porch in front of all your stupid friends? If you kiss me Will it be just like I dreamed it? Will it patch your broken wings? I'm only seventeen I don't know anything But I know I miss you Standing in your cardigan Kissing in my car again Stopped at a streetlight, you know I miss you” A key line I spot here is, “Standing in your cardigan”. Although certainly not impossible I don’t know many guys who are willing to wear their girlfriend’s cardigan. This further leads me to believe this is written from Taylor’s point of view, with the character of James’ being intended to throw people.

And now 13 years on, Taylor has a record deal with Republic and more creative freedom than she’s ever had. In fact more than probably most artists have. She has released an album that feels more in touch with her roots and one where the song of “Betty” doesn’t feel so out of place. She has made her allyship of the LGBT community very clear in the album “Lover” and show support for the Equality Act in the United States. Maybe now felt like the right time to release the song and hint at her possible bisexuality.

And I hear you asking, “Why didn’t she rewrite it to make it clear it is from her POV?” Maybe she is happy with how the song came out and maybe after 13 years the same level of emotions aren’t there for her to do a decent rewrite, but assuming this is a 13 year old song originally intended for “Taylor Swift” or “Fearless” I think it still quite eloquently gets the point across that Taylor is in fact bisexual.

And this is of course a theory and given this is a theory about a real person, I want to be quite clear that I could be wrong. If Taylor is straight, she is straight and there is nothing wrong with her being straight and fans should not pressure her into identifying one way or another.

I just felt like the song “Betty” raised some valid questions and I felt it was worth exploring and while it maybe great to have Taylor Swift as a bisexual icon. If she is straight she is still a pretty badass ally.

Enjoy!!!!