#series: loving family unpalatable desires

[acid-ixx]

You mention in the first story that the Batfam finally realizes where we are because jon showed Damian our picture while calling us his parent- so I was wondering about how Damian reacted to that? Like did he realize we’d left at that point or did he just get hit in the face with that info?

— related post !

reblogs and interactions are encouraged and appreciated

a/n: y'all i have clogged nose and i hate it LMAO. anyways, i'm gonna write smth about this soon but damian's character for both the series again & again and this series is genuinely one of the more complicated to write because of how he's raised but it really goes like this—

"jon... what do you mean? that's my—"

he cuts himself off before he could continue running his mouth off. damian ignores the slight raise of jon's eyebrow, his thoughts running a mile every second.

his parent? no, never once in his life has damian considered you his parent, pushing you away whenever you try to bond with him. whatever gifts you gave him, no matter how small, or big, expensive, or inexpensive they are, he always makes a show of ripping them away right in front of you.

he told you himself. you are not his parent, never will be his parent, you'll never replace talia's standing, and there will never be a time where damian will see you as one. dick, jason, tim, literally anyone can consider you as theirs, but damian is a product of two genetically perfect individuals— you are imperfect, and it's not your business to coddle him just because you are merely married to his father in paper.

no matter how much you softly gaze at him with loving eyes, invite him with welcoming arms, praise his passion for drawing; all you'll do is weaken him and damian hates feeling weak, hates how you tempt him into melting into a puddle. that automatically makes you a burden in his book.

he hates you, and he should've been glad you disappeared off of the face of the manor.

yet the record stands still: why are you with jon? why do you hold him like he is the world in the picture? what does he mean by "sorry, damian, but me and my parents are gonna go to the carnival later!"? you, as in, bruce's spouse? why are you with them, of all people?

... why does jon get to have fun, with you? and he doesn't...?

and yet he couldn't reply to him, not when his friend babbles on for longer about his... parent. about how you, make him feel so complete. that you'll be the one helping him with his science fare project, how you two spent the night yesterday building a volcano, how you treat him with ice cream every time he achieves a good enough grade for a subject, how you, you, you always spoil jon, always comfort him, read him bedtime stories, matched bracelets, sung karaoke together, played board games with each other, picked him up from school, help him with assignments—

the more jon goes on, the more damian wants to rip his hair out. he doesn't know, doesn't know why he's suddenly pissed. is it because jon can never shut up, or because he couldn't shut up about you? about how perfect you are apparently? how you're the ideal parent he never once bat an eye on? the domestic life jon seems to brag about, it's something damian secretly wanted, and it's all ripped away from him.

it makes damian wonder, would you have done the same for him?

he knows it in himself, that if he hadn't pushed you away, he might've been in jon's place.

[sunlitroom]

Thoughts on ‘The Beginning’

So - as with The Trial of Jim Gordon, I'm going to regard this episode as an extra, and do some meta as opposed to a full recap.   My rationale is pretty much the same: this is an optional easter egg, and one that can easily be regarded as outside canon if desired.  

Also - I found the deeper message, like that in The Trial of Jim Gordon, was so unpalatable it strained the show’s broader ideas and themes.  So I’ve decided it’s not part of canon, for me.

Thoughts after the cut.  Same disclaimer as with The Trial of Jim Gordon.  I love the show.  I tweeted like a maniac as episodes were airing, and got booted from Twitter.  I want another network to pick it up.

However, my idea of meta is the old fandom one, which is critical analysis.  If that’s not your thing, fine - but that’s what I’ll be doing here.

So, first things first.

I understand the rationale behind the time-jump, to an extent.  The two extra episodes were just that - extra.  One was spent on The Trial of Jim Gordon, which I have already been salty about in another post.  This one was a sort of nod to the fans - offering Batman as a sort of reward.  I’ve always been more interested in the story Gotham actually set out to tell, though, the story before Batman.  The story of the city and its inhabitants.  As such, I was always going to be less taken with an episode which was fundamentally mostly interested in giving us Batman. 

But there were a couple of other issues that confused me.  Gotham has always presented its own vision of the city, the characters.  It’s shown it can be creative with canon, as well as adding its own ideas.  Not only, for example, is their take on Oswald unique, but Fish Mooney – so pivotal in his development – only exists within Gotham’s universe.  We got the Executioner and Cyrus Gold – yes, but we also got Nathaniel Barnes and Butch Gilzean, who had character and stories and lives all of their own.

I like that it thumbed its nose at Jim’s moustache.  But go all the way with it.  Yes, we know Batman’s coming.  But if you want to continue to focus on Jim, and his wrestling with the notion of heroism – then just do that.  Have the courage of your convictions.  You can draw inspiration from the 60s series if you want, but you’re not shackled to it: Oswald doesn’t have to don a top hat and become 60s Penguin if you don’t want him to.  The city doesn’t have to morph aesthetically into something we saw in the movies.  You’ve told your own story. See it through.

That aside - the details.

The flash-forward was also a difficult ask because the story has been unnaturally cut short.  Characters who were still wrestling with huge issues didn’t really get to address them in a truncated season and - as such - it’s sort of hard to accept where we find them now.  

For example

We’ve seen Jim deal with several demons over the years.  He has major issues with authority.  His relationship with his father looms large.  He wants to be a hero, but gets on better with the villains.  He compartmentalises like crazy.  He’s emotionally dishonest with others and himself.  He enjoys playing dangerous games.  He can’t resist a pissing match. 

Am I to honestly believe that Jim has been entirely clean and pure in the interim?  Why?  Because the city was saved after near destruction?  That’s happened before – he didn’t change.  If anything, he’s more likely to have reverted to old habits once the crisis was over.  Is he reformed because he’s a father now?  Didn’t stop him killing Theo Galavan while Lee was pregnant.  

Jim’s development was still very much in progress.  As such, he feels unsatisfying here and - given what we know about him - you can’t help but feel he’s probably been up to his old tricks, but we’re just getting to see the sanitised surface of his life.

Lee likewise generally suffered quite a bit from the truncated season, and is  good example of how the flash-forward doesn’t serve characters well.

In season 4, we saw her explore a darker side to her personality that the show has strongly and consistently hinted at since way back in season one, explicitly – when she says that Jerome’s confession of matricide thrilled her, and implicitly, when we wondered why the hell she was working in Arkham.  We also saw her enjoy power in season 4.  We saw her deeply committed to improving the lot of the residents in the Narrows, even if her way of going about it was short-sighted. We saw her shoot Sofia Falcone point-blank in the head in cold blood.  We saw her, although many hated it, form an intense romantic relationship with Ed, where she seemed to find a fulfilment and recognition that she never found with Jim or Mario.

However, in season 5, the show clearly needed her to quickly step into the role of Mrs Jim and stepmother to Barbara.  This meant becoming the angel at the hearth again, so it essentially erased those experiences, all that new characterisation.  

As such, like Jim, she feels flat here ��� like we’re only getting to see a facade.  She’s back in her old post of intermittently saying supportive things to Jim, and apparently quietly looking forward to him quitting his job.  When she's bizarrely given the task of defusing the bomb, as Lucius the tech specialist stands by the side - it really only underlined that stripping her of all that history and characterisation meant that she doesn't really have a real role of her own in the wider workings of the city.

Now to the heart of my problem with this episode.

We’re told, without any explanation, that Oswald was sent to Blackgate shortly after reunification, and Ed to Arkham.  

Now, to be honest, I find this fairly implausible.  In all the rebuilding efforts, I doubt the authorities would have the will or energy to go back and rake over who committed what crime when the city had been abandoned by the government. And even if they did, both their actions – willingly manning the barricades (Oswald sustaining an injury when doing so), would have likely gone some way to mitigating everything else.  

You could argue that it's for some nameless crime they committed later - but the show could easily have indicated that by throwing in a line about some heist or scheme they tried to pull off that ended up with them being put away.

Mayor James - ‘Oswald Cobblepot is getting released tomorrow’

Harvey - ‘Should have got 20 years for that stunt he pulled after reunification - not 10.  So should Nygma.’

It didn't take the trouble to do that - so I'm left assuming they were sent away on the basis of crimes committed during the split.

However, this poses us with some problems both in terms of the plot, and more deeply in terms of narrative repercussions.  Because if we are going to start to get persnickety about charging people with crimes they’ve committed, and then having them face actual consequences – well, we saw Barbara shoot loads of randoms in season 5.  Going back not too far, Lee shot Sofia Falcone in the head.  Going back further still, Jim murdered Ogden Barker and Theo Galavan, and was indirectly responsible for several deaths by inviting Sofia Falcone to town.

So – then – if we’ve decided that actually charging people and sending them to prison is now the done thing, why are we so selective with who’s punished? Gotham is a show with a million shades of grey.  It gives its villains humanising back stories and motivations – but it ultimately still wants to punish a select few like it’s a black and white universe.  You can’t do that when your good guys are equally tainted. Not unless you want to give off an unfortunate stench of hypocrisy, anyway.  

Oswald flat-out asks Jim on the pier.  I could have escaped this city.  I chose to stand shoulder to shoulder with you and defend it.  Why was I punished?

It’s telling that Jim never actually furnishes Oswald with any good answer to his question on the pier.  Because - over the years - the show itself has never quite figured out how to answer this one.   He can’t answer.  What could he possibly say?

Why then, do some get away scot-free, while others are punished?  Why, as Ed observes, do some get to make choices - while others never get the chance?

Jim and Lee are ‘heroes’ (arguably wandering into designated hero territory, at points).  They're never going to face consequences for anything.  Jim going on a self-pitying drinking binge doesn’t count - not compared to a ten-year stint in Blackgate or Arkham.  Lee never expressed any remorse for Sofia.

As for Barbara, well Barbara is brought back into the heroic fold, too.  

First and foremost, she’s offered moral redemption by bearing Jim’s child.  Becoming a mother meant all previous sins were forgiven.  

When we meet her here, we see now that she’s wealthy and powerful – playing a serious role in the city.  It’s empowering in a way – but it’s also a means of re-affirming the established order and putting her back in her box.  Remember that Barbara is from one of Gotham's elite families - and she's finally behaving like someone from an elite and wealthy family would do.  To make her position clear - she’s explicitly placed in the same category as Bruce here in terms of her wealth and control of the city.  I’m assuming that pregnancy also made magically clean whatever money she used to buy up the city when it was on its knees.  She didn’t seem to have access to her parents’ cash before now - so she must have used her ill-gotten gains.  

(I would argue that strategically buying up parts of the city post-reunification is screamingly Oswald, but like other chunks of his characterisation and storyline, it got sent Barbara’s way in season 5 in a bid to flesh out her character)

Last up, she’s not demanding a romantic relationship with Jim anymore, but they’re now forever safely tied in that context due to their daughter - there’s no mention of Tabitha, or casual mention of a new partner.   Troublesome, restless Barbara, poor little rich girl – demanding of Jim’s time and attention, namelessly unhappy, and with a murky ‘past’ is now ‘fixed’ and neutralised.

Thinking about those brought into the fold necessarily asks you to think about those who were excluded.

Oswald might have roots in an elite family, like Barbara, but - crucially - he’s also one part poor immigrant (as well as all his many other markers of 'otherness').   He can’t escape this - we got his jangling east European music as soon as we saw him in this episode, and we were reminded of Gertrud when he said he would lay flowers on her grave as his first act after his release.  

Ed’s background is unknown, but we can safely hazard a guess that there’s no moneyed upper-class upbringing there.  He was also willing to step up when it counted, and was even used by those in power for their own ends during the break – but none of that counts for anything, apparently, and he finds himself in Arkham.  You could argue that Ed is unwell, and needs to be in a hospital – but Arkham is not shown as a hospital in any meaningful sense in the show.  It’s an oubliette, where you send those you just can’t be bothered dealing with.  It doesn’t look any better here than we’ve seen it before.  Why hasn’t anyone tried to improve it? Again, they don’t have to succeed - if you’re determined to stick to canon, but why not suggest that Jim or Lee or Lucius has at least tried to have conditions improved or an official review launched into treatment of inmates?  It would go a long way to nodding to the long and complex histories these characters have.  However things ended – Lee and Ed had a pretty intense relationship.  They cared about each other.  She can sleep at nights knowing he’s in Arkham?  

Jeremiah might have been clever enough to win himself a scholarship and a way out of the circus – but it’s not enough to enable him to escape his past – either explicitly, when he was hunted down by his resentful brother, or implicitly – when he winds up in a similar situation to the other outsiders.  Yes, Jeremiah might have been manipulating the situation – but he was still sent to Arkham and left vulnerable to casual abuse.  Whether it’s intended or not, Jeremiah’s accusation of abandonment can be read more deeply.  Bruce left town - but, just like Oswald and Ed, the city in general abandoned him.

Selina’s an example who, I would argue, reinforces that this moral order of the universe.  She's always been depicted more ambiguously - capable of villainous acts, but tied to the heroes through her bond with Bruce.  This is reflected in what we learn about her here.  Like Jeremiah, she's been punished by Bruce's abandonment, but her grey heroic status means that she doesn't lose her freedom, despite living a life of crime.

So what picture are we painted of the city?

Aubrey James is back in charge - corrupt as Oswald ever was as mayor, but less competent.  The city’s remains were picked clean by Barbara - it’s now seemingly largely owned and controlled by two scions of the city’s elite. The commissioner’s got more than one murder to his name.  His wife has one attempted murder to hers - giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming that Sofia’s still in her coma.  Arkham’s still a hellhole.

What does all that say?  Like I said before, you can argue that this was the inevitable endpoint – but you’ve changed the story already, so that doesn’t wash.

What you’re left with is the outsiders comprehensively punished.  You can sacrifice your chance at escape and an easy life in favour of standing shoulder to shoulder to defend the city, you can be unwell, you can be a victim – doesn’t count.  No matter what you do – you’ll always be an outsider anyway.  You can’t win for losing.  Some are chosen, some aren’t. And if you’re not, tough luck.  

So in this universe, why the hell not don a showy suit and your best hat and commit yourself to villainy?  Go for it, I say.

(Yes - I’m aware this is more analysis than it warranted, and it really just wanted to say ‘look Oswald has a monocle and Batman’s here now!’ - but I felt the need for venting meta)

[trippyl0ngstocking]

@euphemesia was kind enough to link me some Renly Baratheon meta, and I am choosing to reciprocate by commenting on their links. I always enjoy sinking my teeth into some ASOIAF meta. First up is this one: https://zaldrizer-sovesi.tumblr.com/post/124948396552/renly-and-the-sieges-of-storms-end

By @zaldrizer-sovesi

This post discusses how Renly’s childhood, and in particular the siege of Storm’s End led him to make the decisions he makes in the series proper. This is good work. Excellent work, in fact. I highly recommend it. So this isn’t a critique or rebuttal(I think it’s a sound analysis; there’s nothing in it I would dispute), just a few rambling comments.

The observation that Renly was someone who “always the world as a fundamentally insecure place” due to the uncertainty of his childhood is a good one. It actually reminds me a bit of Theon, another character who had an uncertain childhood devoid of unconditional love, and who had a desperate hunger for acclaim. Theon(pre-ADWD Theon, I mean) was someone who never had a fully developed, authentic identity. Throughout ACOK, we see him shift between so many identities, trying to be different things(Robb’s trusty right-hand man, prodigal son of the Iron Isles, tough Ironborn Raider, “Prince of Winterfell”, & he even briefly embraces the role of “Theon Turncloak” when he feels it is the only role available). We don’t get an intimate window into Renly, but I wonder if Renly too struggled with a lack of a sense of authentic identity.

In a recent debate, it was suggested to me that if Renly were really as ruthless and self-serving as all that, he would have taken Stannis’s offer(presumably his offer in Catelyn III ACOK to make Renly his heir if Renly bent the knee), and then have Stannis killed later. I pointed out that by this time, Renly has already cast his die. He has by this point assembled a massive army, and crowned himself. He can just have Stannis killed in the battle. I also suggested that hubris would have made that a rather unpalatable option for Renly(having to renounce his crown even temporarily, and bow and scrape and pretend to suck up to Stannis).

Well, @zaldrizer-sovesi discusses a similar counterfactual. Theirs’ is a much more plausible version of the same general idea. Rather, that Renly could have just bowed to Stannis in the first place(like, late AGOT-early ACOK timeframe I presume), help Stannis capture the throne, and then have Stannis killed in a “tragic accident” so that Renly can inherit(This is much more plausible than the counterfactual I debated since by the time Renly meets with Stannis in ACOK, he has already crowned himself, and assembled a huge army of supporters that far outnumbers Stannis’s. If he was going to play the long game of bending the knee to Stannis, he would have already done so by this point. At that point in the game it’s far simpler to just make sure Stannis dies in the battle. That was part of Renly’s plan, a plan that was succeeding excellently at that point. So why change it?). In any case, I suggested “hubris” as a contributing factor to such options being unappealing to Renly. But I think this piece more precisely identifies the trait as the *desire for acclaim*. It isn’t incorrect to say Renly has hubris, but “desire for acclaim” is more specific and to the point. I think the author of the piece makes a good case that it would have been a better scheme for Renly to support Stannis, and then quietly have him assassinated once he gains the throne, and furthermore that Renly doesn’t go with this option because of his basic drive for acclaim. And that “it’s more likely that Renly cares more about being seen winning than he actually does in having power and using it for something”. This is something that I strongly agree with.

As far as people giving Renly too much credit as an effective schemer, I think it is a good point(and I have discussed Renly’s political skills in the past, so I think I’m safe from being accused of giving him too little credit in that department). I will note that people in the fandom sometimes give various political schemers besides Renly too much credit in the same way. Littlefinger and Tywin especially. There are brilliantly clever political schemers in ASOIAF, but GRRM took care to give them weaknesses and blind spots based on their personality flaws(LF’s sociopathy can manifest itself in him taking unnecessary risks and behaving recklessly. Tywin’s extreme pride can lead him to overreact, or act far outside the bounds of proportionate response, for example his reaction to Tyrion’s kidnapping). Doran Martell doesn’t seem to get overrated by the fandom as much IME(except for believers in the “Great Dornish Conspiracy” theories), but he is also a good example in that his cautious nature and tendency to procrastinate action lead to his schemes being as overripe as his blood oranges. My point being that zaldrizer-sovesi’s reading of Renly’s flaws fit right in with the pattern of all the clever political schemers in ASOIAF having major blind spots, and despite being clever, aren’t always rational actors.

Lastly, zaldrizer-sovesi says that

“Instead, [Renly] works hard against his own interests in fighting Stannis and joining up with the Tyrells. Letting go of a grudge is one thing, but Renly’s reliance on Mace Tyrell is something else entirely. There’s something there, with Renly moving against Stannis with the backing of the man who did that to them. Did he, somewhere in his little kid brain, blame Stannis for his refusal to surrender to Mace? Was it about taking ownership of the experience by using Mace in what he sees as an imitation of Robert’s Rebellion, or winning Mace’s favorite child away from him? “

As I was digging through A Search of Ice and Fire looking for quotes for my recent debates about Renly, I noticed a little detail from AGOT that I hadn’t caught before. When Ned talks to Tobho Mott, Mott brags about a suit of armor he just had made for Renly. It’s green enamel with golden antlers on the helm. Of course, I remembered that Catelyn observes Renly wearing the Baratheon sigil in the colors of House Tyrell during her stint as envoy in ACOK. A potent bit of symbolism that is no doubt intentional on the part of the ever-image-conscious Renly. But he was actually wearing the Tyrell colors far earlier than I realized. That quote was from relatively early in AGOT. It struck me as a fascinating little detail, but I wasn’t sure what to make of it, except that obviously Renly was deep in the pockets of the Tyrells even in early AGOT. But, really, why is Renly wearing Tyrell colors, either in AGOT or ACOK? I think it signals to the reader how dependent Renly is on the Tyrells. But this does not seem to be a common thing in Westeros. Like, I doubt Robert wore the Lannister colors. But if we take the ball of zaldrizer-sovesi’s analysis and run with it, perhaps Renly’s wearing of the Tyrell colors is a manifestation of his desire to indentify with the Tyrells. His formative experience in the Siege Of Storm’s End was the uncertainty, instability, deprivation, and the lack of unconditional love that characterized Renly’s childhood generally(while I am quite certain that Stannis really did love Renly, Stannis is a deeply unwell person who is almost incapable of showing affection), and on the enemy side, just outside the walls of Storm’s End Mace Tyrell held feasts and parties in plain view. Perhaps this led Renly to identify with the enemy instead of the beseiged Baratheon forces, as a way of coping. Renly’s repeated wearing of the Tyrell colors may be an expression of Renly’s identification with the “enemy”, the Tyrells. You can even parallel this to Robert. Robert identified strongly with the Starks. Since he lost his own parents in such a traumatic and tragic way, it was less painful to ignore his own broken family and instead indentify with the Starks, a tight knit and loving family. I’ve even heard it suggested that Robert’s infatuation with Lyanna had more to do with what she *represented* -becoming a part of the Stark family and Ned’s brother by law, than what Lyanna actually *was*. This makes a very neat parallel with Renly. Robert and Renly both rejected their actual families and adopted “better” families that weren’t plagued by the tradegy and dysfunction that troubled House Baratheon. Stannis on the other hand, kept trying to win Robert’s affection and just became very salty and resentful when he failed.

[hadarlaskey]

What Hollywood gets wrong with cancer movies

It’s difficult to imagine the words ‘cancer movie’ and ‘tearjerker’ not being in the same sentence together. They can be an uncomfortable pairing, not necessarily because cancer is a tough subject matter for a film, but because more often than not we’re left with an unpalatable saccharine taste in our mouths.

At the centre of your standard Hollywood cancer weepie you’ll find a subdued martyr fighting their illness, and you’ll notice there’s hardly ever a time when it isn’t terminal. This keeps the emotional stakes higher than a patient on morphine and ensures the platitudes about ‘living life to the max’ really hit.

Films like My Sister’s Keeper and The Fault in Our Stars are the poster children for this weary approach. John Green, author of the book which inspired the latter film, insisted he “didn’t want to sell it, because Hollywood sucks at making unsentimental movies about illness.” Well, I wonder if he ever got around to seeing his story on screen; entrusted to director Josh Boone.

Even the film seems confused about what it’s supposed to be. The opening narration assures us that this cancer movie is far from an attempt at sugarcoated profundity, all the while lacing itself with the romantic lead, Augustus (Ansel Elgort), soliloquising his ironic love for placing unlit cigarettes in his mouth. Who can forget – try as we might – the scene of onlookers erupting into standing ovations at Anne Frank’s house while our protagonists kiss (no, really, this happens). Or perhaps the Magritte reference of ‘ceci n’est pas une pipe’ was really code for ‘ceci n’est pas une good cancer movie’.

The face of American cancer movies is overwhelmingly white, wealthy and middle class. Somehow the medical expenses seem to be no great burden, even though a 2019 poll revealed that 25 per cent of Americans admit delaying treatment for this reason. An anomaly would be the TV series Breaking Bad which acknowledges this broken healthcare system. When Walter White (Bryan Cranston) is diagnosed with lung cancer, potentially giving him just two years to live, he takes extreme measures to secure both medical costs and his family’s future. Lung cancer is a controversial choice, but as Walter is not a smoker, the cause is left ambiguous.

We’re mostly used to seeing blood cancers on film, as they can strike across any age group more randomly and inexplicably – generally a less risky choice when it comes to eliciting the desired emotional response from an audience. Imagine a touching Hollywood tale of lung cancer caused by smoking, the second most common type in the US, or cancers caused by obesity which make up 54 per cent of gallbladder cancers in women and 44 per cent of oesophageal cancers in men. Maybe it’s just one unglamorous step too far for Hollywood to take, as these versions of the disease could be deemed to be ‘self-inflicted’.

So what about those of us who resent our illness being a convenient catalyst for sentimental schmaltz? Are there more subversive films out there? In unexpected places, yes.

In Saint Maud, Amanda (Jennifer Ehle), a retired dancer with spinal lymphoma, is the opposite of what we normally see of cancer patients on screen. She fiercely commits to drinking, smoking and general debauchery while she still can. Instead of taking Maud’s soul saving seriously, she gifts her carer a book of William Blake poems, slyly mocking Maud’s religious zeal. When we do feel sadness for Amanda, it comes about more naturally; unlike Hollywood’s predilection for calculatedly foisting it upon us. She’s no hero (or saint, you could say). Nobody in the movie really is. God, is that refreshing.

Elsewhere, Agnès Varda’s Cleo from 5 to 7 is usually looked at through a feminist lens, but it also astutely captures the agonising wait for medical news. Anyone who has been through the cancer wringer can surely relate to this. For instance, ‘scanxiety’, those jittery nerves you encounter surrounding PET scan results, although instead of visiting a tarot reader like Cleo, you might scroll endlessly through online forums asking ‘how long till my results’ or ‘what does it mean if it’s already been four days?’ Trying to find an answer before the actual answer this way is of course futile, but we all do it.

In one of her many attempts to distract herself, Cleo practises some new songs with her fellow musicians. The roving camera and tight close-ups reflect her dynamic focus, but as is the pattern with this film, it doesn’t last long. While she is singing a particular song the camera slowly pans out and stops; suddenly she is surrounded by empty space, encapsulating her vulnerability. Unfortunately, it’s rare to find a film featuring cancer as beautifully cinematic as this. Most rely on hollow voiceovers and dialogue, alongside tedious musical montages, to get their character’s innermost thoughts and feelings across.

Saint Maud and Cleo from 5 to 7 don’t tend to top lists of cancer movie recommendations. Perhaps they qualify more as non-cancer cancer cinema, or cancer-adjacent films. But, if you’re seeking out cancer movies of the unchaste and unclichéd variety, outside Hollywood is the best place to start.

The post What Hollywood gets wrong with cancer movies appeared first on Little White Lies.

source https://lwlies.com/articles/what-hollywood-gets-wrong-with-cancer-movies/

[anastpaul]

Saint of the Day – 18 September – St Joseph of Cupertino O.F.M. Conv. (1603-1663) – Religious Priest and Friar, Mystic, Confessor, Miracle Worker (born Giuseppe Maria Desa on 17 June 1603 at Cupertino, diocese of Nardo, near Brindisi in the kingdom of Naples, Italy as Joseph Desa – 18 September 1663 at Ossimo, Italy of a rapidly developed but severe fever).   He is buried in the chapel of the Conception, Ossimo.   St Joseph was Beatified on 24 February 1753 by Pope Benedict XIV and Canonised on 16 July 1767 by Pope Clement XIII.   Patronages – Cities of Osimo and Cupertino, Italy, aviation, astronauts, mental handicaps, examinations, students, air crews, Air Forces, air travellers, aircraft pilots, aviators, astronauts, paratroopers.

If ever a tiny child began life with nothing in his favour it was Joseph of Cupertino;  he had only one hopeful and saving quality—that he knew it.   Other boys of his own age were clever, he was easily the dullest of them all.   Others were winning and attractive, nobody ever wanted him.   While they had pleasant things said to them and nice things given to them, Joseph always wrote himself down an ass and never looked for any special treatment.   He went to school with the rest of the children in the village but he did not succeed in anything.   He was absent-minded, he was awkward, he was nervous; a sudden noise, such as the ringing of a church-bell, would make him drop his schoolbooks on the floor.   He would sit with his companions after school hours and try to talk like them but every time his conversation would break down;  he could not tell a story to the end, no matter how he tried.   His very sentences would stop in the middle because he could not find the right words.   Altogether, even for those who pitied him, and wished to be kind to him, Joseph was something of a trial.

BUT he expressed an early interest in religious devotion, first setting up an altar in his family’s home where he prayed constantly.   In school, he got the nickname “Open Mouth” (Gaper) due to his jaw always hanging open in class while his eyes looked to the heavens.   At a young age, he began wearing a rough hair-shirt and fasting.   The few things he consumed he covered with a bitter powder to make them unpalatable.

At 17, he tried to join the Friars Minor of the Conventuals but his two uncles who were members rejected him due to his ignorance and lack of an education.   Joseph tried again with the Capuchin Order and was admitted in 1620 but his frequent ecstatic states and absentmindedness made it impossible for him to perform even the simplest odd jobs and he was dismissed after eight months.   He then joined the Order of Conventuals at Grottella, where he was given the task of caring for a mule.   His virtues were such that he became a cleric at 22, a priest at 25 in 1628.   Joseph still had little education, could barely read or write, but received such a gift of spiritual knowledge and discernment that he could solve intricate questions.

Soon after he was sent to another monastery, he is said to have performed his first remarkable act.   While praying at church, he suddenly levitated into the center of the altar among the candles and flowers.   He levitated again in Rome in the presence of Pope Urban VIII.  From there, his feats grew more numerous and impressive: he rose 15 yards in the air at a basilica in Rome and made many more dramatic flights onto candlelit altars.  A few times, it’s said, he took others with him, including a priest whom he grasped by the hand at a festival, whirling around in a dance until they were both borne aloft.   Another time he cured a nobleman of lunacy by transporting him into the air for 15 minutes.   Once, he even threw a lamb into the sky and then flew after it, spending two hours talking to the animal in the air.   His life became a series of visions and ecstasies, which could be triggered any time or place by the sound of a church bell, church music, the mention of the name of God or of the Blessed Virgin or of a saint, any event in the life of Christ, the sacred Passion, a holy picture, the thought of the glory in heaven, etc.   Yelling, beating, pinching, burning, piercing with needles – none of this would bring him from his trances but he would return to the world on hearing the voice of his superior in the order.   When levitating and floating (which led to his patronage of people involved in air travel) he could hear heavenly music.

In addition to his levitations, which even in the 17th century, there was interest in the unusual, and Joseph’s ecstasies in public caused both admiration and disturbance in the community.   For 35 years he was not allowed to attend choir, go to the common refectory, walk in procession, or say Mass in church.   To prevent making a spectacle, he was ordered to remain in his room with a private chapel.   He was brought before the Inquisition, and sent from one Capuchin or Franciscan house to another. But Joseph retained his joyous spirit, submitting to Divine Providence, keeping seven Lents of 40 days each year, never letting his faith be shaken.   Many other miracles are attributed to Joseph, including reading minds, clairvoyance, healing the sick, multiplying food, finding lost possessions and bilocation (being in two places at once).   He claimed to have many intense battles with the devil, who appeared sporting two-foot-long horns.   Joseph was once found apparently dead on the floor of his dormitory, flies covering his eyes and mouth.   When he arrived in Osimo, where he would spend the last years of his life, he is said to have seen angels and flown 25 yards into the air.

Joseph died in 1663 after an illness and was canonised in 1767.   The church of San Francesco in Osimo was renamed the Basilica of St. Joseph of Cupertino (Basilica di San Giuseppe da Copertino) in his honour.   The basilica has a painting of Joseph levitating above the altar and in the crypt his preserved body is encased in a glass coffin, which is levitating now thanks to the help of two angel statues.   On September 18 of each year, his coffin is carried in a procession around Osimo.

When, in 1657, Joseph had been taken to his last place of confinement, he had said he would never leave it.   He added one thing more for a sign.   He told his companions that the first day on which he failed to receive communion would be the day on which he would die.   And so it came about.   On August 10, 1663, he was seized with an intermittent fever.   So long as it was only intermittent he continued to rise every morning to say mass.   The last day was the feast of the Assumption;  on that day, says the Act of his canonisation, he had ecstasies and experiences surpassing anything he had ever had before.   Then he was compelled to take to his bed; but still he persisted in hearing mass when he could and never missed communion.   He became worse and extreme unction was administered.   When he had received it, he had one request to make, it was that his body should be buried in some out-of-the-way corner and that it should be forgotten where it was laid.   He fell into his agony.   There came constantly to his lips the words of St. Paul: “Cupio dissolvi et esse cum Christo.” (I desire to depart and be with Christ).   Someone at the bedside spoke to him of the love of God;  he cried out: “Say that again, say that again!”   He pronounced the Holy Name of Jesus.   He added: “Praised be God! Blessed be God! May the holy will of God be done!” The old laughter seemed to come back to his face;  those around could scarcely resist the contagion.   And so he died.   It was September 18, 1663.   He was just sixty years of age.

(via AnaStpaul – Breathing Catholic)

[vsplusonline]

Ten best food shows on Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+ Hotstar

New Post has been published on https://apzweb.com/ten-best-food-shows-on-netflix-amazon-prime-disney-hotstar/

Ten best food shows on Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+ Hotstar

Let me say it straight away— I am not a big fan of food shows. Cruelly aspirational, my kitchen looks nothing like the fancy ones on the show, and even if I were to follow the simplest of recipes, where the chef du jour is just throwing things together to create a fabulous dish, it would unfailingly turn into an unpalatable mess.

Being vegetarian by choice, I find it difficult to watch all that meat. But duty calls and as I dived headlong into the world of food shows on streaming platforms, I discovered the meditative calm of sushi, the anthropological evidence for Prometheus, the heart-breaking beauty of Havana, the unfailingly-disturbing Lord of the Flies and the joy of desserts. One of my favourite Bob Dylan lines suddenly popping up in the middle of a show was an added bonus. So here, in no particular order, are 10 shows you could check out to learn about the emotions, history and techniques of food.

MasterChef Australia

Disney+Hotstar, Seasons: 12, Episodes: 768, Runtime: 30-120 minutes

With new judges, restaurateur and chef Jock Zonfrillo, food writer Melissa Leong and season four winner Andy Allen replacing Gary Mehigan, George Calombaris and Matt Preston, Season 12 of the cooking reality show is different yet with the same amounts of drama and intrigue. The mystery boxes, pressure tests, and immunity challenges do not fail to thrill as contestants create works of art from duck’s oesophagus, (really) chocolate, parsnip, parsley, fennel coconut, chilli, mango, lemon chicken and potatoes.

A mild Gordon Ramsay and Katy Perry are celebrity judges while the contestants are winners from previous seasons. If reality shows are your thing, you cannot go wrong with this veteran based on a British show from the 90s where amateurs and home cooks competed for the ultimate cooking prize. Season 12, which started to air on April 13, is into week 5 which is the Twists Week.

Jiro Dreams of Sushi

Netflix, 81 minutes

When the hurlyburly’s done, when the battle’s lost and won, (cooking and restaurants always remind me of Macbeth), it is time to move to sushi. David Gelb’s documentary about an 85-year-old sushi master, Jiro Dreams of Sushi (2011) is beautifully calm. While the movie is all about the perfect cut, the freshest seafood, massaging the octopus for 45 minutes instead of 30, Jiro Dreams of Sushi also tells the story of fathers and sons.

Jiro Ono started working at the age of seven at a local restaurant. A formal portrait of young Jiro with his father holding his hand is all he has of his father, who seems to have lost his money and taken to drinking. Jiro says he did not go to his father’s funeral. Jiro’s elder son, Yoshikazu (50) who will eventually take over the restaurant, still works for his father. Jiro speaks of the kind of tough love he has dispensed to his sons (the younger son has opened his own sushi restaurant) to ensure they will be able to carry on. Even if you are not a fan of sushi, Jiro Dreams of Sushi, with its evocative music and dazzling photography is irresistible.

The Chef Show

Netflix, Seasons: 3, Episodes: 20, Runtime: 26-34 minutes

This is a delightful show for all nerds, geeks and comic-book fans. In 2014 Jon Favreau wrote, acted and directed Chef, a charming film about a successful chef who gives it all up to run a food truck. Roy Choi, the creator of the gourmet Korean-Mexican taco truck, Kogi, was consultant for the film and trained Favreau on all the ninja chef moves.

Incidentally, Favreau directed Iron Man, the movie that set the ball rolling for the gargantuan Marvel Cinematic Universe. The Chef Show which premiered on June 7, 2019 is a spin-off of the film and features Favreau and Choi experimenting with fun recipes (yes that grilled cheese is a star) and breaking bread with some of the biggest names in the entertainment business. It was fun watching them do a pepper pot for Gwyneth Paltrow (nudge, nudge) at Goop and have Tom Holland discuss his audition with Robert Downey Jr.

Ugly Delicious

Netflix, Seasons: 2, Episodes: 12, Runtime: 45-55 minutes

Chef David Chang uses popular food to dissect the concepts of travel, history, culture and the notion of authenticity. The first episode, which premiered on February 23, 2018 looks at pizza—from the uber traditional pizzas in Mark Iacono’s pizzeria, Lucali, in Brooklyn to a tuna mayonnaise one in Savoy in Tokyo and one from Dominos! There are also stops in Frank Pepe in Connecticut, Antillo’s pizzeria in Naples and Bæst in Copenhagen.

With a variety of guests, including food writer Peter Meehan, comic Aziz Ansari and TV show host Jimmy Kimmel, Ugly Delicious is an in-depth look at everyday food. Watching Chef Floyd Cardoz enjoying Awadhi cuisine in the episode on Indian food, which also featured Padma Laxmi, was particularly poignant as Chef Cardoz passed away on March 25, 2020 of COVID-19.

Salt Fat Acid Heat

Netflix, Seasons: 1, Episodes: 4, Runtime: 40–48 minutes

The four-part show, which premiered October 11, 2018, is based on Samin Nosrat’s bestselling cookbook, Salt Fat Acid Heat (2017). The show sees the chef, TV show host and food writer travel the world to investigate the four pillars of cooking namely salt, fat, acid and heat. She travels to Italy to explore fat and the concept of “noble meat,” Japan for salt, Mexico for acid and Chez Panisse (where she worked her way up from bussing tables to chef) for heat. Salt Fat Acid Heat is an interesting way of looking at food buttressed by a charming host and Instagram worthy locales.

Cooked

Netflix, Seasons: 1, Episodes: 4, Runtime: 50-58 minutes

Samin Nosrat is described as “the chef who taught Michael Pollan how to cook” and features in Cooked, Pollan’s four-part documentary based on his eponymous book. The documentary travels the globe to explore the different aspects of cooking, which serendipitously correspond with the four elements—earth, water, fire, and air. Pollan, a writer (The Botany of Desire, The Omnivore’s Dilemma) activist and professor looks at the socio-cultural impact of food on our lives.

In collaboration with Oscar-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney, Cooked travels with an aboriginal tribe to hunt goanna (a type of monitor lizard) and tries to bridge the gap between our “meat transactions which are hidden behind feed lots and abattoirs” and our plates. There is also singer-songwriter James Taylor singing a song to his pig, Mona.

Street Food Asia

Netflix, Seasons: 1, Episodes: 9, Runtime: 30-34 minutes

Released on April 26, 2019, Street Food Asia looks at street food in Bangkok, Osaka, Yogyakarta (Indonesia), Chiayi (Taiwan), Seoul, Singapore and Cebu (Philippines). Looking at the bustling Mangal Chat Wale, the delicious kebabs at Karim’s and batura at Nand di Hatti in the Delhi segment, one can only imagine the silence on the streets now with the lockdown and the number of livelihoods affected. Truoc’s Snail Stall in Ho Chi Minh was a revelation of the number and variety of edible snails.

Chef’s Table

Netflix, Seasons: 6, Episodes: 30, Runtime: 50 minutes

David Gelb, who also created Street Food Asia, considers Chef’s Table a spiritual successor to his Jiro Dreams of Sushi. The show which premiered on April 26, 2015, profiles professional chefs, their inspirations, dedication and determination to make it. Chefs from all over the world including Italy (Massimo Bottura), Argentina (Francis Mallmann), Sweden (Magnus Nilsson) Brazil (Alex Atala), South Korea (Jeong Kwan) and Russia (Vladimir Mukhin), are featured. Gaggan Anand and Asma Khan represent India though their restaurants are in Bangkok and London.

The episode featuring Christina Tosi, founder and owner of Milk Bar and creator of the infamous crack pie was a revelation into what drives these men and women to create delicious works of art. It also revealed the workings of a restaurant including the family meal, where the crack pie (a pie so good it is addictive) was born. Seeing David Chang (he hired Tosi and encouraged her to open the Milk Bar) gives that special joy of connections.

Eat the World with Emeril Lagasse

Amazon Prime, Seasons: 1, Episodes: 6, Runtime: 30 minutes

Emeril Lagasse, the star of cookery shows in the 90s and nougties, travels the world with other chefs discovering the cuisine of different places. The entertaining and informative show was first aired on September 2, 2016. Eat the World… sees Lagasse in Sweden exploring New Nordic with chef Marcus Samuelsson, searching for the Shanghai soup dumpling with Mario Batali, exploring modernist cuisine in Barcelona with chef José Andrés, Jeong Kwan’s vegan cuisine in South Korea and Franco Pepe’s pizza with Nancy Silverton in the Campania region of Italy. In colourful Havana, Emeril and Aarón Sánchez taste the freshest of vegetables from urban gardens in an Ajiaco stew, a fine roasted pig with a cigar instead of an apple in its mouth—it is Cuba after all – and dine at a paladar (restaurants run out of homes).

Kantaro: The Sweet Tooth Salaryman

Netflix, Seasons: 1, Episodes: 12, Runtime: 24 minutes

This is the perfect dessert to end a food show marathon. Based on the manga series, Saboriman Ametani Kantarou by Tensei Hagiwara, Kantaro: The Sweet Tooth Salaryman follows the adventures of Ametani Kantarou, (Onoe Matsuya) who quits his job as a programmer and joins a publishing house to indulge his sweet tooth. In the first episode, which aired on July 7, 2017, he zips through his sales calls to visit the Kanmidokoro Hatsune, a traditional sweet shop in Ningyōchō. There he samples anmitsu and is transported into dessert fantasy. His rhapsodies over the jelly, fruit, gyūhi and agony over choosing between white and black syrup are endearing.

Source link

[ascbh13]

Genesis 41 Joseph The Dream Interpreter: an example of a bold prophet who is both prudent and a planner

We are coming to the end of our sermon series on Joseph and this is the penultimate one, next week Paul is giving us the final sermon, today it is all about dreams.

Dreams … But this week it has all been about dreams certainly in the news and in a couple of newspapers specifically the word dreams.

At the beginning of the week we had in the daily Telegraph Boris Johnson’s dream of Brexit … Being shattered…

Certainly we are at a turning point in our relationship with our European partners, our politicians could certainly do with some of Joseph’s prophetic wisdom.

Then following the disappointment of the defeat by England football team to Croatia, the dream of getting to the finals of the World Cup, were shattered. Interestingly only three of the players were even born by 1990, which is when England were last in the World Cup semi-finals.

Now we all have dreams, whether we remember them or not after sleeping. Or longer term conceptual dreams, which may or may not be fulfilled. Today’s passage highlights the dreams of Pharaoh, interpreted by Joseph, who this time is a bold, brave prophet who also turns out to be a prudent, strategic planner.

Joseph is trusted, this time he is not subject to temptation but instead turns immediately to God. Joseph has no hesitation in saying “God will give you Pharaoh the answer he desires”. Joseph has no problem putting his trust in God, he nails his colours to the mast. He is bold in, even before he gives his interpretation, saying where the interpretation and wisdom will come from. He is happy and proud to point to God. Do we? When asked for our wisdom, our advice point people to the ultimate source of all wisdom. We should make sure we do the same. To take honour for ourselves is a form of stealing from God. So let us not be silent when we know we should be giving glory and credit to God. The success of the Fete and the turnaround in our finances, for example, is not down to one person but a team effort but ultimately it is to God’s glory and for God’s purposes.

Joseph tells Pharaoh that both his dreams, of the fat cows being eaten by the thin cows, and the seven ears of good corn will be swallowed up by the thin ears of corn, are one and the same.

Joseph lets him know that the abundance will be forgotten because the famine will be so severe. God has determined the matter. It is interesting to note that although Pharaoh is given quite gloomy news and the interpretation of his dream is not exactly something you would like to hear. It does not stop Pharaoh seeing good in Joseph. Perhaps there is a lesson here for us. That sometimes we should not shy away from telling the truth, even if we fear the consequences of that truth being told, as long as we do it in love. As it says in Proverbs 27:17 as iron sharpens iron so one person sharpens another.

Yet we see that God was with Joseph both when Potiphar’s wife was throwing herself at him and also in the interpretation of the dreams, as well as the consequences.

In Joseph not only do we have someone who interprets dreams and prophesies but we also have the first Chancellor of the Exchequer! Someone who is not afraid of telling his boss what should be done. He suggests an instant 20% tax on the harvest during the years of abundance. A bureaucrat that even Brussels would be proud of! He is strategic because he knows and trusts God and Pharaoh in turn does the same.

We see in Joseph both the prophet, prepared to give an unpalatable message but also someone who is a prudent person. I’m sure many of you remember the 2008 recession, which many people in the city said I deliberately avoided by turning my collar back to front by going to study theology at Ridley in Cambridge. The recession however came about in large part as a result of our living beyond our means, the drivers agreed and a lack of prudence over secured loans. Some of which as a lawyer I helped orchestrate but at the time like many I didn’t really know what was going on nor the longer-term consequences. But basically loans were being financed on the basis of unsecured lending, which in turn was based on the American housing market, with loans that people could not afford to pay back. 

It what Joseph indicates in the final part of this chapter is saved first, and then when the crisis comes you will manage better. I’m sure many of you have heard me say this before but I try to give away 10% each year of my stipend to the church but they also save 10% for my retirement and put a bit aside for my children. It is good to set aside for retirement… For the children… For the grandchildren… But we should also encourage them to save the things and not have in everything instantly on a plate. Amazon is great but don’t give your children everything on a plate. 

We should as Carolyn said last week look after the environment, not be wasteful but instead be prudent. As it says in Proverbs 19:14“Houses and wealth are inherited from parents but a prudent wife is from the Lord…” It does not mean, being stingy and mean but it does mean not being wasteful. 

Still be generous and compassionate and forgiving, as we later see Joseph was to his brothers when they came begging for food. But it does mean recognising that when we are blessed with abundance, we should put something aside for the future stop Joseph didn’t have to be a genius to formulate a plan to handle what was to fold over the periods of surplus, followed by shortage. 

Yet Joseph did have to put into action wise decisions. The word of God however given is meant to be understood and acted upon. Many of us have heard sermons and said oh yes I must do that. But actually do we do it when we leave this place? Act on something God said to you today like Joseph did. Of course with hindsight one can say that similarly the world doesn’t have to get into the economic messes it gets into from time to time. And yet we should always plan for the future. 

As I’ve said before there are two certainties in life, death and taxes. We know there coming have be planned for them as far as we can. Joseph shows us how to take the long view. To stay calm to ride out the storm. Often what seems like a setback is often set up for come back. The greatest spiritual victory in history was won on the heels of its seemingly greatest defeat, Jesus being crucified. Jesus being let down and deserted by his friends. Led to the great reunion after his resurrection. Yes we will experience setbacks but remember this without crucifixion there can be no resurrection. 

So when we have a setback, don’t take a step back because God is preparing you for a comeback. Jesus longs to accompany each one of us on the journey of life. Whether we’ve been given a cancer diagnosis, are having marital problems, or facing divorce, bereavement or being single or not wanting to be lonely or having mental health issues. Jesus wants to accompany us on our journey and through our struggles. He knows like the cupbearer did, that we all have shortcomings. And yet in today’s story we see qualities of wisdom, endurance and patience that Pharaoh saw in Joseph.

Pharaoh cannot think of a better person to appoint as his number two. It is a story of restoration, of redemption which echoes the story of Jesus. Remember Joseph was betrayed by his brothers. He is far away from his family in a foreign land and is struggling to make his way in an unfriendly country. Perhaps not unlike some migrants might be viewed in this country, which no doubt the Mexican who was beaten up last week would agree with.

If you recall Joseph was once in Potiphar’s favour only to be cast aside as a result of untrue and unfair accusations of adultery by Potiphar’s wife. He then found favour with the prison guards, whilst he was in jail and interpreted dreams for the cupbearer and the baker, only to again be forgotten. But this time as they say is third time lucky. That is like life it has ups and downs. We should remember that however bad life seems, sometimes it through our failures that we learn more. As Winston Churchill said…success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.

For this time he is restored, becoming second in command over all Egypt. God is with him, as he is with us, through the bad times as well as the good. One minute Joseph is a forgotten imprisoned slave the young Hebrew in jail… The next is on his way to the top of Egyptian society.

It’s a bit like the transformation that happens one of my favourite Eddy Murphy movies “Trading Places”. Here as an experiment, for a one dollar bet, a black beggar, played by Eddy Murphy trades places with a white Harvard graduate, who runs a major stock trading brokerage account for the founders Duke and Duke. Eventually the roles are totally reversed and the founders of the company Duke and Duke exchange the dollar, having transformed the fortunes of both parties.

When we go through times of despair let us not forget that God is there, as well as give thanks to those, who have helped us get out of that place and onto the road to recovery.

Wisdom is something this country and our nation needs in these turbulent times. Wisdom is a gift that God wishes to give us, so let us remember Joseph’s example both in being a bold prophet who is prepared to deliver a difficult message but also someone who is wise, prudent and eventually appreciated the being so.

So let us pray both for that wisdom as well as patients and endurance when life’s problems come upon us.

Let us pray Lord we see in Joseph a bold prophet prepared to give it difficult message. We see someone who is patient, full or endurance and prudent but above all trusted, we pray that you give us the gift of prudence and wisdom. 

[acid-ixx]

Planned Fanfics !

ft. platonic/ yandere batfam, superfam, villains, au's & many more!

— Disclaimer! This contains massive spoilers and all my plans for future works that I'll soon publish. This is posted because I wish to update my readers upon the contents of what I'm working to write and for them to leave inputs and whatnot. Sorry for the delays and all, life is hectic and as much as I love writing, I also have a life outside of this site sadly. By the way, this is not even half of my drafts and if anyone is interested in the things written beneath here, then please do tell!

To Be His Child is All I want (A&A, Chapter 5): Confronting Jason, one of your brothers who played a role in neglecting you, and being partly the reason why you ventured out the manor to seek love, away from the unhealthy environment, was no easy task. Back and forths with him, and reasoning why you don't wish to return back 'home' only poured fire into the flames of your already aching heart, as you scream about only wishing to be loved by even a fraction of the compassion Bruce feels for all his other children was all you needed to feel happy in life. It was enough to leave Jason breathless, muddled with emotions he couldn't quite grasp.

As you drown in a seamless fit of arguing and sobbing into the arms of your brother, the manor holds a meeting regarding your sudden disappearance. Bruce is promptly disappointed at Jason's absence; the others are just as intrigued with Dick and Damian's urgency to find you. Yet all are unbeknownst to your plans of escape, and most especially to a certain Kryptonian's scheme to have you in his arms all for himself.

Family Dinner (A&A): Silly, old you can't seem to stomach the fact that they're all looking at you now at the elongated table when months ago you were a mere ghost in their eyes whilst they chatter happily amongst each other. Unfamiliar with how communicating with a family who estranged you works; you end up having a panic attack in the middle of dinner when Damian attempted to hug you.

To Love and To Cherish (Random): Bruce Wayne loves his spouse and everything about them. They're everything desirable in his eyes and he couldn't help the urges that keeps him running back to you every time he patrols to ensure not only the safety of Gotham, but for the sake of his growing plans to fully integrate you as a full-time house spouse. The problem Bruce faces, though, is that he's not actually married to you, yet, and you're unaware of his prying eyes on your form as you live alone in your shabby apartment.

Flowers on My Grave (A&A, Hanahaki AU): Flowers don't only bloom inside your lungs when you're rejected by someone you love romantically, they can also manifest through platonic love unrequited. Vomiting a bouquet of yellow carnations and an arraw of purple and blue hyacinths, you set to sever the bond of love you once felt for them once and for all.

Cold House, Lone Spouse (Loving Family, Unpalatable Desire): You come home from Clark's farm to sleep in your own room to make sure nobody suspects a thing; expecting to power through the pain of loneliness in your room. But you end up waking up to Bruce's body pressed against your back and his arms caging you, unrelenting in its pursuit to make sure you never seek out another man's hold again.

Once Your Son, Always Your Son (Loving Family, Unpalatable Desire): Your routine with your beloved son, Jon, leaves nothing else to be desired as you set about your usual nightly schedule of helping him clean up, fix his bed, and read him bedtime stories— something you've grown accustomed to love naturally as being a parent does. But when Damian comes to visit you once Jon falls asleep, he enviously demands you do the same to him and to return to the manor where a better family is waiting for you.

The Confrontation (Loving Family Unpalatable Desire): Clark's night with you always ends up with him hovering above your body, kissing all the exposed parts of your skin, and worshipping your body which lays upon his bed every night. It's the perfect fantasy, yet it's promptly shattered when he sees the familiar silhouette of his comrade, clad in all black, demanding that Clark returns his spouse back in his arms; as if he's not the very same man who left you all alone that night at the gala, available for taking.

A Father's Strange Case of Gift Giving (A&A): To make it up to you, Bruce tries to spoil you rotten with a bottomless allowance and unrestricted access to all his credit cards. Even a mansion built on your name is built as one of the family's vacation houses. One unsettling fact, though, is Bruce's proficiency of capturing every detail of all things you prefer in such a short span of time after kidnapping you. (i.e. You're unaware of the cameras planted in every corner of your room trying to capture the things that makes you smile).

Mind Games and Mind Control (Brutus): What if it were The Riddler and Scarecrow who saved you from nearly dying? With your emotional reception, and both their wits, you end up stirring more trouble for Gotham's vigilantes. But during times where you've nothing to do but watch as both villains enact upon their master plans, itching to satisfy the ache of bloodlust coursing through your veins, you start to notice the abrupt bouts of energy they exert upon tormenting whoever stares at you (sitting comfortably on a cushioned couch, treated like royalty no less) or talks behind your back— crazed for your words of approval and praise as if it's not them who are capable enough of controlling you instead.

The Powered, and the Powerless (Random, Romantic Batfam): During the night, they are your city's saviors, the light that shines bright on darkness, the hope that never wavers through moments of fear. Daytime, meanwhile, they're portrayed as a rich, socialite family who donate millions on charity and everything that promotes good costs. Power comes to them naturally, and praise is served to most of them in a silver platter for all their hard work. You can even say their status is akin to that of Gods, except you don't think of them the same way others do; choosing to utilize your immense knowledge of internet safety to publish articles and conspiracies pertaining to each member of the Wayne family through anonymous forums. Yet all this results in their interest in your secret identity.

Fate Unwanted (Random, Soulmate AU): You're a simple person living on the outskirts of an unnamed town on the boundaries of Gotham. Curious on why your parents are protective of you, forcing you to live with countless of strick rules written boldly on paper and plastered on the front of your refrigerator, and why you just can't seem to produce or perceive any soulmate bond; you set out on a mission to find the mysteries of your unmarked soul. Little did you know that the strangers you stumble upon who chose to assist you on your journey, all from every city and every known state, have found their soulmate that they're unwilling to share.

[acid-ixx]

this is in Clark's wallet

— related post !

HELP ME THIS WAS BURIED UNDER SO MANY ASKS ☹️ this is absolutely so adorable. i love love love the cape on jon's back and the little hearts surrounding the reader is so cute wahh i wish i had a mom figure like them now 💔 (this is sleep deprivation talking right after i wrote angst (plsplspls let that one blow up or ill cry))

i'm absolutely raising you with this: jon kent is probably on the heavier side so of course, since he doesn't want his favorite ever parent to struggle with hugging him, he obviously practices everyday so he could learn how to fly in a really stable manner just so he could surprise you every single day with flying hugs and a kiss to your cheek every morning, afternoon, and night, after every meals and anytime he felt the need to just to show how much he loves his parent; it's one of his favorite ways of showing you affection, no matter how cheesy it is.

and sure, it may warrant some weird reputation for jon whenever you pick him up from school— that he's an 'immature' boy who's still attached to his parent— but that's nothing to jon when it means he could brag about his loving parent to all his friends; how he has them and they don't, and that sheer difference is something jon is so so proud of. yes, he keeps of picture of you in his wallet. yes, he updates you in chat every single second of his life. yes, you're not officially his parent, yet, but what's there to be ashamed of? dad taught him to always cherish your loved ones and you are one of, if not, the most important one to his ever since you stepped into his life.

yes, he may be downright sometimes possessive-obsessive of his parent, but could he help babbling about them when they're the main source of his happiness? absolutely not. so everyone around his vicinity should listen about the time you took him to the fare and won him a plushie that he now sleeps with every night because it holds memories of you.

jon kent loves his parent, what's wrong with that? after all, what's there to not love about you?

(a/n: after all the fluff, i bring you this: shameless plugin and self promo of this hehe. if u love to feel pain, read it ?)

[acid-ixx]

Jon accidentally showing Damian a photo of reader, (I LOVE YOUR NEW FICS, IM OBSESSED, YOU'RE A TALENTED WRITER PLEASE LIVE FOREVER)

— related post !

yall hahaha... i got a fever for 2 whole days and just recovered right now hence why i wasnt able to reply to asks since i was in so much pain 💔 but anyways—

OMG 😭 !!! this is so beautiful wth ?? the confused look that damian gives jon, jon literally saying "they've been my parent ever since" like yes !! the fact that jon already sees you as a parental figure the moment clark meets you is such a wonderful implication. you don't need to prove yourself to the kent family to be considered as part of theirs, and i think that's such an opposing symbolism towards the batfamily because after all the times you tried your best to be there for them, all the wasted efforts— just for everything to be nothing. but with the kent family, all you need to do is greet them with a smile then suddenly you're part of their lives forever and ever. and yes, there's times where clark refuses you to go outside but with jon's company, you wouldn't really find a way to complain, right?

tysm for sending this in ! it is so pretty and ofc i love how you drew jon and damian in your artstyle and idk if it's intentional but the slight curl in jon's hair reminds me of superman's curl.

and for everyone, ty all for literally blowing up the fanfic?? i didn't expect it to get so much traction since i didn't have much of a direction for how i want it to go but yes i will write more for the series (hence the "#series" tag)

also... watch out for an upcoming soulmate au because... why not hehe

[acid-ixx]

oh my god i'm so sorry for the sudden inactivity, depression and mood drops sucks a lot and drained me of motivation to write 😭 but that wouldn't stop me at all from posting updates 😈 would anybody be interest in reading all the planned drafts i have in my notes app? they all contain spoilers for a&a, loving family unpalatable desire, brutus, new series ideas, drafts for my event, random concepts and ideas that i've planned out, and basically a compilation of what to expect for me to

[acid-ixx]

ೃ⁀➷ ⠀yandere interactions event⠀! ❛ ༉‧₊˚

last updated: 11/02/2024 GMT+8

❝ YOU HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER! DO YOU OPEN IT?༊ ❞

── CONGRATULATIONS!

➷⠀⠀my inbox is open for small requests for a short followers event ! meaning, character interactions (prompts, letters, or original dialogues) are open for everyone to send in their own little quote followed with a scenario towards any DC COMICS characters 🩷 this event includes, but isn't exclusive to:

🌷⠀⠀character interactions. [e.g. "(character), do you want to look at the stars tonight?"] ; i prioritize these requests.

🌸⠀⠀yandere prompts/starters. [links: 01, 02, 03]

🪼⠀⠀love letters. [how: send them a love letter and they'll reply back!]

🍥⠀⠀sample fics. [links: 01, 02 ; this is for reference]

read the rules below for a better understanding!

╰┈➤ GENERAL RULES⠀! ❛ ༉‧₊˚

🩷⠀⠀GENDER PREFERENCE : i write both gn and male reader only— but all readers are automatically defaulted to gender neutral unless explicitly stated.

🩷⠀⠀CHARACTERS : only one character per interaction. i write for anyone in the batfam, superfam, justice league, teen titans, young justice, as long as the characters aren't completely foreign to me.

🩷⠀⠀LENGTH : i'd prefer if requests aren't kept at minimal length/only one-liners and have some sort of action to it. the more vague a request is, the longer i take to reply. this is the most crucial part of the the rule.

🩷⠀⠀AU'S : i accept both general interactions/prompts, au suggestions, or anything from my series. [again &. again, a loving family; an unpalatable desire, brutus, lovefool]

🩷⠀⠀ALL I ASK is for you guys, the readers, to please leave comments or interact with the me, the author, because interactions, reblogs, and any form of communication helps motivate me to write even more despite my busy schedule. i value everyone's inputs over everything else.

🩷⠀⠀PREFERENCES : i write both angst and fluff, platonic and romantic yanderes, and only soft yanderes. please, tell me if it's romantic or platonic. nsfw requests are not permitted for this event. more rules will be added soon in case.

🩷⠀⠀QUANTITY : i only accept one request per person, and as i've stated, it's better to lengthen/specify your requests to the best of your ability if you don't wish for yours to be dismissed.