#seriously this was supposed to be one paragraph of similar traits I noticed

[irenespring]

I have seen some posts about an ideal House MD crossover and I would like to submit ER for consideration.

I want to see Kerry Weaver and Gregory House interact.

Both are disabled and suffer from chronic pain, both are autistic, both come off very poorly to people (Kerry unintentionally, House as a defense mechanism), both are queer (Kerry canonically) but closeted for at least a large portion of the show, both Need Therapy. But yet they have wildly conflicting personalities and priorities.

For example, Kerry cares about what everyone thinks about her, desperately wants to be liked by her coworkers, and tries so hard that it backfires. She wants to work her way up the system and play by the rules so she can prove herself to herself and to others. Unlike the social scene at ER which confuses her and rejects her, The Rules are simple, and when she follows them authority figures like her. Better, when she follows The Rules and proves she's smart, she gets promoted. When she is promoted, she assumes people have to respect her, because they too should follow The Rules and thus respect their superiors the way she does. When this interpersonal approach also fails, she has the consolation of even when people reject her for ableist or homophobic reasons, she still has some power.

House only cares what Wilson (and maybe Cuddy) thinks of him, but tries to push them away to see what they do and to prove to himself solitude is inevitable/misery is unavoidable. While Kerry uses ambition to cover for insecurity, House uses surface-level cruelty. This is a problem, and why I can never decide how I feel about his character, because his depression and pain does not justify his behavior (not that I still don't enjoy his character when watching the show, just from a serious analysis perspective). He has given up on interpersonal connection in a way that Kerry has not. Through isolating himself, he makes himself the source of his misery. He maintains the idea that if he wanted to, he could be liked, and thus he has control over his life.

Both of these responses are reactions to pain and rejection, but in different directions. Both characters are implied to be in constant pain, and there is evidence both were mistreated before the Problem Behaviors arose. Kerry's response is to say "well I'm your boss, so you have to respect me no matter my identity" and craves power. House's response is "well if I'm such an asshole, you hate me because of something I did, and thus it's my decision you reject me, not something forced on me" and craves control over relationships.

I would like to see them interact, especially beyond the inevitable initial angry argument. I think it could be interesting. Friends is a stretch (I don't think Kerry could brush off House's offensive comments because of how much similar things hurt her in canon) but they would grow to understand each other over time.

[howtofightwrite]

A 2.10 meter character with horns and wearing a red cloak, how discreet can she be and how plausible is it to stalk a couple of assassins?

Medieval fantasy world, Dragon Age, the Qunari are not especially common in the rest of Thedas...

Pretty sure, "discreet Qunari," is an oxymoron. Granted, it's been a minute since I paid close attention to Dragon Age (or, really any Bioware series), but remember, we're talking about the race that thinks that, "subtly," involves telling people you're there to spy on them. This isn't to say they're stupid, just that they have an incredibly direct and inflexible approach to the world. (Note: that this is sometimes used by the series writers to compel characters to act in idiotic ways. Generally this is a cliché you'd want to avoid when writing fantasy.)

So, now you have an extra question, "how discreet can a Qunari be?" The answer seems to be, "not very."

As for how well they can blend into a crowd? They can't. Seriously, they can't at all. Dragon Age doesn't have any other large civilized races, Similarly, as you observed, Qunari are an unusual sight outside of their territory. This is for two reasons: They don't generally mix with non-Qunari, and renegade Qunari (called Tal-Vashoth) are pretty rare. (Even if DA2 tasks you with carving through literal legions of them. Thanks Varric.)

So, when you're trying to blend into a crowd, you want as many traits that are shared with members of the crowd as possible. The easy things this can include are details like your clothing, height, and the visibility of any weapons you may be carrying.

So, let's start with the cloak. Ironically, vibrant red is not, automatically, a deal breaker. If you are somewhere with a lot of vibrant colors in the clothes, having a dull or washed out cloak would, ironically, stand out far more, than a bright red one. Conversely, if we're talking about someplace like Kirkwall or Denerim, it's going to stand out quite a bit. Dragon Age, generally, trends into a more muted color palette in general. Now, this is a valid setting choice, but it's not, "historically authentic." In actual world history, dyes, and the vibrant clothes that could be produced as a result were a were a major trade good. This is something you'll sometimes see in fantasy, and alternately you'll see fantasy settings that bleed the color out. In fact, both could, legitimately, occur in different regions of the same setting (which is supposed to be the case in Dragon Age.)

So, if your clothing is not consistent with the crowd, that's going to make you stand out more. Bold colors in a city that likes to cosplay as a sand and dirt showcase will be easy to notice.

Worth remembering that this can change depending on district. It's possible that a city's port, bazaar, administrative, and noble districts would have a far more diverse array of clothing styles, but moving into laborer and crafter quarters would see the vibrancy quickly disappear. In situations like this, a character seeking to remain anonymous would probably need to ditch their vibrant clothing (if possible.)

So far as it goes (since I mentioned it four paragraphs ago), weapons are a similar situation. If your character is visibly armed, in a city with a lot of armed individuals, it won't automatically stand out, unless your character's weapons are conspicuous in some way.

Height is a simpler issue. If you're taller than the average height of the crowd, you'll stand out more. Conversely, if you're shorter than the average height of the crowd, you'll have a harder time tailing someone.

Other physical characteristics like hair color and skin tone can make you stand out from the crowd, in a non-cosmopolitan setting. Basically, if you don't look like the locals, you'll be easier to quickly identify by anyone looking for a tail. Obviously, a hooded cloak can help to conceal this, unless of course people wearing a hood is not the norm, in which case that's conspicuous.

Somewhat obviously, most of the locals in your case are not going to be 2.1m, grey skinned, or sprouting horns (which will still be visible, even if she's wearing a hood.)

Another unique problem your character faces to avoiding being noticed isn't just that she physically stands out, it's that her race has a very real reputation in the setting. The Qunari, upon arriving on Thedas, immediately launched into an aggressive crusade, conquering fairly significant chunks of territory before grinding into a stalemate in Tevinter. Your character isn't just physically imposing, she's immediately recognizable as a member of a race that is trying to conquer and subjugate the continent, a fact that will not be lost on anyone who sees her.

So, to sum it up, you've got a character who will stand a head taller than the crowd, has distinctive, upward sweeping horns, is (maybe) trying to hide that under a hood, of a vibrant eye catching color, and is a member of a race that is immediately noteworthy, on sight. So, “blending into the crowd,” is going to be borderline impossible.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you, and come join us on Discord.

[michals]

(Ok this was supposed to be like, a couple of paragraphs but it turned into a freaking essay, so it’s under the cut haha)

On Klaus, Luther and addiction

So this is something I personally find to have a lot of great thematic potential for these two characters. The idea of Luther falling into the same trap that Klaus has for both similar and different reasons and Klaus dealing with Luther’s addictions while facing his own is such a great thru line for both of them. The show’s set them up with the building blocks for this plot point and it would be so easy for it to come into play this season, especially this season actually.

Luther’s build up to addiction is subtle but I think they’ve planted the seeds enough to make it into something. Him falling apart in The Day That Was and his first reaction is to turn to alcohol and drugs is pretty significant considering it’s obvious that he’s probably been very ‘straight edge’ his whole life, probably never having even drank before then. And he tells Klaus straight out that he wishes he was like him, that he didn’t care and that he could just ignore all his own feelings like he thinks Klaus does. (I’ll get into how the family deals with Klaus’s addiction in a minute.) He goes out and  does things under the influence he would never have done while sober, things that end up being self destructive (ie having sex that he seemed to really not want). But even then he’s gotten the idea that if he’s drinking/on something then he’s not thinking about all his shitty feelings.

Season two really sets it up because it’s not just one event but several. In the first ep at the bar he has a drink very casually, like he’s been doing it for years and not just because his life fell apart in the past how many months. The flask when he goes to Vanya’s is really telling firstly because he has a flask on him at all times at this point, that he uses it to get his courage up to go in the barn, and that he does it even when he’s driving. But it’s the nitrous scene that really cements it for me, again simply because he went from being basically a teetotaler to jumping at the first offer of heavy drugs. And he says he should’ve done this a long time ago. If I may get a little personal I know how easy it is to fall into this, the idea of ‘hey alcohol (or drugs) makes me feel better or at least I don’t think/care as much so why wouldn’t I do it?’. It’s such an easy slope to fall down and on the surface Luther has plenty of reasons to want to.

Now, Klaus: there’s plenty already been said about Klaus’s relationship with drugs and alcohol so I won’t get too wordy. Klaus is defined to us right away as a junkie and addict. Someone who uses substances to avoid dealing specifically with his powers and also his shitty upbringing. He plays very fast and loose with his own sobriety and even his mortality. Basically: he uses drugs to avoid thinking or feeling bad, or at least worse but he’s far, far past the point of entry into full blown dependence.

The scene between him and Luther in season 1 is a personal favorite just because it manages to deal with and establish a number of thematic ideas and the potential for how Luther and Klaus’s relationship can go from there. Luther, like the rest of the family, doesn’t understand Klaus’s addiction partially because they’ve all been estranged for 13 years and partially because Klaus doesn’t take it seriously and puts forth a very flippant persona, hell he doesn’t take anything that seriously. The world’s ending, they don’t have the time or inclination to humor Klaus’s story of chocolate pudding. Luther clearly misunderstands his addiction because yes, Klaus comes across as kind of happy and okay with himself but that’s because of the drugs. To Luther who’s been locked up with their asshole of a father Klaus seems to actually have a life of his own.

But Klaus doesn’t try too hard to walk that opinion back and here’s something I find important that tends to get left out when people point out that the family doesn’t take Klaus’s problems seriously: Klaus doesn’t talk about it or try and deal with it. Klaus really really doesn’t like dealing with things if he thinks he can avoid them. His powers, his childhood, Reginald, Ben, his cult – if he can run away from it or make a joke about it instead that’s what he’ll do. The one thing he ever really shows much initiative with is Dave. He’s self centered and I mean that in the most basic way – everything comes down to what he wants to do and he actually keeps his feelings close to the vest for the most part. Basically he doesn’t want to give the others an ‘in’ point to really address it (bonus they all heaps of problems of their own). And when he does get into it just the barest amount with Luther Luther’s high as fuck.

(Just to touch on Ben he kind of doesn’t count because firstly he can’t talk to anyone else and secondly he and Klaus have such a strained relationship especially regarding Klaus’s drug use that even if anyone else could hear him he probably wouldn’t be that supportive.)

So, actually getting into the whole season 3 thing: the siblings are about to face off with a whole lot of daddy and family issues in this time line and everyone’s got huge potential for emotional and mental shakedowns, but I think Luther’s gonna have the worst time of it. Don’t think I’m going to get into that BS of comparing traumas and saying anyone’s more ‘worthy’ of sympathy than any of the others, I’m saying specifically because it’s to do with Reginald not only rejecting him yet again and outright replacing him but that it’s not even ‘his’ Reginald so does that mean all the shit he put Luther through doesn’t count? I just see it as catalyst for a real breakdown for him.

Not to say this won’t mess with Klaus but Klaus hated Reginald long ago and has accepted that the guy was a douchebag and had no real love for his children, so personally I see his drug use as dealing with Reggie’s abuse but more so to deal with his powers. So yes, this’ll absolutely fuck with him but Luther’s the primo target here.

So what if we see Luther leaning even harder into drinking or even heavier things? Now he really has an excuse to because where’s he supposed to go from here? What’s he meant to do? He’s not the leader anymore, his family doesn’t always treat his trauma seriously (Klaus parallels there) nevermind he doesn’t even like to address it himself, he has no idea who he’s supposed to be and the one person who he thought actually cared about him not only doesn’t but never did and now he’ll never get back what he saw as his purpose in life. The whole Ben being alive thing is just icing on the cake. If he spirals in s3 it would make perfect sense because of all this and all the set up for it.

Klaus spiraled too at the end of s2 again becoming the fatalistic junkie he used to be, he’s gonna run from his problems again but it’s not just his powers this time. So he’s off the wagon but what if he notices Luther is too?

I can definitely see Luther trying to hide it from the others. He’s already given away too much of his weaknesses, he doesn’t want them to see their ‘leader’ continue to fall and I don’t think he’d want them to know he’s still that affected by Reginald. They want him to have dealt with it, like he seems to have at least a little in s2, if he’s completely fallen apart because of his dad again then that just makes him look pathetic. So he keeps his flask and finds excuses to get away with stumbling or slurring his words. But Klaus notices, because Klaus knows the signs.

In that scene in s1 Klaus very obviously doesn’t like seeing Luther like that or using drugs as an escape like he does. He’s self aware enough to know that this isn’t any way to live but is too pessimistic when it comes to himself. But, again, he tends to be pretty self centered. This is not a bad thing, this is a great character trait and it makes Klaus interesting. He does not know how to relate to his siblings on the whole, doesn’t know how to talk about his own traumas and addictions, so when he does hear them out it’s usually because he had was focusing on his own shit first. For instance: when he has the heart to heart with Allison in her kitchen he’s only there in the first place because he was falling apart because of Dave.

Luther having a problem will have to be something Klaus purposefully chooses to deal with because he’s worried about one of this siblings. And for obvious reasons Klaus is the perfect one to help him with it. He doesn’t want to see Luther like that but he doesn’t really have a leg to stand on if he wants him to stop. Hell, if Klaus won’t stop why should Luther? Klaus can’t use ‘do what I say not as I do’, partially because Luther has proven to have some self destructive/self harming tendencies and again, if it makes him feel okay or at least steady then why would he stop?

But Klaus stopping means that he’s going to have to confront his quite literal demons when it comes to his powers (I could go off on how much I don’t love that he was somehow sober for 3 years in the 60’s no problem but it didn’t seem to affect his powers at all but that’s another post). The number one thing he’s been running from his whole life, something the show hasn’t actually done a whole lot with. We knows he hates it, we knows he’s tortured by it, but we’ve seen no evidence that he’s ever really confronted it. He was traumatized by Reggie who did everything wrong so he went the opposite route.

But what if he has to stay sober for Luther’s sake? Even if he doesn’t want to help, even if he just enables it or joins him at first eventually he’d have to come the realization that he doesn’t like this, that he wouldn’t wish this kind of problem on someone he cares about. So he’s going to have to turn inward, he’s going to have to face up to both his addiction and his powers, maybe even finally try to tame and use his powers. And at some point he’d have to talk to Luther about it and stop hiding behind his glib façade.

So in the end we’d get to see Luther falling apart trying to deal with everything that he still very much needs to deal with and his subconscious tendency for self destruction, Klaus confronting his addictions, his own feelings and relationship to his siblings, and his powers and hell, maybe then we’ll actually get him using his powers to his/the group’s benefit.

[elegiacmarquise]

More love for the pink damsel

This is a rant, the first and the only, that I wrote a while ago and which I posted previously on DeviantArt and reposted on the Mario Amino, few days after the release of Super Mario Odyssey, after a new wave of hatred towards Princess Peach...

Considering that, nevertheless, the princess' relationship with most fans has always been ambiguous, what may have seemed to be tolerable, now is no longer acceptable speaking from the prospective of Peach's admirer, and hoping to be a spokesman for who, like me, genuinely appreciates her.

--------------------------------------------------

But before starting with the proper rant, why do I post this writing, even if they passed almost two years when I did write it? A YouTube video made by the quite famous personality of RelaxAlax which I Iink below.

undefined

Quite shallow, huh?

But this will NOT be an hate speech towards Alax, the rest of his videos are actually enjoyable and sometimes funny, but despite what he says in the video is nothing more and nothing less than what most Peach's haters actually say, I'm fearing that even due to this video, people are convinced to hate the pink princess without even knowing the truth behind her character.

But I must've taken you a lot of time, let's begin this speech, which was inspired by an older one (now deleted) posted by a friend of mine on Deviantart.

Let’s get started from the most recurring insults about the personality

"Peach is weak!!!"

While it’s true that for most of the games the Princess is kidnapped by Bowser or any enemy, it’s also the case that several times she has proved to be not so helpless, and even trying to escape to her kidnapper more than once indicates that Peach is not just staying there to patiently wait her hero; indeed, she was the only one along with Rosalina and Toadette who was been able to defend herself.

Some proofs? Super Princess Peach, Super Paper Mario, Super Mario 3D Land/ World, Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle, Super Smash Bros series...

"So why is she always kidnapped?!"

Nintendo logic. Just joking, I think that the reason is due to the fact that Peach, like anyone else, is an human being, with her fears and anxieties, and so what can she do if suddenly there is a monster bigger at least the triple of her accompanied by an huge army? Not everyone is badass, and she obviously is not always, but is it a good reason to hate her? I don’t think so.

Also remember that even two stronger characters like Mario and Luigi often struggle during the battles with Bowser, how could a delicate princess?

So, in a more general view, how much it’s wrong to blame the victims and not the kidnappers? Why does everyone hate Peach for this and not BOWSER?

And there are Daisy, Pauline and Zelda, who were kidnapped as well, but still worshipped as goddesses...

"Peach is stupid!!1!"

If the Princess was actually that stupid,she wouldn't be on a throne ruling a whole kingdom peacefully nor even to try a time machine or even called to try to find a cure to a plague that affected the Mushroom Kingdom. She may not have an IQ of 300 like Dr Eggman,but that doesn't mean she's stupid.

Characters who are REALLY "stupid" on purpose, like Wario and Waluigi, loved because they are. Now, people, don't tell me you aren't uncoherent.

"Peach has no personality!1!"

So, a sweet and kind personality shouldn’t be a good character trait? Great, so we wasted years and years of characterization in a video game character.

Even a little development is always putted in while creating a characte and, as we are seeing, Miyamoto and Nintendo are generally developing the character of the princess, in the best, demonstrating that even the princess is not a fossilized archetype in Mario's existence for thirty years. She’s so sweet and kind, but also has values, friends and a dignity that defends strenuously.

Guys, Peach is human, so she has flaws, and that's right, but saying that she doesn’t have personality is an insult to both her and Nintendo in general.

Let's compare for a moment Peach and Rei Ayanami from Evangelion, and see who is not supposed to have personality. (although Rei also has a very strong, still not obvious, characterization that develops in the course of the series)

"Peach is a Mary Sue!!!1!"

A Mary Sue would theoretically is a character with too unnatural characteristics for their universe or species, overly powerful and often accompanied by a tragic backstory; in short, it's misleading in their context. By applying this description to Peach, how should she be a Mary Sue?

As explained in the previous paragraphs, the Princess, still mostly human, has a magical power that is always inferior to those of other characters, such as Rosalina; and comparing it with the Star Guardian, shouldn’t be her chararcter be more similar in the description of a Sue? Consistency, this unknown concept...

I see you already with the forks in your hands, but let me clarify one thing, even a character like Rosalina is not a Mary Sue, she still has her flaws, and we love her as she is, but if Peach is one, Rosalina fits the definition WAY more.

Let’s talk about the character design

"Peach always wears pink!!1!"

Come on, guys, hating a character for a color is a such superficial thing that, would do kindergarten children the most.

Pink is a color like all the others, in the spectrum of colors, so anyone can wear it, even males.

(Trivia: up to a few decades ago, pink was more of a masculine color, given to boys since it’s a lighter version of red, a color considered manly)

Peach is looking good with pink and no one in Mario games seems to complain too much about that, and so, so why do we fans do?

"Peach is girly!!!!1!”

And so? A female character to be worthy of this name must be a tomboy or a badass with a gun on her hands? You have great prospects in mind, my dear ones, just like that.

Seriously, why does a character who likes to cure herself, should be banned from today's media?

However, almost all the girls in the Mario games are femminine, even Daisy, despite being described as a tomboy, so it doesn’t seem a good excuse for hating a character.

"Peach is blonde!!!1!"

Guys that stereotype that everyone who is blonde must be stupid it's not only extremely outdated, but there are a lot of people who consider it quite offensive. Open your minds! Go, go! The isn't any relations about the quantity of melaninine on the hair and the actual intelligence.

Even Rosalina and most of the Zeldas encountered in the games are blondes, but nobody seems to care.

"Peach has an annoying voice!!1!"

All the characters in the Mario games have their voices emphasized, guys, and Peach isn’t an exception.

There are characters with even more exaggerated voices, trust me, like Daisy, Toad or Rosalina's new dubbing, but for certain reasons, only Peach should be demonized for that by fans.

"Peach is a prostitute!!1!"

This is one of the most recurring insults that are ever placed against our hated Princess, and that's what I'm wondering where most haters have been losing their credibility.

Did Peach ever wear provocative clothes? NO. (unless you have a fetishism towards biker suits and similar outfits)

Has she ever tried to seduce anyone she saw? NEVER (what you see on Rule34 and other lewd sites is not canon, I'm sorry)

Let's be clear: Peach is just the opposite of the stereotype of the prostitute, as being a sweet, gentle, and that kind of girl who rarely makes sloppy thoughts; And yet Mario is not the kind of game that is suitable to show sensual girls often.

Another point: how do people define as that Peach and not Pauline or Valentina from Super Mario RPG, who are wearing much revealing clothes (and not even worthy to be called with those sick names)? Mystery of the Faith.

PS. Giving a prostitute to someone is not fashionable anymore :3

Now, let’s analyse that kind of insults that relate with Peach’s relationships with other characters

"Peach isn’t grateful to Mario!!!!1!"

Ever since Peach has never been grateful to Mario? WHEN? She kisses him, and fills him with cakes. What should the Princess do more with him? having sex is not a good answer, and it doesn't even marrying him.

Mario is still a sweet and family friendly series, if you want NSFW art, go to rule34 or look good at deviantart, but don’t expect explicit scenes in similar games.

"Peach is a tyrant who abuses Toads!!!1!"

But since that is so, seriously, did I miss some details? And no, The Game Theorists, aren’t worth as a source of inspiration since theirs is only a mere SPECULATION (also badly made imho).

To me Peach has always seemed like the OPPOSITE of a tyrant! She’s a good sovereign who’s caring for her subjects, and most of the Toads are happy with her guide and willing whenever she needs help.

I guess you are thinking of the Toad used from the princess during Super Smash Bros: If we analyse well what our beloved mushroom does during the frames in which we can see him, we can notice that doesn’t acts as a shield for the princess, but is determined more than ever to attack with his spores, so for me this isn’t a point to demonise Peach at all.

Then do you think that in Smash bros Rosalina does something way more serious?! She fights with a Luma, one of her CHILDREN all the time. But since she is our beloved star waifu, Peach is not worth to be compared lmao.

Again this time implore the sacred goddess of the consistency for forgiving their vain words...

"Peach betrays Daisy!!!1!"

Peach and Daisy have proven themselves to be best friends since the first time they appeared together, and even now their idyllic relationship hasn’t stopped being shown in the games and even in that LINE stickers that came out a while ago!

How Peach Should betray Daisy? For Rosalina, for Pauline? I think all the girls in the world of Mario are friendly to each other, so I don’t see any reasons in a betray, since at worst they are in a friendly rivalry.

"Peach is much less sexy than Rosalina / Pauline!!!1!"

If I can understand why Pauline can be considered sensual, how should Rosalina be? She’s wearing just a turquoise dress, which does not reveals much, and which can only be sexualized in the most indecent fanarts drawn by FANS indeed, but we all know the new religion that places the guardian of the Lumas to a brand new god.

However, all of Mario girls have been designed to be beautiful, not sex objects, not even Pauline, and none of them will agree to be your beautiful waifus condescending to all your fantasies, deal with it!

"Peach is not tomboy like Daisy is!!!1!"

And this is what connects to the previous point where the Princess was insulted to be girly. Assuming that even Daisy, in her own way, is girly (if she was totally a tomboy, she wouldn’t certainly wear those long dresses with ease, nor she would have her notorious passion for flowers), it’s not nice to have a bit of variety in the characters personalities? Go on, Peach is a gentle and sweet girl, Daisy is exuberant and sporty, Rosalina, calm and majestic, Wendy spoiled yet powerful, Toadette cheerful and curious, and finally Pauline concrete and passionate. Everyone compensates their gaps with the others, and this balance between the girls is fine, so please do not compare all the girls, Peach first, to Daisy.

"Peach appears too much in the games, so she's overrated!!!1!"

Guys, our princess is one of the protagonists of Mario's videogames, along with the plumber, his brother, Bowser and Toad, so it's natural that she often appears in the games. After all, Peach (after Pauline, who belonged for long time to another series) is the first of the princesses to appear, so it's logical that Nintendo would value that in this way.

And another little thing: the word overrated does NOT mean popular in its own universe, it means overly popular among its FANS.

And Peach has relatively few fans compared to the other main characters.

And, as the final cherry on the cake, let’s talk about Odyssey, who can have reassume prevous points, but what is equally needed, because of the following reasons

"PEACH IS A BITCH WHO HASN’T ACCEPTED MARIO'S PROPOSAL, STUPID AND UNGRATEFUL!!!1! THAT’S OBVIOUS THAT MARIO CHOOSES PAULINE!!!1!"

And here we come to the juice of the speech, and at this point I would like to ask: but have you seen the final cutscene of the game, or are you just knocking on your keyboards to don’t make feel the keys alone and misunderstood?

Let’s assume that after a long, tiring journey along the WHOLE world, with a monster bigger at least the triple of you who is doing everything to organize a NOT-wanted marriage with you; and  immediately soon after being rescued, at the end of an extravagant battle, you have not one, but TWO contenders for your hand, what are you doing? The doll who gives all of herself to her hero just because she saved you? But in which period are we, in the nineteenth century?

Guys, let's talk seriously, would you immediately answer to a such serious question, which can change the rest of your life, on the moon under such conditions? I really don’t think so.

So Peach did, showing her intelligence, and why not, joking over it. It wasn’t the place nor the time for Mario and Bowser to move such proposals, and I honestly think that Peach done right to refuse both of them, I believe, momentarily.

And so centuries of feminist struggles went cancelled because of a video game character...

"PEACH HAS LEFT MARIO AND BOWSER ON THE MOON!!1!"

Yeah, okay, Odyssey's final was what it was, but you can’t hate a character because she's not a puppet in Mario or Bowser's hand. Tell me, you first complained that Peach had no character and now that she has explicated it, in good, you hate her the same? Consistency, this unknown concept...

However, for this detail, have you noticed that Peach eventually called Mario on the Odyssey, even though it had already started to fly? Mario had all the time he needed to get on board with the Princess and her friends. Even if Mario couldn't make it to the Odyssey (which is also unlikely under a cautious analysis of the cutscene), I even highly doubt that not only Bowser but all the other wedding's guests (including PAULINE) were diying there, surely there was at least ONE other vehicle which could bring back them home.

Also think about Peach's dialogues in the post-game: she completely forgave Mario's misbehaving and she's still happy to see him to the point to give him all the moons she gets! So she’s not that ungrateful...

And that's what I needed to say. Guys, please stop hating Peach, she didn’t do anything, and certainly she doesn’t deserve your insults.

In these times, the princess is among the main characters the most hated, even much more than Daisy or Zelda, who have their great slice of fans, who would do anything for them and even considering them "better" in Smash Bros.

I'm sorry to have written this rant but I'm sure this time is really needed...

Fandoms, Mario included, can be beautiful places where you can meet fantastic people but at the same time you can witness this free hate episodes even from famous personalities...

Thank you for reading, and see you soon.

---------------------------------------------------

P.S. Below I show you the main places where the princess is hated for the above reasons.

Gamefaqs, TheTopTens.com, Marioboards, DeviantArt and Youtube

P.P.S. Please, do not go to the video I've mentioned only to insult the youtuber: despite that entry is far from being well-crafted, he made enjoyable content as well. He deserves respect as well and if you really want to discuss in the comment section about the subject, please be polite

P.P.P.S. If you hate Peach and you feel to comment here, please write maturely, well-structured comments. If we can have a mature dialogue, it's best for both of us.

[journeysintowebcomics]

Homestuck Liveblog #182

UPDATE 182: Nothing Goes According to Plan

Last time the epilogues had started. First the meat route! Featuring John going to fight Lord English with many teenage versions of his friends, and Dave and Karkaroni launching their candidacy for president to stop Jane from getting there. Let’s continue.

Wherever John just zapped everyone to is very dark. Given the final destination likely is the place where they’ll fight Lord English, this would be inside one of the bubbles, no? I don’t remember them being particularly dark or dreary, so maybe they’re in the space between the bubbles instead. Shouldn’t be too difficult to find the one with Lord English, just look for the one with the destructive light show.

Apparently they arrived very early. It’s Caliborn, Gamzee and that robot rabbit. Hm. Perhaps this is when they went to fight Caliborn according to the clay theater show?

Lord English is holding something that looks like... Lil Cal? It’s definitely Lil Cal, and Lord English is definitely waltzing around with it in his little spotlight in the middle of the nowhere, swinging the puppet around by both its floppy arms. Well, rather, he was waltzing around. He stopped the moment you looked at him.

...okay then, of all things for Caliborn to be doing, dancing the waltz with the puppet wasn’t really one of them. Consider me surprised, story.

John and Caliborn do a staredown that’d have filled like eighteen pages of Homestuck, and John gives him a thumbs-down. Caliborn takes umbrage with that, although it’s just for a little while, before laughing and deciding this really was the moment represented by the clay theater thing. So, if I recall correctly, that ended with the Original Wonderkids being trapped in the juju, and Dirk shoving Caliborn and the red sprite whose name I don’t remember into the puppet. Foregone conclusion?

CALIBORN: BE QUIET.

CALIBORN: I’LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT YOU JUST INTERRUPTED A GROUNDBREAKING INTERPRETIVE ART PIECE.

CALIBORN: IT WAS THE FIRST OF ITS KIND. PERFORMED ONLY ONCE. AND MADE MORE VALUABLE FOR ITS RARENESS.

JOHN: wow.

Yes, John, the guy who will destroy existence and also ruin everything still is a dork. Surprise?

Caliborn seems very confident everything will go according to plan and maybe he has reasons to believe that. I mean, it has to, for this to not be a paradox and doom everybody in the process. And yup! Effectively, the ninth page is all about how the heroes lost and got trapped in the juju. It didn’t go all according to the claymation theater because there were some minor and unimportant deviations, but it ended with their loss. I do wonder if we’ll see what happened after they got trapped, though. Kind of doubt it, given this is from John’s point of view.

Nope, it’s Jane. Alright, time to see what’s going on with her and how accurate Dave and Karkaroni’s assessment of her is.

So, I have read several paragraphs now. I can definitely see why those two would say that, and although it wasn’t as bad as it could have been, I do sense a constant and unsettling ‘I know better than everyone’ vibe over all this. Then there’s the matter of word choice:

In fact, Jane is pretty sure that Karkat Vantas would probably literally burst into flame if too many people happened to look at him at the same time, like a vampire walking out into the sun.

Wait. Jane lowers the pillow from her face and stares at her brass-and-glass art deco ceiling. Was that vampire thing xenophobic against Kanaya? Or whatever it was that Kanaya was supposed to be? No, of course not, she assures herself.

---

And despite being inarguably the dimmest of his family’s impressive ecto-biological stock...

Oh, dear. Stock. That’s likely a problematic word, isn’t it? Jane thinks. She crosses it off her mental list of “appropriate words to say during a press conference.”

----

And the consorts? Who had even given them the right to vote in the first place?

----

But Earth C’s paper-thin idyllic history was very close to a boiling point—its very first boiling point, in fact, which will have everything to do with the problematic nature of troll reproduction. The first generation of natural-born trolls obviously cannot be entrusted to a troll.

Which was absolutely not a xenophobic thing to think. It was just realistic. The citizens of Earth C were able to rest easy knowing that the government held careful rein over the... well, over matters of equity.

All that? It’s not outright awful, but it’s enough to leave a nasty aftertaste when you think about it for a moment. Can’t say I know how anything’s supposed to work in the so-called idyllic society of Earth C, or what kind of intricate social problems exist, so I can’t really comment about most of this without making a loooooot of assumptions that are a burden to deal with, but all this about controlling troll reproduction is an uncomfortable callback to the Condesce’s efforts to control human reproduction and mold it to her tastes. I doubt Jane would go that far, but it still is too much of a similarity to it. When I said last update she totally was the Condesce’s descendant it was a joke, not a wish for this, golly.

That aside, in all this I have the impression Hussie isn’t walking the walk, or whatever the colloquial saying goes. I don’t know why exactly he decided to go in this direction with the character, but to me it feels like he’s both trying to push in that direction and try to keep Jane similar to how she was in Homestuck. It’s just a few paragraphs and she hasn’t even said a word to another character, but to me it feels like he’s not committing to the characterization he’s trying to make here. You can’t do both at the same time, seriously. Maybe it’d work if it was an entirely new character instead of an existing character – and by Jove this story doesn’t need new characters, that’s for sure – but yeah, right now? All this with Jane? It’s...not really working for me. It feels kind of clunky.

I definitely can see why I heard people were unsatisfied with the epilogue, though! A character being given unsavory traits and inclinations it didn’t have before must have been an unwelcome shock.

Welp! Time to call Jake! I suppose she’ll try to get his political endorsement thanks to the major political capital he now has. Let’s see if it works!

JAKE: Ahoy ahoy!

Jane has to suck in a hard breath to stop herself from groaning. Why were so many of the finest young minds on this planet slaves to this foolish man’s perky glutes?

Can Jake be treated as more than a one-dimensional character with an ass jutting out? Would be great.

Apparently getting shot with horse tranquilizers is how the shows have been ending for a while already. No wonder there are riots every time, so much for the underdog victory in that show. Still, it’s working, because he’s adored by everyone. Jake sounds like he’s okay with this, but really, he must have a breaking point. You can get shot with horse tranquilizers only so many times before you demand it to stop.

JAKE: Its beginning to feel like all people want from me is to stick my derriere on a signpost for their own profit.

Funny you’d say that, given how much it’s been featuring in this epilogue.

Jake isn’t really the brightest bulb, but he’s not so dense he wouldn’t notice this, yup. Maybe he’d be relieved to know Dave and Karkaroni want him to wink and give double pistols at the camera instead of showing his butt on a billboard. If that’s what makes Jake support them over Jane I’ll laugh and also feel pretty bad for him.

In all this, Jane invites Jake to see her, saying she’s ready to give him what’s best for him. That’s...pretty manipulative, knowing what she wants. Still, she managed to convince him to go see her, so that’s that. I don’t think this meeting will go like she wants to, so I’m kind of dreading it. Next page!

Apparently John never considered the possibility they’d lose against Caliborn. I mean, it’s hard to imagine you’d get trapped into a juju that’s essential a complete void in the universe, but still! He says he screwed up, and praises Rose. Looks like John is alone in the space he’s in, while the rest of the Wonderkids are in their own little pockets of nothingness not too far away. Inside this juju they can’t feel time or space, which is...good? Means they’re not going to die, at least. Dave and Jade are powerless. Can Rose use her seer powers?

ROSE: What did my future self say it was we had to do?

JOHN: erm... she never rea—

DAVE: WHAT?

JOHN: she—

DAVE: I CANT HEAR YOU

JOHN: UM, SHE NEVER REALLY TOLD US WHAT WE HAD TO DO, EXACTLY?

JOHN: JUST WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, IN A REALLY LOOSE SORT OF FASHION?

ROSE: DOES THAT MEAN WE’RE STU—

What does it say of me I thought she was going to say ‘stupid’. For charging ahead without getting as many details as possible of what future Rose said, I guess. Maybe it’d have been less of a shock when this happened.

Apparently what future Rose foresaw is that they would be trapped in the juju and then freed in the future. Sounds about right, I think that was implied to happen in Act 7. So it’s only matter of time before they’re freed, although, knowing who wrote this, I wouldn’t be surprised if the rest of the fight against Lord English is just shunted aside with a vague description of how it went. Hah!

From what John can imagine, the battle outside is going just like the claymation theater had predicted. By now Caliborn must be getting shoved into the puppet and thrown into the fabric of the multiverse, to doom everyone. You know, now that I think about it, how are the New Wonderkids going to leave wherever they are right now? Without John they’re kind of stuck. Whooops.

It doesn’t sound like Terezi is in the new world. Either she isn’t or she completely cut contact from the rest, because John misses her. I figure he’d at least know what she’s up to, if she were around. Hm.

She wouldn’t have let you neglect relationships with certain friends for so long that you missed whole chapters of their lives. She wouldn’t have put up with you moping around with the salamanders for so long. She would have kicked your ass for being such a loser about everything. She would have poked you in the forehead and called you insufferably lame and told you to pick up the damn phone. You would have called her a weirdo and pretended you hated it, and maybe you would even have believed you hated it. But now, sitting here in this little white cubicle, contemplating your regrets, you don’t think you’d have hated it much at all.

Definitely sounds like she isn’t around. I can’t remember what happened with her in Homestuck...maybe something in these epilogues will answer that?

Also, it’s possible John is depressed. It’s not impossible, really! It’d be surprising if after the events of Sburb and its very traumatic qualities they’re not affected in some manner. Some seemed to be better-adjusted, somehow, but it’s not out of the question others have been affected negatively. Maybe John is depressed. Nothing to do in this juju than tell the rest about that, I suppose.

It’s strategy meeting time right there at Karkaroni’s hive. Dave is in charge of everything, outlining their strategy and what the consequences of Jane’s reign of terror will be. Most of it goes over my head, I admit, thanks to Dave’s verbose way of talking, and Karkaroni and Jade don’t seem to be faring much better.

DAVE: are you two even listening or are you just making noises with your mouths

KARKAT: HOW DARE YOU.

KARKAT: I CAN’T BELIEVE I’M BEING ACCUSED BY DAVE STRIDER, REIGNING EMPEROR OF SPEWING ENDLESS VERBAL DIARRHEA DIRECTLY INTO MY INNOCENT HEAR DUCTS EVERY DAY OF MY FUCKING LIFE, OF MAKING THOUGHTLESS MOUTH NOISES.

KARKAT: JADE, ARE YOU HEARING THIS?

JADE: im scandalized

JADE: especially when

JADE: there are much better things we could all be doing with our mouths.....

...

...

...

...did I mention already I have heard so much dissatisfaction about the epilogues? I didn’t get many details back then, but I definitely am realizing why I heard those opinions all the time. What’s wrong with you, Jade. Nobody else knows how to react, so Dave just continues his strategy meeting.

From what I can gather here, Dave’s opinion is that Jane will capitalize on the very violent and very disturbing features of troll life back in Alternia, and boy is there plenty of that. The average person would be incredibly fearful of a repeat of any of that, especially if the Condesce is brought up. Really, in terms of humans, I’m preeeeetty sure Jane has their vote, no contest. Can’t say I wouldn’t vote for her if I was told about the brutality of troll life and the effects it’d have on us. It’s all about how it’s presented, and Jane would definitely present it at its most raw.

Jade gives an overview of the consequences of the Jane presidency in a manner that stuns our dear underdogs here, and also dog hormones are mentioned. Are you telling me that in the fusion Jade was somehow implanted with her dog’s endocrine system? Was that a thing? Because if she wasn’t then this doesn’t make sense at all, unless somehow her dog ears and tail are secreting hormones. It’s illogical. Not that Jade being fused with her supernatural omnipotent dogsprite is incredibly logical.

You know, when I started reading the epilogues I didn’t really expect to be reading about Jade’s polyamorous urges. I don’t want to read about Jade’s polyamorous urges. Let me just...skip this until the topic changes.

I can’t believe that took the rest of the page, and that’s not a joke-y ‘I can’t believe’. Well then. Next.

Oh, great, it’s Vriska. You know, I like Vriska enough, buuuuut her influence in the narration was never really something I liked of her. Guess I’ll have to endure that, then. The narration starts with reminding she still has quite the hero delusions. Peachy! Off to kind of a bad start. Still, what’s important is that she’s facing Lord English and she has just deployed the juju that’s hosting the Wonderkids, so this really is picking up from Act 7. I didn’t think this would be happening yet here we are. Nice!

Now that the juju has been deployed, the majority of those present – Meenah, Tavros and a myriad of unnamed ghosts – should be retreating, but Vriska wants to see how Lord English destroys reality, which he does with just a roar, sending literal pieces of reality crashing down and bonking Vriska on the head. Above her, a black hole is forming, consuming reality itself. It’s so strong that, without Tavros to anchor her, she’s lifted off the ground and sucked towards it. She’s unable to hold onto the juju or onto anything, and disappears into the black hole.

Well that was quite the random aside, but that’s how Homestuck is.

John and the rest emerge from the juju, just in time to see the huge and realize things are falling apart. There’s nothing about Lord English being nearby, so maybe he was absorbed into the black hole as well? Not much time to wonder about that, because reality unravels.

In Jane’s office reality isn’t unraveling, though, what’s unraveling is her patience, because Jake doesn’t figure out entering through the door is what anyone would do, instead of entering through the window from what’s likely not a ground floor office. Once he enters like any person without powers would do, Jane receives him.

And intimate knowledge of his hoarding habits—particularly the type of sultry, cerulean content he is known to hoard—is exactly why Jane is wearing a blue dress with a very high hem. Jake’s bow tie practically spins at the sight of it.

Thaaaaat’s also manipulative. Clever and it most likely will work, but it’s manipulative. I’m still having a hard time trying to associate this with Jane, honestly.

Well she tries to seduce him, which, knowing how hard of a time she was having enduring her romantic trouble in Homestuck, is darkly hilarious, especially when it fails completely because she’s not good at this. All Jake can do is spit bourbon at her. After that little stunt she’ll need to have incredible patience not to kick him out immediately, but the political capital must be really worth it.

Although she’s clearly very frustrated, she still plows ahead and starts talking about the economy, trying to get Jake up to date with the intricacies of what’s going on. He doesn’t know anything at all, so she has to explain to him everything. She still seems to be kind of aiming to seducing Jake, though. Sigh.

Who are they now? The same Jake and Jane who passed like particularly dysfunctional ships in the night a decade ago? Or is Jane wiser, and Jake kinder? Are they better versions of themselves?

Well it sure wasn’t the other way, Jane sure didn’t get kinder and Jake wiser. That much was very clear just from this update.

I’m not entirely sure if her reminiscing about how they may be all drifting apart and how the trajectory all of their lives have taken is fake – part of me believes it may be sincere, after all – but what I’m sure of is that she doesn’t miss Jake. She makes sure to say she does, though! And he reciprocates. This leads to a lot of kissing. This sure escalated fast! And on Jane’s favor, dare I say. It was a complete accident, but it’s going pretty close to what she had intended.

Or not, because through all this Jake keeps thinking of Dirk and his abysmally romantic attributes. Boy, if Jane heard about this she’d be even more frustrated. But yeah, pretty clear Jake hasn’t gotten over Dirk no matter what. Seems to me like he’s doomed to think of Dirk for quite a while. He realizes that in a flash of inspiration and yelps in panic, deciding to scram and ending Jane’s underhanded romantic overtures. That went pretty badly!

JANE: What the...

JANE: Everliving fuck!

It really is for the better she’s not aware what was going through Jake’s mind, hah! She even calls Dirk to talk about what happened. He’s not understanding, he simply states you can’t be nice to Jake if you want him to be interested in you, and pretty much tells Jane to stay on her line and stop trying to play romance with Jake because that’s his turf. Paraphrasing. This is starting to seem more and more like Jake won’t throw his hat in their ring, in my opinion.

She’s also looking emotional support, and she’s not getting it from Dirk because she has other things to deal with, more important than the election of president of the entire planet. Rose is here, and given how they have a mutual problem, they have to talk about it. But that’s for next time!

[thebrochtuarachs]

If they want me (a fan) to talk about it, I’ll talk about it.

Outlander S4 PR has been doing so well until this (IMHO).

My take on some Q&A from Cait’s Parade article. 

It’s 3AM where I am and there will be grammatical errors on this but I had to let it out. 

Really lengthy, snark, rant ahead. You’ve been warned. ✌🏻😊 Feel free to pass if not your cup of tea. I mean, I probably wrote a bunch of woozy anyway. But this is my space and yeah, haha! 

1. What’s with the title?

Yeah, Sam’s name just had to be inserted somewhere here to make it clickable, sure. I don’t know if the motivation for “total opposite” was to show “how different Sam and Cait are” or “how Sam and Cait will never be” - but all I know is...opposites attract. If it meant to hurt shippers, well, were just getting started here. 

But seriously - If I get a chance to chat with Caitriona Balfe about season 4 scoop, I’d prefer that instead of talking about fans and using the name of her supposed platonic co-star to speculate some clickbait on the article. If the latter was the goal, they probably succeeded a bit cause here am I writing this loooong post. 

2. A great mystery - Who is Maestro? 

First of all, Caitriona is NOT newly engaged - ITS ALMOST BEEN A YEAR. Second, I am yet again confused as to the nationality and job of the great maestro. I asked this once in my blog and an anon came through with a thorough explanation of Maestro’s “history” but I guess I’ll just go back to “NEVER being sure who he really is” again. 

3. Oh, I grew up watching car races and now I’m in a racing movie!

I get the PR - Cait grew up watching car racing and now she’s in a car racing movie, what a way to come round full circle. 

But I’ve read a couple of articles from Cait about her life in Ireland before and never have I seen before that she’s mentioned that watching car races was part of their family tradition holidays up until now. (or is there? I may be wrong. I’m not sure, could be. Some other people can share it, if there is) But nonetheless, true or not, it works well with the PR. 

Also, Cait, I know a guy (Sam) who goes and watches F1 races from the paddocks. Why don’t you guys drop by sometime and you know, watch together? *wink wink* It’ll be good for research and stuff. Not to mention going out with one of your best mate, am I right? ✌🏻

4. I spend the weekends by myself - as shown in the way this statement is filled with singular pronouns

She drags herself alone to go out for some food, She reads alone, she walks alone, she prepares her own food and putters around the house. (I am my own, independent person regardless of my “soon-to-be hitched” status)

Okay, the way I see this - she really doesn’t want to be defined who she’s in a relationship with or who she’s engaged with. Look how independent the statement above is. I get it - she wants to be known more as “an actress” and not as an “engaged and extremely in love with my fiancé actress”. 

Basically it kinda says “sometimes forget I’m engaged at all except when Sam and I are being too touchy-feely with each other.” 

But seriously, Cait, not screaming/vibing engaged here! Meaning saying his actual name and weaving your relationship in the public face, inviting him to pose with you in red carpets and events despite his “shy” stature, etc. Erm, maybe just don’t be engaged at all and don’t get married yet - I didn’t say break it up or anything, just straighten the confusing narrative first? 

5. I am not exactly like Claire but Sam, my co-star only, will be the first one to disagree.

Why do I feel like “and the other people who know me very well” line got added after a pause cause Sam got mentioned and she cannot mention only Sam because fans will suspect. Hahaha! (And suspect we well cause isn’t that the purpose of this article?)

Also, but why not “Tony, my fiance, will be first to disagree because he knows me so well” rather than her “were super platonic only” co-star? 

Oh, cause of the narrative. 

Which narrative again? I am getting confused now. 

Oh, the one where Sam Heughan is just her friend who loves her and knows her so well. 

Great. 

6. SINCE SAM GOT MENTIONED THE QUESTION BEFORE ITS ONLY NATURAL WE TALK ABOUT HIM...

OMG, my English grammar mind is like screaching those dangling modifiers. “Sam Heughan, who plays your soul mate...” HAHAHAHAHA! That’s the first thing that I noticed. Second, the question would be much clearer if phrased “Are you good friends with Sam Heughan, who plays Jamie Fraser, your character’s soul mate?” - SEE  sentence construction HERE, we would be talking about the show and its characters and not see anything else. But then, this is just me.

Also, why ask Cait if she’s good friends with Sam? Of course she is! (and I truly believe this regardless of whatever situation they chose). Other wise, if she says “no”, just imagine the PR nightmare it would entail. The repercussions, the bad PR from tabloids how the two leads “don’t get along”, the possibility of not getting renewed after season 6, a lot of bad will follow if she said the wrong answer. Hahahaha! Either this or the writer (don't know his history with OL) is super new to the fandom who don’t have an idea just how close Sam and Cait are.

Oh goody, we get the Hyde Park walk mentioned again! I always love this memory of theirs.

Comment on Paragraph 1: Why do I feel like Cait got caught off guard rehashing this story. The answer, if verbatim, is so jumpy and incoherent. Like I could summarise the story in shorter sentences. Eitherway, I’ve always loved that they spent the time together at the beginning and realised just how much of a relationship they were going to have. Also, the line” Who knows what this is going to be?” which they asked even before they started filming - so loaded the possibilities of the meaning of this simple question. 

Comment on Paragraph 2: Shouldn’t it be maestro’s job to be her biggest supporter, the first person she calls to have talking to about stress? Also, love the “vice versa”. Sometimes, I can’t imagine Sam being the stressed one between the two of them but I just love their dynamic. OH AND THEY HAVE SIMILAR PERSONALITY TRAITS (where is the complete opposite part?! (*see next question*, here we go)

7. HOW TO DESCRIBE BEING IN A RELATIONSHIP 101

Here it is....how opposite Sam Heughan and Caitriona Balfe are that it’s impossible to think of them ever being in a relationship. 

Cait is bullish and Sam calms her down before she gets too frustrated. 

Sam is a little passive and Cait gives him a nudge and a strength to stand up for something. 

OH WAIT

Erm, what you guys just described about each other is “being in a good, healthy relationship” - thanks, bye. Again...opposites attract. The statements just show that they’re both not as strong as one seem and really feed off strength from each other’s lives and company. Like, you know, being together or something to that effect. 

Also, if you guys, Sam and Cait, are dropping the fake narrative soon, you know - Cait can nudge Sam to stand up for them and publicise their “real”  relationship and then when the reality of their “real score” being revealed gets too frustrated, Sam just can calm Cait down. It’s honestly, a win-win, guys. 

8. ONTO THE “BEST FANS EVER”

This question was actually fine until the follow up...

9. WAS ASKING THIS QUESTION FREAKING NECESSARY?

I think I’ve mentioned this before but IF PR WANTS TO STAY AWAY FROM FANS TALKING ABOUT SAMCAIT, then they have to stop allowing these kind of questions. They could’ve asked the author to not include this question in the publishing because what is the freaking point. If the writer have done his research, he already knows the answer to this (heck we know from various and numeous sources). And if he knew the climate of the fandom, this should not have been asked published - yet again.  I’m sure Sam and Cait hate answering these questions because, lets admit it, it takes away some of the magic. But here it is and there again is their punchline and I’ve seen this same answer as before. 

But Cait had to add something new: “But I think things are pretty clear now that I'm engaged to someone else. Everyone gets it now” HMMMMMMMMM...So was the purpose of the engagement to put off the stench and speculation that Sam and you aren’t together? That the main purpose was for all shippers to stop shipping you and Sam cause you’re engaged some someone else whose name you’ve yet to mention yourself in public or social media and your fans have no total idea who he is and what he does for a living? 

Oh and uhh, Cait - NOT EVERYONE GETS IT NOW. If anything, were all the more confused. Also, regardless of what you guys do, you can never ever avoid the shipping (real or show) cause that’s just fanning is. Oh, and you’re not the first and only ship with OTP that have spouses. Seriously, you’re not the first nor the only experiencing this and the other fandoms have actually embraced this instead of trying so hard to shut it down. 

9. REHASHING SEMI-FAMOUS FANDOM HISTORY

Seriously. 

If the author had done his/her research, these are semi-famous stories already from before and he could’ve asked about book 4 or season 4 or anything RECENT that would make sense why this article was even written in the first place. 

I just think it’s a missed opportunity to ask something else, something new. Meh. 

10. Cait’s Faves

Maybe it should be Cait’s current fave things.

TSWDM as her favorite movie? I mean no offence to TSWDM but considering how deep her book choices are, I thought she’d choose a “deep, serious” movie as her favorite but choosing her “platonic” co-stars recent comedy flick as her choice (maybe in support of them having each other’s backs, you know) she chose that one - or maybe she really, really loved the movie too. 

Race Car Documentaries - lets push the PR for her upcoming movie, yes!! 

The Fiery Cross - EARLY PROMO FOR NEXT SEASON!!

Yeah, so I wouldn’t assume this is Cait’s “all-time” faves... 

-

SO, WHY DID I DO THIS?!

BECAUSE I THOUGHT I’D FIND A POINT ABOUT THIS ARTCLE AND NOT SOME OBVIOUS HIDDEN AGENDA BEHIND IT?

WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE? WHY DID IT NOT TALK ABOUT OUTLANDER OR SEASON 4 AT ALL INSTEAD OF FANS AND NARRATIVES?

WHAT IS THIS PUBLICITY ALL ABOUT?

TO REITERATE THE “THEY’RE NOT TOGETHER” NARRATIVE CAUSE THE “SHE’S ENGAGED TO ANOTHER GUY” WASN’T ENOUGH OR DIDN’T WORK? TO PROVE JUST HOW WEIRD SOME CORNER OF THE FANDOM IS (as per the writing of this lengthy, rant post)

SERIOUSLY. I AM FLARING.

BECAUSE ALL THESE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PROMOTION OF OUTLANDER SEASON 4 AND IT IRKS ME THAT THEY HAD OR TRYING TO PUT SHIPPER FANS IN, YET AGAIN, A BAD LIGHT, WHEN WE’RE TRYING TO STAY IN OUR LANE FOR MOST OF THE YEAR AND MAKING SENSE OF WHAT’S GOING ON. 

IS THIS WHAT THEY WANTED? FANS TALKING AROUND HOW IRRELEVANT THESE THINGS ARE? OR SPECULATE HOW WEIRD OR AMBIGUOUS EACH ANSWER IS?! 

Oh, Lordy. 

COME ON, PR.

SELL YOUR SHOW. 

NOT THE “NOT IN A RELATIONSHIP”. 

NOT THE “BEST FANS EVER”.

NOT THE “DELUSIONAL” FANS WHO NOW FINALLY “GETS IT”. (cause, as per this article, we still don’t)

SELL YOUR SHOW AND WHAT IT’S ABOUT - JAMIE AND CLAIRE FRASER.

BECAUSE ALL I WANT IS OUTLANDER SEASON 4 COVERAGE. 

TALK ABOUT CLAIRE AND JAMIE. TALK ABOUT BREE. TALK ABOUT THE BOOK. TALK ABOUT THE RIDGE. TALK ABOUT THEIR CHARACTER’S AND BOOK’S LIFE. 

SUCH A WASTE OF SPACE AND TIME AND ALL FOR WHAT?

TO IRK SHIPPY FANS TO MORE EYE-ROLLING MOMENTS?

TO GET RID OF THE 20 SHIPPERS REMAINING?

CAUSE GUESS WHAT OUTLANDER/STARZ PR?

THE (RESPECTFUL) SHIPPING WILL NEVER STOP EVEN IF CAIT AND SAM ARE MARRIED - EITHER TO EACH OTHER OR OTHER PEOPLE.

THAT’S JUST HOW IT IS AND HOW ITS GOING TO BE CAUSE THAT IS FANDOM AND THAT IS SHIPPING.

SO, JUST FOCUS ON SELLING THE SHOW AND WHAT ITS REALLY ALL ABOUT.

JAMIE AND CLAIRE FRASER.

NOTHING MORE. NOTHING LESS. 

Thanks. 

*end of caps lock writing*

It’s 4AM and I’m going to sleep. 

-

Updating this the following day after reading some comments and theories as to why this ever seen the light of day: 

1. Could this be a follow up “aggressive shipper” article by EW?! A ploy put into place by Sony/Starz to, yet again, attack the “shipping” community? 

IT COULD VERY WELL BE. WHY ELSE PUT UP THIS NONSENSE OF AN ARTICLE THAT DOESN’T PROMOTE THE SHOW ONE BIT. 

Like to control shippers yet again after the love fest the past two weeks at cons? To control shippers after releasing S4 promo photos of Jamie and Claire?

I mean if they put this same effort in shutting “shippers” down to promoting their show, they might increase their ratings and subscribers!! UGH. 

2. Could Caitriona be that Caitriona did NOT actually say some of the things said? 

Possibly. I mean, now that I think about it, some statements were contradictory to what she’s said before and the language seems a little too forward that she usually is (e.g. “But I think it’s pretty clear now. I’m engaged now so everyone gets it”). Yeah, maybe it doesn’t feel like Cait saying this - cause I think she knows it’s NEVER clear but - yeah, could be. Could be that the this article was written deliberately to counter the “aggressive shipping” happening since the cons and using Cait’s “engagement” was their weapon of choice this time. 

[spamzineglasgow]

Dogs in Fiction (Canine Crisis); (Maria Sledmere)

In this essay, Maria Sledmere responds to ‘The Trouble with Dogs for Writers’ by Karl Ove Knausgaard in The New Yorker. 

> It’s easy to get yourself familiar with the aesthetic and sensory tastes of Karl Ove Knausgaard. Read just one volume of his six-part series, My Struggle, and you’ll find out exactly how the Norwegian author likes to relish his cornflakes, observe the sky or hide at a party. The beauty in Knausgaard, I suppose, is how he makes of daily life a literary form of crack cocaine: this furiously addictive rush, without hits of which we would suffer immensely. The cognitive estrangement he casts by ‘slow’ forms of attention prompt various kinds of reawakening in the reader. Boiling things down to simplicity explodes in curiosity over component parts; I found myself extrapolating similar kinds of Knausgaardian introspection and reverie in the weeks after finishing A Death in the Family. Everything was a crumb that fell out of something; every action, event, thought or sense seemed to contain the kernel of a grander knowledge. But like crack cocaine (at least, er, as I imagine it), the after effects of this attentiveness, this intensity of suspended experience, are pretty nauseating.

> Therefore it’s with some relief that I stumble upon a short extract from Knausgaard’s book Summer, a collection of essays on everyday things and concepts, part of his Seasons quartet. The subject is a familiar one within the sphere of domesticity, but not often noticed within fiction: dogs. Sure, Virginia Woolf wrote that autobiography of Elizabeth-Barrett Browning’s dog, Flush, and maybe you read Jack London’s The Call of the Wild as a kid. The fictional dog I remember most is probably Garth Nix’s Disreputable Dog, the anthropomorphised, wise and wayfaring hound in Nix’s YA novel Lirael. It’s maybe easier to think of cartoon dogs, dogs in children’s books. Snoopy, The Hundred and One Dalmatians. Can we take dogs seriously in fiction, or must they remain peripheral, comic or secondary, often as placeholders for human affairs? Knausgaard, it seems, doesn’t hold much lingering affection for dogs. With all their insistent yacking, dogs carry the law of father: the barked impasse of communion between dog and human represents, for Knausgaard, ‘a kind of law, they marked a boundary I couldn’t cross, and it was the dog that enforced it’. He goes on to explain that this comes, partly, from a sense that dogs embody, in their pathetically loyal, pleading behaviour, his own weakness: he can hardly look at his family’s dog, ‘without a feeling of irritation or even rage rising in me, the way it often is when one recognises one’s own least attractive traits in others’.

> The identification is so strong that Knausgaard starts to view his dog as a shackle on his writing. Dogs demand routine, movement, companionship: they have to be ‘walked several times a day’, they have to be accompanied. In that sense they’re a practical impediment to the solitary requirements of the writer’s life, imagined as a kind of hermetic stasis. To write, for Knausgaard, is to be free of the ‘law of the dog’, a ‘a place where one can express oneself freely’. I’m struck by how this attitude differs to that of someone like Donna Haraway, canine enthusiast par theoretical excellance, or poet Eileen Myles, who recently published Afterglow: a dog memoir, about their pitbull Rosie. For Haraway and Myles, dogs are companions: a source of creativity, flourishing, of interspecies exchange and biosociality. Haraway, in her Companion Species Manifesto, even claims an ethics for the stories told ‘about dog-human worlds’. Playing with one’s canine, walking one’s dog, Haraway argues, helps us realise ‘that history matters in naturecultures’. Kinship reveals the contingency and enmeshment of our being. Dogs, as domestic animals, raise all sorts of interesting ecological questions about coexistence and hospitality, how ‘animal happiness’ might differ from that of humankind, as well as the ways in which our affective natures overlap. Is it a coincidence that Knausgaard’s title, ‘The Trouble With Dogs’ seems a provocative repartee to Haraway’s Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene? There seems an almost mythic divide between Knausgaard, giving up his irritating dog to a loving family, and Haraway’s ‘Positive Bondage’ of human-dog relations—a sense that one cannot write ‘objectively’, but rather in collaboration with the ‘objects’ (animal or otherwise) of a story?

> For all Knausgaard likes to linger on objects throughout his writing, there’s a remove here, perhaps. There’s still a very clear human orientation. A specific gaze that is the masculine anthropos in moments of strength or glimpsed vulnerability. The weirdly alluring thing about Knausgaard is his embodiment of that straw man of the vigorous novelist, fighting against himself as much as the world; the way he perceives dogs reflects the absurdity of that position, that absolute anxiety about the animal that impersonates one’s inner animal. Note the slippage: personify/impersonate, the animal/human, animism/humanism. The Animal, as Jacques Derrida put it, That Therefore I Am (More to Follow). And yes, Derrida, who questions whether there can be ‘animal narcissism’, who documents the eerie, arresting ‘animalséance’ that arises in ‘the single, incomparable and original experience of the impropriety that would come from appearing in truth naked, in front of the insistent gaze of the animal, a benevolent or pitiless gaze, surprised or cognizant’. Musing one’s nudity before the gaze of the radically animal other, we have to confront a special kind of meta-shame, a shame ‘for being ashamed’. Perhaps it’s appropriate, then, that I think of cats when I think of poets: those slinky mercurial beings who owe loyalty to no-one but elicit your affection with every sideways smile of a tail-licked sentence. Who loiter and wallow in shame, their own or otherwise.

> But we are talking here of dogs, not cats. I write this in the living room of my flat, with my friend’s dog Maisie, a six-year-old black lab whining in the corner. She’s going through her first ‘season’, the time of her first period. She’s moody and languid and all the women in the room relate to her trouble. If Derrida sees the cat’s gaze as a threat to his phallus (and of course cats are often linked negatively to femininity, witchcraft and the like), then Knausgaard sees the dog as a pitiful embodiment of his failed masculinity at the point of manly assertion, the law of the father. Is it that dogs, like men, create the ties that bind them? Dogs cower, fight; dogs piss on lawns; dogs eat everything; dogs die outside the pack; dogs allow themselves to be domesticated, chained. In one sense, we might think of Knausgaard’s aversion to dogs as a reflection of that romanticised writerly introversion, the self-flagellating need to sacrifice social contact and give space to poetic ‘genius’, to mark territory. The parasitic psyche of a dog just can’t be a part of that; he requires a cleaving, whereas writing for the likes of Haraway and Myles seems to spring, often, from collaborative, interspecies storytelling. Much more can be explored here: the binaries of active/passive, physical/cerebral, man/woman, master/slave, culture/nature—to name but a few in our theoretical bestiary.

> The essay, in its single paragraph ramble, sort of resembles a dog walk. And of course at the end, we come to that phrase: ‘The Dog’, asserting its presence again. Knausgaard tries to walk away from dogs, explain their trouble, but he lands back at the dog, the law of the father. He admits of the dog a sort of haunting within his ipseity: ‘The Dog’, we discover, was actually the original title of Knausgaard’s ‘first autobiographical manuscript’. When I think about it, dead dogs, mutant dogs, haunting dogs are everywhere. The dog on the front lawn speared with a pitchfork, the central cipher in Mark Haddon’s The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. The dog with a human heart in Mikhail Bulgakov’s political satire of the New Soviet man, Heart of a Dog. The dogs that refuse to breed in Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, unlike the obnoxiously fertile cats, who Crusoe must kill, as Jane Goldman argues, to assert ‘his own sovereignty’. I’m reminded of brooding stoner bros on that Mac DeMarco album, This Old Dog, but also of Knausgaard’s canine self-loathing, when Goldman points out how Crusoe sometimes refers to himself as ‘Dog’, ‘in a sanguine, matter of fact way, when recalling the danger of losing his life, his own sovereignty: “I only said to my self often, that I was an unfortunate Dog, and born to be always miserable”’. Somewhat companionably, he later uses the term in reference to Friday, his human subject: ‘“You Dog, said I, is this your making us laugh?”’. Where is the line between companionship and subjugation, submission? Terror and humour, master and slave? How do we relate in writing to the objects and animals that make up our worlds, our stories, our selves? Where do we, as beautiful souls, come apart as fallacy? How can we unravel in words the sovereignty of the anthro: as species, experience, as being itself; is it time, even for the more dog phobic among us, to embrace or question or love the trouble, to unsettle its position within our lives, our bodies, our homes? Will we find ourselves tangled in our own leads, running away with multiplicity?

As for me, I’m gonna go buy a goth collar for the anthropocene.

~

Text: Maria Sledmere Image: Dallas Reedy