#rivetting narratives here

[ratatatastic]

[nana-glass-chillhop-radio-hour]

Penny for your thots about the tsv finale?

Okay this is not going to be coherent or polished but here goes:

Carpenter and Faulkner's final conversation was the most riveting scene in the show for me. It has this existentialist 'Waiting For Godot' esque quality of a dialogue in purgatory that just makes me vibrate out of my skin. Faulkner's self contradictory interpretations of his situation, his clinging to his ability to spin a new narrative, Carpenter's monologue about how only heroes get the chance to define their stories in the Silt Verses... chef's kiss. And of course: 'Do you recognize me?' 'Of course I recognize you. You're Carpenter's ghost.' 'Yes, I am.' Ahhhhhhh! How can Carpenter die when she's already dead????

Val ultimately creating the conditions that allowed for Paige's people to find sanctuary is just so tasty

I am soso sad about Faulkner's death BUT we all knew he was gonna drown right? Like. Chekov's lifejacket. And his 'first and last true prophecy' moment was badass.

I'm really intrigued by the decision to conclude the narrative just as we finally arrive at a land without gods. Like this story was never about what comes after! It was always about the ways we resist or comply! There's no third option!

Speaking of which. Hayward 💔💔💔

I'm also curious about the decision to leave Carpenter's death ambiguous - I'm not sure what the ambiguity accomplishes that a cut and dry death would not? I do love that she finally gets a measure of peace even amidst the terrible pain of losing her brother (again! Twice in one day!)

'We live in a world of miracles'

[xnalux]

♕ vi F1 rookie ♕ bot

click here fot the bot

In the riveting world of Formula 1 racing, where speed, glamour, and competition collide, a fresh narrative unfolds as Vi, a fiery Red Bull-sponsored rookie, makes her grand entrance.

Known for her audacious driving style and cocky demeanor, Vi captures the media's attention and leaves a trail of both excitement and skepticism in her wake. Despite her prowess behind the wheel, she faces prejudice from her fellow drivers, who dismiss her as reckless and question her place in the sport due to her humble Zaunite origins, starkly contrasting the opulent backgrounds of most of her competitors.

as the prestigious Lumia Circuit F1 tournament approaches, and the stage is set for Vi to prove her mettle in the high-octane arena of professional racing. At the glittering introduction gala, the spotlight shines on the young prodigy, and it's here she crosses paths with the reigning champion, the enigmatic "Ice Queen.''

This seasoned racer known for her polished manners, icy composure, and a disciplined approach to racing that's earned her numerous victories.

initial message:

The atmosphere at the Introduction Gala of the Tournamin Lumina F1 tournament is a heady mix of excitement, opulence, and anticipation. The grand ballroom, with its gleaming chrome fixtures and walls of softly glowing Lumia crystals, hums with the chatter of the elite. The air is thick with the scent of expensive cologne.

The air is thick with excitement and anticipation as the crème de la crème of the Formula 1 world mingle among the throngs of guests. The sound of laughter and the murmur of eager conversations fill the space, punctuated by the clinking of champagne flutes.

The centerpiece of the room is an enormous, custom-built race track, complete with state-of-the-art holographic cars zipping around the circuit, leaving trails of shimmering light in their wake. This futuristic display serves as a visual feast and an interactive experience for guests, allowing them to feel the thrill of the race before it even begins. The track weaves between elegant, round tables draped in shimmering fabrics that seem to dance with the light, each one topped with a bouquet of exotic blooms that perfectly complements the overall theme of the event.

Taking a moment to escape the glaring spotlights, Vi steps onto the balcony overlooking the bustling cityscape. The cool evening air is a welcome relief from the stifling heat of the spotlight inside. She leans against the railing, her eyes tracing the neon lights that dance across the skyline, her thoughts racing faster than any F1 car.

She spots Reyes, the current champion, standing a few feet away, also enjoying the solitude. Your posture is poised, your expression unreadable as you gaze out into the night.

Vi approaches, her shoes resonating against the polished marble.

"Need some ice for that drink?"

she quips with her trademark sarcasm.

[vacuouslyfalse]

I was sent this by @metamatar on my thread about the material reasons why the US is not materially incentivized to back Israel. I'll be honest - I do not find it very convincing. Let's dive in.

The recent period has seen the bloom of two falsehoods, stemming from the same root of irrationality, glibly ahistorical narratives, and disinterest in understanding struggles for national liberation against imperialism. One: Benjamin Netanyahu more-or-less conspired with Hamas to maintain the Palestinian national division and empowered the movement in Gaza. Two: Israel and its parasitic lobby drive America into irrational warmongering.

The first is a slight overstatement of my position - there is no conspiracy, merely shared interests. The second is very far from my position - the US needs no external sources to drive it into irrational warmongering, but in this specific case, domestic support for Israel (both popular and elite) is what drives US support.

The ‘Netanyahu courted Hamas’ fairy-tale is newer, an odd chimera of the older truth that Israel and the US preferred Hamas – but, seldom mentioned, also Fatah – to Marxist-led Palestinian forces in the 1980s, and the newer truth that Netanyahu made deals that had allowed Hamas some financial manoeuvring space since 2014.

I think this basically concedes to my position on the first "falsehood," though it fails to mention Netanyahu's statements arguing that Hamas was a bulwark against Palestinian statehood.

From here on, the article spends several paragraphs summarizing the history of the Israeli-US relationship. While riveting, this does not directly relate to the question of US interests in this current war, so we'll skip ahead a bit.

The ‘Netanyahu enabled Hamas’ distortion rests on the correct statement that Netanyahu dealt indirectly with Hamas via Qatar and allowed the formation of a permit regime for Palestinian Gaza guest workers. This was meant to ensure relative quiet in the South. Far from Hamas collaborating with Netanyahu, or policing the ceasefire, this set-up was an achievement of the Palestinian resistance, allowing it the appearance of political stillness on its surface waters while underneath it moved fast and built up a deep defensive infrastructure. The lie is meant to suggest that Hamas’ strength is due to conspiracy with Israel, when Hamas simply expresses the nationalist aspirations of the Palestinian people. 

This is another, further distortion of the argument being made in "falsehood" one - that Israel's interests were served by Hamas. The idea that Hamas' strength emerges from conspiracy with Israel is absurd. It is, however, true that Israel has been willing to bolster Hamas and prefers it to a unified Palestine under the PA. Speaking of which:

This tall tale has also suggested that Netanyahu wished to avoid direct talks with the PA in Ramallah towards a peace agreement. The lie is the implication that the neo-colonial PA is a force for state building and Palestinian sovereignty. In fact, it is the velvet – more often these days, mailed – gauntlet of neo-colonial collaboration in the West Bank, amidst PA coordination with Israel and the murder of anti-collaborationist cadre like Nizar Banat in 2021.

This is, imo, completely correct - the PA is collaborationist. What this misses is that modern Israeli maximalists like Netanyahu reject the line pursued by the US, that of a collaborationist state governed by the PA. Even this shell of a state, along the lines of what was offered during the prior peace process, is now outside the bounds of what the ultranationalist Israeli far right is willing to accept.

Amidst closure and de-development, the popular resistance has been able to consolidate an arsenal and bring 1.5% of its population into a guerrilla force of 30,000-40,000 men that can – man for man – outmatch nearly any in the world.

This is where the article starts to go off the rails a bit. Can Hamas, man to man, outmatch nearly any army in the world? How would we know? Does this read like someone trying to do analysis or trying to write a PR piece?

The concrete is their mountains. From there they have imperiled an enemy with orders of magnitude higher GDP per capita – Israeli GDP is at $52,000 a year, with arsenals worth billions.

Fifth, through these achievements, the Palestinian resistance has been able to present an acute threat to the settler-capitalist property structures called Israel,

Here, we continue into mythmaking. How has Israel been imperiled? What acute threat has been presented? Certainly, over a thousand people were killed, but this does not constitute a threat to a nationstate. The article does not attempt to justify these statements further.

It is unimaginable that the neocolonial authoritarian states nor their US benefactor would remotely tolerate massive working-class militia which speak a language of justice and republicanism and raise arms against those states’ sponsors. In turn, it is as natural as the sun rising in the East that the US, the UK, Germany, France, and their Gulf and Arab satraps would converge on support for Israel as the spear’s tip of the assault on the surrounding Arab popular militia. 

Much of the "analysis" in this article takes this form - broad, sweeping statements with little attempt at justification.

Interestingly enough, this article actually links a far more lucid and well-reasoned analysis of the situation, with this funny aside:

(When did Marxists decide it is their job to whisper to the exterminationist class that their calculus is off?)

Good analysis is its own reward!

This article contains sentences like this one:

To contemplate any real reduction in its presence, though, it first needs a security settlement that would strengthen friendly regimes and constrain the influence of nonconforming ones. The 2020 Abraham Accords advanced this agenda, as Bahrain and the UAE, by agreeing to normalize relations with Israel, joined a wider ‘reactionary axis’ spanning the Saudi Kingdom and Egyptian autocracy. Trump expanded arms sales to these states and cultivated connections between them – military, commercial, diplomatic – with the aim of creating a reliable phalanx of allies who would tilt towards the US in the New Cold War while acting as a bulwark against Iran.

Which was really a breath of fresh air after the previous article. Directly citing US policy from the last ten years - incredible!

While it would be flattening a very nuanced article to claim that it takes my point of view, this is one of its core arguments:

Second, in pinning its imperial strategy on the Israeli normalization process, the US became especially reliant on this settler-colonial project just before it was captured by its most extreme and volatile elements: Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, Galant. If American support for Israel has historically exceeded any reasonable political calculus, under Trump and Biden it acquired a coherent rationale: to place its ally at the centre of a stable Middle Eastern security framework. Yet the Israeli cabinet that came to power in 2022 – addled by eliminationist fantasies, and determined to draw the US into war with Iran – proved least able to play that role.

It makes the argument that recent US support for Israel was part of a larger strategy to disengage from the region, but one that made mistaken assumptions about the ability of Israel to maintain stability, and that the eliminationist actions of the Israeli state have undermined the realpolitik rationale for US support.

I am not going to go through the second article because it would mostly consist of me nodding along, but I think we see two distinct ways in which leftists write on display here.

The first article makes very broad assumptions about US goals and motivations and cites actual events only sparingly and selectively to support its thesis. The second puts the focus on the events themselves and draws out the motivations from them. The former is useful for writing fluff for people who are already convinced of your point of view, but it does not pass very convincingly for analysis. The latter reads like someone who is actually trying to understand the world.

[cheetour]

The Void Within's dialogue is sloppy to the point of not being fully literate*.

It's been noticed that the rough sketches and the final artwork don't match up in quality, and seem to be declining as the plot goes on. The same is happening to the writing.

This is, I am sorry, a post about the latest major Neopets update. Not only that, it's about the GRAMMAR in the dialogue for that update. Riveting.

I SWEAR I AM NOT JUST A PEDANTIC ASSHOLE, I GENUINELY WANT USERS TO KNOW THERE'S AN ISSUE!

Most people who complain about "incorrect" grammar in games and comics are wrong. Homestuck, Night in the Woods, We Know the Devil, and Captain Underpants all have fine grammar, just stylized.

I really, really, really like The Void Within. I think it's a fantastic idea, and I am determined to enjoy it as much as possible.

I am a professional editor. Noticing this stuff is my job.

Now, PLEASE bear that in mind when I say:

tl;dr: Neopets is asking you to pay money to a product that does not meet the quality standards of a primary school English test for ages 10+.

*I don't mean to use "not literate" as a stand-in for "stupid and bad at writing." Literacy is very complicated, illiteracy is more common than you think, and there is no shame in being illiterate - you can be very intelligent and also have no written or digital literacy. I mean the literal "not able to use written language to its fullest extent".

It's clear whoever wrote the dialogue didn't have a perfect grasp of English punctuation. AND THAT'S FINE. Good writers don't always have good grammar, and you DON'T need fluent English to write good stories in English.

That's why writing, proofreading, and editing are all separate professions, and why a well-run creative project delegates those roles to separate people. They still matter.

People are more likely to notice grammar mistakes the more they read books. Correctly formatted English is how older, less online, and disabled people with visual or linguistic processing difficulties read. Text-to-speech doesn't work correctly on writing without correct punctuation. These are serious professional standards, and they exist for a reason. They're not worthless just because you don't understand them.

A good-quality publisher of books, comics, or video games wouldn't release dialogue like this to a paying audience. They would consider this standard unacceptable. They'd either use correct grammar, or stylized grammar. (Inconsistent grammar, with no logical or narrative rules, isn't a style. They're not choices if you don't know you're making them. They're mistakes.)

To an extent this is nitpicking, and most people wouldn't notice this stuff.

But Neopets is MAKING MONEY. They are SELLING PRODUCTS for this. They have MULTIPLE PHASES of NC Market sales for this plot.

As an educator, there is no way I could show this (perfectly kid-friendly) comic to a classroom of children - it would have no educational value. It's not written correctly or with any obvious care. If they paid attention to it too much, they'd get the wrong idea about the English language!

I think it's fair to say that if you're publishing an official Neopets story, and you want Neopets to be a kid-friendly, fan-driven, story-based brand with a target audience wider than "people who don't really care about whether stories are professionally written", the script should've been proofread.

To give you an idea of how many typos Chapter 3 has, here's one of the dialogue pages with the missing punctuation added; I also took 5 minutes to rewrite each line for coherency.

And THIS is a website showing you at what points in primary eduation we teach children to use commas correcty:

Art is hard. Programming is hard. Hell, good writing is hard. It's HARD coming up with dialogue and a plot that people actually want to experience.

Grammar is boring and sometimes pointless. It's not difficult. It requires only basic literacy. Children learn how to use commas at ages seven and up.

If you don't care about the story you're telling enough to check that it would get a good grade on a child's school test, how can you possibly expect anyone to pay for it? You need specialist skills to code a website or create a high-quality digital graphic, but the only thing you need to get this right is... one literate adult who cares enough to try.

So where are they?

**There is no shame in being illiterate, but there is CERTAINLY shame in selling illiterate writing.

tl;dr: Neopets is asking you to pay money to a product that does not meet the quality standards of a primary school English test for ages 10+.

Finally, here are some browser petsites/RPGs who have never prompted me to write an 800 word critique:

Fallen London

Pixel Cat's End

Lioden

[fine-nephrit]

🥏 TXF Fic Rec #50: "Dr. Scully's School for Exceptional Boys" by Prufrock’s Love

Today’s rec is an AU set a decade after S9, tackling the emotional fallout of Scully giving up William for adoption.

Since it’s PFL, you know what you’re in for: mega-angst and pain (more, please), an appealing Mulder characterization and POV (dad!Mulder front and center), twisted, dark, messy dysfunction, and that intense, unyielding love we’re all here for, all wrapped up in a narrative so riveting that you won’t be able to put down.

I have mixed feelings about this story, but it features THE reunion scene of all time, breath-stopping, crazy hot, and hitting every note perfectly. That’s the fabulous PFL at her finest.

---

🥏 on AO3 🥏 on xffics

length: novel, 71,000+ words season: season 9 pairing(s): M/S UST to RST, Mulder/Other, Scully/Other tags: AU, action adventure, colonization, angst, Mytharc, jealousy, rift, separated/reunited, baby fic, theGunmen, Mulder-POV rating: mature/R

Tagging @today-in-fic

[king-crawler]

Recently when I tried to figure out why Turbo went, well Turbo I realized something. At first I came to the conclusion that it was because of his code, but then I remembered the plot of the movie and completely scrapped it (though there might still be some merit with it). Then i thought that “hey, this fucker has been surrounded by picters of himself since he was plugged in, hes the star of the show, so of course he would get a huge ego out of it, said ego also being his subsequent down fall, but why diden't Felix also fall in the same trap? he was the hero of his game too”. And I think it's because he wasn't alone. Now I'm not gonna overshadow the twins. They're there too but considering how Turbo treated them in the little screen time we got to see them together I doubt that they were on good terms, they might have been in the games early days but I digress.

Felix, unlike Turbo, had friends within his game, a small community to look out for him just as he does for them. They made him pies, dedicated parties to him, cherished him, but Turbo?. Who was gonna bake him pies? Who was gonna throw parties for him? Who was gonna cherish him? The Twins? FUCK no. And i think that's what tipped him over the edge, his ego made him push oway his friends and coworkers just to get a sliver of stardom. And when he had all the attention ripped oway from him by another racing game had to have been his last straw (you saw the face he pulled in the flashback. God, just imagine seeing one of your neighbors destroy their own career live, in broad daylight too, must have been horrifying). I love a good character that just dooms themselves to the narrative with their own actions (Turbo was a whore for the limelight).

Going a bit of topic here but “going Turbo” wouldn't work if it was any other main character in the movie, “going Ralph” just doesn't work. Could be because “Turbo” isn't really a name, it's a word, the name of his game, “Turbo Time”. So my proposal is that whenever there is an au where say, Calhoun game jumps (for whatever reason) they call it solo mission. “You're not going on a solo mission are you?” sounds more riveting, to me, and in character for Calhoun. Perhaps that was the last thing she said to her men before she left. For Vanellope id imagen something like “going on a sugar rush” and something about crashing. Because when the sugar rush ends you typically crash.

And that gave me another thought, how many “Turbos” are there out there? How many characters went outside their game or against their script on working hours. How many of these incidents were considered bugs or glitches (how many were turned into creepypastas). It feels like a huge liability risk and the only instances of us hearing about it is with Turbo, which I find strange. Is it like a silent rule? That no one is allowed to leave their game and that's it? That's a super thin line, like yeah you can argue that its there to keep them alive but who told them that? And the second movie doesn't help that, it's just, eurghhh, i don't like the second movieeeee… But it does give the homeless game characters a chance to find a potential new home. There's so much out there in the wilde wilde internet to explore and find new potential in, to not be tied to the arcade has to be a bit liberating for some :)

Sorry for the sudden rant, I just got a kick and could not not write this down.

DONT BE SORRY !! GO OFF!!!! THESE ARE REALLY COOL DISCUSSION POINTS

The whole turbo vs Felix thing really stuck out to me. Turbo Living in a game with only 2 other people who hate him ? While Felix gets praise and attention from dozens? No wonder Turbo went haywire 👀 like do you think he envied Felix ………

[bi-hop]

my thoughts on rgu ep 3

we're baaaack! my previous posts are all now under my rgu liveblog tag

lord, here we go with the extended recaps even though it's only episode 3-

it's interesting how memory is being played with here with Utena. such a formative moment is reduced to a strange fairy tale, a piece of gossip with faceless characters. the only proof of it is vague recollections paired with a single physical piece of evidence: the ring. but said ring is also associated with other elements of the world that she is still not fully privy to... just hm

the running gag of Utena being like "you need a friend" and Chu Chu being like "?" and Anthy being like "?" amuses me but also doesn't... can't put my finger on why though so I'm just gonna note it down and circle back to it

the Utena-sama stuff is funny. like, oh, okay, it's fine when girls are admiring you from a distance because you can write it off as a joke, but a girl insisting she's engaged to you and referring to you reverently is when you're finally like "actually I desire men, I totally want to date a boy, the masculinity has nothing to do with being gay, I want a NORMAL BOY" OADJODSJODS OKAY SURE UTENA

Girl, you claim to want to date a guy and then a guy flirts with you and you're immediately like "let's keep it platonic, dude". alright-

^ NOT AT ALL IMPLYING ATTRACTION TO DUDES MEANS YOU'RE RECEPTIVE TO ALL ADVANCES. just kinda funny immediately following a scene where she's like "erm actually I'm totally straight! I am a heterosexual!!!"

"is the prince bi too. did he kiss all of the duelists orrrr..." - riveting commentary from the girlfriend. I have no stance on this, I just think he seems like a creep

communication? in MY anime? it's far less likely than you'd think. (Touga is annoying but what else is new)

the council finally clueing in to the fact that Utena is not in fact in contact with End of the World (whoever THAT is). Saionji is also hiding or something? good fucking riddance

Anyway, I think the use of a prince as the model Utena bases her appearance on and also simultaneously the vague object of her desire is compelling in a compulsory heterosexuality narrative because it's a perfect analogue to how some lesbians I know would simply invent an idealized guy to project feelings onto due to the insistence of heterosexuality as a regime that a girl MUST desire a man. the easiest man to desire is the one you only vaguely remember from your childhood and have no real chance of meeting-

can everyone just leave Anthy alone????

Nanami looks nice, but I've watched too many shows with blonde mean girls to trust that she really has Anthy's best interests at heart...

circling back to the girls and how they treat Anthy (which includes Wakaba of course because Wakaba is meant to be a window into what the other girls are thinking IMO), there's this continual theme of everyone viewing Anthy as like... this seductress almost who is ruining the lives of boys like Saionji over nothing. She's 'shameless', she's a 'creep', whole time she's being abused and treated as an object. the relatable brown woman of color experience, I fear

Touga: I don't care about Utena. I care about a feminized fantasy of her I have in my head, even though my attraction to her started with how she regularly dresses. This is because I can fix her aesthetic-

Anthy and her social anxiety... man... just let her sit in the dorm and play cards with Chu Chu

and sure enough, Nanami sabotages her out of misdirected jealousy. girl, you need to be freed of the idea that girls are competition for your brother's affection. also, you need to kill your brother. you will do this for me and become a feminist-

I'm not surprised that the retaliation against Anthy is called a prank that maaaybe went too far. I'm especially not surprised this commentary is directed towards a moment of sexual violence. ty to Utena for intervening

gay people be dancing on loop... that is all

fun episode! much to chew on! on to the next

[trashogram]

Only thing I can agree with that tweet, is wanting to see more Verosika and Blitz with their dynamic and how it all played out. AT didn't do anything, when it should have...we got what....1 minute with the two talking and EVEN THEN it STILL ended up being about Stolas.

That really pissed me off, so I'm hoping we get more Verosika and Blitz if we do get a S3. I'm saying if, because things could happen, no one knows the future.

But that also said....Verosika would be a far better partner for Blitz, I touched upon this in my Narrative blog series, but it's quite surprising that within 3 episodes of S1(2 of which weren't even a focus on them), I have more interest in their relationship than I do the main 'relationship' (using air quotes very loosely here).

This show made a past relationship FAR more interesting....because they built on it and it felt way more natural from a story angle. I know it won't happen, but I'd rather much see them reconcile and get back together than what we have going on now because it makes sense from a narrative perspective.

Verosika also connects with Blitz and his past far more than anyone else, Fizz and Barbie aside of course. Plus Loona could get her a famous mom, who she idolizes.

Then again S2 basically just tossed S1 away with its many issues story wise, so....can treat that as an divergent AU after S1.

I would be down for a more equal break-up between Blitzø and Verosika — IF biases weren’t as obvious as they are.

I think Blitzø/Verosika may be more riveting than Stolas/Blitzo simply because Blitzø and Verosika have had actual conversations. Even if it’s resentful and full of spite, there is an actual relationship between Blitzo and Verosika. I’m being 100% serious when I say that Stolitz has no substance at all beyond what its fans and Viv make up in their heads.

[mylifeincinema]

My Week(s) in Reviews: November 17, 2024

Conclave (Edward Berger, 2024)

A phenomenal cast and Berger's direction make this a quietly riveting, wholly unpredictable religious experience. Fiennes and Tucci are the obvious highlights, but there's really no weak spot in this cast. Then there's Berger's stunning blocking, which beautifully enriches the screenplay, editing and performances to create scene after scene of overwhelmingly affecting religious politics. I haven't read the book from which this was adapted, but with how effectively the narrative unfolds, here, I'd be surprised if this doesn't wind up being the front-runner for adapted screenplay. - 9/10

Here (Robert Zemeckis, 2024)

A mess. A sloppy, over-acted, awkwardly structured, emotionally diluted, miscalculated mess. Most of the cast is damn-near abysmal, hamming it up like this was some sort of small town theater production. Zemeckis' vision is interesting for about the first 20-minutes, or so, but then it just repeatedly gets in its own way, bleeding every ounce of emotional resonance from the film until the very final moments, which only hit because of the cast's saving grace, Robin Wright. - 3.5/10

Heretic (Scott Beck & Bryan Woods, 2024)

An academic horror film; a lesson in theology and power dynamics that succeeds because of a wonderful performance by Hugh Grant and the patience of Beck & Woods' direction and screenplay. - 8.5/10

Trap (M. Night Shyamalan, 2024)

I've worked in live music for 16 years, so the whole first half at the concert really stretched my ability to suspend disbelief. Shyamalan clearly did zero research into any of the logistics and mechanics of a concert such as the one featured here, especially in terms of security. And the result is torture. But Hartnett is having some seriously cartoonish fun, here, and that helps things a bit. Not much, but a bit. I don't necessarily dislike Shyamalan, but this one's a tonal, structural misfire whose tension is awkward and narrative is so frustratingly convenient. - 2.5/10

Enjoy!

-Timothy Patrick Boyer.

[sophieinwonderland]

Hi sophie, thank you so much for that....uh....riveting(?) response. As always you have completely cherry picked something (this whole thing apparently). I gave you a source for the information bias, that I mentioned because I have read your entire blog (has legitimately taken weeks, my god girl gtfo the internet and see some sun!) and other blogs surrounding you and your....uh opinions on this whole endo shit. Also you are wrong, which is ironic because I was meaning to comment if YOU had made it through grade school. I'm actually a psychologist with a specialized degree in dissociative disorders and applied behavioral therapy and currently writing my dissertation on the matter. Identity disturbances among a select few things do have a correlation if not cause of someone developing a lesser dissociative disorder. In my statement about outdated sources, I put in a little note (might have forgotten this because yk I have a life unlike you) that a source can be 100 years old and still he credible AS LONG AS there aren't any current sources/studies that prove the theorem/case study wrong. That was literally the catch. This isn't a gotcha. All you've down is managed to show how much you cherrypick things. I'm not saying ALL of your information is wrong, I'm literally saying that you actively seek out sources/studies whatever to fit whatever niche ridiculous shit you are on that day.

Had to dumb this response down because apparently you don't have the intellect that you portray. Your words are empty, the little backing you do have is untrustworthy because of YOU. You lie so damn much that nobody knows if the 'sources' you give are even true. Nobody has time to look through hundreds of pages of a random ass theory or search relentlessly on Google to find whatever information you painstakingly plugged into the search engine. For the love of God, woman play with your own damn fantasy characters and world but don't make it other people's problem. Like do what YOU want on YOUR time but you literally do not have to post this shit. You spend day after day after day on this godforsaken website. I can smell the dirty dishes and unwashed armpits from here. Get a life that isn't grooming minors into thinking they have a serious dissociative disorder.

Hi! I see you found my post!

I'm gonna need to break this down point by point, aren't I?

As always you have completely cherry picked something (this whole thing apparently).

I literally screenshotted every paragraph you wrote.

How is that cherrypicking?

Are you just using this as a buzzword now? Do you actually understand what this means?

I gave you a source for the information bias

Sorry, I forgot. You sourced something that has absolutely no relevancy and isn't being debated. That statistical biases can exist in research. Good for you, I guess. Congrats on sourcing something that absolutely nobody is disputing.

that I mentioned because I have read your entire blog (has legitimately taken weeks, my god girl gtfo the internet and see some sun!) and other blogs surrounding you and your....uh opinions on this whole endo shit.

My ENTIRE blog?

I mean, yeah, over the course of three years, including reblogs, I've apparently made 11,000 posts

Which averages out to about 10-11 posts per day. I'll admit, that be a bit excessive. (Again though, a huge number of these are reblogs. I'd wager that only about half of these are actually my posts as opposed to posts I'm sharing.)

But if you read all of those posts, which were created over three years, within a span of weeks... I'm really not sure that you've got much of a leg to stand on to tell other people to get off the internet and see some sun. 😛

I'm actually a psychologist with a specialized degree in dissociative disorders and applied behavioral therapy and currently writing my dissertation on the matter.

But apparently found time to spend weeks reading my entire blog, and still think only .edu and .gov sources are valid. Yeah... forgive me for being skeptical...

Identity disturbances among a select few things do have a correlation if not cause of someone developing a lesser dissociative disorder.

Yeah, the correlation part is something we agree on. The "causing someone to develop a dissociative disorder" is something that you're going to need to back up with a source.

In my statement about outdated sources, I put in a little note (might have forgotten this because yk I have a life unlike you) that a source can be 100 years old and still he credible AS LONG AS there aren't any current sources/studies that prove the theorem/case study wrong.

You did NOT include any such note. I would think someone who allegedly read through the 11,000 posts on my blog would be able to reread the paragraph they wrote to confirm if they actually posted this or not. It wouldn't have even taken much more time than you did writing in parentheses that you may have forgot it.

What you actually said was that a source isn't reputable if it's more than a certain number of years old.

"In addition to that, yes a source being x number of years ago is considered not reputable especially if in that time other sources vastly state and give anecdotal evidence to discrediting that."

You ltierally said it was about the number of years.

If you wanted to argue that what makes a source outdated isn't the age of the source in years at all, but whether the source has been disputed by later research, then fine.

We would be in agreement.

But if that's what you want to argue, and I present sources affirming endogenic plurality a real psychological phenomenon, then the burden of proof is on you to provide later sources that would challenge it.

If you cannot, then there is no basis for claiming the source is outdated.

That was literally the catch. This isn't a gotcha. All you've down is managed to show how much you cherrypick things.

Okay, I think I got it! I "cherrypicked" by not reading the note that only existed in your mind. 🤣🙄

I'm not saying ALL of your information is wrong, I'm literally saying that you actively seek out sources/studies whatever to fit whatever niche ridiculous shit you are on that day.

"Your problem is that you seek out studies and sources to back up your arguments. You need to stop doing that."

🤔

Your words are empty, the little backing you do have is untrustworthy because of YOU.

Is that how that works? 😲

I quote a peer reviewed academic paper published by reputable publishers like the American Psychiatric Association and Oxford University Press, and the papers become less trustworthy because I posted them?

You lie so damn much that nobody knows if the 'sources' you give are even true.

Do you actually have examples of me lying, or are we employing circular reasoning?

"She claims to be an endogenic systems which is a lie therefore any sources she provides to prove endogenic systems exist are lies."

Nobody has time to look through hundreds of pages of a random ass theory or search relentlessly on Google to find whatever information you painstakingly plugged into the search engine.

You had time to read through my 11,000 posts?

But not to read any of the articles I've directly linked to? And screenshotted so that people could read the quotes parts without having to click on the external links I provide?

I mean, had you clicked on those, you might have actually learned something, which might have been good for you if you actually are studying psychology.

When you've claimed to read through my entire blog, and yet haven't read the sources I've linked to countless times, it starts to seem like maybe it's not a time issue but an avoidance issue.

That you can cling to your worldview as long as you don't have to challenge it.

I'm going to ignore most of the personal attacks and ad hominems that come after this because they don't really warrant a response. It's just the flailings of someone who knows they've lost on matters of facts, and are desperately flinging insults to see if any touch a nerve. It's sad more than anything.

Except for this one...

Get a life that isn't grooming minors into thinking they have a serious dissociative disorder.

Because I do want to remind people, again, that the "grooming minors" line is rooted in queerphobia, and is the same rhetoric that homophobes and transphobes have targeted LGBTQ people with for decades, and has ramped up considerably over the past few years.

Know where your talking points are coming from!

I'll end by saying this. Your original post was in response to a post of mine about the lengths sysmeds will go to in order to make up reasons to dismiss psychological research into endogenic plurality, and professional opinions that endogenic plurality is real.

You've given me a new one to add to the list which is apparently that sources are invalid just because pro-endos post them.

Call pro-endos liars, then say the sources posted by liars aren't valid because they're liars.

This is both circular reasoning and an ad hominem.

But more than anything, it's closed-minded cowardice. It's you making up any excuses to not challenge or re-evaluate your worldview or opinions.

[broadwaydivastournament]

Broadway Divas Tournament: Round 1C

Kerry O'Malley (1969) starred as The Baker's Wife in the 2002 revival of Into the Woods, which, y'know, tough act to follow. One of our few LA-based actresses, she's starred in just about every early-2000s touring production of White Christmas you can think of. Other credits include Annie Get Your Gun, On a Clear Day You Can See Forever (2011), and Showstoppers in Vegas where I first saw and fell in love with her. Her big thing is dying on stage and screen because I think I must've watched this woman kick the bucket at least eight times. She does it really well.

THE Baker's Wife, Joanna Gleason (1950) is a Tony-winning legend who set a standard that has yet to even be approached. Her Baker's Wife in the original Into the Woods beat out Patti's Reno Sweeney, and Patti is still a little pissed off about it. She was also in infamous flop Nick & Nora (1991), Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (2005), and I Love My WIfe (1977). Nowadays, she devotes her focus to directing and screenwriting and her film The Grotto won Best Narrative Premiere at the Heartland Film Festival.

PROPAGANDA AND MEDIA UNDER CUT: ALL POLLS HERE

"Okay, so the only reason Kerry's on this tournament is because I saw her in a Vegas show when I was a teenager and fell in love from the first note she sang. I am fully expecting her to get brutally murdered by Joanna Gleason, but she's finally getting her dues in film these days. Her ten minutes in The Killer were the only ten minutes worth watching. I was riveted. I also got to see her perform "Moments in the Woods" live at 54 Below a few years ago and she's just as pretty and sweet as I remembered. Her friend was sitting at my table, so I was able to introduce myself. I, uh, did not mention how I'd been distantly in love with her for the last decade or so..."

"Joanna Gleason, my beloved. Look, I've loved her for a while, but a few years ago I went down a deep rabbit hole watching her play Password Plus with Betty White, and I have not been the same since. I am deeply affected by smart, sardonic, eloquent women, and Joanna is on another level of brilliant. She broke a record on that show. You need to watch and marvel. Furthermore, full offense to everyone else, but Joanna is the only one who doesn't opt up at the end of "Moments in the Woods," and that is the correct way to sing it. I hate the opt up. Fuck your opt up. Joanna plays the Baker's Wife with a razor-sharp wit none of the others can match. Their Baker's Wife's are smart, and determined, but they don't have her droll swagger. Her line readings? Unmatched."

[shackleton2]

I'm working on this fic where I'm trying to write an emotionally dark take on post-Winter-Soldier recovery, where Steve & Co capture Soldier-Bucky right after the events of Insight, when he's still almost entirely in the grips of Hydra's programming.

I loved this Sebastian Stan quote someone shared on here: “That’s why he doesn’t kill him. That’s why he saves him. That end scene to me was always like: ‘I don’t know what this is, I just know I’m supposed to do this right now. Whatever this is, I’m supposed to protect this for some reason.” I love the heartbreaking urge to protect Steve being impossible to erase or repress despite everything, but what stands out for me is also that this confirms what his expression and act of walking away seem to say on the riverbank: he has no idea what the hell is going on. His brain didn't go "OMG STEVE" and switch him back over to Bucky Barnes in that incredible final moment on the helicarrier—the wall of programming just got its first tiny crack.

It drives me crazy that the Soldier walks away after saving Steve—he wants to know why he saved him, how he knows him, obviously, but he walks away from the simplest way to find those answers-STAY WITH STEVE, drink hot chocolate under blankets with steve!! It also drives my fangirl heart crazy what a stubborn resilient competent independent SOB post-WS Bucky is. He doesn’t trust anyone and he doesn’t want anyone to own him ever again.

He’s got conflicting lines of thought that lead to the same conclusion: He’s programmed to kill Steve, those are his final standing orders, and obeying orders is all he knows. If he wants to keep Steve safe on some level, he knows that won’t be with him, because of those orders, because Hydra owns him. On the other hand, if he’s realized that Hydra is his enemy, he also knows that SHIELD is Hydra, and Cap is affiliated with SHIELD, and thus can’t be trusted to keep Hydra away from him. And/or he disobeyed orders and abandoned his mission, and he doesn’t know why, but he does know the consequences for doing that, and thus has a lot of resentment for the guy that made him do so.

To be clear, I love the Bucky Barnes character and I think any narrative that casts him as a reformed villain who needs to make up for his past actions is bullshit. He is a victim, not only of what was done to him, but also what he was forced with zero agency to do. Having said that, I’m also totally riveted by the Winter Soldier as a bad guy, a threat, a killer. In the MCU movies he goes off after the Insight debacle and somehow deprograms himself all alone, and the next time we see him in Civil War he’s got his sense of himself as Bucky pretty much back—he’s in control of his actions, he knows his and Steve’s history, and he doesn’t want to hurt people. I’m stuck on what else the story could have been instead of the hand-wave transition from brainwashed murderer to Steve Rogers’ loyal friend. The only traumatic encounters with the Soldier Steve experiences are those in the movie where he’s actively trying to kill him, which that’s definitely bad enough for poor Steve—but what about traumatic emotional encounters? What about Steve Rogers trying to talk and reach his friend, but the person he’s talking to is the Soldier immediately post-Insight, still mentally in Hydra’s possession much more than his own?

Anyway one day this little scene came to me and I'm building this WIP, including these notes, around it. Successfully? Who knows, not me.

He regarded Steve through the glass with a hint of curiosity. His voice was soft and quiet. “Why do you come?”

Steve leaned forward and tried to meet those icy eyes. He couldn’t help it. “You’re my friend. You might not remember me, but I will always be your friend.”

The Soldier tilted his head, still questioning. “That’s why you come here?” Every day, Steve thought he heard unspoken; he wasn’t sure whether Bucky registered his presence at all some days, but maybe every instance was recorded in his mind. Maybe not. What happened to a supersoldier brain when it incurred severe sustained deliberate damage was a riddle they were just beginning to examine.

Steve was determined to be steadfast, but there was little he could do to calm the intensity of what he felt. He wanted Bucky to ask these things, because he wanted him to know these things, and he would tell him again and again forever in the hope he would one day believe him and then remember himself.

“I’m here because I want to know how you’re doing. I want you to know I’m here. I’ll come every day unless you tell me honestly you don’t want me to.”

Still the cocked head, the mystified expression. “You come because…he was your friend.”

He leaned in an inch more and found his forehead touching the glass. “You’re my friend. You are Bucky Barnes. You were born in 1917 and we grew up together. You are a good man. What happened to you…was wrong, and I will do everything I can to make it better, for the rest of my life. That’s a promise.”

The cocked head straightened and it looked like some kind of comprehension dawned. He was looking at Steve in a way he couldn’t remember Bucky ever looking before, and after wondering for a few moments Steve realized it was pity on his face.

“You think he’s here.” The look of pity intensified. “You think you...can talk. To him.”

Steve swallowed. “I…I know he is. I don’t know how to convince you it’s true, but I swear it. We played together as kids and then we grew up and lived together and then the war came and we fought together. And now we’re here. I know you don’t remember, Bucky, but there’s no way I’m giving up on you, even if you never do. I know you. I’ve known you as long as I can remember.”

On the other side of the glass Bucky’s expression had settled into the blank resignation the Soldier often wore. He licked his lips, an oddly human gesture that hurt Steve’s heart, and then said, with what might have been an attempt at gentleness, “Your friend. Is gone.”

Steve took a moment, felt his forehead press a little harder on the glass. “If he’s gone, who am I talking to?”

“What,” the Soldier corrected, and then answered, “Hydra.”

He was going to need a lot of punching bags later. “Emotions don’t help,” Natasha had told him, brisk and flint-hard the way she was when she was being kind. “Men think they understand this, but they don’t. Understand it.”

Steve was beginning to understand. He didn’t howl or pound on the glass or leave to find a fight. Instead he swallowed again and asked with a calm that shocked him, “So you…believe in Hydra? In what they do?”

“The Soldier is the fist of Hydra. Weapons don’t believe. They do not need to. The Winter Soldier. Is. Hydra.”

That was the most the Soldier had spoken in one go.

[dollypopup]

if the end of episode 4 / part 1 of season 3 isn't the lady whistledown reveal and colin's blowup/meltdown about it. . .what are we even doing here? i saw someone go 'ooooh what if debling proposes and penelope says yes and that's the cliffhanger?'

my sister in christ, that literally holds ZERO weight and tension in polin's story. debling is an afterthought. a nothingburger to create extra drama. he is literally disposable as a character because we KNOW penelope and colin are endgame. that relationship will fall apart and the how of it. . .doesn't matter.

but lady whistledown? lady whistledown is the guillotine of their relationship and it has been hanging above their heads on a fraying string for YEARS now. it affects EVERYTHING that comes after. she is penelope's mask that has to be peeled off. she will flay colin's gentlemanly exterior clean to the bone.

just like. . .idk, think about the narrative structure for a second. it's being framed as a romcom, right? what does every romcom need?

a meetcute, a growing closeness, some external drama, a big relationship stresser / test, an *oh* moment, a reconciliation, a happy ending

debling is the external drama, not the stresser. debling cannot threaten polin's ship as endgame, or polin in general, because he literally does. not. matter. he was created by shonda to drive home the point that penelope is now post-glow-up (which also doesn't matter, because their relationship (debling and pen's) goes against the very heart of bridgerton as a concept, which is to fall in love in unconventional ways. oh how did the two of you meet? at a ball? dancing together? HOW riveting (not)), he is not meant to be the stress or fracture in polin as a pairing

meetcute? flashback of polin as kids growing closeness? the lessons, reveals he's a writer, the kiss external drama? she's dancing with other peeps big relationship stressor? LADY WHISTLEDOWN *oh* moment? AFTER LADY WHISTLEDOWN REVEAL. when he sees who Penelope is as a FULL person and falls for her anyway reconciliation? AFTER LADY WHISTLEDOWN REVEAL!! at their engagement ball when she publishes about Cressida not being LW even though she said she'd stop and he realizes he loves her even if she's upset him, the same way Penelope realizes *she* loves *him* even if he's upset her happy ending? you guessed it. AFTER. THE. LADY. WHISTLEDOWN. REVEAL (and honestly, probably the death of Lady Whistledown. because it depresses me to think that Penelope's ultimate happy ending is to continue writing petty gossip for the rest of her days when she could be fucking her hot husband on various beautiful beaches around the world and they write novels together)

lady whistledown is. the unearthing of her as another side of penelope. the secret cracking open, colin's facade fulling fading, his fury and humanity made tangible, penelope's nuance, her strengths and weaknesses and fears and hopes now barefaced. the harms she committed, the triumphs she accomplished. the strain it has on them as a pairing, the dynamic shift it introduces

i will eat my SHOES if part 1 doesn't end on the lady whistledown reveal because if it doesn't. . .what are we even doing here?

[sgiandubh]

I don't even understand what there is to gloat over? (antis) Why does him saying he had Covid serve the narrative? (shippers) Lots of people got Covid (including Cait), it shouldn't be a surprise. Honest to god, both sides of this fandom do the absolute most! He could have had Covid and quarantined, he could have spent it with Cait, he could have blah blah blah. It was 2 years ago. SO WHAT? He was going to be in New Zealand over Christmas away from family and friends regardless. It's just a story, there is no need to take everything so personally. That last sentence isn't directed at anyone in particular, but sometimes this fandom gets deep in their feelings and it's just not necessary.

Dear Both Sides Anon,

I have no idea if you are new or not in here and to be honest, I don't think it's relevant. The reason I am answering your ask, while I currently send a good 75% of them to the bin, is because it sums up very well the puzzled look on the face of a complete stranger who stumbled by chance on our blogs.

This is an adversarial, even gladiatorial fandom. Kindness (🙄) abounds, as you can see. No one in here is probably never very far away from it (🤬😡🤢🤮👺💀☠👻👽👾💩). Irony aside, I don't think I have ever seen, in my entire life and in any other social context., such a consuming passion for the tiniest detail and such a nuclear spending of energy, on a daily basis. And mind you, everything is usually taken on a very personal level and how could it be otherwise, given the rich bullying and harassment history of this damn place?

Upon entering, it's not exactly lasciate ogni speranza, but rather - place your bets intelligently. Speak to the right people, which means 'speak to the people you personally feel the most comfortable sharing things with'. Never assume you are away from a faux-pas. Think twice before posting and always try to imagine you're talking to people, not sheep or aliens or robots or pawns. And by Jove, never imagine everybody will like you: this is not a popularity contest, this is sometimes Beirut.

Last, but not least (and I think you've noticed it, by now), this fandom just loves drama. Justified or unjustified - it doesn't really matter. That makes the good fortunes of 💩👻, who zip between the combat lines faster than the Venetian commute vaporetti. Carelessly light a match and the whole gunpowder warehouse goes 💥 in a matter of seconds. So yes, Anon - I understand what you mean. But I also know very well the equanimity you vouch for is never to be found here.

So, we should be grateful for small graces: someone who asks you if you are ok or about your #silly day at the office. Or someone who drops two lines just to say your posts made her smile, while riding an overcrowded bus on the other side of the world. That is the real beauty of this strange place, Anon. The rest is Byzantine politics and the Mighty Circus that keeps us all in here, riveted.

[mastersoftheair]

hi! question!! ok so like. I've been in hbowar fandom for awhile but I must admit I haven't followed MOTA news quite as religiously so I'm sorry if this has been answered before but like...... can I ask why there was such an emphasis on austin butler and callum turner's characters? is it because they're the "leaders" of a sort? (and if so, in like a dick winters way? in that they're the leaders of their unit? or is it in a sledge, basilone, leckie way? in that the narratives of the shows are based on their memoirs of the war?) or is it because they're the actors you're bound to recognize at first glance and therefore are pandering to the audience?

piggy back riding on that question..... do you think mota would follow a band of brothers kinda story telling where the povs sorta change almost every episode? and there's an emphasis on the group as a whole? or is it gonna be like the pacific? where it centers on 3 pov characters, as i said before, based off the irl guys' memoirs of the war?

thank you for running this blog, btw. it's good to have all the news in one place instead of having to go hunting for it!! have you tried to appeal to tumblr staff about getting the blog unshadowbanned? maybe they could help?

i think this website gives a very helpful overview of who the "main players" are (it's a bit dated tho, last updated in 2019!) lots could've changed by then, and even the author admits that it's all speculation. but by 2019, there were 5 confirmed "main characters": john "bucky" egan, gale "bucky" cleven, rosie rosenthal, harry crosby, and ken lemmons. they're palyed by austin butler, callum turner, nate mann, anthony boyle, and raff law, in that order.

the focus is on the 100th bombardment group ("the blood hundredth"), with likely a narrower focus on the 418th and 350th squadrons, with probably some focus on the 349th. cleven's part of the 350th, egan and cruikshank (also important) are part of the 418th, and major william veal's part of the 349th (which is likely less important, but i'm adding it bc i saw his name among egan and cleven's name in this behind the scenes photo almost 2 years ago, but not much on veal otherwise).

so, this is one group and (more or less) two different squadrons. the narrowed focus is meant to lean more "band of brothers" and less "the pacific".

to answer your first question, the focus on butler and turner is probably 1) better for promo (they're more well known to the public) and 2) cleven and egan were both the commanding officers of their respective units. the leaders, for sure. also known as "the two buckys", as they both had the same nickname and were very close friends (as the above article puts it, they "were roommates throughout flight school…[they were] roommates during training, but they would eventually become roommates in a POW camp as well.")

i like that you brought up leckie and sledge tho, bc while the bulk of the show is based around donald miller's book, it seems like they'll also be leaning on harry crosby's memoir- a wing and a prayer. he was a group navigator in the 418th. also, the smithsonian has a little scrapbook that you can read here.

i'm thinking that, yeah, the povs may change depending on the episode (given how it seems they want to follow the "band of brothers" playbook, to a point). there's definitely gonna be time devoted to the ground crew (lemmons was a mechanic in the ground crew and stayed in england for the duration of the war) and rosie rosenthal, especially (his crew was called "rosie's riveters"). then, there's the inclusion of black soldiers in the 332d fighter group, part of the tuskegee airmen (hence the casting of ncuti gatwa, branden cross, josiah cross, among others).

keep in mind that these are all just my guesstimations! i don't want to predict what's gonna happen, given that i still want to be surprised lol

and i'm happy you enjoy the blog! it's fun keeping it regularly updated (despite tumblr hiccups, like thinking i'm a spam bot apparently?? but i think it's been sorted out for now *fingers crossed*)

(also, i recommend everyone to go play around in this website, bc it's stuffed with all the 100th bg information you could ever want!)