#read the replies and reblog for more!

[akiacia]

a spot of mountaineering before the new year 🏔️

[llyfrenfys]

"Rule Britannia is out of bounds" - How England invented Great Britain

("Rule Britannia is out of bounds"- Life on Mars, David Bowie, 1971)

As promised, here is a more in-depth exploration of Wales' relationship to indigeneity or colonised status. And how England created the (political) concept of Great Britain when it formally annexed Wales in 1542. This is a long post but I will try and be brief where possible to do so. I graduated with a degree in Celtic Studies last year from Aberystwyth University so it's time to put that to use.

In my last post, I went over the groundwork for this conversation - so if you haven't read that one yet I strongly suggest you read that one first then come back to this one. In that first post, I establish the stickiness in claiming or applying the status of colonised onto the modern nation and people of Wales. I also explore how claims of indigeneity (intended to legitimise Welsh nativism through dubious claims of descent from the Iron Age Britons) are weaponised in modern political contexts.

With all that said - how does one categorise the suffering of Wales/its culture and language without straying into the language of the colonised?

Early Medieval English Imperial desire for Wales:

Very often, you will hear people make the claim that Wales was 'England's first colony' and that the other nations bordering England were guinea pigs for Britain's later colonial empire. My previous writing on this topic has established the difficulty in applying colonised as a term to Wales and its context. Which leads to the question of what do we describe it as instead?

For this, we need to make a distinction between colonialism and imperialism.

The two concepts are very similar (and do overlap slightly) but they have crucial differences which allow us to be more precise and succinct with our wording which aids both communication of the subject and quells misunderstanding through language which doesn't fit the situation.

Put simply, Imperialism is when one country, people or nation desires to extend power over another (usually a close-by or neighbouring territory) - especially (but not solely) through the means of expansionism.

Colonialism is also when a country, people or nation wants to extend power over another - but primarily through invasion and typically (but not always) against territories that are further afield and not immediate neighbours).

A lot of the way in which we view early British history in Wales is tinged with a kind of exceptionalism for what happened between England and Wales. Very often, what was done is framed as uniquely terrible for the time and held up as a poster child for the unique evil of England's expansionist desires. Yet all over Europe at the same time this was happening - other European nations and peoples were engaging in the same subjugator-subjugatee relationship. The exceptionalism present in framing Wales as uniquely suffering in this period is, unfortunately, borne out of the same British imperial culture which was thrust upon it and has become irrevocably entwined with culturally. It is a kind of British arrogance (which ironically crops up in anti-British arguments in Welsh independence activism) which presupposes nobody could have suffered the same or worse than they have, which demands the active ignorance of other, contemporary examples of that which they claim to oppose.

Wales was the first victim of English (later British) Imperialism - not its first colonial victim.

The build-up to and annexation of Wales by England:

Wales was annexed twice - once before the age of states and once shortly before that age dawned. The concept of states (as in, sovereign countries) didn't really exist until after the Treaties of Westphalia (1648). In which the concept of non-interference in the religious affairs of other countries (and other domestic affairs) was established and international relations was born. This is relevant to Wales' situation - as what England did to Wales happened long before the age of states began.

There was the Conquest of Wales by Edward I between 1277 and 1283. (Before that, the Norman Conquest of Wales by 1081). (However, the latter being conducted by the Normans is not necessarily equatable to the actions of England the country, which itself had only just been invaded by the Normans). And then the Laws in Wales Acts which formally incorporated Wales into the realm of the Kingdom of England in 1542.

The Conquest of Wales by Edward I overran the territories of the last Prince of Wales (from the Welsh monarchic tradition), Llywelyn the Last and divided the territories into Welsh Principalities and Marcher Lordships. This setup remained until 1542, when Henry VIII passed the Laws in Wales Acts and formally annexed Wales and made it (in all the legal senses) a part of England.

By the time international relations was in its infancy (i.e. shortly after the Peace of Westphalia) Wales had been absorbed into England for just over 100 years. The relevancy of this is that Westphalia had been about religious liberty - Henry VIII's incorporation of Wales into the Kingdom of England was partly informed by religion. Henry VIII had just broken away from Rome and established the Protestant Church of England, whereas Wales was still largely Catholic. The Laws in Wales Acts also replaced the language of the courts in Wales with English, cutting off monolingual Welsh speakers from legal representation. The language of worship became English instead of Latin. Wales was culturally assimilated into England over a long period of time. And that meant ensuring Wales followed the 'correct' religion and spoke the 'correct' language. After the Peace of Westphalia, these actions by Henry VIII to bend Wales to his new religion and to assimilate Wales into England would have been in poor taste or decried in light of the new Westphalian system that was developing in Europe. Alas, these events took place before then and temporally speaking, Wales was locked out of this recourse.

By contrast, Scotland was unified with England into the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 (after the Peace of Westphalia). England committed numerous acts of cultural erosion and destruction against Wales and Scotland at this time - but its Union with Scotland differs to that with Wales. Wales was incorporated into England, whereas Scotland was 'invited' to join a union between England (which then included Wales) and itself. Simplifying it greatly - like a marriage proposal in which the two spouses are *supposed* to be equals. After the Act of Union with Scotland, the whole island of Great Britain was 'unified' and thus the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed from two states - England (inc. Wales) and Scotland into one state.

Welsh Nationalism and Nationhood as separate from Statehood:

Wales and Scotland were the victims of English imperialism in many similar, but also many different ways.

Wales, having never been a 'state' was unable to acquire this status since it had long been incorporated into England by the time the concept of states had developed. Wales was unlucky in this way, because other nations on this island such as Scotland had managed to establish themselves long enough to survive into the age of states and thus became one. Because of this, Welsh nationalism cannot look to an era in which it was a free state because that did not happen. Instead, Welsh nationalism very often looks back with rose-tinted spectacles to Wales prior to Edward I's conquest and/or prior to Henry VIII's Laws in Wales Acts.

But nationhood and statehood are not the same thing - and it is the conflation of these two concepts (like the conflation of colonialism and imperialism) which has led to much of the confusion on these topics. Nationhood is acquired by a group of people who share several of these things: a common language, history, culture and (usually) territory. Not all of these things are required, but most nations have all or almost all of these qualities. Wales has a language (Welsh), a common history, culture and territory (Wales). Statehood is acquired by an association of people who have most or all of these things: formal institutions of government, laws, permanent territorial boundaries and sovereignty. Wales before 1283 very loosely had government and laws (monarchy and Laws of Hywel Dda) but had no permanent territory due to the conquest and lost some sovereignty in 1283 and total sovereignty in 1542.

Even if Wales had met all the criteria for a state in 1283, it would not have been eligible to become one - no nation in the world was able to do that yet because the concept (or proto-concept) for it would only be invented in 1648. Even England did not qualify for state status yet. Put simply, Wales got very unlucky with history and geography in such a way which prevented it from having a historical statehood post-1648 like neighbouring England and Scotland.

Naturally, when Welsh nationalism attempts to recall a past in which it was a 'state' - it is always an imagined and romanticised history. A fantasied history which generates ideas of the persecuted 'indigenous' Cymro where it shouldn't really be (in all seriousness, the injustices inflicted upon Wales by England are enough - extra additional injustices reliant upon a claim to to 'nativeness' do not need to be invented in order to be taken seriously). In the modern world, claims of nativeness in a European context are fraught, misguided, in poor taste and often copy the homework of the indigenous peoples those same European powers marginalised or colonised. In the modern world, a white Welshman claiming indigeneity is doing so in a postcolonial world and there really is no escaping that. Succinctly - the Welsh nationalist who relies upon a created sense of nativeness can only do so by drawing upon the work of marginalised native peoples living in parts of the world formerly colonised by Great Britain. To claim native status as a Welshman is to misunderstand and misappropriate history while wielding the language of the genuinely colonised while contributing nothing to it. It is purely extractive and a slap in the face of non-European native peoples everywhere. The pining for this return* to a prior point in Wales' history where it was a fully functional, sovereign nation populated only by 'native' or 'indigenous' Cymry is an alarming and ahistorical fantasy that all too easily slides into ethnonationalism and nativism -ancient or modern.

(*the choice of the word 'return' here is no accident - the desire to 'return' is inextricably linked to the alt-right dogwhistle 'retvrn' and it it is frighteningly common to see elements of that subculture crop up in Welsh nationalist calls to return to a point in Wales' history where it was 'sovreign'.)

Welsh nationalism which isn't vigilant to this kind of thinking very often will find itself arguing blatant untruths. For example, on the milder side of fake history, I've come across Welsh nationalist groups claiming symbolism from Owain ap Gruffydd's coat of arms - despite the fact he lived before the age of heraldry and he never used these arms because they were attributed to him later.

What next for Wales after 1542?:

Since Wales was fully and formally incorporated into the Kingdom of England by 1542, English colonisation of the Americas prior to 1707 naturally included Welsh colonists as well as English colonists. After 1707 Scots joined in with the now British colonisation of the Americas (both as/for/on the side of the Brits and as Scots fleeing Scotland after the Act of Union decimated Scottish Gaelic traditional culture). The Welsh, on the other hand, were more intimately involved with the colonisation of the Americas before that.

Though England spearheaded its colonisation of the Americas, Wales was not an unwilling participant dragged along by its association with and incorporation into England - Welsh colonisation, like Scottish colonisation, was often motivated by religious or cultural persecution - of which colonisation of another land was a possible solution to cultural loss in their home countries. Pennsylvania was settled by many Welsh Quakers and the idea of a Welsh Tract was floated to the Welsh settlers in 1684. The idea was to create a county which would operate in the Welsh language and serve as a vehicle for the preservation of the Welsh language. This attempt was not as successful as Wales' colony in Patagonia, Argentina in which native populations there were displaced at the behest of the Argentinian government - who needed the land settled and cleared. Welsh colonists took up this mantle and created Y Wladfa colony there in 1865.

Returning to the 17th Century - Welsh people were active colonists in the Americas during this time - motivated by saving the Welsh language and freedom of religion (especially the developing Nonconformist denominations of Protestant Christianity developing at this time). It was not so much that England was forcing Wales to participate in its colonialism, but that Wales has its own wants and ends for colonialism and was motivated entirely on its own grounds.

Back at home, Wales was still hard-done-by due to England - but two things can be true at once. Wales was a victim of English imperialism, but was also a perpetrator itself of colonial violence against Native Americans. England was no such victim of imperialism of any kind and the power dynamic for England had always been one rooted in absolute expansionism.

Summary and Conclusion:

With all of that said - if you were to ask point blank if I feel it is appropriate or okay for Wales to claim it was colonised by England and that Welsh people are in some way, more indigenous to the island than any other people living here - my answer would be no, I don't think it's okay.

I can't stop people from thinking otherwise, but I can reason that perhaps we shouldn't appropriate the struggles of people marginalised by the very nation we are talking about in order to craft a victimhood which is entirely unnecessary. Wales was a victim of English imperialism - but Wales was also an active colonising European nation. In the modern world, people are thankfully more willing to listen to the wants and needs of victims of colonialism - particularly victims of British colonialism in the Americas, Oceania and Asia. But I would warn against Welsh nationalism which seeks to capitalise on that increase in indigenous visibility in order to add legitimacy to itself (necessitating the crafting of an 'indigenous' narrative which did not exist there before). We live in the modern world where indigenous peoples are being taken more seriously than in centuries past - but that does not mean the only peoples hard-done by being taken seriously are colonised indigenous populations.

I believe it comes from a deep seated insecurity within Wales in which it is not uncommon to feel like Wales is being left behind because of all of this advancement. And this insecurity manifests as rejection of anything not obviously Welsh or demonstrably 'home-grown'. It's the national equivalent of a survival mechanism - but this is detrimental not only to the cause of Welsh nationalism, but to Wales itself. I've had people say to me (and I have read in historical sources from the last 100 years in Welsh) that the LGBTQ+ movement is actually an English invention created to erode Welsh traditional culture. Or variations on that rhetoric in which it is immigrants or other minorities which are made into this boogeyman come to destroy Wales and all Welsh ways of life. And it is so demonstrably not true but also bitter to see from the hearts and minds of my fellow Welsh speakers/Welsh people. Who have been hurt so much by the historical erosion of their culture that they confuse non-threats for threats and can only resolve to obtain some more legitimacy by appropriating the language of nativeness and colonisation in this ever changing world which, right now, is listening to native peoples for once.

It's difficult to put into words, even with all of the background knowledge above - but Wales is valuable and legitimate all on its own and doesn't need to rely upon things which isn't serving it - like ethnonationalism and nativism.

I want to live in a Wales which is uncompromising not only in its own fight for recognition and respect - but for other nations and peoples' fights for the same as well. I want to live in an independent Wales which is an ally to all those who share Wales' struggle and a Wales which rights the wrongs of its past without hesitation or compromise.

Would you rather a Wales for the few or a Wales for all who call it home?

[chororine]

let's talk about Cubert Farnsworth

something nobody said during the production of season 7

The most striking thing about Cubert, to me, is the fact that in the most literal sense possible, he had no childhood.

Well, no early childhood – in “A Clone of My Own”, we see Cubert spring into existence as a fully-formed twelve-year-old, having only previously existed in a “mentally undeveloped” state in a tank in Professor Farnsworth’s basement. This is obviously convenient from a writing standpoint, allowing Futurama’s showrunners to introduce a new character effectively out of nowhere (their original plan to do so in “A Big Piece of Garbage” having fallen through) – but I think it also explains a lot about Cubert from an in-universe perspective, and makes an interesting lens through which to view one of the show’s most divisive characters.

Generally speaking, we as viewers are used to meeting characters and then witnessing their backstory, either all at once or in small chunks scattered across episodes - Futurama itself goes as far back as Fry, Leela and Bender’s births in seasons 3, 4 and 3 respectively – but Cubert is in the unique position of his “birth” (so to speak) also being his introduction to the audience. While most of that audience simply brushed his character off as “annoying” and that was the writers’ intention according to the audio commentary for his debut episode, I want to set authorial intent aside for now and focus strictly on what the text shows us: someone who was artificially created for a specific purpose, like Bender, raised without a traditional family, like Leela, and who entered the world of the 31st century through a glass tube, like Fry.

Despite having a surprising amount in common with our three main heroes, Cubert is markedly different from them in his actual personality, which (at first) is driven largely by reason and logical sense, and that… well, makes logical sense. As with most of the sci-fi concepts Futurama employs in the service of good stories and jokes, the show glosses over the finer details of how Cubert can emerge from the cloning tank with all his motor skills and the ability to form sentences, but it’s reasonable to assume that whatever arcane scientific process the Professor used prioritises imbuing the clone with concrete knowledge over anything subjective. Cubert’s behaviour corroborates this: the very first piece of knowledge he displays is (in a quiet subversion of cloning tropes) self-knowledge, namely the knowledge that he’s a genius.

ok so the park line isn’t strictly relevant but cmon you can’t quote this scene without it

Cubert’s approach to suddenly springing to life with a ready-made body and personality is to engage with the adults around him head-on: said personality is pompous, pedantic and pugnacious (...as in “confrontational”, not as in a crack about his nose). He struts into Planet Express like he owns the place (which, of course, he will one day) right in the middle of season 2, the point where it’s safe to say the audience and characters (even fish-out-of-water Fry) have both adjusted to the show’s status quo: Professor Farnsworth can create anything as long as it’s funny or convenient to the plot (or both); Bender is an integral part of the “family”; Leela can beat up anyone who deserves it. But Cubert, who was abruptly thrust into the midst of that status quo, relentlessly questions it: how exactly would scientists “increase the speed of light��? What use would a delivery company have for a bending unit? Should Leela really fly with just one eye? Audiences and characters alike generally like sticking to the status quo (as this ever self-aware show pointed out back in “When Aliens Attack”), so it’s really no wonder Cubert rubbed people on both sides of the fourth wall the wrong way.

you know someone’s being insufferable when not even Turanga “it’s not his fault he’s an unstoppable killing machine” Leela likes them lol. believe it or not this IS a pro-Cubert post stick with me here

Questioning established norms is no bad thing, but the way Cubert goes about it is very... blunt, and far from endearing: he’s dismissive of the Professor’s “junk heap” of inventions and viciously mocks the Planet Express crew, painting people he’s only just met as incompetent and, later in the episode, calling Fry an idiot to his face. Make no mistake, this is… as we say in my neck of the woods, it’s not on. But while Cubert’s lack of socialisation “growing up" doesn’t excuse his tactlessness, it might very well explain it - along with him lacking the childlike wonder his fellow suspended animation survivor, Fry, felt at being thrust headlong into a world where the only limit to science is imagination. To use the episode’s Arc Words, “nothing is impossible”... except, it would seem, Cubert fitting in with the misfits who make up Planet Express.

Professor Farnsworth is eager to take Cubert under his wing, but also demonstrates where the latter gets that bluntness, being transparent about his intent to have his clone “spend his life finishing his inventions”. With that in mind, perhaps it’s not surprising that Cubert initially attempts to distance himself from the Professor, coldly referring to him as… well, “Professor”.

This is a detail that’s easy to miss or overlook on first viewing of the episode, but it effortlessly and efficiently explains what kind of relationship between the two Cubert initially desired: he acknowledges that they share DNA, but would prefer a “creator-creation” dynamic – perhaps akin to a robot and their maker - over anything familial. He states his disinterest in fulfilling his intended purpose as an inventor without a trace of the self-doubt that plagued Bender upon quitting his job and meeting Fry (or in the face of being replaced by a more up-to-date robot, or of being forgotten, or…), creating the impression that Cubert has a good deal more confidence and self-awareness than even an adult in a similar position to him, but also that he’s – let’s be fair to him – a complete dick, pointedly declaring himself the Professor’s “only half-decent invention”.

But as is often the case in fiction, that complete dickery serves a purpose in creating the catalyst for the episode’s fast-paced third act: the dejected Professor checking himself into cyber-retirement. In a perfect example of the characters’ recently-found comfort with the status quo, Fry immediately expresses a desire to rescue his boss who causes him more problems than he solves (what with the potentially fatal delivery missions and all), but who’s also family - a sentiment his non-blood relatives, or at least Leela, seem to share.

The only person at Planet Express who questions this desire is - who else - Cubert, but Fry brushes off his concerns with a well-placed “nothing is impossible” (the episode’s second use of the phrase). As an implicit reminder of Cubert’s status as a misfit among misfits, he, as a child character among a cast of adults, lacks the agency to avoid getting dragged along on the rescue mission for reasons that aren’t initially clear, to him or the audience.

It turns out Cubert’s purpose on the trip to the Near Death Star is to be both a DNA donor and part of Fry’s 160-year-old man disguise. Our three heroes do most of the heavy lifting (literally in Fry’s case), relegating Cubert to what he initially does best: complaining. While he does express a bit of (at this point) uncharacteristic concern for the comatose Professor, it comes after he airs his grievances about the ridiculousness of Leela’s plan, having to be Fry’s hump and the “stupid robot” – so maybe it’s a bit of well-placed karma that he gets knocked out mid-chase scene by a passing space station door, neatly excising him from the episode’s narrative.

...or so it would seem: in reality, the episode’s final two scenes circle right back to Cubert and his character arc. He springs awake to deliver the episode’s third and final “nothing is impossible”, having finally internalised the truth of it - and the secret of how to fix the ship’s damaged engines - thanks to a conveniently-timed dream (a borderline deus ex machina that may be an allusion to Groening and Cohen’s inspiration for Cubert, Wesley Crusher of Star Trek: The Next Generation – I did say at the beginning I was going to set authorial intent aside “for now”). Despite this apparent 180, Cubert demonstrates that he’s still fundamentally himself by shooting down Bender’s labelling of his discovery about the ship’s engines as “a complete load”. Evidently, Cubert’s nocturnal, almost divine revelation enabled him to use his sharp tongue for good rather than evil, as this discovery and Cubert’s quick repair of the engine is what allows the main trio and Farnsworths to safely escape from the Sunset Squad.

The episode’s conclusion uses a few well-chosen words and pieces of animated-acting to bring many aspects of Cubert’s character full circle. Most obvious among these is the conflict of whether or not he’ll fulfil his intended purpose; the Professor granting Cubert permission not to is a noble but ironic gesture, as the latter admits to having accepted his destiny, but only on his terms: not as a copy, but as a family member. Futurama, at its best, is masterful at showing and not telling; for instance, because Cubert initially addressed his creator as “Professor”, him switching to “Dad” completely unprompted feels like a display of agency as well as love.

And because Cubert had no childhood, him smiling with his whole face for the first time in the episode also marks him doing so for the first time in his life.

Let’s take a brief step back outside the text itself and look at it in relation to the various reactions viewers have had to it, because the episode’s resolution is something that… well, viewers have had varying reactions to. Looking up the episode on Wikipedia, you’ll find a citation of The A.V. Club’s review: one Zach Handlen wasn’t a fan, claiming that “[Cubert’s] shift from “This is stupid and doesn’t make any sense” to “Anything is possible!” doesn’t make a lot of sense”. YouTuber Johnny 2 Cellos seemed to enjoy the episode and Cubert’s character considerably more, but still said of Cubert’s decision to follow in his father’s footsteps that he’s “not sure [it] was the best lesson” - and honestly, they both raise valid points. Cubert’s change of heart is rather abrupt, and a step removed from the typical feel-good narrative of choosing your own destiny and becoming whatever you want… but nonetheless, I do think it’s a plus for his character, and to explain why I need to go back to the very first episode of the show.

The aforementioned “choosing your own destiny” narrative is so prevalent that Futurama itself has played with it from the beginning – and I do mean “played with”, not “used wholesale”. This is, of course, a fantastical show, but it always keeps a degree of emotional realism close to its heart; part of that realism is Fry’s one-way trip into the future not being the straightforward wish fulfilment he initially expected, as his new life still involves having a job, and it’s nominally the same dead-end job he once longed to escape. But Fry isn’t resigned to this: instead, he accepts the hand the universe has dealt him and makes it work for him…

…in fact, the theme of accepting one’s fate on one’s own terms is a theme that runs through Futurama all the way to the end of the original run.

And right in the middle of that run lies Cubert, perfectly exemplifying that nuanced theme with little more than the word “Dad.”

That choice to – again - show and not tell the change in how Cubert views his creator-father is something that I feel mitigates the suddenness of his change of outlook: wanting to emulate one’s father is a different feeling than wanting to emulate one’s creator, and a very human feeling... as is having sudden, eye-opening experiences in one’s preteen years. Cubert’s arc in this episode could be seen as a microcosm of growing up, and as a story of someone who thought he knew everything realising he still has growing up to do… and about a season later, we get to see him do some of that growing up.

Much like Cubert himself was initially intended as one thing and grew into another (on both meta and in-universe levels), I started this post with the intent to analyse him as a character but it ended up more focused on “A Clone of My Own” specifically – I might as well continue on this path and analyse “The Route of All Evil” as well. However, I don’t feel the need to do so quite so meticulously simply because Cubert is a far more straightforward character in the latter episode - and that in itself speaks volumes about what’s going on under that ginger muffin-shaped haircut.

This episode provides an explanation of Cubert’s absence throughout the second half of season 2, a glimpse into the life he’s been living off-screen at boarding school and something any good character needs: a companion to bounce off of. Dwight has less distinct characterisation than Cubert (partly as a result of having one less episode worth of development at this point), but I do think what he does have is worth analysing. I won’t do so too deeply, at least not here, simply because it’d be outside the scope of this post, but I will touch on the aspects that are relevant to my point: the ways in which he complements and contrasts Cubert.

Cubert and Dwight are similar in their intellect, precociousness, love of retro video games (really retro by the year 3002) and in being besieged by a bully, but the latter is less talkative and more chilled-out (as exemplified by him having no visible reaction to his best friend being sent flying by a mail tube), yet more business-minded: his immediate reaction to being presented with something new (always a fun way to tell us about a character) is to question its value as a product… while Cubert’s reaction to the same new thing is to use it for a prank.

As he demonstrated with Bender at the end of “A Clone of My Own”, Cubert hasn’t lost his fire in gaining respect for his father’s line of work: again, him addressing the Professor as “Dad” says a lot with few words, and remembering the context of his debut episode makes his “useless contraption” comment feel more like playful ribbing than genuine dismissal. Indeed Cubert spends much of the first act of this episode causing annoying-but-ultimately-harmless problems for the adults around him, along with Dwight, who evidently shares his interest in pranks. That interest of his wasn’t explicitly shown in his debut, but feels like a natural offshoot of his sarcastic sense of humour... and could also be chalked up to the change from the ultimate sheltered upbringing to a “normal” school environment. That in itself is a refreshing approach for the show to take: while probably done for simplicity’s sake, it shows that Cubert’s clone status is no barrier to him enjoying a normal childhood, as Leela’s orphan status was to her, or Bender’s robot status sometimes is to him sharing his adulthood with his organic friends (but the specifics of Cubert’s school life are more within the realm of speculation and headcanons, so I won’t dwell on them here).

Of course, the main thrust of “The Route of All Evil”’s plot is Cubert and Dwight’s business endeavour: Awesome Express. Again, I don’t need to analyse their motivations for founding their own delivery company too closely, because… well, Dwight outright states them in the episode.

Most people can relate, on some level, to wanting a loved one to be proud of them; a desire so universal is a perfect demonstration of Cubert’s newfound normality. It’s a sharp turn from his apparent superiority complex over his father and future employees in “A Clone of My Own”, but clearly one that made him happier: the permanent smug grin of his debut episode has given way to laughter at Hermes’ expense, casually sharing Dwight’s game console, celebrating their victory over Brett Blob (or rather his window)… I could list more, but you get the point. Enjoying the childhood that started twelve years too late without really dwelling on it feels like a natural evolution from where we left Cubert in season 2 – but not a wholesale change, as he still possesses the spark of madness he inherited from his father.

In the process of running Awesome Express, Cubert and Dwight make both upstanding and underhanded decisions: they have the prodigious business skills to quickly become more profitable than Planet Express, and rather than frivolously spending their earnings, they put them towards fair wages for their new employees Leela, Bender and Fry… and the absolutely vital flame decals for the ship.

Not all their decisions are that ethically sound or badass, though: Cubert and Dwight ultimately kick out and fire their fathers, respectively. Professor Farnsworth becoming homeless (though Hermes and LaBarbara are willing to at least temporarily put him up) as a result of his son’s hubris is another time I can see where Cubert’s haters are coming from, along with his moments of ableism directed at Leela’s vision problems and Fry’s… er, That Brain Thing – but karma swiftly comes down upon him and Dwight when they grow overconfident with their workload, leading to the first time we see Cubert cry on-screen (one of only two unambiguously canon times in the entire show) and the aforementioned admission of their motivations.

Luckily for the boys, their fathers recognise the purity of their motivations enough to forgive them for their questionable behaviour, and are quick to “do a little father-son weaselling out of this”. Professor Farnsworth and Hermes prove their love for their sons with actions, not words, solving their problem with the former’s arsenal of gadgets and the latter’s perfect aim as a “paper-man”... and ultimately put themselves through the ringer by attempting to fight the father of their sons’ bully, Mr. H. G. Blob. This one-sided “fight” results in slapstick humour, but also a show of Futurama’s emotional realism shining through its often cynical sensibilities.

This episode’s ending focuses more on “three fathers, enjoying a day out with their sons” as a group than Cubert or Dwight as individuals, but that in itself is a nice way to bring this duology of episodes full circle: Cubert is Professor Farnsworth’s son, no different from how Dwight and Brett are Hermes and H.G.’s sons. Perhaps he does fit into the abnormal, non-traditional family that is Planet Express after all.

fun fact: “Planet Espresso” dropped while I was still writing this post and it made “The Route of All Evil” hit different now I know Hermes in particular was working extra hard to end the cycle of parental neglect. not relevant to the whole “Cubert good” point but still interesting, at least to me

Now, you’re probably thinking that this is the part where I talk about “Bender Should Not Be Allowed On TV”, and… yeah. You’re technically right, I will briefly touch on it – but it won’t be complimentary.

Someone being “out of character” is a common complaint when it comes to TV show writing, but I’ll be completely honest: in my opinion, having Cubert, a character whose whole deal used to be questioning the status quo and authority figures (and in “The Route of All Evil” trying to surpass them), open the episode by admitting he and his equally precocious best friend want to mindlessly emulate what they see on TV goes beyond “out of character”. Cubert and Dwight’s intellectual-yet-rebellious nature would’ve served this plot perfectly, as it would’ve provided an opportunity for the writers to call attention to them not acting like themselves as a result of Bender’s influence – but the key gap between idea and execution is that the adults around them don’t treat their mindless viewing habits as something out of the ordinary for them. A simple “this isn’t like you” from the Professor or Hermes would’ve gone a long way, but as it is, it feels as though the boys’ past characterisation was intentionally ignored in order to more easily execute a storyline that could’ve been done in The Simpsons, with Bart and Milhouse succumbing to the allure of a newly-famous Homer’s bad influence.

In particular, the line “we can celebrate the day I extracted you from the cloning tank” kind of breaks my brain: we’ve seen that day in the show, and the more I go back to this episode, the more I feel like there’s nothing left of the Cubert the Professor extracted from the cloning tank – the one I just spent five pages analysing - in this specific Cubert (or the Dwight who crushed Planet Express with Dwight Lightning in this Dwight, for that matter). No scientific skills, no use of his trademark snort, no biting-but-good-natured jabs at his adult companions… nothing. To be fair, the episode does have a few nice ideas (the concept of a Growth Scraping Day itself, Tinny Tim becoming the third member of the kids’ friend group and them getting to do a little crime as a treat), but they’re so thoroughly surrounded by… well, everything else that I personally choose not to incorporate this episode into my mental picture of Cubert (or Dwight).

I’ll be the first to admit there are a lot of duds and weird writing choices among the post-revival episodes of Futurama, but I also think fans of the show have a tendency to put the Fox era on a pedestal while completely dismissing the later seasons - even though “Bender Should Not Be Allowed On TV” (along with “Bend Her” but that’s a rant for another time) proves that even season 4, often touted as the show’s peak, can be as guilty of bad characterisation or formulaic plots as the Comedy Central or Hulu eras. Conversely, season 6 in particular was flawed but did plenty of things right, and one of those things was using Cubert in interesting ways: “The Late Philip J. Fry” is the most famous example, but “A Clockwork Origin” and “Overclockwise” are both notable for succeeding at building on the foundation laid out in “A Clone of My Own” and “The Route of All Evil” - where Cubert’s last outing of the original run failed.

Whether that foundation was laid down intentionally or simply as a compromise between multiple creators, writers and directors that happened to meet a particular subjective reading, to me it’s an incredibly strong one: a fish-out-of-water who was abruptly thrust into the chaotic world of the 31st century but survives and thrives in his own funny, interesting, slightly unhinged way, just like Fry, Leela or Bender. Cubert isn’t for everyone, but I hope I’ve demonstrated why he resonated with me so much when I watched the show at his age, and why thinking of him as simply “the annoying kid” was… well, impossible.

This post is long enough as it is, so rather than analysing “The Late Philip J. Fry” (well, enough people have analysed that one already that I don’t really need to) and the two “clock” episodes of season 6, I’ll leave you with the suggestion to (re)watch them yourself with an open mind… and to keep an eye out for Cubert in the Hulu run. As I alluded to at the top of this post, season 7 conspicuously pretended he didn’t exist outside of one dubiously canon skit, so maybe it’d be too much to hope for future seasons to explore him in detail… but as a wise old man and his son once said, nothing is impossible.

Not if you can imagine it.

THANK YOU FOR READING (or at least skimming) ALL THE WAY TO THE END OF THIS POST!!! as a reward for indulging my autism please treat yourself to a nice turducken spread with your found family. merry hulurama to all and to all a good night

[joannerowling]

so there's apparently also this thing. his creep just keeps giving ig

https://www.tumblr.com/asukam/772937700672143360?source=share

That's disgusting, he's really shameless. And he deleted it of course, not knowing that there would be traces left. There's always traces but men like him get so sure they're untouchable. The internet is forever.

[readyforthegarden]

When I started this blog a few years ago I did it to pass the time while taking care of an ill loved one and give myself something to do to and share in the love of this band. I didn’t think I would truly make friends or make a lasting impact. I truly didn’t think I would still be on here after a year.

But every day I’m so bewildered that I’ve got some of the most genuine and kind friends on here. A lot of you don’t even know how much you’ve gotten me through over the last year, and if we’ve shared a laugh together, I am forever grateful. I’ve met my best friend in the world on this silly little website, and made a few more that I keep close to my heart, and will be so lucky to meet some of them in May.

I guess what I’m trying to blubber out is that I’m so thankful to be here, loving this band and writing and creating and having fun with you all, and I love you very much.

Merry Christmas ya filthy animals 💖💖💖

[skeletalheartattack]

Do you have a bluesky?

i do not, no.

[myfandomhalf]

Season Finale

Sick and tired of reading about people say that Dazai knowing about the plan beforehand somehow takes away from the genuineness of the skk moments

You mean you WANT Dazai to choose to kill Chuuya for the greater good and then not give a shit immediately after?? Ignoring the speech for a second, the reason he was able to be so carefree after “killing” Chuuya is because he KNEW Chuuya was gonna be okay.

First of all, Dazai knowing Chuuya wasn’t gonna die doesn’t take away from his speech. He replayed all those memories for himself, nobody else was seeing what was happening in his head. He was GENUINELY upset at the idea of losing Chuuya and having to put Chuuya through that, DESPITE knowing Chuuya would be okay. He was STILL upset. That’s way better than him thinking he just killed Chuuya, sparing him a thought, not even crying (bc no that wasn’t a tear) and then just moving on being silly as if nothing happened.

And then the other speech him saying that they’re destined to - do you seriously think he’d just make that up for shits and giggles? He was being serious. If he was gonna play it up for Fyodor’s sake he would’ve said the most emotional out of pocket line to ever be written, which to them would be related to him leaving Chuuya behind. But no he just said they’re destined to do something.

Dazai talks a lot about the past to Chuuya (Chuuya does not participate) but those two are clearly emotionally constipated bc they never have a conversation about what they mean to each other (which I think is bc Asagiri is not ready to reveal that yet). This was clearly Dazai taking his opportunity to say what he REALLY thinks / feels forcing Chuuya to listen without the commitment. Bc if anyone gets the ick later he can use the convenient excuse of “oh I didn’t mean that” which is bullshit.

And I do think an element of this idea that it’s worse that Dazai had everything planned comes from the misunderstanding that Dazai has completely changed since he was in the port mafia. Dazai just tends to make “better” (as in more objectively good) choices, but he very much still puts on a front. You guys do realize that his silly persona is just that right? A persona? He’s literally being fake every time he’s silly. That’s not his real personality. He’s a morally gray character. He never became a purely good person and he never will. It makes MUCH more sense that he planned everything out with Chuuya beforehand.

He met up with Akutagawa before getting arrested, he probably did the same with Chuuya.

And yes, this means he DID use and manipulate Sigma the entire time. Why wouldn’t he? Sigma has an ability Dazai needed. I’m sure Dazai planned for sigma to not die bc in his role as a detective it’s part of his job to mitigate losses of innocent lives, he knows this, but also bc Dazai needs to know what sigma learned. I genuinely hope there isn’t anyone out there thinking Dazai wouldn’t manipulate sigma bc he cares about him? He just met him. He has no personal investment in him. But he WILL make sure sigma is alive bc of the aforementioned reasons.

[the-kr8tor]

Katy. When I catch you🫵 katy.

Can't catch me 🏃‍♀️💨

(this reminds me of a meme a lovely made for ttn back then lol)

[guilliwife]

me rn

[marlenacantswim]

Daisy Steiner and "The Typewriter Strikes Back" for the fic ask :)

The Typewriter Strikes Back

Tim's lips leave Daisy's feeling warm, and with poised dramatic steps, he roams onto the elevator, finally turning to her one last time.

"I love you!" She cries, hands and arms utterly helpless as they hug the typewriter close.

Tim smirks— "I know." They hold eye contact through the very last second, all the way until the doors break their line of sight and the elevator begins its descent.

A strange, guttural, chittering noise escapes Brian's throat, until he coughs it away. "Sorry, allergies. The dust—"

"No, I know, Brian," Daisy assures, "'S alright."

He bounces on his heels. "So are— are you two, erm..." His hand gestures around his chin— "You two really a couple now?"

Daisy's expression hardens, before a realization hits. An "Oh!" preludes her laughter, which would sound forced if it were coming out of anyone else's mouth. "B-because we? Oh ho, no, no no no, that was just a reference! Y'know, Star Wars. The scene where— no, you've seen it." With her hands occupied by the heavy contraption, her impassioned gesturing comes through in erratic sways of her whole body instead. She wiggles her head back and forth, seemingly pleased; "Just a tiddly bit between friends, yeah? Mates. Chaps. He likes to do it whenever he descends. Elevators, escalators— one time he did it down the stairs, but he completely toppled because he, um... went down backwards!"

Brian's eyes narrow: "The whole exchange?"

"Starting from the kiss!"

"E— every time?"

[sereniv]

going to take an internet break just for a few days, ive been wanting to anyway because i get too distracted from my phone especially tumblr and instagram.

i got so many messages on that post, and im learning quite a bit which im thankful for, and im going through answering people but it is overwhelming, theres so many split threats and messages its hard to keep track

i definitely recognize how my post came off, regardless of my intent, and thank you for everyone being patient but i also am not mad at people who arent.

I think after a few days ill be able to read more. bc rn anything longer than a paragraph turns to soup

[byanyan]

ㅤit's not something i'll consistently implement in writing just for the sake of reading clarity, so it's worth noting that byan's text messages are pretty chock full of spelling errors (on top of all their abbreviations) and the occasional grammatical errors. dyslexia makes writing a bitch and it's real bold of anyone to assume they're gonna spend more time going through trying to correct their mistakes than they spent writing the message to begin with.

this definitely makes their texts difficult to read at times and, fair warning, they will get a little defensive if you text back asking for them to clarify.

[gibbearish]

Yo this is a dumb way to do this but my brain is fuckin toast at the moment, so let not the medium distract.

I intend to respond to you properly, but barring the ability to string enough brain cells together to do that I just want to say: I'm sorry that my response came off as rude and condescending. It's not what I intended for it, nor how I wished it to be received.

I did take it to come from the very present context of specifically not wanting to support tumblr financially because 'the site is already there', and not as the context of capitalism is the scourge of humanity. I wish I were being reductive about that reason above, but I have very literally seen that exact take a few times. That is not what you explicitly said and it's my poor form to have presumed.

So, I will respond in full, because you took the time and I'd like to return the courtesy but I wanted to make my apologies more promptly than I'm able to engage on the topic fully

aaa thank you for sending this, i really appreciate it. to be fair i definitely made some assumptions there too, i thought ur angle was more like the "nothing can ever be free, everything must cost money forever, the free market is the lifeblood of the economy and capitalism is the nature of man" type stuff cause that's been the main response ive seen to general unhappiness with the state of the internet rn. and i will say honestly if i saw someone genuinely saying since the website has already been made there can't be any costs involved in keeping it up i would probably react the same LOL

[an-aura-about-you]

you ever see a post where a person says a thing, another person says, "That's definitely not true," regarding the first post, and you actually DO remember the thing being true but it's such an inconsequential, niche thing that you know it's not worth it to make it an addition on that post?