#so it wasn't anything intentional; and i have no idea how deeply to interpret their dynamic or how friendly they are supposed to be post s2

[numericalbridge]

tbh, if Darius was meant to be a bad guy in s2a, his behavior in Eda's Requiem would be very strange and off. A vain villain who thinks spoiling his clothes is worse than rebelling against the Emperor? Sure. But you would think even the most vain person would react and lash out over almost getting killed with the corrupted spell and then having their arm sliced painfully by Raine? And yet he doesn't behave as you would expect. Yes, he catches and threatens Raine, but there is no personal 'you've almost got me killed/you will pay back for hurting me'. So if he was set up as villain his non-reactions would be a weird characterization choice.

[duchessofostergotlands]

Jessica, the Royal Family has announced that they will cancel engagements that may divert attention or distract from the general election. They said this is normal procedure, but I was not aware this was a thing. Is it? Are you familiar with it, and does it mean all engagements/which would qualify as distracting?

There's a thing called purdah. I think that's going out of favour as a term but whatever they call it now, it's the period between the election being announced and the election itself. During that time different institutions - particularly civil servants and local government - will have rules to follow in order to try and ensure the election is as free from external influence as possible. They may use terms like "distracting" but it's really about not being seen to be unfairly influencing people's voting intentions. I've always said the closest institution to the royal family is the civil service - deeply intertwined with government but non-partisan - and so it would make sense to me that those rules extend to the royals.

I'm not aware of them announcing they're doing it before but that doesn't mean it wasn't normal procedure. If they cancelled things no one knew they were going to do anyway and didn't tell us, how would we know? So it makes sense to me as a concept but I genuinely don't recall it being mentioned before so I couldn't say with any certainty if or how they did it before. What is clear is that Charles is managing it differently e.g. announcing it which Liz wouldn't do because she never announced anything, I suspect his interpretation of what should be cancelled might be different because of the different view of him vs Liz in terms of their political interference etc). So in short, I have no idea what they did before but if I had to I would say it's probably not entirely new but Charles is managing it differently.

In terms of the type of events it extends to, we may never know entirely for the reason I said above. If we didn't know it was happening, how do we know if it was cancelled? But you probably won't see any huge announcements for their projects. And I'd also suspect that they will avoid visits to things like food banks which are quite controversial. Normally visiting a food bank isn't an inherently partisan act but if you go to one during this pre-election period then it will be pounced on by both sides as "royals trying to influence voters by reminding them food banks exist" or "royals secretly support us because they looked sad at a food bank". But we'll see.

[wellofdean]

I have been gobbling up the meta analysis around SPN for months now, and I appreciate your fairly thorough take on it all.

However, as someone who’s not well-versed in How To Make a TV Show, I see references to Kripke era, Carver era, and so on, and I feel like I’m missing some meaningful context for those references.

(In unrelated news, if I were ever to ask a panel question for Jensen Ackles, it would be centred around the idea-to-screen journey, because that man loves the How They Do It, and I enjoy seeing him get fired up.)

Glad to be of service! Good meta is delicious.

And, I don't think you're missing anything. Kripke's possible intentions are interesting to me, because he laid the groundwork for who these characters are, essentially, and what their backstories are, and the show is essentially character-driven -- the genre features, the plot are backdrop and crucible so that we can get to know them and they can be transformed by their journeys.

I know different writers and showrunners had differing visions and opinions, and we can sometimes feel it in different episodes, but here's a really important thing I am saying: IT DOES NOT MATTER what they say or think about it, because the final product text is what it is, and we are its interpreters. The writers are not the final arbiter, and things are present in texts that their writers did not intend.

The interesting question for me is not "Is Supernatural a deeply queered text with deeply queered characters," because the answer to that is a resounding YES, whatever their intentions were, and there is nothing anyone can do to take that shit back now. IT IS WHAT IT IS. I sometimes just wonder how intentional it was. I wondered that a lot more the first time I watched it, episode by episode over nearly 15 years, and I wondered that significantly less the second time I watched it, when I realised that there is really no way queerness wasn't part of Dean's DNA from the start, and it was obviously intentional because of the consistency with which they lean into it.

Basically, I am not a follower of Supernatural eras, and don't know much about who wrote what. I mean... I can look it up, of course, but I don't.

If I could ask Jensen a question, I would ask how he thinks they maintained continuity so well with so many themes and motifs over so many years, with so much creative turnover? Part of it is his performance, and I do mean HIS, specifically, and like, more than anyone else's. I would love to know if they had character backstory/bibles when they started, and if they were involved at all in constructing them.

[captain-amadeus]

Do you think Cedric is overrated, or just given so much attention that the fandom forgets the other characters exist? /gen

Also, I couldn't agree more about how wrong it is to put Cedric on a pedestal to make Roland look terrible; the man is an amazing father, and I will die on that hill!!

My opinion on Cedric in the fandom isn't as interesting as my opinion on the fandom's one-sidedness with King Roland.

I know I talk about Roland a lot, but man, I have so much to say about him that just doesn't get said enough.

I have so much to say about how the fandom is so biased with him and Cedric. The fact that he can't be a character who makes mistakes and learns from them is insane, especially since Cedric isn't a perfect person himself.

Even if Cedric's motives to take over the kingdom are sympathetic, it doesn't justify his actions. He was wrong in wanting to take over the kingdom and in hurting others like Sofia in his attempts, but people like Roland were wrong for doubting him for so long and believing the notion that he's not capable of great things.

Although Roland wasn't the main driving force in Cedric wanting to get back at everyone, those rightfully go to Goodwyn and Cordelia, he failed in being a needed support for Cedric because of how he was raised off the idea that Cedric isn't capable of being like his father.

There is so much grey area where Roland has a reason for thinking and acting how he does, just like Cedric in how he thinks and acts. There is nuance to both of their characters that the fandom neglects with Roland in favor of making him this black and white character, and it ultimately makes him unrecognizable to how he was in canon to the point that I could mistake someone's depiction on him for Roland's father. That's what they all remind me of: his father, whose been said to have been a great king but not a great father.

I feel there's so much untapped potential in regards to Cedric and Roland having their fathers be emotionally absent and growing up to give their next generation what they didn't. It's more interesting than having Roland be a bad father without considering the things he did as a father in favor of Cedric being the only one to care for Sofia. (There is a difference between making stuff mainly about Cedric and Sofia and making Sofia's own family useless with Cedric being the only one who can help her. Really, Sofia loves her family and her family loves her.)

People just haven't thought about it as deeply with Roland as they do with Cedric when it comes to reasoning, and at worst, they intentionally interpret his actions in bad faith.

It is so easy to interpret Roland as someone with good intentions. I just don't get why people would willingly make a character bad in their heads, but it always circles back to Cedric because it's always him that replaces Roland as Sofia's father.

It's never Sofia being comforted by Miranda, or spending time with Amber and James, or even talking to her animal friends or visiting her best friends, Ruby and Jade.

And even when it is about them, they're always overshadowed by Cedric. It is so rare to see something focus on anything other than Cedric to the point where I wonder what's the point in having any of the other characters present when they are just props for Cedric.

And there's nothing wrong with liking Sofia and Cedric's bond, no matter how you view it (except if it's in a romantic way, in which you need to reconsider why you feel that a full grown adult and a child would, eww.) I just feel there could be more to having Cedric being the only focal point in things, and even have him be a supporting role instead of the main focus. Having him accompany Sofia but focusing more on her interactions and relations with other characters would be so refreshing. Even exploring Cedric with other characters (cough maybe with Roland) could be a good change of pace.

All in all, I don't have anything against others or how much Cedric is focused in the fandom because some people may just like Cedric better. And if I don't want everything to be about Cedric, then I can just make my own things about other characters. It just bums me out the things I've mentioned, and I hope to make it to where there's a bit more diversity in the fandom when it comes to other characters.

Also I love Miranda ok bye

[lollytea]

No shade to anyone and im all for ppl enjoying their interpretations, but the "willow beating up Hunter and him thanking her stuff" Has always feel off to me? Especially after his life in covens where everyone was so strong and had the super strong magic advantage over Hunter.

Willow wants to use her strenght to protect people she loves and what i see so appealing to Hunter is him realising that he s one of those people for willow.

Moreover he blushed

1) when she told him there is still a place for him in the squad

2) ... Just because she existed (willow s just that awesome)

3) when she protected him/lifted this scrunkly boy in one hand

Althought i do think he deeply admires her powers and strenght

//i hope i wasn t rude here it wasn t my intention

Yeah. This has always been my own feelings on that particular interpretation. I just think that, given Hunter's abusive upbringing, it feels a little off to put so much emphasis on violence in huntlow content. I don't take it too seriously cuz they ARE just jokes but it's not my kind of thing to focus on.

And yeah this idea also kinda mischaracterizes Willow for the sake of jokes. It's kinda a pet peeve of mine when people automatically equate physical strength to brutishness. Willow isn't a violent person. She's tough, she's direct, she can be absolutely terrifying and she won't hesitate to fight for the sake of protecting her friends. She could snap people like a twig if she wanted to. But she doesn't if she can help it. She's not even the kind of girl who gives her friends playful punches or shoves or anything like that. She is very sweet and gentle.

I'm pretty sure the brunt of this interpretation came from that scene in LR where Hunter is like "Have you ever seen her play flyer derby? There's no way she'd be afraid of me." This led to a lot of "The real Willow WOULD KICK MY ASS" jokes. Which was funny. Can't deny it wasn't funny. And there's some truth to it and I see it as an oversimplification of how you can interpret that line.

Abuse from Belos aside, Hunter is perfectly capable of handling himself in a fight. I'd go as far as to say he's probably the most skilled in physical combat in the Emperor's Coven, due to the other scouts leaning more on magic as a crutch. So that, coupled with a staff, makes him a lethal opponent. And like. It's never been shown but I assume, with the kind of person Hunter is, he'd probably have a bit of an ego about that right? He's tough and he knows it. It seems like the kind of thing he'd gloat over.

But in this scene, he admits without hesitation that he considers it illogical that someone like Willow could possibly view him as a threat. He says it with full conviction. He, Hunter, tough as nails ex Golden Guard, believes that Willow is objectively stronger than he is. With this idea in mind that he has a little ego over his owns skills, plus the combat oriented environment he grew up in, I think Hunter would initially view Willow's strength through the lense of "could she take me in a fight?" Not because he fears her, but that was always his automatic thought process when sizing up his peers during Coven Scout training. He's the best scout he knows. Of course he'd consider himself the ideal of what others should strive to be. Cocky bitch.

So given his militant brain and upbringing, he's probably given this a lot of thought. He's critically assessed Willow's strengths and weaknesses and come to the conclusion that yeah she could totally deck him if she wanted to. Taking the former paragraph into consideration, I think this is extremely high praise coming from Hunter.

(It's worth noting that he once acknowledged Amity's strength during their battle in EL. "You're strong and I'm tired. If this continues, you'll probably escape." The key word here is 'probably' implying that while he is impressed with her grit, there's a small part of him that still believes he can win, even though he admits to being at a disadvantage. There is none of this uncertainty when it comes to Willow.)

But like. Is her being strong as hell the reason Hunter has a crush on her? Considering this idea that he's a cocky bitch over his own capabilities, I think her being tougher than him would certainly leave a big impact. Personally I think its like. One of many reasons that are all thrown in together to make crush soup.

(Also it can be left to interpretation if Hunter being into strength is rooted in him valuing it as a soldier or if this is just the wheel of fortune spinning in his hormone addled brain that randomly assigns shit he finds attractive and it landed on "girl with biceps who can pick me THE FUCK UP and HOLD ME!!!!" 🤷‍♀️)

In ASIAS, which has Hunter's first impression of Willow and the groundwork that forms his overall opinion of her, it is worth mentioning that she never intentionally hurts him. She's direct absolutely and she uses physical means to get him where she wants him, but her methods are ultimately pacifist. She immoblizes for convenience sake but there's never any implication that anything she does hurts.

She snatches him out of the air with vines and drags him front and center. But considering Hunter himself had a tendency to toss people around with his former staff, I don't think he can be too personally offended by her method here.

She puts his ass in the ground and spits him back up on the sports field. Pretty much harmless. This one's a little rougher sure but given that Hunter was being unreasonable and frankly rude about Willow's friends, it's warranted. He said something disrespectful that Willow simply wasn't going to allow so she had no other option than to get him from point A to point B and politely prove him wrong.

Willow has a very firm but gentle hand when it comes to dealing with Hunter. He demonstrates that he can be really out of line sometimes and while Willow certainly gets angry, she doesn't get violent or yell or say anything nasty to Hunter in return. All she does is prove him wrong, which is a positive thing in itself because it's teaching him a lesson about believing in himself. The worst Willow made Hunter feel in this episode is a little sheepish for having underestimated the other players. Like she's kind and sweet enough that she doesn't intimidate him or make his self esteem worse but she's direct enough that she makes him listen and check himself when he's acting like a dick.

(I will mention that, though I'm yapping about how Willow doesn't intentionally hurt Hunter in this episode, physically or emotionally, she does get a little too excited while shaking his hand and crushes his fingers. Doesn't count because its unintentional. Sweet girl does not know her own strength. BUT you need to admire that scene for how Hunter stares at his hand afterwards, completely flummoxed that this cute teenage schoolgirl has a fucking grip of iron. He thinks about this often, you can't convince me otherwise.)

Anyway in all of Hunter's experiences with Willow, he has never seen her use her magic or strength for senselessly violent reasons. Its always been for the sake of Flyer Derby or ambition or protecting others. She's dangerous. He knows she's dangerous. But he will never ever see her as someone to be afraid of. Because he knows he's her friend and she will never ever hurt her friends.

Hunter begged Willow to accompany him for his escort mission in COTH, which all but states that as much of a petrified nervous wreck Hunter has been since HM, he feels safe if Willow is with him. He views Willow's presence as a place of safety. (Gus too. He also begged Gus to come along. I should disclaim that Willow and Gus are both Hunter's safe space but I'm trying to stay on topic so I won't derail.)

Anyway, though Hunter probably does see Willow as someone who could kick his ass, it doesn't bother him or make him feel uncomfortable around her nor is this the reason he's attracted to her. It's just an objective fact. It doesn't bother him to think about it either because its so out of the realm of plausibility for him. Her strength, in his eyes, is a wholly positive and gentle thing. He sees Willow as somebody he can stand next to and not fear for his life because he's certain she'll protect him. She's somebody who saved his life by catching him out of the sky and throwing him over her shoulder with her strong arms. She's somebody who shielded him when the Collector was closing in. Somebody sturdily built to support his body when the draining spell was weakening him.

Hunter knows with his entire heart that Willow will never harm a hair on his head.

So honestly I feel like Hunter himself would probably be comfortable saying shit like "Willow could kick my ass."

To which Willow would overhear from across the room, hurry over to Hunter, cup his face, stroke back his hair and very sweetly assure him "That's not gonna happen. I promise 💚"

And Hunter just full face flushes because she really does make him feel like a prince receiving declarations of protection from his knight and honestly he doesn't hate it.

[egg-emperor]

as you are the eggman guy, i have a question/wondering that i’d like to share if that’s good! so in the idw release during the virus arc, eggman says that it was “kind of” nice being mr tinker. now i don’t really think he’s saying that with the intent of “being good” or that he wishes to return to that lifestyle, rather i think that he thought it was nice simply due to the fact that sonic and co weren’t there to constantly harass/and or beat him at his things. what do you think of this perspective? :O would love to hear!

Love being known as the Eggman guy and that you wanna ask for my perspective because of it hsbdkghfhbsnfkgd I appreciate the interest in my thoughts 💖

I would really like to believe that's what they were going for. But it still remains one of my most despised scenes because of how they handled it, regardless of the possible intentions in the end. Having him think back to the nice things he did as Tinker in that way and the look on his face with that pause made everyone interpret it in the most OOC ways that I heavily dislike lol. So they clearly didn't make it obvious enough, if it's what they were going for. In the end, I'd say that it wasn't needed as it didn't go anywhere and all it did was fuel some people's misconceptions.

If they'd have just kept it at this, then it would've been perfect

Now that's Eggman, scoffing and mocking the idea. I can only see him thinking it was ridiculous and silly and mocking it, as well as possibly secretly being a little embarrassed at how being seen in that state can be damaging to his status as a great threat to be deeply feared because he's been seen acting goofy, nice, helpful, and harmless, which goes far beyond anything he's done in all his deceit and propaganda. And he wouldn't like how it was actually genuine as Tinker and not within in his control and choice as his true self. He was genuinely delusional, as he later went on to describe himself in that state.

I like the idea of the reason why he reflected like this being that he thinks it was just nice and relaxing to not get trouble from Sonic and friends like it was a little break or something, like you said. But in that case, the wording in the rest of it was still bad, they could've omitted everything he said in between his mockery of the idea and saying that the life was at least relaxing, if there were any upsides at all. (I can't even post the page again because it bothers me that much, you know what part I'm talking about. XD) He should've just said it was simple and relaxing at the very most, in terms of it being stress-free and not being pestered by Sonic and friends- well, for the most part.

That moment of silence and expression after also wasn't necessary because even if it was supposed to just get Sonic's hopes up for a second, just for Eggman to prove he isn't genuinely considering it, they still didn't handle it right with how people could interpret it that way. Then with that part removed, he could've still said he's doing something better now and it would've been good if he said it's much more exciting too. Because as much as I like to imagine he enjoys much needed relaxation, he'd think the idea of living an entire lifestyle like that would be boring. Even worse when wasting his skills and intelligence doing things for others instead of himself, which also would've been good for him to mention.

But something that also bugs me is the part about "bringing peace and unity to the world" because Sonic knows it isn't true and not what he really wants. He doesn't see world peace and world domination as the same thing and a video for a rollercoaster ride understands better than this. It doesn't make sense that he'd be saying this to Sonic unless it was obviously mockingly too, as it's something he'd only say to manipulate, deceive, and use as propaganda and it wouldn't work on Sonic, who obviously already knows his tricks. I don't like the idea that he genuinely thinks he's doing anything good for anyone but himself, it's never been true in the games as he's deeply selfish and without a thought for anyone else.

And I dislike the reference to Open Your Heart where Eggman says to "agree to disagree" on Sonic saying his style is evil. He KNOWS he's evil lmfao, this is supposed to be a non canon adaption of the games in which he's described himself and his actions as evil, come on! It's painful for them to seem to imply that he doesn't with this. And if they actually weren't, they didn't make it clear enough and I don't think it makes sense for him to say it to Sonic of all people in this context. The only true part of that, existing right in the verse they quoted, is that Eggman won't change his style because he'll never become a good guy. But he absolutely knows his way is evil and that isn't the reason why he won't, it's because evil is his genuinely preferred and enjoyed style and he doesn't have good in him.

Anyway I couldn't help but rant a little about the part that comes right after too, since I'm talking about the scene in more detail for the first time in a whiiile because I like to pretend it doesn't exist (it's fine that you asked though and I'm okay with answering, it is about time that I put more of my thoughts on it out there.) XD I like your perspective which is also what I want to see it as but unfortunately, the mass majority of people didn't take it that way from what I've seen. Regardless of their possible intentions with that moment of reflection and the Open Your Heart reference after, he was either actually genuinely written OOC there, or they didn't make it clear enough for people to not be able to interpret it in a very OOC way regardless. So I really think they should've been more careful about how they presented it. If there is a chance it was the former, I really hope they make that clearer in the future.

But since Eggman's portrayal in #50 finally looked up and he really felt like himself in this comic for the first time in ages with his competency, intelligence, and skills faithfully intact and utilized brilliantly, I'm hoping it continues from here. It would be great to get more good in character moments that begin to help make up for the prior OOC moments and inaccuracies and such, since they were damaging to how people see him. They can fix it if they decided to go with this perspective and make it 100% clear, so it can't be interpreted in any other way. He deserves the respect and spotlight where the truths of his character will shine and I really hope be gets it! I'll be so happy if he does, all I ask is for is for more game faithful Eggman at his best, most entertaining and lovable self 💜

[rubykgrant]

for the ask prompt: York?

i really love your art, stories, and interpretations on the characters!

hope you have a good day! <3

First impression

I saw the Freelancer flash-backs before Out of Mind, so my first impression of him was a little different than some people; I at first thought he was kind of the "office slacker" kinda dude, like he's really chill but not especially close to anybody... and I wasn't entirely wrong about him being chill, but obviously there is MORE to him than that~

Impression now

A lot of his aloof attitude is intentional to either put people at ease or make them underestimate him; now that I've seen a small glimpse of him VERY early in the Freelancer program (thanks to Wash time traveling), I feel like York used to kind of set aside his real feelings. When he put his armor on, he was Mr Serious! After a while though... this attitude clearly wasn't working. For one thing, EVERYBODY was super stressed-out, and it started to carry over to when they were supposed to relax. So, York would try to make them laugh, remind them of what fun was, but not in a totally irresponsible way. He was just really calm and funny, and it worked! Not only did his companions feel more hopeful because of him, when he started joking around with guards or other enemies, they assumed he was no threat... which meant he had an advantage. York was just an effortlessly charming dude, and the only thing that got in his way was when he tried to hard to no-nonsense

Favorite moment

All the bits with him on the mission to get the Sarcophagus; he was very York-tastic through it all

Idea for a story

I had an AU idea once for a Freelancer/AI/Sim Trooper swap; in which the AI were Freelancers (with Greek Alphabet code-names; Alpha is still the original AI, but he's had his memories taken away and given a false identity as a Freelancer), the original Sim Troopers are now AI Fragments (because they're still supposed to be Alpha's friends that represent ways to help him), and the PFL agents are now Sim Troopers in Blood Gulch. York and North were the dudes on Red Team who just stand around talking all day. York also picks locks so he can hide in closets or storage rooms to take naps and get out of work

Unpopular opinion

I'm not sure how "unpopular" it is? I think York would have bonded fairly well with the other AI as well, and while he perhaps wouldn't have become the Meta (that feels like a specific Maine and Sigma situation), he also would have listened to Sigma and tried to help him (again, the situation would have been different... would it have been better? or worse? hmm!!!)

Favorite relationship

My MOST favorite is him with Delta; they were so close and genuinely cared about each other so deeply... and Delta wanted to stay with him, even when York was dying. That's just EVERYTHING. Obviously him and Carolina is wonderful, and his friendship with North and Wash is good too... but remember what I said about him having a serious side, while also joking around with people? I wish we could have seen more between him, Maine, and Wyoming. I feel like they actually worked really well together (they were even a team against Tex), and had a unique sort of bond. Still, nothing tops York and Delta. I got the vibe that, they didn't always understand each other BUT they understood that it was alright, they could talk about pretty much anything, and they just made each other feel comfortable and safe

Favorite headcanon

I can't think of too many that aren't canon in some way... my own personal HC is that he was genderfluid, York just never got to really talk about it much

Thanks for asking~

[undead-moth]

I've already shared my thoughts on the sauce scene (which are obviously just my personal interpretation too) but basically, I think that's a broken sauce, and so Carmy's intention wasn't to make the sauce look black with white dots. I also think that's why he throws the dish away. That being said, I do think the writers purposefully made the sauce resemble Syd's bandana and were using that to symbolically indicate that Sydney is one of Carmy's personal character motivations, so I do still think it's a symbol of eventual romance between them.

Totally on board with interpreting them through a Queer Theory lens, although I think it would be giving the writers a lot of credit to say that we were meant to. I do love the idea of them being a queer allegory though - I've seen a lot of people make comments about how they would love The Bear so much more, or be more invested in it, or it would work well if Carmy was a butch lesbian and honestly? I dig that so much (even though I think a lot of his characterization is deeply in line with someone who grew up with the privileges of being a cis man).

I think it works really well too, because it would explain a lot, as you said. Not just Carmy's inability to talk, or the fact that he dated a girl basically because she was there and everyone thought he should, or because he wasn't sure if Claire was his girlfriend and didn't have girlfriends in high school, which would seem to indicate both that he hasn't had a lot of romantic relationships and that he doesn't really understand the relationships he had - but also on Syd's end, with her struggling to talk too, and her feeling uncomfortable with Marcus asking her out and it seemingly not occurring to her he might be interested.

As for Luca...Honestly? Maybe I just, like, missed something, but I did not think we were meant to see any potential between Syd and Luca at all. I did not think that was even supposed to cross our minds as a possibility. All of Syd and Luca's conversation at the dinner was (like every other conversation at the dinner) I felt, a commentary by the writers about Carmy. Like, there's the part where Syd talks about how the dish with the peas is a "trauma dish" and Luca says that Carmy repurposed the peas into a desert one time, and Syd says something like, "Oh he repurposed the trauma," and Luca says, "That's all we can do, right?" Like...none of that, in my opinion, was being used to develop anything between Luca and Syd. And then, later when they're in the kitchen talking, it's mostly about siblings? And again...I felt like we were getting a commentary about Carmy, specifically I thought we were meant to be thinking about Carmy's relationship with Michael. Their conversations were so completely void of any of the usual markers for two people interested in each other, even physcially... I really think they were just being friendly the whole time, I don't know.

Like, no hate at all to SydLuca shippers, but I was completely shocked anybody was speculating that Luca was meant to be a love interest for Syd. And again, I might be missing something, but I just do not see it. (Would love to see Luca with Marcus tho.)

I think Carmy is both the reason Sydney is considering leaving The Bear, and the reason she can't leave The Bear. She recognizes that the way Carmy is behaving this season isn't something she wants to put up with, but she's also grown to care for him and is aware that this isn't the real him, and this isn't what he has to be like. She admired him as a chef from the beginning, and they built The Bear together, and she cares about him so much.

I don't personally think either of them are aware they have feelings for each other yet, but I do think the feelings are there, and I do think it's playing a major role in why Sydney hasn't already decided to accept Chef Adam's offer and just leave. I think it's also part of the reason why she struggles so much to bring it up to Carmy - trying to talk to him about why she's considering leaving, or not leaving, would require her to come dangerously close to admitting to herself/confessing to him how she really feels.

I’m sorry I’m rewatching The Bear again and laughing because Syd makes a dish at Carmy’s place and they plate it together and they both try it and it’s so disgusting that Carmy has to spit it out and literally like less than a minute later he looks at Syd and says, like, very sincerely and softly, “This really was almost perfect.”

[lnkedmyheart]

Mini rant about sormik canonicity

Disclaimer: This is a very chaotic post because I have a migraine and my thoughts are jumbled but bear with me.

As someone who works with literature and old texts and had to learn to read texts from different perspectives, I don't give much weight to the idea of the canon. However, I have spent years researching the changing trends in lgbt rep in media. But first:

What exactly is the canon? Well according to the dictionary, "...the literary canon is often understood to mean the group of authors or works that a consensus of academics, historians and teachers recognise as worthy of study". Going by this we must consider two things when analysing a text for lgbt love. The time period it originated in and the author's intent. Typically. However, we also know that a lot of texts are created as a means to rise AGAINST the grain of time and once enough time is passed, a lot of additional sources get lost and all you have to rely on is the actual text itself. No creator to confirm anything via Word of God, no supplementary text to support certain ideas and so on.

As to why I don't always like the idea of canonicity, its quite simple. Researchers, historians and academicians will never be free from bias. I once wrote a poem about someone being saved from drowning and posted it on a creative writing site and I got flooded with comments about how deep it was and how it was all a metaphor for losing oneself or faith. It wasn't. The authorial intent here had been entirely my personal experience about nearly drowning. But without my word, that was how people chose to view it.

Its a historical fact that a lot of ancient texts were altered and read in a way to insist that intense mlm and wlw bonds were reduced to just super extra intense friendships. But reading all these texts now we KNOW there was atleast an element of homosexual love in the texts and that is honestly all that matters right?

Finally onto sormik and whether or not Sorey and Mikleo are actually canon. Its such a contested topic that its honestly hilarious at times. On one hand there is an argument that they don't kiss or confess and are therefore not canon, which is a very flawed idea based on several factors which everyone already knows of. And then there is the whole insistence that just cause two men are friends doesn't mean they are in love. On the other there is so much extra information and vague creator confirmation that sormik was infact intended to be read as romantic to some extent and that Sorey shows no real interest in women.

But is it really canon? Here's a comparison. Achilles and Patroclus. It is a unanimous belief NOW that those two were deeply in love. They were brothers in arms, close friends and were willing to die for each other. Their descriptions and the way they interacted was never explicitly sexual but it was extremely heavily implied to be driven by love of a romantic kind. Atleast that is what we read it as today. We don't have any creator confirmation for this, we don't have supplementary material to support this belief. They never smooch on paper. All we have is the text to interpret. 100 years from now, when someone looks at Sorey and Mikleo free from the creator confirmation and extra material regardless of which source they use, would they be inclined to see it as romantic?

I argue yes. Like Achilles and Patroclus, Sorey and Mikleo are brothers in arms, they value each other the most, wish to spend the rest of their lives together and we literally have Mikleo wait several centuries for Sorey to return. These tropes are heavily associated with romance, these tropes are the very reasons why so much historical text is now being looked at from a non heteronormative lense regardless of authorial intent but why do we insist on drawing the line in modern media when the exact same tropes are being used? Why is it that lgbt romances cannot be chaste and innocent like heterosexual romances? I would LOVE an onscreen kiss between wlw or mlm pairs but why is it compulsory to be read in any way other than a dudebro bonding moment? There is a tendency to hypersexualise lgbt love, and yes, being gay or lesbian or bisexual is a sexuality but that doesn't inherently make it sexual.

So whether or not sormik was intended to be romantic and whether or not Sorey was intended to be gay is irrelevant in the long run. To me personally, it is as canon as can be because I know for a fact that if Sorey existed in an ancient text with no change to his character and story, he'd be treated like a gay icon by modern lgbt historians.

Would it be nice if it was intentional? Yea. Would it not being intentional change the fact that a large part of Sorey's bond with Mikleo mirrors the queer experience of several young lgbt people? Not at all.

Anyway.

Rant over.

SorMik canon as can be y'all.

[masketeersgame]

Hello!

I really like your game, the concept, the lore, the visuals... Everything is just MWAH❤

But not the character's stories, sadly. The only good one, in my opinion, is Titan's, but others made me very confused and now I have a lot of questions.

In Kein's case... Why did he got all the blame if he wasn't the one who made that mistake? He's been working pretty long in the company, so his boss must've known very good, that he is a very valuable employee, they just shouldn't have had ANY reason to make him so stressed! Why didn't they fire the person who did this, instead of obviously innocent Kein?

Pixie... Why didn't anyone call 911? The orphanage was too far away from the city? Then why didn't Pixie herself call anyone for help? It's hard to believe that the fire was so strong that it destroyed whole building in such little time that no one was able to leave. And didn't anyone else around notice, like, HUGE smoke?

Koro's story actually pretty nice, though I would've change some detail — maybe someone would stop when they saw Koro asking for help, but they wouldn't believe her story because they assumed she was just some beggar.

And Hawk... Well, this one made me so confused that I had to read his story again. Very, very weird one. If his family was so rich and powerful, why did his mother go to look for him? Didn't they have any servants to do this? At least gardener, since Hawk was chilling in the garden. And the whole bird segment... WHAT WAS THAT??? Why would his mother want him to KILL that bird? Wasn't it waste of time too? She could've just made him leave it to die, that's much easier than, um, traumatizing your kid for life. His family just elite, not some assassins, there's absolutely no reason for her to act this way, at least if she's not mentally ill.

In my opinion, a better twist would be if Hawk would unintentionally overheard how bad his parents treat their servants, and this injustice and realisation that he's unable to prevent such things from happening would make him run away. But that's just what I think.

I didn't get to see other masketeers yet, so I can't tell anything about their stories.

I hope I didn't make you sad with all of this, it certainly wasn't my intention, I just wanted to ask these questions about characters.

I wish you luck with your game, hope it'll get more popular ❤

Hi friend, thank you so much for the kind encouragement and for sharing your thoughts about our stories! We appreciate your feedback and love that you've thought so deeply about the Masketeers.

While we've already conveyed everything we want to say about the Masketeers in the existing backstories and game content, please do feel free to continue exploring these characters and stories according to your own interpretation and ideas. We recommend that you join our Facebook Group, Discord, or Reddit through the community tab in-game to discuss the Masketeers' backstories with other players like you!

[jillianallen14]

Here we go, y'all. It's not even page 1 of this book (The Motion Picture Novelization), and it's already intensely gay and full of subtext. As a literature major I would like to do a little bit of analysis here, and I would like to remind you all that this book was actually written by Roddenberry himself; so everything in this book is actually canon in the truest sense of the word. Here we go:

1) Spock's dedication to Earth. Spock was raised on Vulcan, looks mostly Vulcan, has accepted the Vulcan way of life. Spock is, for all intents and purposes almost completely Vulcan with very few human features. Although, yes, of course, he does have a human mother, being raised on Vulcan largely purged that part of him. That is, however, until he was aboard the Enterprise and met Jim. Through his years with Jim, it is clear Spock came to love Earth, to want to protect Earth, to be drawn to Earth and its people. Earth (and humans) had accepted him far more than his home planet of Vulcan ever had, and acceptance was what he largely craved all his life. He wanted to be accepted for the half-human, half-Vulcan hybrid he was and not just for one of those halves. His mother gave him that acceptance, but when faced with the rejections of his father it simply wasn't enough. His father and other Vulcans expected him to be only Vulcan. McCoy and many other humans (though McCoy came to accept both of Spock's halves after many years) expected him to be only human or not human enough or too Vulcan. Jim, however, accepted both of his halves almost immediately. Jim, the shining, bright star of Earth, the constant hero of Earth. Suddenly, Spock's loyalties shifted to this man and to Earth, though, of course, his Vulcan heritage and planet were still incredibly important to him.

2) In the novel The Vulcan Academy Murders by Jean Lorrah, Sarek (at least I think it was Sarek) mentions that kolinahr was undertaken only by the extremists in Vulcan culture. It was only undertaken by those who were the most stringent followers of Surak and who interpreted his teachings in a more extremist way than most other Vulcans. Now we know Spock highly respected Surak and considered him largely a "hero", but was Spock really ever a "stringent follower" of Surak? No. Spock goes against logic constantly for the love of his crew and his ship and his family and his captain. Spock is a rather emotional being, though he often disguises it well. We also learn from Sarek in TVAM that Spock has exceptional telepathic, empathetic abilities that far surpass his own and that Spock had to build practically indestructible mental shields to protect himself and others from those telepathic abilities and intense emotions. To put this differently, Spock feels deeply at a level few humans or even Vulcans would ever understand, and it hurts him. My theory is that is it that intense pain of his emotions that caused him to follow the path of kolinahr, rather than believing that it was the "right" or "logical" path. So what would cause him so much pain?

3) To me, the answer is very simple: Jim, the man whose name Spock invokes at what could be one of the most important moments of his life. He calls Jim his t'hy'la, a word that we've already unpacked the meaning and weight of a million times, so I will focus on something different - Spock's pause, his stutter. The pause could mean 2 things: either Spock is in so much pain at the idea of never seeing or thinking of Jim again that he can't get the full phrase out or Spock is in pain over or unsure about calling Jim his t'hy'la. I believe both of these contribute to Spock's pause, but I believe the latter contributes the most. So why would Spock be in pain over/unsure about calling Jim his t'hy'la? Because he is not used to it. Because he has been madly and deeply in love with Jim for years at this point, yet he has never said anything. They are not bondmates (at least yet anyways), they are not lovers. And his love for Jim had begun to cloud his judgment since it was not logical for him to run after Jim and protect him at all costs, since they were not bondmates. He had no logical reason to do that, which upset the Vulcan half of him. The human half, however, was upset by the unfulfillment of his love for Jim. I understand that this may be a bit of a stretch here, but think of what Spock says, "I will never permit myself to think of you or even your name again." Hence, Jim's name is too emotional for Spock. Even Jim's name carries too much weight, too much emotion, and too much pain for Spock, enough to push him into the most extreme path a Vulcan can undertake. Does this sound like the mind of a man who is thinking rationally? To me, it absolutely does not. It sounds like a man dealing with deep, painful unrequited (or at least Spock sees it as unrequited) love for someone he has grown distant from. Remember, Spock is an incredible telepath and empath; he knows his own emotions, he is able to distinguish what he feels. And here he calls Jim his t'hy'la, and pauses and stutters while doing it. His "last goodbye" to Jim is full of pain, almost as though Spock doesn't want to be saying it, almost as if he's going against himself in order to do this.

4) I argue that Spock had found that ever-desired and needed love and acceptance of both of his halves in Jim (and consequently in Earth), but that it was no longer enough for him. He wanted Jim, he wanted a bondmate in Jim, he wanted a marriage with Jim, but he couldn't have it. And he recognized the illogic of achieving what he had wished for and still not being satisfied, but he also realized his own pain. And so he gave up Earth and Starfleet and Jim because, yes, it had become illogical to pursue it further, but also because it had begun to cause him pain he didn't know how to control, even with the help of his "indestructible" mental shields. So he took the most extreme, devoted path a Vulcan could take for mostly human reasons. And, in the end, he couldn't do it. He fails. He can't give them up, can't give Jim up. And it's a good thing he didn't because, subtextually, in all the novels and movies that come after The Motion Picture (including Spock prime's depiction in the new Star Trek movies), it is pretty clear to me that Spock and Kirk do end up bonding and marrying (at least in the Vulcan sense).

[quailpower]

This is just a PSA for everyone that is thinking of going anywhere near Castiel this season.

This bitch is on a hair trigger. Approach with caution. We've seen Castiel prepared to do horrible things to save the world or spare the Winchesters, but what he did to Donatello stuck me as particularly shocking.

Castiel says that he swore he would never do this to a human. We don't know if this is a relatively new resolution (since he defected from heaven) or if it is a principle he has always had. I personally think it is the latter.

Castiel has a reputation of having 'too much heart' and being a thorn in Heaven's side. He has been reprogrammed more than any other angel, so it isn't hard to imagine that some of those could be the result of him refusing to tamper with a human's mind.

Although Castiel in the early seasons is willing if unhappy to destroy an entire town at Heaven's command. So it seems strange that he would choose that hill to die on. He knows how painful and persuasive Heaven can be.

Unless, he has a deep, unconscious revulsion to the idea of tampering with people's minds. Which is absolutely heartbreaking considering that at that point, he is completely unaware of Naomi and her reprogramming. That, although he has had his own memories of the torture removed, he seems to retain an instinctive fear and aversion to it. So much so that the first time he encounters it when Samandriel is being tortured, he has a strong physical reaction.

If that alone wasn't enough for Castiel to bury his head in the sand and stick to his principles, he has to deal with the knowledge of what happened the last time he chose to interfere with someone's mind. Although he was under the influence of the Leviathans at the time, Castiel still takes full responsibility for removing Sam's Wall and leaving him completely broken.

This isn't something he can ignore. Sam and Dean's reaction to what he did, shocked quite a few fans. Both of the brothers are no strangers to torture or even murder if it stands between them and their family. The fact that they are so surprised and horrified by Cas' actions shows us that although they have forgiven, they have not forgotten.

Dean, particularly, is angry. He has a tendency to put people he loves on a pedestal and it hurts him deeply when they inevitably fail to live up to his standards. But Dean is also scared and worried. He is the stable one right now which must be a disturbing notion for someone who was suicidal a few weeks ago.

In the last few episodes he has been unusually invested in Cas' mental state; he is constantly asking if Cas is OK, insisting on accompanying him. This could be interpreted as Dean being happy that Cas is back and being worried about losing him again. But Dean knows Castiel better than anyone, and he knows something is wrong. He knows Cas is balanced on a knife edge and prepared to do something 'stupid'.

So when Castiel locks himself in the room with Donatello, Dean's worse fears are confirmed. It is a scene eerily similar to 'On The Head Of A Pin', where Castiel asks Dean to torture the information from a bound Alistair. Castiel says that it is 'too much to ask' of Dean and that he would 'give anything not to have you do this'.

Dean knows what it costs to hurt someone. What it does to go against your principles. He knows that the Castiel that walks out of that room won't be the same as the one who walked in.

'I am not Sam and Dean.' I am so much worse.

Also in 'On The Head Of A Pin' was also one of the first instances that we saw Cas admitting to feeling emotions and doubts, other than when he confides in Dean that he is not a hammer. Which, ironically is exactly what Castiel is intent on being, now. He is still struggling with his identity and worth and sees himself only as a means to an end. Although he considers himself part of their family, he doesn't feel equal. Anf although we saw a little spark of self worth in the Empty, he still has a long way to go. Castiel is willing to do anything to save them, to spare them pain. When he kills Billy, we see just how far he is prepared to go.

Castiel is cold and hard in a way we hasn't seen for a long time. The last time Castiel called himself a Soldier was before Purgatory. His 'rebirth' seems to have restored him to his factory settings more so than anytime before. Possibly because this is the first time we have seen Cas actually fight for himself, rather than being revived passively or against his will.

And as nice as it is to see some of the old fire and fury in the angel, it must be making the boys hella nervous (the fact that this whole season seems to be people impersonating each other certainly can't be helping).

The Boys have seen what Castiel will do for them, will sacrifice for them. He will make a decision so they don't have to. If they make a stupid deal, he will break it. He is always happy to bleed for the Winchesters. Sam, I think is a little too shell shocked and grief stricken to really see the implications yet. But I think Dean is begining to understand just how dangerous this makes Castiel, now. He is more devoted to their cause than he ever was to Heaven.

And maybe the most worrying thing of all is how Castiel is echoing Lucifer's words from Season 5; that it is his right to make the decision who lives and dies; in an episode titled Good Intentions, and where that may lead.

[phati-sari]

Why do you think Arnav wasn't a virgin before Kushi He was really uncomfortable with touching Lavanya & when he was in USA he was with an indian introvert girl Can you message me the answer in private since you said that you don't like how people react to it

PSA (Phati Sari Announcement): I am not interested in a debate over this issue. These are my views and everyone is entitled to disagree or agree as they wish. This is a deeply personal topic because many people have qualities they want in an ideal partner and virginity is sometimes one of them. My saying that I believe Arnav was not a virgin, then, will seem like a personal attack to some. But this is my space and I’m allowed to hold whatever views I wish. If you respect my opinions and arguments, then that respect should be afforded when you agree with me, and when you disagree. I am free to believe Arnav was not a virgin and free to believe that he was an alien, and whether you agree or disagree is up to you. I’m not pushing a particular view on anyone, and would appreciate it if people didn’t decide to “correct” or “educate” me. All it’s going to do is upset both of us. 

A huge huge thank you to @puranijeans​ for helping me out and keeping me sane today! I love you and appreciate you and I do not deserve you.

Hello @dodo8585 :)

I’ve decided to answer this in public because I think it’s important.

The first thing you need to understand is why I am uncomfortable with answering this question. Most people already know what they believe about Arnav’s virginity. He either was a virgin or he wasn’t. There’s an element of confirmation bias around any conversation we have on this topic – people accept only the evidence that supports their view and ignore evidence that goes against it.

I’m not against having a discussion, but often people expect me to defend my views with no intention of changing their own or even defending their position. I honestly don’t care what others think, I have my opinion and I’m happy with it, but I’ve noted that I’m not afforded the same courtesy by others. Even your question frames the situation as “Why do you hold this view when I noticed this and this?”

The short and simple answer is that I view the serial differently from you. And that’s okay.

The (super) long answer is:

Lavanya’s behaviour

When Lavanya moved into Shantivan she expected to be staying in Arnav’s room with him. He expected the same, and it was only Nani’s insistence that she stay in the guestroom that resulted in the situation we saw. Arnav even objected to it in the first instance.

I understand that people excuse this by saying that Arnav was going for the shock value of the arrangement, but I don’t think there was anything in his demeanor to suggest that. He wanted to have a live-in relationship with his girlfriend and an essential part of live-in is the sharing of private space, which in Shantivan is his bedroom.

Lavanya was confident that she could visit Arnav at night dressed in a nightgown. I realise that a lot of people code this confidence as “slutty”, but that feels very slut-shamy to me. There are very few types of women who invite themselves to a man’s bedroom without being confident that she will be received positively. And Lavanya, some six months into her relationship with ASR, doesn’t seem like the kind of woman who would risk his ire. She keeps a list of everything that annoys him, and late night visits in nightgowns apparently don’t appear on it.

Her immediate assumption that it was Arnav tickling her (when it was really Lakshmi) in the very same episode also indicates a level of intimacy that goes beyond what they’re allowed to show in desi serials. And this is an important for me because many people argue that they never explicitly shown being intimate!

Neither were Shyam and Anjali, and yet no one is arguing that her conception was immaculate.

Lavanya made a habit of touching Arnav. She touched him often, with haq, and so casually that it implied a deeper intimacy. For example, there is a scene where Lavanya places her hand on Arnav’s upper thigh while speaking to him. She does it without fanfare, and neither of them has any reaction to it, which spoke volumes to me. That’s an area of a man’s body one generally doesn’t touch unless there is a high level of familiarity and intimacy.

A lot of these points are ignored by those who believe Arnav was a virgin. These people genuinely seem to believe that Lavanya behaved like this because she was immoral or wanted sex regardless of Arnav’s wishes, and while they are welcome to their views, I don’t agree.

Arnav’s behaviour

You pointed out that he was really uncomfortable with touching Lavanya. I agree that he was, but only after Khushi became a permanent fixture in his life. When she was first introduced, Arnav had absolutely no issue with Lavanya feeding him cake, kissing his cheek, and even went as far as to tell her that she was one of the few people who could waste his time. I think he stopped being comfortable with physical intimacy with Lavanya when he knew he was sexually attracted to Khushi.

As tempting as it is to shunt Lavanya off and decide that Arnav never cared about her, my interpretation is that she meant a great deal to him. He wasn’t in love with her, but he wasn’t in love with anyone and didn’t think he would ever fall in love. By all accounts, he was a dedicated and honest partner. If she wanted more and he couldn’t give it to her, it was because he was incapable of giving more at the time, not because he was purposefully holding back a part of himself for his True Love.

After all, he claimed not to believe in marriage or love when we met him. If he wasn’t waiting for his future wife, and if he wasn’t waiting for his True Love, then why would be remain celibate? I’m not saying that men are sex-hungry monsters or anything, but Arnav has none of the drivers most people have for remaining celibate. He isn’t religious, and so didn’t believe in repercussions around sex before marriage, and he wasn’t “saving himself” for a wife or True Love.

He was twenty-six when we met him, and I just can’t see why he would remain a virgin when he doesn’t seem to have a reason to.

Breaking the bed

One of the most important things that happened before the remarriage is that Arnav’s bed was replaced. The bed they broke was a symbolic and visual negation of any sexual relationships in Arnav’s past. Even if he had slept with anyone else in that bed, it was replaced before he and Khushi were intimate. In a way, it ensured that their marital bed was solely theirs, a bed they broke in made their own after marriage.

Sheetal

I guess the main reason people believe Arnav was a virgin before Khushi is because he was absolutely sure that he hadn’t slept with Sheetal in college and told Khushi as much. I agree that he said he didn’t sleep with Sheetal, but I have a different interpretation of what he meant when he followed it up with the declaration that he wasn’t “that type of guy”.

On one hand, I think that the writers tried to back away from the narrative that Arnav had clearly slept with women before Khushi. Perhaps it was a way to get the conservative audience on board, perhaps it was because they forgot, but I think they established Arnav one way and then tried to fudge it over in the Sheetal track.

On the other hand, I think there is a difference between having sex before marriage and being promiscuous, and that Arnav could have easily meant that he wasn’t the type of guy who slept with any and every girl. He had previously given Khushi a very long list of past flames as a joke, and she seemingly followed it up with the assertion that he’d fathered Aarav. I think Arnav linked the two and tried to reassure her that he wasn’t the kind of guy who had casual hookups.

Values and commitment

The typical audience for the serial is an Indian woman. And for cultural and religious reasons, this audience equates “commitment” with “marriage”. The idea that Arnav could’ve been committed and dedicated to the point of needing a level of emotional intimacy before engaging in physical intimacy seems to be completely alien to a majority of this audience.

He is either seen as someone who was too busy for sexual relationships, someone who went through the motions of a relationship without wanting or needing any aspects of it. Someone who was completely disinterested in women but let them hang around him for Reasons. But his behaviour with Lavanya never suggested this, in my opinion, so I don’t agree with it.

Or he is seen as a man-whore, someone who banged everything in a skirt (including and not limited to prostitutes), because a lack of belief in love and marriage must equate to a lack of respect for women and an inability to commit.

This is the sort of thinking that Khushi fell prey to. Maybe some part of the audience agreed with her when she argued for the merits of marriage to Lavanya but I think Khushi was laughably ignorant there. Because if the only thing preventing a man from trading a woman in for a younger model (or two!) is his marriage vows then there is something fundamentally wrong in that relationship, whether it is called marriage or not. And this serial is full of men to whom it did not matter any way.

I believe Arnav was a dedicated and committed partner, but that his definition of commitment did not include marriage. I believe he didn’t need the label of Husband, didn’t require his partner to be labelled a Wife, and I think it makes sense given his history.

If not love or marriage, what then was the point of Arnav’s relationships with Lavanya and Sheetal (and Lisa of the fur coat)? I’m not suggesting that every relationship needs to be sexual – many of them aren’t and that’s perfectly understandable – but it still defies logic, in my opinion, to assume that Arnav spent the entirety of his adult life engaged in relationships that weren’t satisfying to him in the ways he needed.

Are we suggesting that he was so starved of people fawning over him that he sought out a special person who’d fawn over him in private and at command?

[urfavmurtad]

I'm the same anon from before. I should probably just make a tumblr at this point. I promise I won't bug you after this. When I lived in Saudi Arabia (as a teenage girl) the religion teacher said that famous hadith about the prophet telling his niece to cover up was actually weak. She was saying this to convince us that the only true way was to cover our faces and hands as well. I said, if it's weak, why should we even cover our hair and arms? She wasn't happy about that.

You’re not bugging me at all anon, I enjoy it when people give me the opportunity to rant. And hijab/niqab rants are always fun. But feel free to make an account and commiserate with the rest of us!

Much like ARTPOP, your hijab can mean anything. Many Saudi ladies wear niqab in the belief that that was the original intent behind the hijab commandment. Though there are always weird-ass niqab revivalist movements, full-body coverings were more common in the past than the present. It’s not too hard to see why. I mean… look at this thing.

Jesus. Regardless, you are correct that what Allah actually wants women to cover is very… vague in the Quran itself. Your head and chest, yes, that seems obvious enough… but what else? (Arms aren’t even specifically mentioned tbh.)

The specific wording of the ayat have been debated for centuries because many of the terms used are just really unclear, and terms used in the ahadith on this topic are also unclear. Khimar in pre-Islamic Arabia appears to have just been a loose head covering worn to shelter people from the sun; the ayah in An-Nur seems to tell women to drape their khimar across their necks and collarbone area instead of just letting it hang down their backs, which sounds very much like the modern conception of hijab. That ayah’s other demand, to conceal one’s “adornments” (zinatan), has a broad range of interpretations ranging from jewelry to beauty in general. The other one, in Al-Ahzab, uses the word jilbab (big loose robe type thing) and it’s a tricky one, because no one knows exactly what Mohammed meant by it. Were women supposed to just drape a large, shapeless robe over themselves, somewhat like an abaya (which is how most people think of “jilbab” now), or were they supposed to completely cover themselves with it, like a niqab?

Your teacher may have had a point in saying that Mohammed meant for women to fully cover themselves, even if the Quran doesn’t explicitly say that. But to figure this out we must dive into the hive of villainy and scum that is the ahadith.

First of all, we have this old classic, the one you’re talking about which defines the aurah as everything but the face and hands, meaning that niqab is not necessary.

Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) wearing thin clothes. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to his face and hands.

It’s not actually weak, it’s sahih. It’s mursal… but that doesn’t impact whether it is strong or weak as long as all the narrators are reliable.

But we can ignore that and dive into the rest of the ahadith, since that’s what your teacher said to do.

There are ahadith like this one from Bukhari and this one from Abu Dawud that suggest that women actually made new garments upon “Allah” commanding them to cover up (in ayah 31 of An-Nur), instead of just using their existing scarves to cover more of themselves. The word in question in both ahadith,فاختمرن ‏ , is unclear. Many scholars believe it means they made face veils for themselves. Others say they just made khimars (headscarves).

But the pro-niqab interpretation is that it doesn’t make sense to believe that it “only” means that they made khimars to cover their hair, neck, and chest, because women would’ve just draped their scarves differently rather than made entirely new garments if that were the case.

As for the other ayah, about “lowering the jilbab”, we have this hadith saying that women looked like they had “crows on their heads” after it was revealed, and good lucking figuring out what the hell that’s supposed to mean. Does it just mean they were wearing black? Was it covering the top part of their face? We just don’t know.

There’s this other hadith about the jilbab in which Mohammed says that if you don’t have one handy, you have to share one with a friend of yours. Again, what does that mean? What does it look like to share a jilbab? Pulling a big cloth thing over your head, or both of you huddling under something that hides your whole body? We don’t know!

That’s why there is so much confusion over this topic. No one bothered to clarify a damn thing and talked in idioms whose meanings have long been forgotten, to the point that it’s hard to tell what the average women in Mohammed’s era actually dressed like. There are ahadith that make it seem like many women left their faces uncovered while perhaps only the upper-class women (like Mo’s wives) covered their faces. So maybe it was just a small minority thing, right? But then we know that Mohammed specifically said that women can’t fully cover themselves while in ihram, meaning a fair number did at other times!! Aaaaaa! Do you see what I mean about this being absurdly complicated?

I guess the best we can say here is that some women interpreted the command as “cover your faces”, while others did not, and Mohammed didn’t seem to say anything to either of them. He demanded women cover their head, neck, and chest, in addition to wearing a baggy outer robe that they pulled over their heads. And it seems many women went beyond that and covered their faces too, at least that’s the best I can do in interpreting the weird-ass ahadith about “crows on their heads” and shit. But we can’t say anything else for certain.

So I would personally say that while wearing hijab and a jilbab-style garment, something loose and flowy, is necessary, niqab is not obligatory. If Mohammed had wanted it to be obligatory, he should’ve clarified it. But it has still been one interpretation of the command to cover for a very, very long time. We know that many, and possibly the majority of early Muslims (at least in some places) interpreted as requiring niqab because it’s mentioned in historical sources, including the 801 AD Tongdian  by Du You of China, which states it’s from a Chinese captive from the Battle of Talas who lived in the Middle East around the 750s AD:

When a woman goes out in public, she must cover her face irrespective of her lofty or lowly social position. They perform ritual prayers five times a day. They eat meat, fast, and they regard the butchering of an animal as meritorious. 

To cap this off, I’d like to add that we know the specific occasion that made “Allah” demand women cover themselves. It’s…………. a lot.

As with many terrible things about Islam, the story of the clothing hijab (vs the whole curtain thing which is a separate tale) begins with everyone’s favorite sycophant, our friend the future Caliph Umar. Umar wants women, especially Mohammed’s wives, to be covered. He is practically obsessed with the idea, really. But Mohammed–I mean, “Allah”–is not demanding that the women cover themselves. Umar is very sad. And Umar has a plan to make Mohammed–I mean “Allah”–recognize the fact that the women really must be covered up. The story is recounted several places by Anas ibn Malik and Aisha, such as here and here in Bukhari:

Narrated `Aisha: The wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqi` at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. `Umar used to say to the Prophet (ﷺ) “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam`a the wife of the Prophet (ﷺ) went out at `Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. `Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab”

Sauda, who is large and tall, goes out to go to the bathroom. Umar is goddamn spying on her and calls out to her to embarrass her, saying “Hey! I see you taking a piss!!!”. She runs home, mortified, and tells Mohammed. The intended message to Mohammed was: “Hey Mohammed, I saw your giant wife pissing tonight. If only she were covered up from head to toe, maybe I wouldn’t have recognized her because she’d just, like, be a hunched-over anonymous blob. But I did see her, sorry bro.”

Mohammed is deeply concerned by this and accordingly Allah reveals the command for women to cover themselves around unrelated men. That means either niqab or something so baggy and shapeless that your body becomes impossible to see, depending on the interpretation.

I hate Umar so much. I should do a post about his dumb ass sometime.

Moral of the story, one of the initial interpretations of it was as a full covering but it was only because Umar was a dick. Don’t pay attention to Umar. Ameen.

[monotype-on-phantom]

wow your analyses are so detailed and well thought of! i enjoy reading them, especially since it's for a series that wasn't given nearly as much thought or detail when it was being produced. tbh it makes me wonder why is it that you're using your brain power and energy to deeply make sense of something that isn't really that deep or well thought of to begin with. I mean it guess its for your enjoyment and the wasted potential but.. does DP even deserve so much of your thought

Thank you! I put my best into them, and I like to think I’ve gotten better with time.

Hmm, now that’s a good point. Danny Phantom wasn’t ever that well thought out. It had a lot of great ideas and episodes, but a lot of things were never fully taken advantage of, and the show kind of stumbled around a lot. It never really figured out what it wanted to be.

But honestly, I think that’s exactly why it’s the perfect show to analyze. For starters, yeah, there’s the wasted potential. I can talk about different ideas for how things could’ve worked and what the show could’ve been. The fact that the show is flawed leaves room for a ton of interpretation and reimagination. Heck, even things like TUE, which I’ve been jokingly complaining about, has a ton of imagination and brilliant ideas that could’ve been explored more, and doing so is fun.

On top of that, discussing a flawed show with this much potential gives me the opportunity to talk about storytelling in a lot of different ways, both good and bad. In one episode I can talk about why the development was interesting and why the villain had a good setup and how great the dialogue was, and in another episode I can explain why those same things didn’t work. I can call attention to things like how Jazz was frequently brought into episodes to play smaller roles, which allowed her character to develop more gradually and keep her interesting. At the same time, I can talk about how Valerie was unfairly stuck on the shelf and why her development sadly didn’t work quite as well as a result.

There are much better shows out there. Ones that were made to be analyzed to death. Ones that have a ton of details thrown in that you might not notice on your first viewing, and there are lots of people who love digging through those shows to find everything.

The thing with those shows, though, is that they’re always going to be more straightforward than a mess like DP. In Gravity Falls, all the clues you’ll pick up lead to an actual answer. In Steven Universe, when specific animation, dialogue, or story choices are made, you know they’re deliberate and that they’re all going to lead to something. Even some of the really unlikable aspects of Lars’s character led to something amazing. In Avatar: The Last Airbender, you know there’s an end goal. The characters are on an actual mission. There’s one story being told there.

With DP, a lot of the “clues” and “story decisions” lead nowhere, and it’s hard to know sometimes whether an idea was intentional or not. There are so many ideas packed into it, but almost none of it was able to reach its full potential. Even things that did have some sort of plan behind them sometimes had to be tossed to the side.

By going through the show episode by episode like this, I can try to pick out those details that the writers themselves may have missed. I can point out opportunities, directions the show could’ve gone, and ways that good stories could’ve been improved. DP is a good show with a great show trying to get out.

That gives me so much more to talk about than a show that’s already great. It opens the path for a lot of interesting discussions, like ones I’ve already had on this blog. Different people can notice different things and think of different possibilities. There are so many different points of view, and these discussions could potentially help other writers with their own ideas, whether it be fanfiction or original stories. Heck, I know one of my followers tags a lot of my posts as “dp headcanons for my fic,” (which is super flattering btw.) People can read my ideas and build on that. A lot of the stuff I post on here came from me doing the same thing. I read an idea somewhere, and I built on that and came up with my own ideas.

So does DP deserve so much of my thought? Yeah, I think it does. Just because the original creators didn’t give it this much thought doesn’t mean I can’t, and a show like this leaves a lot more room to explore possibilities than anything much better shows give us. It allows us, the fans, to get creative with what the show presents to us. We get to dig deeper and find hidden gems that perhaps nobody else noticed before.

To me, that’s perhaps even more fun and more useful than trying to solve mysteries that really do have clear answers already.