#so much of it. different ways of it. to parse my best interpretations. it's so fun. erm anyways. enough talking. u dont get it probly

[dreamonminecraft]

Ok so u support dreamnap? Me as well but what are your thoughts bc ur extremely educated and well spoken

Okay first of all careful with the "well educated and well spoken" part. I'm 16 and trying my very best not to lose my mind. After four years in this fandom, I'm very well aware of how words can become violently misconstrued and everything is taken as the end of the world. I get it, parsing through information like this is difficult and trying to figure out where you stand is even harder- but don't take my words as final. Don't take anyone's. Consider your own thoughts and feelings against the evidence we all have and make up your own mind. That's part of the reason we're in this mess. That being said:

I think the largest factor here is that George and Caiti lived two very different experiences that night. I don't believe that George was attempting to get with her in any way- I don't think that any of the girls were invited to Dream's hotel room for any sexual reasons. I think from the first night they hung out Caiti was uncomfortable with the age gap and thought of George as weird, potentially flirty, and maybe untrustworthy. Neither Caiti or her friends liked Dream to begin with.

When they decided to go up to Dream's hotel room that night, Dream did not know how old Caiti was. Caiti says that George did. I don't know what their instagram dms were. However they interacted, they were all drunk and Caiti perceived George's actions to be sexual.

I think, based on how we know George to act when he's drunk (Sapnap's stories, Dream's stories, and the drunk banter episode) that he likely was touchy with whoever was around them that night. That doesn't invalidate what Caiti felt. She hasn't been around George much prior to this, certainly not while drunk, and she already felt like he was flirting with her. Whatever touching happened wasn't called out or even noticed by anyone in the room. Nobody remembers it happening except Caiti (and potentially George, but it's unlikely)

When she went to leave, she was already uncomfortable and then he followed her to the elevator. Benefit of the doubt, he was probably just going to walk her back to her hotel room, but she was very drunk and very uncomfortable, which he failed to recognize. The minute she told him no, he backed off and left her alone.

He likely did not interpret any of her signals that night, as she said they were all non-verbal until the elevator. He probably doesn't even remember it. We know that when George is drunk, he'll often sit on the laps of his friends (Sapnap) or hang on them (Karl) or even kiss them (Dream) but that's not okay to do with strangers.

This isn't a story about an abuse of power or age, but likely recognizing that some people just can't handle getting drunk. George is not good at reading people when he's sober, and can't be trusted not to trample on people's boundaries when he's drunk. Alcohol is not for everyone.

This is likely, hopefully, a one-off event. I believe that George's tweet yesterday was reactionary, as our first time seeing the allegations was likely also his first time hearing them. I doubt that he remembers the details of the night.

None of this is to abstract his fault. If Caiti was uncomfortable with any of his actions, he should have been able to recognize that and step away. The fact that he couldn't proves that he was too drunk and needs to reflect on his own problems with alcohol.

That being said, if what I think happened and what actually happened are the story that George explains when and if he goes live, and on the condition that Caiti believes him and accepts his apology, I will continue to support George.

I think there is a lot of growth that needs to happen in his own life. I think he's emotionally stunted, I think he uses alcohol in an unhealthy way, and I think he needs to come to terms with the fact that he hurt someone even if it was unintentional.

Lying will not get him out of this.

With all that said, I will continue to support dream and sapnap regardless of their reaction to this. Sapnap wasn't there. He has no part in this other than being George's friend. Dream didn't notice it when it happened and was never aware of any of it. He's been caught up unfairly in the allegations and I don't feel it's right to drop him over this, at least personally.

I don't think Dream or Sapnap will stop being friends with George. I think dream and George are more than friends and have completely built their lives around each other. I think sapnap's content is already mostly stand alone but dream has been his best friend for over a decade and George is such an integral part of that. I think it is naive to think George will be kicked out, and that doesn't mean that either of them are supporting a bad person, it just means they're being good friends.

Sometimes you have to be a good friend because somebody needs it. I don't know when George will go live and I don't know what he'll say, but I don't regret my time here regardless of what it is.

[lesbiandarvey]

she's so patronising to him though like a relationship like that would be so annoying. he doesn't need to be told what he feels and what to do about it every day. they're fine as besties but he doesn't want more

two questions: genuinely, im not trying to be snippy at all, is this in reference to something ive said? i checked my recent postings i couldn’t find anything?? and second, um you didn’t specify who you’re talking about .. im guessing donna and harvey on usa legal drama suits? im just gonna answer to the best of my ability, as if this is about donnaharvey which im like 90% sure it is?? okay

i mean, respectfully, i would certainly push back on the idea she “tells him what to do” cus she’s certainly his emotional intelligence like she tells him what hes thinking—or at least her interpretation of what he’s thinking. theres certainly evidence of that, the scene that comes to mind is its in late s3, and mike wants to leave to take the finance job, and harvey snaps at scottie, and donna (very gently) reprimands him for it, and she tells him he’s hurt not angry “you’re hurt and the anger covers the hurt, but i know you didn’t know that.” she definitely provides him with insight into his emotions, but in a way i would argue any friend would.

there’s also a scene from season 2(?) i think, where donna is trying to get harvey to pursue scottie and she tells him to his face “i know your mother hurt you but you need to get over it” or, in other words “sorry about your mommy issues but you need to grow the fuck up.” and again i think thats a perfectly reasonable thing to say as a friend to your friend—she sees him hurting and lonely and she can do something about it, all she needs to do is encourage him to seek out a relationship with a woman who loves him, i think that’s perfectly acceptable.

i really dont see how its patronizing in any way? i mean there are certainly a couple jokes like “men are so stupid lol” but nothing that has really stood out to me as anything different than 2010s network drama gender politics, and so few and far between i cant think of any specific instances off the top of my head.

second of all, to the best of my knowledge (having seen up to 6x05 atp), that all stops when he starts going to therapy. i cant think of a single instance after season 5 when she tells him what hes feeling (i mean maybe she does in seasons 7, 8 + 9 but i haven’t seen it so i cant say lol)

but from what ive seen, her telling him his emotions stops when he starts receiving therapy with a trained professional. and thats just healthy! yknow he no longer needs to be told what hes thinking because he’s learning more about himself and his reaction to trauma and how to be a more functionally stable adult. and after that is the only way he can keep and maintain a meaningful, productive relationship.

also, not to be crass but i 100% think harvey goes face down ass up when someone tells him what to do (especially if its mike or donna or jessica)

finally i do fully respectfully disagree that “theyre good as besties but he doesn’t want more” first of all, i think you might be confusing his repression and inability to parse his love for donna as a woman and his love for donna as a friend, as a lack of attraction. i think a) hes very repressed and messed up from his childhood so like, he can fuck people but loving people is a whole other story and b) he absolutely loves her as a friend, and i think he’s just boxed up his attraction and affection for her since they moved to pearson hardman 10(?) years ago.

second of all, gabriel macht and sarah rafferty you can tell has SOOOOO much fun together and they have so much chemistry, so i distrust any interpretation of donna and harvey that doesn’t think they wanna fuck each others brains out

what was i talking about? i dont think i have a closing statement, i just think donna and harvey’s relationship re:her telling him what to do is completely legitimate and follows a natural progression of two people trying to be healthy adults

[tavina-writes]

In the Confucianism Book of Conduct 礼记, it talked about 3 kinds of ‘revenges’

《礼记》《曲礼上》“父之仇弗与共戴天,兄弟之仇不反兵,交游之仇不同国。”

Killing of father cannot be in existence under the sky, meaning, must take revenge for the killing of one’s father.

I was reading about chinise culture and read that. So, in mdzs, jl was supposed to kill his father's murder, based on chinise philosophy? That's why he stabbed wwx? I am curious ( and if it is like that, his forgiveness is even more important to me, at least)

Also, if it's not too much, what's your opinion about one of the last jc's scene, where jc raises his hand and then doesn't hit jl? I've read a ton of meta (breaking the circle of abuse... When we know he has never hit jl!). The scene confuses me and I was wondering if maybe I lack cultural contest.

Nonny, I'm not entirely certain where the emotional disconnect is on JL stabbing WWX except for I guess protagonist goggles. Like this isn't even a matter of philosophy, Chinese characters and people are not a giant black hole of "well they're too different for us to understand using human emotions!" nor are Chinese characters and people a monolith of "philosophy" and "cultural practices" that cannot be parsed outside of the in group.

Basically I guess what I'm asking here is "if someone tragically orphaned a child at age (1) month and that child is now a 13 year old who had a sword would you understand why this child stabbed the person who orphaned them, yes or no." I doubt Jin Ling was quoting philosophy about how he had to get revenge for his dad at that moment and more just? having an understandable human reaction? We can argue until 2300 about if it was the "correct" and "moral" reaction or not, but imo it was....an emotional reaction...much like how lots of characters in American media have human and emotional reactions.

(Also the revenge genre is not a uh, wholly Chinese concept, as far as I know lots of cultures round the world including the French which produced The Count of Monte Cristo also have stories about how you should take revenge against those who have wronged you. See Inigo Montoya's "you killed my father, prepare to die" from The Princess Bride as well.)

Lots of other people have written about JC's last scene in much more detail and much more eloquently than I will be able to manage here after grad school has started to fry my brain, if there isn't a consensus there, it just means that lots of people interpret that scene in a variety of different ways! pick the one you like best! Lit analysis is not a one size fits all correct answer generator.

[tonydaddingham]

I would like to know how Neil's interpretation of a scene he didn't write as not being a sex metaphor somehow means he's suddenly decided Aziracrow aren't in love. With how much the Good Omens fandom insists that all headcanons are valid, why does Neil sharing his for one scene suddenly mean he needs to be tricked and bullied into having Crowley and Aziraphale kiss or be otherwise romantic?

Is it because he said a dramatic last ditch attempt at communication in the form of a completely non-sexy kiss is just that? He didn't say it wasn't a romantic kiss, he said it was a non-sexual kiss. He said, to him, the oxrib scene was not a sexual metaphor. He has not said, anywhere, that Aziraphale and Crowley are not romantically in love.

Neil does not need to be bullied or tricked by Michael and David or anyone else to make Crowley and Aziraphale be and show they are in love. He's doing a remarkable job of making them that way all on his own.

hi anon!!!✨ okay, so ive pondered over this ask, and i can't quite parse out from the tone if you might be generally asking/ranting, or if you believe that im - put simply - anti-neil in this whole discourse fiasco? because if it's the latter, i'll happily share my personal thoughts on the matter as to why that is definitely not the case. initially, just to support my point, take a look at my tags on this and this post, because that will give you a little flavour as to my opinion.

essentially, i completely agree with you. first, for full disclosure - i know that there have been quite a few comments that neil has made (in interviews, tweets etc) over the years that have fed into this discourse that i do not have receipts for; so anyone that wants me to take these into account, please feel free to send me them.

okay, now i'll try and summarise my thoughts on this (and some may repeat points you have very rightly - imo - already made):

good omens, and in particular the show, is very diverse, and inclusive. it is a triumph in this respect. specifically, i think aziraphale and crowley's story has been written very cleverly and quite sensitively to provide or reflect representation for a wide array of sexualities, gender identifications, and in general queer experiences.

my second main thought is that there is a difference between author/writer original intent, author/writer interpretation of their own work (retrospectively, as a consumer or critic in their own right), and audience interpretation. none of them have to perish for others to exist; they can exist together, even if they can conflict each other in their conclusion/s. the best stories imo are those that can be read multiple ways.

the ox-scene in ep2 (and im also going to lump 40s minisode in this too... plus multiple other specific Acting Choices throughout the season) can be interpreted sexually. i don't think there are two ways about it, it definitely can. it may not be the author's intent (bearing in mind, whilst likely overseen by neil, ACtO was written by john) to write it sexually, but the direction/acting choices are, i think, undeniably sexual in subtext and tone.

that being said, whether or not this is what the writers had in mind when writing the episode (and im not saying they absolutely did, im not psychic), the literal written narrative is not sexual at all. it's crowley tempting aziraphale into eating, an earthly pleasure that we know aziraphale later enjoys. it is therefore perfectly reasonable for some people, i imagine particularly those that are aspec, to read this scene non-sexually. whether metaphorical for sex or just a complete mukbang on aziraphale's part, i read it as an uncomfortable, intimate, eldritch-like scene. all interpretations are correct, and none are wrong. it caters for many.

the kiss scene is, to my mind, not particularly romantic, and it's certainly not sexual. crowley meant it out of love, no doubt, and hand-in-hand with that love, out of desperation and as an 'everything else has failed' way of communicating. i personally read it as a temptation, as something desperate but almost on the cusp of being possessive and cruel - thats my personal opinion/interpretation. i'll be completely honest, i don't personally see how anyone can possibly read this scene as sexual (imo kisses are not and should not be gatekept by those that are sex-inclined), but where someone does, id be happy to learn why, to try to understand that interpretation. the romantic element is a little more questionable - technically speaking, yes, it probably is romantic, and i do understand how/why people read it as that, but for me it isn't.

the story in totality is however, to my mind, romantic; in my opinion, there is love of the romantic kind between aziraphale and crowley. furthermore, neil has stated that that is the writer's intent; he intends for it to be romantic.

taking the writer intent out of the equation however, for a moment, admittedly i think their story even throughout s2 could be seen as very lovingly platonic, right up until the kiss. but even then - as I said before - the kiss for me doesn't read as completely romantic. i think one could argue that crowley just simply saw it as something he could do because 'humans do it!'. the script itself doesn't confirm outright it is romantic - it strongly alludes to it, sure, but there has been no indisputable declaration of romantic love. therefore (whilst, again, i do not personally think this to be the case - i do see romantic love here) it is entirely possible to interpret the narrative, text and subtext, in completely different ways and those interpretations still be valid.

where the story, and their relationship itself, goes and concludes is unknown. they could have multiple kisses of the romantic variety in s3, or they may never kiss again. they could just hug, or hold hands. they could have a full-on sex scene, or potentially have a scene that could be interpreted as leading to one. they could even have a conversation about being willing to try sex, another human experience, but agree that if neither of them like it, they don't do it again (but will still love each other), and the conclusion is left purposefully ambiguous. there may be a love confession, an outright declaration, or something could be said in a subtle way such that can be interpreted as both platonic and romantic.

i agree that neil doesn't need to be bullied by anyone into writing the story he's going to write... there will however be jokes about it, mainly from the hyperbolic perspective of michael being quite vocal that he too sees aziraphale as being in love with crowley. michael has admitted (jokingly? professional research?) to reading fanfiction that helped inform him on this personal confirmation, and this may have informed him on his acting. there are some of us that joke about the 'feral-ness that is michael in being hellbent on getting a sex scene' etc., and i know some have taken that joke further in saying that michael should essentially campaign for one, but i think we can all safely say that neil will write what he writes, and michael will continue to play aziraphale absolutely perfectly, and according to the script and direction offered to him. they are professionals, colleagues, and im fairly certain are definitely friends; the jokes are jokes (on this blog at least, anyway).

final point; i think neil has a fairly difficult task - whether he actively pays a deliberate mind to this or not, or it just comes naturally - in continuing to write a story that can be representative of everyone. he has his intent, sure, and his later own interpretation, but he has provided something amazing; characters and a story that is supernatural in setting, but entirely human in nature. that can speak to so many people, of so many different walks of life. that everyone can see a bit of themselves in these characters, can recognise parts of them in their own spirit. sees them go through decisions and experiences and joy and pain that each of us have at some point probably encountered ourselves.

that balancing act - again, whether he purposefully does pay this any mind or not - cannot be easy. i do not personally see him as homophobic for what he said in that tweet. i do not personally think he has queerbaited, or led anyone on to think that the characters/narrative is something that it's not. that's my opinion, and i fully respect that others will have theirs (and id be happy to hear them!), but i think he is respectful that people will have their individual interpretations, and leave it at that. he may even agree with some of them - he has said that he has liked metas etc based on merit and effort, out of respect too i imagine, but not necessarily as a veritable stamp of approval that the post agrees outright with his original intent or personal interpretation.

in any case - why would he agree to one interpretation if that could mean that that could upset someone else with a different one? that's not fair on anyone, so i think it's more than fair that he sticks to confirming what he intended in what he wrote, and not comment on how it should be interpreted. its because of this - brass tacks time - that i think any questions about interpretation should be kept out of his askbox... sure, ask about what is literally in the script, or what physically happens on screen, or background 'canon' info, but don't ask him for how you should interpret it, because i think it's fair to say he is only ever going to give back his original intention, or how he personally interprets it.

that doesn't automatically mean that he thinks any other interpretation is ridiculous or inaccurate, or not valid; everyone else's interpretation can exist at the same time too. he might disagree privately, but that's up to him - same as the rest of us✨

[bouncykhotchillipeppers]

I did my first astrology reading for Baekhyun four years ago, and now I’m doing a second natal chart reading with more insights!

✦ Disclaimer

I do not know him personally, no harm intended, others may interpret differently. I’ve been studying astrology for six years, and I take this seriously and try my best. Feel free to ask any questions you have!

✦ Note

Astrology is complex and difficult to explain, please ask for clarification if you need it. I will not be discussing parents, family, or earlier life to preserve some privacy. This is not a full chart reading, just some highlights I found to be fascinating.

✦ Ascendant and Moon in Gemini (First House)

The Ascendant is the lens through which someone views the world—it’s your perception of your reality—and any planets in contact with the Ascendant affect it. The Ascendant and First House are the beginning of someone—it’s partially how people perceive them, and it shows the world “this is who I am.” Gemini is playful and chaotic and indecisive, concerned with making connections within their immediate surroundings. Having his Ascendant in Gemini therefore makes his chart ruler his Mercury in Aries, which is direct and blunt and to the point. All of this seems to overpower his Sun in Taurus. It’s why he can come across as brash and exuberant and, to put it bluntly, the most unhinged person in the room at all times. Connections are easy; boundaries are not.

Moon in Gemini here is interesting because Gemini is so logical while the Moon presides over emotion. He wears his heart on his sleeve. He’s like an emotion sponge. He is highly aware of the atmosphere in the room at any given time and reacts accordingly, though maybe not appropriately. This mix of Mercury and Mars in Aries combined with Moon and Ascendant in Gemini creates someone approachable, a moodmaker, a trusting balance of logic and emotion. Gemini Moons are restless and need to talk through their emotions in order to get their point across; connection to the immediate surroundings is the root of emotion. It’s how we parse through our feelings. Our minds need to be constantly active with something or we get bored and boredom is the most terrible thing because it leads to overthinking, so these are the people keeping four conversations going at once while playing a video game and also thinking about the chores they are definitely not doing. It’s fickle and petty and childish and eternally curious.

Jupiter square Ascendant exacerbates plenty of these qualities in him, but since Jupiter is in Virgo, where it’s detriment, it doesn’t act the way it’s supposed to. He remains humble when he should be outgoing, his sense of identity is compromised, his overconfidence leads to stepping across a boundary he shouldn’t have, his enthusiasm overrides his sense.

Optimistic, but not illogical. He’s thinking about a lot more than he lets on to others not because he has to but because it’s all he knows how to do.

✦ IC in Leo, Jupiter in Virgo (Fourth House)

IC in Leo is intense. He needs to learn, fundamentally at his core, to be himself. Individuality is important.

Jupiter is lovingly placed in Fourth House and accidentally exalted. As long as he is not confined in his home (literally or metaphorically) and has the creativity and expression to be himself, he will be content. He very much works on his inner self and his inner world and re-emerges with new ideas and philosophies about these things. He consistently sees himself as a new person in this regard. (With Sun opposite Pluto, this also emphasizes this “transformation” of the self and how he won’t always have the same opinions or ideals as he once had. That Taurus is stubborn, though.) This placement gives him a sort of practical optimism—the Virgo being practical, the Jupiter being optimistic. Not to say he’s happy all the time, but rather he attempts to take an optimistic viewpoint rather than be a downer about it.

Going on a tangent for a moment and focusing on a specific aspect pattern called a Thor’s Hammer, which involves two sesquiquadrates and a square, forming a triangle. A sesquiquadrate is a square (90°) and a semisquare (45°) stacked on top of each other, creating planets that are 135° apart. I’ve included a highlighted picture of his chart to show what I’m referencing here. This Thor’s Hammer involves Jupiter (expansion) at the apex locked in with Mercury (communication) and a Uranus-Neptune (rebellion, transcendence) conjunction square. This pattern is rare, rare enough that I’ve only seen a couple of other charts have this out of thousands, and trying to find any information on it is nigh impossible. This is what I have gathered and interpreted. So basically what is happening is that this Leo House, this expansive Fourth House, is being forced to fight back against something. This creates someone who does not like to conform, who does not like to listen to the rules, who does not react well to discipline from authoritative figures in any way. And it’s just hell. It’s hell to have this. It’s an extremely difficult aspect pattern to have and to overcome. And whoever has this aspect cannot receive any outside help because that is what it’s doing—it’s fighting or rebelling against the outside. It needs to be overcome in an internal way. Mercury is locked in tension with Uranus and Neptune, and all three of them are unleashing that tension onto Jupiter with no holds barred.

It’s a powerful weapon. It’s called Thor’s Hammer for a reason—strength, survival, an ultimate drive to achieve something great. He is in a constant internal battle with something to prove, and embracing it is key to success, but learning to wield that metaphorical hammer, let alone embrace it, is a challenge.

Mercury is driving and logical, and when it’s in square with Uranus, that creates someone who thinks outside of the box with wild ideas most people aren’t ready to hear. Adding Jupiter into this mix expands it and cranks the efficacy up, but Neptune is like a higher frequency of Jupiter and is rather universal and often distorts reality. It’s like he has two deeply rational planets, Mercury and Uranus, battling against the planets that are deeply emotive and based purely on vibes. All of this bottled up tension needs an outlet: Venus, the planet of worth, placed in a trine with Jupiter, is what is helping him overcome this insane aspect pattern in his chart. As long as he has this outlet, as long as he has worth and connection with others, he’s able to learn to overcome the extreme energy he has here. He loses that and it won’t be pretty.

✦ Pluto in Scorpio (Sixth House)

Pluto is an incredibly important planet in his chart simply due to the fact that there are so many aspects to it.

Pluto in Sixth House is a powerful placement. Literally. Pluto represents power in a general sense as well as everything related to the “underworld” of society, including taboos, death, paranoia, and transformation. Sixth House is complex but generally presides over service and health. This is different than the Tenth House of social status and career—Sixth House is more focused on coworkers and the job itself rather than society or public persona. This is how we connect with the world around us, how one explores the relationship between oneself and the external.

He is, to put it bluntly, obsessed with his job. He has an interesting combination of extreme work ethic (Pluto in Sixth House), tendency toward relaxation (Sun in Taurus), and the need to do everything as soon as possible (Mars in Aries). However he reacts depends on the situation at hand. Hopefully he’s able to accomplish some balance and order in this regard.

I covered his Sun-Saturn-Pluto T-square before but will restate it. If you have any sort of Sun-Saturn-Pluto aspect yourself, you will understand. Overall, the Sun represents the self, Saturn represents authority, and Pluto represents power. Now, make all of these attributes very similar to each other (fixed signs), but make them resent each other (square and opposition aspects), and then force them to get along. Three unbreakable planets in three unbreakable signs (two of which are domicile, or at their most powerful) is actually kind of terrifying, and honestly I would see this in the chart of someone who’s a very serious person. However, I could also see this in the chart of someone who has a balance of when to be serious and when to destroy that seriousness and just be yourself. I see the latter more in him. Because Pluto is transformative, the way he views himself changes quite often. This whole aspect almost has a…chameleon-like quality to it. He is the person to go to if you want support. He knows when to hold his ground on his beliefs and when to follow the rules. He knows his strengths and weaknesses and others’ as well, and Saturn keeps Pluto’s power-hungry side in check. He's a reluctant leader, but a good one. And with his Gemini Moon in 1H, that makes him even better because communication and connections are the most effective ways to get through to him as he can empathize well. He feels like it’s his duty for others to get along. For some more perspective, this aspect can also make him suspicious of others’ intentions (see: the story of how he was scouted). Though he’s a Taurus, the world isn’t all flowers and sunshine, and he’s not afraid to admit that. The Mercury quincunx Pluto aspect makes him a rapid-fire and witty debater, though susceptible to misinterpretation, and this as well makes him naturally suspicious of people and their intentions.

I will also mention that with Sun opposite Pluto in the 6-12 House axis, there is a tendency to martyr himself for the greater cause. Uranus and Neptune along with his Eleventh House Mercury and Mars will emphasize “the greater cause,” whatever that may mean to him.

✦ Descendant in Sagittarius

The Descendant is an interesting point that is referenced less often than the Ascendant but no less important. It’s what we are ineffably drawn to, what we hope to find in other people, what is hidden within ourselves that we need to uncover through the companionship of another person. Associated with the sign of Libra, it’s concerned with balancing the self and the individual other, how one on one interactions occur.

With this in Sagittarius, he hopes to find belief in others. Sagittarius is concerned with higher learning, whether that is religion, philosophy, secondary education, foreign travel, languages. How does one implement meaning and significance into the mundane? Optimism is simple enough to come by for him, but it is finding meaning that he feels he lacks in and hopefully attracts to him.

✦ Uranus Rx and Neptune Rx in Capricorn (Eighth House)

Being naturally suspicious of others can be a good thing in some regard. Eighth House is connected with the sign of Scorpio and the planet Pluto. It mainly deals with one on one transactions with others.

READ THE FINE PRINT. Neptune in Eighth House creates vast confusion and delusions around business dealings and contracts. He will get strokes of luck in this department simply because of the Sagittarius influence, but he definitely can’t rely on that to get him out of every situation. Accidental luck is accidental and isn’t predictable. He’s able to get himself out of tricky situations with strokes of luck, but he really should plan everything thoroughly before continuing forward with something drastic or life-changing.

✦ Midheaven and Saturn in Aquarius (Tenth House)

He is deeply aware of how others perceive him… Saturn placed here gives a stable career—albeit with a few bumps along the road with that Aquarian influence. Good sense of judgment. Once again very concerned with duty and his public persona is important to maintain. He needs meaning to his work, specifically meaning that would benefit others before himself in typical Aquarian fashion.

✦ Mercury and Mars in Aries (Eleventh House)

That Mars in 0° Aries makes him extremely determined, willing to be the first to try anything new. Driving, forward personality, very involved with whatever his friends or other groups of people are doing. He loves teamwork. He puts heart into everything he does, and it’s all or nothing.

I’ve already talked about Mercury a fair amount, but Mercury is a little goofy when placed here…he simply will not stop talking.

✦ Sun and Venus in Taurus (Twelfth House)

Sun in Twelfth House is interesting simply because of the unknowable nature of this House. Twelfth tends to scare people when talked about—Twelfth is the House of self-undoing. It’s concerned with the collective, the whole, the universe, and boundaries between the self and others are virtually nonexistent when the egotistic Sun is placed here. This, along with Moon in First House, creates the perfect situation of “I can be anyone you want me to be.” Whatever your ideal is, he will fit it. Whatever your perception of him is, he will be it. Though that IC in Leo craves that individuality, it can be difficult to supplant that with a shifting identity and sense of self. Sun trine Neptune exacerbates this, Sun trine Uranus helps to fight against this, all of these in earth signs creates a steadier sense of self.

Venus placed here creates a fair amount of delusion toward others, idealistically placing them on a pedestal and ignoring the warning signs. He does have Venus trine Jupiter in Virgo, though, which creates a romantic realist. He adores and idolizes others, but the critical Virgo will come through and give him a dose of reality every so often. Stability is important to him.

✦ Words of advice to him

It is okay to relax. Follow your own path. Despite the obstacles you face, you have the determination and the resources to follow through. Listen to that natural suspicion and gut instinct above all else because it will lead you where you need to go. Help will appear when you need it most.

Thank you for reading! I hope you enjoyed any insights this provided.

Cross-posted on Twitter.

[rebelpeas]

Okay so I’m back, what is a way I could do this I’ve never really written cabinetduo much but I really like their dynamic, I want to stay away from weird things. How do u write yours? I’ve seen a few different take from other authors before but I don’t want to make it overly confusing

i’m a little sleepy so this answer might not be the best. first off: i am not the headcanon police, nor am i the boss of every cabinetduo enjoyer ever. you can write whatever take you like. “weird things” is a hugely subjective term, too, so i have a hard time parsing what exactly it means.

that being said! i write cabinetduo a lot of ways. i have written them a lot. you can scroll my ao3 if you’re not familiar, but basically everything from stepbrothers (devil town) to shared trauma found family (footnotes) to a gas station employee and the kid who drove him to the emergency room (bigfoot au). that’s the beauty of fanfic - there’s no one “right way” to interpret the characters. mix and match your favorite elements from canon with new things. reinterpret stuff in whatever setting you want. go wild.

( kinda off topic but this has made me realize that i actually only have one fic where cabinetduo are the focus and also fully brothers, and it’s unposted. in that au, schlatt and quackity are married, which does technically make schlatt tubbo’s brother in law. now there’s a dynamic nobody talks about. )

[tarot-rookie]

Hello!

May I ask for a love forecast, just to see what will be upcoming in my love life.

Also, I love the decks you use! I also dabble in tarot and was wondering if you had a preference for one deck over the other, as I find when I read different decks they have their own, "personalities." I would love to know your opinion.

And thanks in advance 💛!

Ah thank you! I love my decks so much and i totally agree, they do have different personalities! I prefer the rider waite tarot and the tarot of the golden wheel the most but i also own the star spinner tarot and the hermetic tarot. Star spinner is a little tough to parse sometimes but its v good for every day stuff, while the hermetic deck is a goddamn beast xD its super hard to interpret and often has v harsh card descriptions. They are all gorgeous though. I find the decks that are most based on the rider waite deck are the easiest to read. Which makes them my favorite i guess haha

Anyway a love prognosis for youuu

So looks to me that your future partner will be a student of some sort, a dedicated apprentic. They wont come soon though, youre gonna have to wait a bit. Im seeing the motif of war and defense here, perhaps youre gonna have to fight tooth and nail for the two of you to be together - as in, there will be a lot of things standing in your way, maybe a long distance relationship or disapproving relatives. Anyway best of luck!

[sublime-beyond-loss]

My Thoughts On Having Run The ‘Keeping The Narrator Company’ Livestream

As we enter the final days of the livestream, which you can find here: https://www.youtube.com/user/MyLittleCoward09/videos

I wanted to put some of my thoughts down for posterity. I was going to wait until the last day or so of the stream to post this, but I don't have any faith in my PS4 to hold out so I figured it was best to get this out now, just in case. This is going to be a long post so TLDR: That Ultra Can Deluxe.

What was the actual point of this stream? Why did I do something so odd and pretty dang unwise? Well, to get it, you kinda have to actually like the Narrator as a character, which a lot of people don't. I've seen so many people go along with the initial joke and skip button him into oblivion without picking up on the existential horror of it at all, and others do it intentionally because they just don't like him. For me, I was troubled by the way the game forces you to go through with it, so I thought, why not commit to doing the opposite for awhile? 

When you pull back the jokes and all of the existential dread talk, I think, at the end of the day, this stream was meant to bring some small sense of hope to an incredibly bleak part of this silly game. I don't believe that's consciously why I started it, but that is what it ended as. I did originally start this largely as a joke when I needed to go into quarantine after I caught a certain virus, despite being fully vaxxed, but then the existential dread kicked in and I tried to embrace that as an experiment.

As I ruminated on some things, as was bound to happen while doing this, I came to understand more and more why this scene got to me in the way that it did. As it so often does, The Stanley Parable tends to mockingly hold a mirror up to your face, and I saw so much of myself in this scene. I hated that there was nothing I could do to stop the self-destruction brought about by insecurity, couched in humor and exaggerated ego, until it was not, which I immediately picked up on the first time I played this scene, long before it started to spiral out of control into pure horror. 

I struggle with criticism and parsing out what is valid criticism and what is just someone being flippant in their critique, and I speak of this both from the perspective of a writer and just as a person. I've done an incredible amount of harm to myself trying to please others and so often at the expense of myself. I'm still working on undoing all of that damage and learning how to just be me without the shame others instilled in me. So, yeah, I find the whole thing a bit relatable.

It was a bit of a gut punch that the game forces you to partake in this character's self-destructive insecurities and that there's nothing you can do about it, because let's face it, absolutely no one was going to avoid pushing forward in this game they just bought, no matter how hard the game tries to make you feel bad about it. There's a million different ways to interpret how this scene ends for the Narrator and what the epilogue implies for him too, but I won't get into any of it or else we'd be here forever. In the end, I decided that I was going to shake my fist in defiance of the whole thing for a little while, even if it was always going to be in vain. 

That's not to say I hate the skip button scene, not at all. I think it's one of the best pieces of writing to come out of the The Stanley Parable, and I wouldn't have put my PS4 at risk otherwise, but I do dislike the inescapable hopelessness of it. So I made my own hope. Aggressive compassion and silliness in the face of a cruel and unyielding outcome. Hell, if you really want to get meta with it, I even gave the version of the Narrator who wanted me to be consumed by this mentality the peace of mind he so badly needed lol.

I've been in a deep depression for awhile now, and as stupid as it sounds, this game really helped to pull me out of it for the time being. I laughed and had fun and it had been so long since anything made me feel so happy. And then, shortly after that, it became one of those autistic hyperfixations of mine, and as any autistic person can tell you, there is nothing that feels quite so good as having a new obsessive interest to completely engulf yourself in. It has been a very, very long time since this has happened for me, probably well over a decade at this point. I think this stream was a way for me to hold on to this feeling for a little while longer and have a great time with it before it passes. It has become such a rare and fleeting thing for me now and this may very well be the last time I experience it.

Aside from that, this stream was a way for me to express myself and put myself out there after having been so withdrawn for so long. It was a way for me to be my weird, wonderful self with a devil-may-care attitude and with no shame involved, despite the occasional self-deprecating humor. Most would consider this a stupid, tedious, pointless thing to do, but I had fun, and that's all that matters in the end. I fully expected this stream to just be me with the occasional person popping in to tell me what an idiot I am, so I never expected that it would gain a bunch of regulars who understood what the stream was meant to represent. Thanks for helping me keep the Narrator company.

[thelesbiancitizen]

Reexamining Adrienne Rich’s essay “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” —

and why I think it is important for radical feminists to grasp Rich’s true message.

I’ve talked before about how Adrienne Rich’s theory of compulsory heterosexuality is woefully misinterpreted in contemporary feminist spaces, especially among young women. I think it’s quite a shame, because what she had to say is, in my opinion, incredibly relevant. And I think it’s about time we understand what she was really saying.

Compulsory heterosexuality is an incredibly complex and radical idea that has gotten watered down and misinterpreted over and over again by various groups of people. I’m not sure why, but I think it might be because Rich was mainly a poet. Her writing is prose-like, it’s a bit obscure, it is poetic   — which is part of its strength, but it also leaves room for misinterpretation because it’s not scholarly. It lacks the precise language used by academics, which again, is both a strength and a weakness. It’s difficult to glean the meaning of the essay from just taking out a sentence, or a paragraph. The entire essay needs to be read and analyzed as a whole. Her message is pretty difficult to parse out into little edible soundbites because she’s taking on a Goliath of a topic. I will attempt to illuminate her main points here, as best as I have understood them.

Here is part of her foreword:

“I want to say a little about the way “Compulsory Heterosexuality” was originally conceived and the context in which we are now living. It was written in part to challenge the erasure of lesbian existence from so much of scholarly feminist literature, an erasure which I felt (and feel) to be not just anti-lesbian, but anti-feminist in its consequences, and to distort the experience of heterosexual women as well. It was not written to widen divisions but to encourage heterosexual feminists to examine heterosexuality as a political institution which disempowers women—and to change it.”

Going off of that, I think it’s important to recognize that compulsory heterosexuality is meant to be part of a paradigm. That is, it is meant to be a model, a way of looking at patterns. It is not meant to be applied to an individual or an individual relationship. One alone is not “affected by compulsory heterosexuality”; it is a theory applied to a culture. The culture itself is heterosexual.

When you divorce a term from its wider theory, you lose some of the esoteric definitions that are specific to that theory. Rich uses many such esoteric terms in the essay, working with her own definitions. It’s important to keep that in mind, because as soon as you take the term out of the essay, it loses its context. When Rich talks about heterosexuality, she is not simply talking about a person who is exclusively opposite-sex attracted. She is speaking of heterosexuality as an institution. When she is speaking of lesbians she uses the terms “lesbian existence” and “lesbian continuum”  — which are controversial and quite radical even today  — to mean any woman who is aligned with other women. More on that later. Rich’s main complaint and reason for writing the essay is that her feminist contemporaries were “[taking] as a basic assumption that the social relations of the sexes are disordered and extremely problematic, if not disabling, for women”, and that they failed to acknowledge the reality of lesbian existence as a possible “path towards change”. “In none of them is the question ever raised as to whether, in a different context or other things being equal, women would choose heterosexual coupling and marriage; heterosexuality is presumed the “sexual preference” of “most women,” either implicitly or explicitly.” Now it seems a lot of people just stopped reading there and didn’t get to the rest of the essay because that’s how a lot of people interpret it, without getting into the guts of Rich’s ideas; that compulsory heterosexuality is, for example, simply just a lesbian thinking she’s straight. But this is what she says next: “In none of these books, which concern themselves with mothering, sex roles, relationships, and societal prescriptions for women is compulsory heterosexuality ever examined as an institution powerfully affecting these, or the idea of “preference” or “innate orientation” even indirectly questioned.” THIS is the crux of her theory. Heterosexuality as an institution which affects all women. The main point of controversy, I believe, lies in Rich’s use of her terms “lesbian continuum” and “lesbian existence”. She is using esoteric definitions here again, which when divorced from the context, are rather confusing. This is where her lesbian-feminist roots come into play and this is what seems to alienate liberal feminists and radical feminists alike. By Rich’s definition, any relationship between two women where no men are involved could be said to be a kind of lesbian relationship, which exists basically on a continuum of platonic to erotic. That includes mothers and daughters, female friends, sisters, lovers, which comprise a “lesbian existence”. Within lesbian-feminist literature, this isn’t a particularly unusual perspective. But it’s important to keep this in mind when analyzing the essay. She is not working with the mainstream definition of the word “lesbian”. 

In her words:

“I have chosen to use the term lesbian existence and lesbian continuum because the word lesbianism has a clinical and limiting ring. Lesbian existence suggests both the fact of the historical presence of lesbians and our continuing creation of the meaning of that existence. I mean the term lesbian continuum to include a range—through each woman’s life and throughout history—of women-identified experience, not simply the fact that a woman has had or consciously desired genital sexual experience with another woman. If we expand it to embrace many more forms of primary intensity between and among women, including the sharing of a rich inner life, the bonding against male tyranny, the giving and receiving of practical and political support, if we can also hear it in such associations as marriage resistance and the “haggard” behavior identified by Mary Daly (obsolete meanings: “intractable,” “willful,” “wanton,” and “unchaste,” “a woman reluctant to yield to wooing”), we begin to grasp breadths of female history and psychology which have lain out of reach as a consequence of limited, mostly clinical, definitions of lesbianism.”

Rich then quotes a passage from Kathleen Barry’s Female Sexual Slavery, which I think is integral to understanding the essay:

“As sexual power is learned by adolescent boys through the social experience of their sex drive, so do girls learn that the locus of sexual power is male. Given the importance placed on the male sex drive in the socialization of girls as well as boys, early adolescence is probably the first significant phase of male identification in a girl’s life and development. . . . As a young girl becomes aware of her own increasing sexual feelings . . . she turns away from her heretofore primary relationships with girlfriends. As they become secondary to her, recede in importance in her life, her own identity also assumes a secondary role and she grows into male identification.”

This is the effect of compulsory heterosexuality; the turning away from female relationships and “casting of one’s social, political, and intellectual allegiances with men.” This is how compulsory heterosexuality ends up affecting heterosexual and bisexual women, too. Rich suggests that all women are socialized to minimize the importance of woman-to-woman relationships, and are encouraged to devalue any relationship that does not include a man. This renders lesbian existence (remember that term?) invisible to society. This includes all relationships on the lesbian continuum, i.e. between females: emotional or physical, regardless of the women’s sexual orientations, and even the inner relationship to the self. This, of course, most profoundly affects lesbians, who have no primary relationships involving men at all. While heterosexual and bisexual women’s lives and relationships are distorted by male identification caused by compulsory heterosexuality, lesbian women are completely erased from the picture. She quotes Barry again on what male identification means for women:

The effect of male identification means “internalizing the values of the colonizer and actively participating in carrying out the colonization of one’s self and one’s sex. . . . Male identification is the act whereby women place men above women, including themselves, in credibility, status, and importance in most situations, regardless of the comparative quality the women may bring to the situation. . . . Interaction with women is seen as a lesser form of relating on every level.”

She goes on to illuminate the “many layers” of the lie of compulsory heterosexuality. She notes how the invisibility of woman-to-woman relationships is compounded for Black women and is even more profound for Black lesbians. She quotes Black lesbian-feminist critic, Lorraine Bethel, who “remarks that for a Black woman— already twice an outsider—to choose to assume still another “hated identity” is problematic indeed. Yet the lesbian continuum has been a life line for Black women both in Africa and the United States”:

“Black women have a long tradition of bonding together . . . in a Black/women’s community that has been a source of vital survival information, psychic and emotional support for us. We have a distinct Black women-identified folk culture based on our experiences as Black women in this society; symbols, language and modes of expression that are specific to the realities of our lives. . . . Because Black women were rarely among those Blacks and females who gained access to literary and other acknowledged forms of artistic expression, this Black female bonding and Black woman-identification has often been hidden and unrecorded except in the individual lives of Black women through our own memories of our particular Black female tradition.”

Rich also mentions how a focus on female relationships is often ridiculed or written off. In a heterosexual culture,  woman-identification is not seen as turning toward women but rather turning away from men, and is often framed as a hysterical overreaction or is otherwise pathologized:

“Another layer of the lie is the frequently encountered implication that women turn to women out of hatred for men. Profound scepticism, caution, and righteous paranoia about men may indeed be part of any healthy woman’s response to the misogyny of male-dominated culture, to the forms assumed by “normal” male sexuality, and to the failure even of “sensitive” or “political” men to perceive or find these troubling. Lesbian existence is also represented as mere refuge from male abuses, rather than as an electric and empowering charge between women.”

So there is much more to compulsory heterosexuality than the common definition that is passed around today’s feminist and LGBT spaces. It is imperative to read the entire essay to get a full understanding of this complex theory. The term has become so simplified and reduced to mean something that it does not. It often is simply equated to the idea of heteronormativity, when it is much more complicated and layered than that. And it’s much more radical, too. Quite radical. The context of Rich’s writing is of vital importance and when “compulsory heterosexuality” is stripped away from the vocabulary she used, it becomes rather useless as a term. She never meant for it to describe individuals or individual relationships. It’s meant to describe heterosexuality as a form of cultural hegemony.

So why does this matter, and why am I spending my time writing this post about compulsory heterosexuality in 2021? I will let Rich’s words speak:

“Woman identification is a source of energy, a potential springhead of female power, curtailed and contained under the institution of heterosexuality. The denial of reality and invisibility to women’s passion for women, women’s choice of women as allies, life companions, and community, the forcing of such relationships into dissimulation and their disintegration under intense pressure have meant an incalculable loss to the power of all women to change the social relations of the sexes, to liberate ourselves and each other. The lie of compulsory female heterosexuality today afflicts not just feminist scholarship, but every profession, every reference work, every curriculum, every organizing attempt, every relationship or conversation over which it hovers. It creates, specifically, a profound falseness, hypocrisy, and hysteria in the heterosexual dialogue, for every heterosexual relationship is lived in the queasy strobe light of that lie. However we choose to identify ourselves, however we find ourselves labeled, it flickers across and distorts our lives. The lie keeps numberless women psychologically trapped, trying to fit mind, spirit, and sexuality into a prescribed script because they cannot look beyond the parameters of the acceptable. It pulls on the energy of such women even as it drains the energy of “closeted” lesbians—the energy exhausted in the double life. The lesbian trapped in the “closet,” the woman imprisoned in prescriptive ideas of the “normal” share the pain of blocked options, broken connections, lost access to self-definition freely and powerfully assumed.”

If we as women truly aim to liberate ourselves, we must learn to identify with each other again, consciously, intentionally, visibly. We have to understand the ways in which all of us are affected by compulsory heterosexuality; how it denies us our history, our passion, our relationships with other women, whether familial, platonic, neighborly, romantic, or sexual. It is more than just being a bit confused about one’s sexual attraction. We have to learn to see the ways we are infected with male identification, so that we can begin to unlearn it. Rich is not proposing that heterosexual women divorce their husbands and leave their children. She is simply asking us all to examine how the institution of compulsory heterosexuality leaves women as a class splintered, lost, isolated, and unable to pull ourselves together long enough to effect real change. She leaves us with this: 

“As we address the institution itself, moreover, we begin to perceive a history of female resistance which has never fully understood itself because it has been so fragmented, miscalled, erased. It will require a courageous grasp of the politics and economics, as well as the cultural propaganda, of heterosexuality to carry us beyond individual cases or diversified group situations into the complex kind of overview needed to undo the power men everywhere wield over women, power which has become a model for every other form of exploitation and illegitimate control.”

Read the full essay here. I strongly encourage you to do so. Rich wanted to start a conversation, and I don’t believe that conversation is over; I think it’s barely begun. Maybe we weren’t ready for “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” in 1980, but I think we still have a lot we can learn from it today, now, when women seem to be more divided than we ever have been. We have always needed each other, always been there for each other, and we need to remember this, notice this; or else we risk falling far behind and losing everything we have fought for thus far. Think what you will of Adrienne Rich, but her words here are undeniably powerful. “Compulsory heterosexuality” deserves another look.

[sk1fanfiction]

the many faces of tom riddle, part 2

 -you dislike frank dillane’s portrayal of tom riddle only because you don’t think he’s attractive-

FULL DISCLAIMER THAT THIS IS JUST MY OPINION OF A CHARACTER WHO DOESN’T HAVE THE STRONGEST CANON CHARACTERIZATION, AND THUS ALL THIS IS BASED ON MY CONCEPTUALIZATION (and this time, featuring a bit of armchair child psych from a student).

Wait, don’t clutch your pearls just yet. Compose yourself.

I am about to explain why it’s not actually that bad, and Dillane’s portrayal is vastly underappreciated.

I definitely agree that his portrayal comes off as ‘creepier’. It’s not helped by the stylistic decisions in the scene -- the smeary, green filter gives the scene a sinister quality. 

Even Slughorn looks suspect here, which is somewhat appropriate, given that he is complicit in this crime. 

Again, this scene is very much intended to be slightly off.

You’ll notice (and I’ll discuss this again when I talk about Coulson’s portrayal) that Dillane is almost always shot from at least slightly below, which makes the lower third of his face look bigger (and thus more menacing). The lighting also makes his eyes glow in a really unnatural way. There’s an echo-y effect to make his voice (and not Slughorn’s) sound unnerving.

People talk about how Coulson would have looked in this scene, and if he was filmed in the same way (monotone, smeary/shadowy filter, and always from below), he’d look a bit creepy, too.

But all of this, imo, is for a pretty good reason. Slughorn isn’t the POV character. Harry is. Harry is learning about how a young Lord Voldemort wheedled the secret of Horcruxes out of an unsuspecting teacher. Unlike in COS, he expects Riddle to be evil. And, so, Harry’s new perception of Tom Riddle literally colors how we perceive him.

Take this shot, for example: he does that head-tilt thing that Coulson does, and it’s actually... kind of... cute???

Imagine Dillane filmed from slightly above, like Coulson usually is, and it looks even more innocent. (I mean, come on, he does not look like he’s killed four people, does he?) It’s not hard to imagine teachers being taken in by this kind of act.

Even that little smirk he does when the camera (aka, Harry’s gaze) pans in, is for Harry’s benefit. No one else noticed that. 

However, I still fail to find this creepy, like, at all. Yes, it’s a fake smile, but he’s portraying a different side of Tom Riddle to Coulson. Whereas, in COS, he’s in his vindictive, murderous element, where he’s free to express himself, in this scene, Tom Riddle is doing what he does best -- manipulating and managing appearances. 

This entire scene is an act. And because Harry knows it’s an act, it should look a bit stilted. 

From the Hepzibah Smith scene in the books: Voldemort smiled mechanically and Hepzibah simpered.

So, Harry is pretty adept at parsing Tom’s fake expressions.

But just look at the expressiveness in his face: he goes from brooding, he blinks, and his entire face changes to this charming (fake) smile. 

At the risk of sounding elitist, I’m a bit tired of seeing the word ‘psychopath’, which is not an actual medical diagnosis recognised by any psychological or psychiatric institution, being tossed about, especially with reference to Tom Riddle (and from a neuroscience perspective, it’s doubly annoying). There’s no such thing as ‘insanity’ or ‘psychopathy’ or being ‘crazy.’

-although I use it too a shorthand in conversation to distinguish ‘canon’ Tom from his ‘softer’ OOC counterparts, I really shouldn’t-

Unfortunately, I’ve seen the ‘psychopath’ comment used time-and-time again as an excuse or a full explanation of ‘why Tom Riddle went evil’ (JKR in fact, has made a weird comment in an interview, basically saying that ‘psychopaths can’t be redeemed or learn adaptive coping skills’ or whatever), which really just goes to show the lack of understanding and compassion when personality disorders, especially, are concerned.

But what I like most about the opening of this scene, actually, is that first, listless expression. And this is where we get slightly into headcanon, but Tom Riddle is the opposite of a happy, mentally healthy teenager. By Dumbledore’s own admission, he has no real friends. He has no parental figures, no real attachments. Yes, he might derive some pride or enjoyment from being good at magic and top of his class and all that, but I really don’t think even Tom finds that truly fulfilling. There is nothing that makes him happy. 

In fact, although some might perceive it as ‘creepy’, I think that listless expression is an accurate window into Tom’s psyche. 

I know people aren’t big on Freud, but I think that he does make some interesting points (also, cut the guy some slack for being relatively open-minded for the Victorian Era, and inventing psychoanalysis and while yes he did say some sexist stuff, good luck finding a field of science that isn’t male-focused and makes crazy generalizations about women, especially back in the day) about the possible origins of thanatophobia, the fear of death.

According to Freud, thanatophobia is a disguise for a deeper source of concern -- he did not believe that people were capable of conceptualizing their own death to that extent. Instead, he believed that this phobia was caused by unresolved childhood conflicts that the sufferer cannot come to terms with or express emotion towards.

Now, I know Freud almost always attributes mental distress to childhood experiences, but I think in this case, it really has some merit.

According to attachment theory, the basis of how we form attachments in adulthood is dictated by learning it from experiences with caregivers in the first two years of life. We know Tom was born in an orphanage, and that he didn’t cry much as a baby, and subsequently, probably received very little attention. Compounded with possible genetic factors and his caregivers being afraid or wary of his magical abilities, he later struggled to form attachments because of this -- I would actually go so far as to say that by the time Dumbledore meets him, Tom Riddle is severely depressed. 

And that flat affect and anhedonia, I think, comes over very well in Dillane’s portrayal. There’s kind of this resignation -- a very deep sadness and loneliness to his character.

Of course, he doesn’t derive any comfort or fulfillment from human interaction, because (to borrow the description from the Wikipedia article on ‘Reactive attachment disorder’, which Tom meets all the criteria for) he has a “grossly disturbed internal working model of relationships.” In other words, he is unresponsive to all offers of attachment because of this unacknowledged trauma.

(You could arguably class Tom as having an avoidant attachment style, but I think in his case the trauma and its effect on him are severe enough to call it disordered.)

RAD isn’t particularly well-characterized (especially neurologically) and quite new in the literature, but here are some links if anyone is interested in doing a bit of digging: Link 1 | Link 2 | Paper 1 | Paper 2

And, instead of trying to resolve this conflict in a healthy way, or at least recognize that this is why he can’t be happy and try to learn how to cope from there, he (a) represses the desire for human attachment and (b) funnels that negative emotion into being the fault of Death, the Grim Reaper (again, to borrow Freudian terms). 

And we all know how that turned out...

(And now, this should go without saying, but psychoanalyzing fictional characters has nothing to do with assigning a morality to mental disorders. Mental illness is neither a cause nor an excuse for criminal behavior -- in the same way that the cycle of violence is a phenomenon, not an excuse. Tom Riddle did not become a genocidal murderer because, in common parlance, he was a ‘psychopath’ -- he was not necessarily ‘predisposed’ to evil and could just as easily chosen to not follow the path that he did -- instead, he willingly made poor choices. This is a descriptive analysis, not a justification -- a ‘how’, not a ‘why’)

Here’s a Carl Jung quote that articulates it better:

“I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become.”

Yes, he’s a bit stiff (and a lot more formal than in COS during his *conversation* with Harry). But, and here comes the controversial bit, this is appropriate for a portrayal of a schoolboy in the 1940s. The upright posture is accurate -- respectful, polite -- everything Tom Riddle would have been expected to be (and even Coulson, in that scene with Dumbledore in COS, is quite stiff). Even the way he looks at Slughorn and maintains eye contact is very *respectful.*

And, Dillane (I think he’s seventeen or eighteen here) actually looks like a believable sixteen-year-old. I’m sorry, I love Coulson’s portrayal as well, but he looks around nineteen in COS; so in HBP, he probably would have looked at least twenty-two or so. (Sorry, not sorry).

This may be influenced by my own interpretation of the character (because I imagine Tom always looks young for his age, and Dillane fits that archetype, but I don’t think that’s very popular), but I think young Tom Riddle is supposed to be *cute* and a bit stiff/shy/awkward (being charming and awkward is very much possible), if you consider the way Dippet and Slughorn treat him. 

To support this, he says very few words to Hepzibah Smith (in the book, that scene’s not in the movie), and is very... bashful and coy during the whole interaction? I think yes, he’s charismatic, but he’s not loud, suave, openly flirtatious or particularly verbose. Tom Riddle should have a quiet magnetism, and to me, that came across in Dillane’s portrayal.

"I'd be glad to see anything Miss Hepzibah shows me," said Voldemort quietly, and Hepzibah gave another girlish giggle.

...

"Are you all right, dear?"

"Oh yes," said Voldemort quietly. "Yes, I'm very well. ..."

Even the ‘ugly, greedy look’ described in the books, when Slughorn starts spilling his secrets, is there. This is how he’s supposed to look! Slughorn glimpses it, but doesn’t understand its significance. Harry does. 

“Slughorn looked deeply troubled now: He was gazing at Riddle as though he had never seen him plainly before, and Harry could tell that he was regretting entering into the conversation at all.”

Remember the context of this moment, as well: He’s just discovered how to create multiple Horcruxes. Excuse him for looking a bit creepy (if not now, then when?).

Here’s two direct quotes of Harry’s impression of Tom Riddle in that scene: 

“But Riddle's hunger was now apparent; his expression was greedy, he could no longer hide his longing.”

“Harry had glimpsed his face, which was full of that same wild happiness it had worn when he had first found out that he was a wizard, the sort of happiness that did not enhance his handsome features, but made them, somehow, less human. . . .”

Tom Riddle’s Horcruxes are a direct metaphor for his refusal to allow himself to heal from his trauma -- instead, he continues to inflict destruction on himself and others.

His desire to continue creating more Horcruxes sort of resounds with the fact that self-harm can also become a compulsion.

I’d also like to digress a bit to discuss the Gaunt Ring, while we’re at it. While we’ve talked about his attachment issues in general, this discussion is particularly pertinent to father figures. And while Tom’s attachment issues are extensive, I think there’s ample evidence that as a child, he craved acknowledgement and acceptance from a father figure -- the man who gave him the only thing Tom truly owned -- his name. He would have had a vaguely defined mother figure in Mrs. Cole, perhaps.

"You see that house upon the hillside, Potter? My father lived there. My mother, a witch who lived here in this village, fell in love with him. But he abandoned her when she told him what she was.... He didn’t like magic, my father ... He left her and returned to his Muggle parents before I was even born, Potter, and she died giving birth to me, leaving me to be raised in a Muggle orphanage ... but I vowed to find him ... I revenged myself upon him, that fool who gave me his name ... Tom Riddle. ..."

We know that by June of 1943 (COS flashback) Tom has already uncovered the truth of his parentage; he knows he is the Heir of Slytherin via the Gaunt line, and he describes himself to Dippet as ‘Half-blood, sir. Witch mother, Muggle father.’

In Part 1, I discussed the high probability that as a presumed ‘Mudblood’, Tom Riddle was treated rather poorly in Slytherin House. But by this scene in the fall of 1943, he is surrounded by a group of adoring hangers-on. Why?

In my opinion; the Gaunt Ring. We know that Tom stopped wearing it after school, so its sentimental value couldn’t have been that great. We know he likes to collect objects (which I believe stems from his attachment issues -- he seeks comfort in things instead of other people).

Signet rings (such as the one belonging to Tutankhamun seen above) were used to stamp legal documents and such, in order to certify someone’s identify -- like an e-certificate, if you will. Like Tutankhamun’s ring, the Gaunt Ring bears an identifying symbol -- Marvolo Gaunt tells us proudly that it bears the Peverell family crest.

By the Middle Ages, anyone of influence, including the nobility, wore a signet ring. Rings in antiquity were auspicious -- they signified power, legitimacy, and authority. And so, I believe that all the Sacred Twenty-Eight families would have worn these, too.

And so, bearing the Gaunt Ring would have established Tom Riddle, symbolically and in the eyes of the Sacred Twenty-Eight (his future supporters and followers), as the legitimate heir to the House of Gaunt. This is why, I believe, Tom coveted the ring as soon as he saw it -- not just because it was a family heirloom, and not just because he thought it was a pretty toy for his collection.

(He curses it so that no one else but him can wear the Gaunt Ring safely.)

This is why, to make the legitimization literal as well as symbolic, Tom murders his father and grandparents. It’s not just an act of vindictive, murderous rage due to his perception of being rejected by his father (although it is that, too). And so, Tom, abandoning his search for a father figure (and possibly also giving up on the possibility to allow himself to heal from his own personal trauma rather than continue to inflict it on others), ‘cleanses’ his bloodline, to make himself truly legitimate. It’s rather telling that instead of affirming his legitimacy as a Riddle, which would have put him in line for a nice inheritance, and hey -- money is money -- (thus accepting his half-blood status), he simply kills them all. He has done all the murdering he needs to become immortal (and he hasn’t had the discussion about multiple Horcruxes yet); but yet, he does it again. Frightening stuff. 

(Just look how the others look at Tom. All but the one to his left -- possibly Nott, Rosier, or Mulciber -- have their torsos turned towards him. Their attention is on him, while he knowingly regards the viewer/Harry. Tom seems a little uncomfortable with the attention.).

“And there were the half-dozen teenage boys sitting around Slughorn with Tom Riddle in the midst of them, Marvolo's gold-and-black ring gleaming on his finger.”

...

“Riddle smiled; the other boys laughed and cast him admiring looks.”

...

“Tom Riddle merely smiled as the others laughed again. Harry noticed that he was by no means the eldest of the group of boys, but that they all seemed to look to him as their leader.”

The ‘gang’ are true hangers-on; Tom doesn’t seem to pay them much attention. 

So, if not via careful flattery or charisma, the attraction must be status.

And perhaps yet more telling...

"I don't know that politics would suit me, sir," he said when the laughter had died away. "I don't have the right kind of background, for one thing." “A couple of the boys around him smirked at each other. Harry was sure they were enjoying a private joke, undoubtedly about what they knew, or suspected, regarding their gang leader's famous ancestor.”

That, in my opinion, is as good as we’re going to get as proof that Tom’s shiny new signet ring (and by extension, his new status) made a big impression on his fellow students.

So, when he returns to Hogwarts, he is ‘pureblood’. He is cleansed of his Muggle roots, and becomes the legitimate heir of the House of Gaunt, now well on his way to becoming Lord Voldemort...

Watch the scene again, with a critical eye, and imagine Slughorn’s perspective, instead of Harry’s. There’s nothing creepy about Tom Riddle... unless you know what he is...

Strip away all the effects of Harry’s gaze (and notice, here he’s still looking at Harry), and he’s quite the charmer, actually.

(I will concede that I don’t like the promotional images where they have him looking like he’s up to no good. And I do wish he blinked once in a while.)

My challenge to you: Rewatch the scene with an open mind, and let me know if you agree that Dillane’s portrayal comes off as depressive rather than ‘creepy.’ And if not, why do you dislike his portrayal?

[bigskydreaming]

Sorry not sorry, but like can we please stop giving Liefeld credit for subtext people ADDED to his work as though that man gives a single damn about ace representation? 

Wherever you fall in terms of how you view Shatterstar’s sexual orientation personally, I think there’s more than enough room to balance your view of that with the reality that Liefeld ONLY started making a lot of noise about how Shatterstar shouldn’t be in a relationship because he created Shatterstar and he’d always viewed and written Shatterstar as asexual AFTER Shatterstar got together with Rictor specifically (with it being key here IMO that Liefeld in his original rants post-Ric and Shatterstar getting together like, NEVER specified aroace specifically, he always JUST talked about how their relationship was a deviation from how he’d written them because Shatterstar in his mind was supposed to be asexual, as though gay or bi aces don’t exist, like this is just one of many nuances that is lost on Liefeld and why its so uncomfortable to see him credited with awareness he literally has never demonstrated).

Like I’m just saying? Liefeld hadn’t written Rictor or Shatterstar in over TEN YEARS before they got together in X-Factor. Plenty of other writers had written them in between those two periods, and Shatterstar had been teased as interested in women at various points since Liefeld left X-Force without so much as a peep from Liefeld. 

Again, this isn’t to weigh in on what I think people ‘should’ view Shatterstar as or whether ‘official’ canonization of him as bi is set in stone, for whatever that means, especially since I can’t even off the top of my head remember if he’s actually identified himself as gay or bi in canon versus just advertised that he’s mlm of some sort.

Its simply just.....can we leave Liefeld out of it and not act like his perspective is so nuanced and unbiased? I mean hell, for the record this cuts both ways, because I’m similarly uninterested in giving PAD props for being the one to put Rictor and Shatterstar together in the first place, as a) PAD is a gross, disgusting, violently anti-Romani asshole and fuck that dude anyway and b) PAD has NEVER been as progressive as people hype and patting himself on the back for being more progressive than colleagues like Liefeld is IMO a hundred percent more relevant to his progressive character beats than any actual commitment to representing marginalized groups. Like, he hates Liefeld and always has, he’s very vocal about it, and there’s super uncomfortable undertones to the way he fired back at Liefeld years ago when all of this was going down after Rictor and Shatterstar first got together and Liefeld stood up when nobody even fucking asked to be like the spurned groom running down the aisle screeching I OBJECT when it was like, sir, this isn’t that kind of ceremony, we’re offbook here, please sit down.

But I just mean, you read the potshots Liefeld and PAD were making at each other back then, and the way PAD kept changing how he even referred to both Julio and Shatterstar without even missing a beat, like, he calls each of them gay and bi at different points in the freaking same interview not even in the vein of peoples’ sexuality can be fluid and people take time to find the label that fits them best, but rather more in the vein of ‘this is all academic to me and I honestly can’t be bothered to try and sit in each of these characters’ heads for a bit and sincerely parse out what I feel each of them have to say about their orientations at this specific point in their lives, I’m just here to piss off Rob and for the progressive soundbite hey you guys caught that soundbite right?’

....Its just....idk, to me at least its always very clearly come across as none of this difference of interpretation had ANYTHING to do with the actual writers being at cross purposes in their desire to represent various marginalized identities or experiences. It was two straight guys aiming for a gold star while trying to be all ‘gotcha’ at a long time professional rival simultaneously. Neither wanted to represent any of us, they just wanted to beat the other guy in their weird jousting match of My Impact Is Better Than Your Impact, The People Have Spoken.

And sorry not sorry, but personally, I believe that every marginalized person looking to these two characters and their relationship in different ways out of a genuine desire to just feel represented, like. Deserves better than what either of these two writers have to offer.

Anyway, my point ultimately is just whatever your view of Ric and Shatterstar and their dynamic and relationship over the years, I think there’s more than enough material and nuance in the work itself to stand on its own two feet, and just because these two writers put most of it in there doesn’t mean we owe it to them to make their motivations a sizable factor in how we interpret the work, when their motivations are BOTH super fucking suspect.

Like, if PAD and Liefeld and their ‘feuding intentions’ for Ric and Shatterstar were an AITA reddit thread, I’d just be circling the ‘everyone here is an asshole’ option and devoting my energies to hoping that neither of those writers ever goes near these two characters again. Their input is no longer needed, IMO. *Shrugs*

[bogkeep]

hmmmmmmmmmm maybe i’ll write an Introspective Musing Post about my relationship to religion and their depiction in stories because i’ve pondering about this topic lately

so for those who are reading this and DON’T know what’s been going on...  there’s this webcomic i fell in love with some years ago, about six years actually, that depicts a post-apocalyptic fantasy/horror adventure set in the nordic countries. it had, and has still, some very uncomfortable flaws regarding racial representation, and the creator has historically not dealt very well with criticism towards it. it’s a whole Thing. my relationship with this comic has fluctuated a lot, since there are a lot of elements in it i DO love and i still feel very nostalgic about, and like idk i felt like i trust my skills in critical thinking enough to keep reading. aaand then the creator went a teensy bit off the deep end created a whole minicomic which is like... a lukewarm social media dystopia where christians are oppressed (and also everyone is a cute bunny, including our lord and saviour jesus christ). which is already tonedeaf enough considering there are religious people who DO get prosecuted for their faith, like, that’s an actual reality for a lot of people - but as far as i can tell, usually not christians. and then there’s an afterword that’s like, “anyway i got recently converted and realized i’m a disgusting human being full of sin who doesn’t deserve redemption but jesus loves me so i’ll be fine!! remember to repent for your sins xoxo” and a bunch of other stuff and IT’S KIND OF REALLY CONCERNING i have, uh, been habitually looking at the reactions to and discussions around this, maybe it’s not very self care of me but there’s a lot of overwhelming things rn and it’s fantastically distracting, yknow? like, overall this situation is fairly reminiscent of the whole jkr thing. creator of a series that is Fairly Beloved, does something hurtful, handles backlash in a weird way, a lot of people start taking distance from Beloved Series or find ways to enjoy it on their own terms, creator later reveals to have been fully radicalized and releases a whole manifesto, and any and all criticism gets framed as harassment and proving them right. of course, one of them is a super rich person with a LOT of media power and a topic that is a lot more destructive in our current zeitgeist, and the other is an independent webcomic creator, so it’s  not the same situation. just similar vibez ya feel as a result of this, i have been Thinking. and just this feels like some sort of defeat like god dammit she got me i AM thinking about the topic she wrote about!!! i should dismiss the whole thing!!! but thinking about topics is probably a good thing so hey lets go. me, i’m agnostic. i understand that this is a ‘lazy’ position to take, but it’s what works for me. i simply do not vibe with organized religion, personally. (i had the wikipedia page for ‘chaos magic’ open in a tab for several weeks, if that helps.) i was raised by atheists in a majorly atheist culture. christian atheist, i should specify. norway has been mostly and historically lutheran, and religion has usually been a private and personal thing. it turns out the teacher i had in 7th grade was mormon, but i ONLY found out because he showed up in a tv series discussing religious groups in norway later, and he was honestly one of the best teachers i have ever had - he reignited the whole class’ interest in science, math, and dungeons and dragons. it was a real “wait WHAT” moment for my teenage self. i think i was briefly converted to christianity by my friend when i was like 7, who grew up in a christian family (i visited them a couple times and always forgot they do prayers before dinner. oops!), but like, she ALSO made me believe she was the guardian of a secret magic orb that controls the entire world and if i told anybody the world would burn down in 3 seconds. i only suspected something was off when one day the Orb ran on batteries, and another day the Orb had to be plugged in to charge. in my defense i really wanted to be part of a cool fantasy plot. i had no idea how to be a christian beyond “uuuuh believe in god i guess” so it just faded away on its own. when i met this friend several years later, she was no longer christian. i think every childhood friend of mine who grew up in a christian family, was no longer christian when they grew up. most notably my closest internet friend whose family was catholic - she had several siblings, and each of them took a wildly different path, from hippie treehugger to laveyan satanist or something in that area. (i joined them for a sermon in a church when they visited my town. my phone went off during it because i had forgotten to silence it. oops!) ((i also really liked their mother’s interpretation of purgatory. she explained it as a bath, not fire. i like that.)) i have never had any personal negative experiences with christianity, despite being openly queer/gay/trans. the only time someone has directly told me i’m going to hell was some guy who saw me wearing a hoodie on norway’s constitution day. yeah i still remember that you bastard i’ve sworn to be spiteful about it till the day i die!! i’ve actually had much more insufferable interactions with the obnoxious kind of atheists - like yes yes i agree with you on a lot but that doesn’t diminish your ability to be an absolute hypocrite, it turns out? i remember going to see the movie ‘noah’ with a friend who had recently discovered reddit atheism and it was just really exhausting to discuss it with her. one of these Obnoxious Atheists is my Own Mother. which is a little strange, honestly, because she LOVES visiting churches for the Aesthetic and Architecture. we cannot go anywhere without having to stop by a pretty church to Admire and Explore. I’VE BEEN IN SO MANY CHURCHES FOR AN ATHEIST RAISED NON-CHRISTIAN. i’ve been to the vatican TWICE (i genuinely don’t even know how much of my extended family is christian. up north in the tiny village i come from, i believe my uncle is the churchkeeper, and it’s the only building in the area that did not get burnt down by the the nazis during ww2 - mostly because soldiers needed a place to sleep. still don’t know whether or not said uncle believes or not, because hey, it’s Personal) i think my biggest personal relationship to religion, and christianity specifically, has been academic. yeah, we learned a brief synopsis of world religions at school (and i remember the class used to be called ‘christianity, religion, and ethics’ and got changed to ‘religion, beliefs, and ethics’ which is cool. it was probably a big discourse but i was a teen who didnt care), but also my bachelor degree is in art history, specifically western art history because it’s a vast sprawling topic and they had to distill it as best they could SIGHS. western art history is deeply entangled with the history of the church, and i think the most i’ve ever learnt about christianity is through these classes (one of my professors wrote an article about how jesus can be interpreted as queer which i Deeply Appreciate). i also specifically tried to diversify my academic input by picking classes such as ‘depiction of muslims and jewish people in western medieval art’ and ‘art and religion’ when i was an exchange student in canada, along with 101 classes in anthropology and archaeology. because i think human diversity and culture is very cool and i want to absorb that knowledge as best as i can. i think my exchange semester in canada was the most religiously diverse space have ever been in, to be honest. now as an adult i have more christian friends again, but friends who chose it for themselves, and who practice in ways that sound good and healthy, like a place of solace and community for them. the vast majority of my friends are queer too, yknow?? i’ve known too many people who have seen these identities as fated opposites, but they aren’t, they’re just parts of who people are. it’s like... i genuinely love people having their faiths and beliefs so much. i love people finding that space where they belong and feel safe in. i love people having communities and heritages and connections. i deeply respect and admire opening up that space for faith within any other communities, like... if i’m going to listen to a podcast about scepticism and cults, i am not going to listen to it if it’s just an excuse to bash religion. i think the search for truth needs to be compassionate, always. you can acknowledge that crystals are cool and make people happy AND that multi level marketing schemes are deeply harmful and prey on people in vulnerable situaitons. YOU KNOW???? so now’s when i bring up Apocalypse Comic again. one of the things i really did like about it was, ironically, how it handled religion. in its setting, people have returned to old gods, and their magic drew power from their religion. characters from different regions had different beliefs and sources. in the first arc, they meet the spirit of a lutheran pastor, who ends up helping them with her powers. it was treated as, in the creators own words, ‘just another mythology’. and honestly? i love that. it was one of the nicest depictions i’ve seen of christianity in fiction, and as something that could coexist with other faiths. I Vibe With That. and then, uh, then... bunny dystopia comic. it just... it just straight up tells you christianity is literally the only way to..?? be a good person??? i guess?? i’m still kind of struggling to parse what exactly it wanted to say. the evil social media overlord bird tells you the bible makes you a DANGEROUS FREETHINKER, but the comic also treats rewriting the bible or finding your own way to faith as something,, Bad. The Bible Must Remain Unsullied. Never Criticize The Bible. also, doing good things just for social media clout is bad and selfish. you should do good things so you don’t burn in hell instead. is that the message? it reads a lot like the comic creator already had the idea for the comic, but only got the urge to make it after she was converted and needed to spread the good word. you do you i guess!! i understand that she’s new to this and probably Going Through Something, and this is just a step on her journey. but the absolute self-loathing she described in her afterword... it does not sound good. i’m just some agnostic kid so what do i know, but i do not think that kind of self-flagellating is a kind faith to have for yourself. i might not ever have been properly religious, but you know what i AM familiar with? a brain wired for ocd and intrusive thoughts. for a lot of my life i’ve struggled with my own kind of purity complex. i’ve had this really strange sensitivity for things that felt ‘tainted’. i’ve experienced having to remove more and more words from my vocabulary because they were Bad and i did not want to sully my sentences. it stacked, too - if a word turned out to be an euphemism for something, i could never feel comfortable saying it again. i still struggle a bit with these things, but i have confronted these things within myself. i’ve had to make myself comfortable with imperfection and ‘tainted’ things and accept that these are just, arbitrary categories my mind made up. maybe that’s the reason i can’t do organized religion even if i found one that fit for me - just like diets can trigger disordered eating, i think it would carve some bad brainpaths for me. so yeah i’m worried i guess! i’m worried when people think it’s so good that she finally found the correct faith even if it’s causing all this self-hate. is there really not a better way? or are they just trusting she’ll find it? and yeah it’s none of my concern, it’s like, i worry for jkr too but i do not want her within miles of my trans self thANKS. so like, i DO enjoy media that explores faith and what it means for you. my favourite band is the oh hellos, which DOES draw on faith and the songwriter’s experience with it. because of my religious iliteracy most of it has flown over my head for years and i’m like “oh hey this is gay” and then only later realize it was about god all along Probably. i like what they’ve done with the place. also, stormlight archive - i had NO idea sanderson was mormon, the way he writes his characters, many of whom actively discuss religion and their relationship to it. i love that about the books, honestly. Media That Explores Religion In A Complex And Compassionate Way... we like that i’ve been thinking about my own stories too, and how i might want to explore faith in them. most of my settings are based on magic and it’s like, what role does religion have in a world where gods are real and makes u magic. in sparrow spellcaster’s story, xe creates? summons? an old god - brings them to life out of the idea of them. it’s a story about hubris, mostly. then there’s iphimery, the story where i am actively fleshing out a pantheon. there’s no doubt the gods are real in the fantasy version of iphimery, they are the source of magic and sustain themselves on slivers of humanity in exchange. but in the modern version, where they are mostly forgotten? that’s some room for me to explore, i think. especially the character of timian, who comes from a smaller town and moves to a large and diverse city. in the fantasy story, the guardian deity chooses his sister as a vessel. in the modern setting, that does not happen, and i don’t yet know what does, but i really want timian to be someone who struggles with his identity - his faith, his sexuality, the expectations cast upon him by his hometown... i’m sure it’s a cliché story retold through a million gay characters but i want to do it too okay. i want to see him carve out his own way of existing within the world because i care him and want to see him thrive!!! alrighty i THINK that’s all i wanted to write. thanks if you read all of this, and if you didn’t that’s super cool have a nice day !

[hoidn]

master post of disturbingly accurate miscellany.

sagittarius moons constantly put on a cheerful facade to cover their sadness. this often leads to internal bitterness and frustration which gets translated into violent urges and a certain amount of hostility towards others. they may often try to hide it and to keep being in-your-face happy but one can definitely feel an aura of suppressed anger around them. like a feeling of hair-triggered temperament lurking beneath the surface. [source]

-----

venus in the 4th house: you feel like home. living in a comfortable, safe and beautiful house is very important to you, just like establishing a family. your relationship with your family, friends and significant other is of utmost importance to you and you feel the need to create a loving atmosphere for them. although being nurturing is an amazing quality, your attachment to your partner can be so overwhelming that it can lead to break-ups. you’re terrified of stressful situations, scandals and chaos, and you absolutely need to focus on being in a peaceful environment and one where you can pursue your happiness. very nostalgic and overprotective of loved ones. you need your partner to constantly reassure you of their love to you or you’ll go crazy with feelings of jealousy and insecurity. you love helping others, and you inspire love and trust in those around you. [source]

-----

saturn in the 5th: (I fear)…I’ll never feel true happiness. That I’ll always be holding myself back. That I’ll never achieve my true potential, that my light will always feel dimmed. That happiness will be taken away from me at any moment. That my anxieties will always be eating away at me, even when I’m surrounded by the ones I love. That my inner child will always feel neglected, and that, because of that, my creativity feels blocked. [source]

-----

the most noticeable difference between the negative (earth and water) and the positive (air and fire) venus signs for me is that the first really see love as a state of total reception, they connect it more to a passive state in which you can fully grasp and empathize with the other. and the second see love more as a pull towards the object of desire, an inspiration for movement. it’s like earth & water venus is the being towards which the fire & air venus gravitate. [source]

-----

i’m yet to meet a cancer venus that really enjoys cooking. i know a lot of people with this placement and they all really appreciate it when someone cooks for them and often comment on people’s cooking and know the best places where to eat…also they’re often on some type of special diet, be it out of their own will or due to health issues. but i’ve never see one that loves to cook. [source]

-----

So what is Virgo Vision? It’s a penetrating style of seeing the world, people and situations. People with V.V. will auto-scan for nuance and connections that are missed by most people. And then they cram the data into a complex details matrix that assesses it at Warp Speed.

Within microseconds, the Virgo or Virgo Rising formulates a multi-level analysis. They’re witty, informed and lauded for their ability to wisely parse complex circumstances. They streamline convoluted thought and design processes. They save people and organizations significant time and money via their V.V.

[...]

It’s an asset but also a liability. How could something so clearly a mercurial super-power be in any way the latter? Well, they can’t turn it off. Ever.

People with V.V. don’t have the comfort of overlooking something, to ease their passage through a stressful work week. Their mind is perpetually analyzing and making pertinent connections; if they are in an environment where people don’t care about those connections, the Virgo Vision doesn’t power down and go into ‘rest mode.’ It up-regulates into even faster operation.

If the person with V.V. can’t share or be understood, they gaze inward, running over every error, wrong step, miscalculation and poorly worded comment ever.

Details and data swarm their consciousness. They either freeze or default into a Saint Virgo stance. Without an appropriate outlet, the Virgo Rising or Virgo Sun person makes themselves the project. Every glance in the mirror is a call for a fix. Each meal a breakdown of the macros. They don’t view the scenery; they map it.

These people can lose the plot and replace it with a list of continuity errors and anachronisms.  They’re well beyond that old cliche about not seeing “the forest for the trees.”  People with Virgo Vision know the topography, soil components, leaf blight, mythology associated with that style of tree and the article they read on forestry four years ago. [source]

-----

Mercury Retrograde

When Mercury is retrograde at birth, the thinking processes are generally more acute, and the sense of humor rather quirky. People with Mercury retrograde take in information differently than those with Mercury direct in their natal charts. How many people are born with a retrograde Mercury? Roughly 18%.

Some people with this position struggle with doubts about their perceptions or their ability to learn, and there can be a lot of thinking, double-checking, and reviewing of thoughts and ideas before communicating them.

Neptune Retrograde

Those born with Neptune retrograde in their chart might tend to hide their vulnerabilities, their spiritual side, or their compassion, as they feel somewhat uncomfortable expressing them. These things can very well exist, and they run deep, but Neptune retrograde natives prefer to keep these things private. Deep faith can be missing, so that these people might be naturally mistrustful. When they are left to fill in the blanks, they might expect the worst. There can be a big fear of dreaming too big dreams, as they are afraid of being let down. [source]

. . . . .

Mercury is the planet of communication and how you express yourself and learn, and so those of you born with Mercury retrograde tend to feel very misunderstood. The energy of Mercury retrograde in the natal chart is actually very similar to that of Mercury in the 12th house (and how misunderstood you must be if you have natal Mercury retrograde in your 12th house!). You have difficulty communicating clearly with others, with being heard, with understanding others as well, and with using your mental energy properly.

[...]

There’s a tremendous amount of mental energy and power that can be unlocked with Mercury retrograde in the natal chart. It just usually takes a while to let go of the fear, isolation, or insecurity that accompanies this position. The insecurity can really kill the Mercury retrograde native. You need to work on developing confidence in your mental abilities, your ideas, your opinions, your words. Growing up feeling misunderstood no doubt caused that insecurity, but it’s a skin you must shed in adulthood, or you get stuck in that insecurity forever. You can be a quiet person, one who stumbles over their words publicly, or who is unfailingly truthful. You can have a wicked sense of humor because you interpret what you see in the world differently and point out the things that are so ridiculously absurd. 

[...]

When transit (moving) Mercury is retrograde, this is when you thrive. The rest of us are completely hopeless, and you’re speeding along. This is because the retrograde energy is natural to you, so when Mercury is in his normal forward motion, you’re uncomfortable, but when he’s retrograde, you’re at home. This is a time when you can make great progress and really get your point across. You should make the most of the times when Mercury is retrograde. You can also work on better understanding the proper ways for you to communicate, express yourself, and learn during Mercury retrograde, so pay close attention to that. [source]

-----

However, when Mercury is in retrograde, this planet is way more introspective, thoughtful, and skeptical than usual. When moving direct, Mercury is fast-paced and eager to connect the dots, and while it might make you seem like a slow thinker when you have Mercury retrograde in your birth chart, it's only because you're doing a lot more thinking than anyone else would even think to do.

The truth is, being born during Mercury retrograde gives you an advantage when it comes to contemplative and all-encompassing thinking. You see every angle of an idea because you naturally have a tendency to look backwards and sideways, which is something Mercury is not naturally aiming to do. You have a tendency to review your choices and re-do things over and over again until you get it right. [source]

-----

With North Node in Libra, our South Node is in Aries. With North Node in the seventh house, our South Node is in the first house.

A tendency to rely on the self so much as to alienate important others in our lives, to be excessively competitive to the point of a me-first attitude, to take things personally, and to be impatient, rash, and impulsive at the expense of personal happiness are some of the issues this position suggests. With this position, we need to work on sensitizing ourselves to the needs of others, to learn tact and cooperation, to put ourselves in another’s shoes, and to let go of an overwhelming self-consciousness that is blocking our desire to win. We are often afraid of the demands that a partner might put on us, and we don’t naturally look for feedback, preferring to act on the moment—on our own hunches and impulses. But for however hard we push ourselves, our plans will be blocked until we stop to consider the other side. We tend to go it alone, often passing up opportunities for growth because we are too focused on our own personal survival. Our impulses and instincts are overloaded, lacking in perspective, and acting upon them will often bring us strife—that is, until we learn to look at the other side, perhaps through the eyes of another. Through partnership, and through cooperation with others, we will attain the inner balance necessary for us to achieve our goals. [source]

[shenanigans-and-imagines]

A Study in Allies

Until We Meet Again: Part 2/?

Thrawn x Senator!Reader, Female Pronouns

Summary: You and Thrawn meet again, your fascination only growing.

A/N: I’m not exactly sure where this is going. I plan this to be a series of one shots revolving around this Senator!Reader. If your interested in reading more about her and Thrawn, feel free to send any request my way! And remember REBLOG AND COMMENT IF YOU LIKE THIS!!!

Word Count: 3.7K

       As much as you tried to fight it, Lieutenant Thrawn did not fully leave your mind for the next twenty-four hours.  

       You had spent the rest of the evening performing your duties, shaking hands and introducing yourself to as many of the movers and shakers of Courscant as you were able. But as you finally made it home and drifted off to sleep, your conversation with Thrawn was the only thing to remain in your memory.

       The next day was relatively light.  As soon as you finished your morning calls, you spent your time researching what you could on the Chiss and Thrawn in preparation for your next meeting.

         A small twinge of guilt twisted your stomach, but you suppressed it.  All Thrawn’s military exploits were public record.  It wasn’t as if you were digging up private, personal information. Besides, you had no doubt he was doing the same thing with you.   

       You ought to have been embarrassed by this strange new obsession, but he couldn’t help holding your fascination.  You hadn’t met anyone like him before. 

       You had heard stories about leaders in various systems throughout the years.  Conquerors, emperors, generals, all of which were described as having a strange aura of power and charisma.  An unflinching confidence that inspired people to rally behind them.  

       You had met many political leaders over the years, from kings to admirals.  None possessed the air described by the stories, except Thrawn.  It was a rare quality, often lamented as occurring only once in a lifetime. Was it so strange then to want to be in its presence again?

       Your comm rang, pulling your from your thoughts. 

       “Yes?”

       “Pardon me Senator,” Cora, your aid, called.  “But there is a Lieutenant Thrawn here to see you.”

       You straightened, feeling a small smile touch your lips.

       “Please, send him in.” 

       You stood from your desk as the door slid open. 

       Lieutenant Thrawn stood before you just as he had the night before; tall, confident, and dressed in his Imperial navy uniform.  A part of you wondered if he possessed any other type of clothing. 

       The light of day also helped to clear a suspicion you had been harboring; he was handsome. 

       “Good afternoon, Senator,” he greeted, inclining his head in respect. 

       “Good afternoon, Lieutenant,” you replied, matching his movement.  “Please, make yourself comfortable.”

       You gestured to a small table and chairs placed just to the right of your desk.  On the table was a small selection of fruits, meats and vegetables, along with a range of alcohols.  You hadn’t been sure how long the meeting would go and wanted to be prepared. 

       If Thrawn was in any way affected by the spread, he made no indication. 

       “Thank you.” 

       He took his time choosing a seat as his eyes wandered your office, pausing at each of the paintings and sculptures you had scattered throughout. 

       You followed his gaze, noticing how it lingered on one particular painting; an impressionist interpretation of the sky of Danu just as the sun was rising; it’s pinks and oranges contrasting and over powering the purples and dark blues of the night sky. It was a gift to your family by one of Danu’s prominent art museums, and one of your personal favorites. 

       You turned your eyes back to Thrawn, whose attention still remained on the painting.  

       “See something you like?” you asked, with just a hint of teasing. 

       Thrawn blinked, before turning to you.  His glowing red eyes now focused with inquisitive intensity.  

       “It is an interesting collection,” he said, smoothly. “Were these all selected yourself?”

       “Yes.  A bit eclectic perhaps, but I like them,” you said, taking the seat just across from him.

       “And those in the reception area?”

       You frowned, thinking of that rather gaudy display of golden vines and multi-colored flowers. “Those were chosen by Governor Lir. I’ll be replacing them once the commissions are finished.”

       Thrawn nodded in consideration.  “If you don’t mind, I would be interested in seeing them once they’re finished.  I assume you asked the painting to be done by an artist from Danu?” 

       “Yes,” you said carefully. “How did you come to that conclusion?”

       “Some of the sculptures have been done relatively recently,” Thrawn answered, easily. “Their subject matter and style match current trends in Danu art.  I assume if you’re having a piece commissioned you want to keep them in continuity with your office.”

       You wanted, very much, to ask him how he knew anything about current artistic trends on Danu or even how it was relevant. Upon brief reflection, however, you realized you didn’t have to. 

       You had done your research on him, he had done the same.  His searches simply lead him to invest an interest in Danu’s art scene.  And, considering what he was able to discern from the mural, it wasn’t so strange. 

       “I will say to make fast work,” he continued. “I understand you’ve only been on Coursant for a few weeks.” 

       You gave a casual shrug. “This will be my place of work and home for a long time if all goes according to plan. I might as well make myself comfortable.” 

       He raised his eyebrow slightly with an amused, possibly even impressed, half smile on his lips. 

       “Indeed.”

       You couldn’t help but smile yourself a little. “Now Lieutenant, I believe you’re here to listen to some stories. Where would you like to start?” 

       You weren’t sure how long the pair of you talked and you didn’t really care. 

       You related to him all the stories you could bring yourself to remember about the Chiss.  The image you had painted in your mind of honor bound warriors wasn’t as far off the mark as you believed they might have been, according to Thrawn.  But, like all stories faced with reality, there were some more nuanced shades of grey. 

       He didn’t openly share any new information.  But from small hints, decisive silences, and rather obvious dodges, you were starting to get a slightly clearer picture.  The Chiss were warriors certainly, but they had their own bureaucracy to contend with, family squabbles, and pride which was always found within such systems. A pride Thrawn most certainly possessed, whether he wished to acknowledge it or not. 

       “May I ask you a possibly personal question?” you asked, pouring you each another glass of wine. 

       “You may ask,” Thrawn said, a note of suspicion in his voice. 

       You gave a small laugh.  “It’s nothing too terrible, I hope. I simply wanted to know if Thrawn is your true name. From what I’ve come to understand, Chiss usually have much longer names.”

       His shoulders relaxed slightly. “We do. Thrawn is my core name.”

       “Then, what’s the rest of it? Or are outsiders not allowed to know?”

       “Others may hear it.  It is more a matter of efficiency,” he explained. “Those with Basic as their primary language have a difficult time pronouncing it. But, if you truly wish to know, my full name is Mitth’raw’nuruodo.” 

       “Mitth’raw’nuruodo,” you repeated back. 

       “Mitth’raw’nuruodo,” he corrected. 

       “Mitth’raw’nuruodo.”  This time you tried rolling the “r”s as he did. 

       “Mitth'raw'nuruodo.” 

       Your lip pursued in concentration.  You could hear how you were saying it wrong, but couldn’t quite figure out how to correct the mistake.  But you had to try at least once more. 

       “Mit-thra-nur-uod-o,” you said, deciding to disregard the “r” roll and simply pronounce each syllable as best you could.

       “Better,” Thrawn conceded. “But not quite.”

       You let out a sigh.  “I will get it eventually.”

       A small amused smile came to his lips. “You may try.”  

       It linger there a while longer, but a small shift in his eye convinced you it was about something else. 

       “Is there something else you find amusing?” you asked.

       “More interesting,” he said, diplomatically. “Your selection of stories is very different from others I’ve heard.”

       “How so?”

       “Ensign Vanto recounted stories of The Chiss’ military exploits or combat abilities.  No doubt you have heard the same. You, however, chose to tell stories referring to our culture and traditions.”

       “Maybe I assumed you have heard them before.”

       “Perhaps,” Thrawn said.  “But, unlikely.  You stated yourself how you admired the times of peace in the Republic. Tales of war do not hold your interest.”

       “Guns and battleships don’t hold my interest. It’s the people behind them that do,” you corrected. “Like you for instance.”

       “How do you mean?”

       You gave him a doubtful look.  “Don’t play that game.  You’ve done your research on me, it’s only fair I do the same.  I only wish to parse out facts from fiction.” 

       Thrawn watched you closely.  His glowing red eyes burned into you, but you did not look away as you did before.  You held your ground, until finally he relented. 

       “What have you learned?

       “Very little, I’m afraid,” you admitted, with a small smile. “Your recent military exploits speak for themselves.  By all accounts a series of miraculous victories pulled seemingly from thin air orchestrated by a brilliant military mind who should by all accounts be an Admiral, but is instead the first weapons officer. This most recent encounter with the Dromedar being emblematic of that.”

       He nodded.  “You’ve heard about my court marshal, I take it. “

       “There had to be some reason why you’re here,” you said, your expression turning apologetic. “I am truly sorry.  The navy has no right to pursue you in such a way.  As far as I’m concerned you made the right decision.  Life should always be valued over profit.  If there is any way I can help, please let me know.” 

       “I will,” he said, in a tone that made you feel as if not only did he mean it, but truly appreciated it. A small part of you had to wonder who, if anyone on Coruscant had offered him help. 

       “What else have you heard,” Thrawn prompted. 

       This part was tricky and for the first time that afternoon, you looked down.

       “I understand you were discovered in exile, though the reasons why vary from telling to telling.”

       “Which of these tellings do you believe?”

       You glanced up again.  

       Thrawn sat coolly in the chair.  His body and positioning were relaxed but still ultimately in control as he stared unblinking awaiting your answer. 

       You thought of the man before you, and the one described in the reports.  You thought of the priority of minimal casualties on both sides.  You thought of the crew of the Dromedar.  And you thought of the calculation in his responses when talking about his people. 

       “You ordered a preemptive strike on an enemy,” you said with a confidence foreign to you. “But I have a hard time believing it was done in a fit of blind ruthlessness.”

       “And what do you believe?” 

       He learned forward.  It was just a hair, not many would notice, but it was enough for you to know you had to choose your next words very carefully.

       “I think you would do whatever is necessary to protect who you perceive your people to be, whether it be your crew or The Chiss.” 

       “Do you?” he questioned.

       You nodded. “I know a little something about that.” 

       For a long moment, neither of you spoke. 

       “Yes,” Thrawn said, quietly as if to himself. “I believe you do.” 

       Something flashed across his features.  Understanding, perhaps?  Or maybe admiration?  

       You didn’t have time to question it as all too quickly, he leaned back and his unreadable mask slipped easily into place.  

       “You’re quite perceptive, Senator,” he commended. 

       “Not really,” you said, with a shrug. “In my experience people are very open about what they want either through their actions or outright stating it.  The only ones who aren’t are those who have yet to make up their mind.  You don’t strike me as the indecisive sort.”

       “Perhaps,” Thrawn said.  “But do not belittle your abilities.  Stating one’s wants is one thing, but often actions can be misinterpreted, their true meaning plagued by personal bias.  Being able to clearly see someone’s reasoning for their actions is a rare skill.” 

       “I’ll take your word for it,” you said, feeling your cheeks warm slightly. “But you’re avoiding the question.”

       “Which is?”

       “Am I right?”

       Thrawn was silent for a moment.  

       “You are right in the ways that matter,” he said. “I will always do what is necessary to protect my people.”

       You frowned, but knew better than to ask further.  Perhaps he wasn’t allowed to talk about the true reason for his exile. Which itself only lead to more questions.

       “Something else?” Thrawn asked.

       “Yes…” you said.  Your stomach twisted, unsure if what you were about to ask truly was crossing some invisible line.  But, you had come this far. 

       “Why join the Empire?”

       Thrawn stared a moment as if surprised by your question.  You didn’t blame him, but instead of anger or even indignantly you expected, there was just confusion.  “As I have stated, and you have observed, I will do what I feel is necessary to protect my people.”

       “So why not go back to them? How does joining the Empire do that?”

       Thrawn’s eyes darkened, his expression going distant, almost regretful. “There are many dangers in the galaxy.  Dangers greater than The Chiss Ascendancy or The Empire can face alone.  I believe an alliance is necessary to face such a danger.” 

       “Assuming the Empire doesn’t turn on you.”

       He glanced at you, titling his head curiously. “Do you believe it will?”

       “It doesn’t matter what I believe,” you dismissed. “You obviously believe it won’t.” 

       “But you do have your doubts.”

       It was your turn to remain silent as your own mind flashed to darker times. The Clone Wars. Your father. Danu torn apart and only now starting to rebuild.  

       You let out a tired sigh. “I suppose we each have to settle for an uneasy alliance to maintain peace for our people.”

       “Spoken like a diplomat,” Thrawn said, dryly.

       Your lip twisted into an ironic smile. “I have to get my practice in somewhere.” 

       Thrawn’s own lips turned upward slightly, giving just a hint of amusement.  It softened his features, if only a little.  You found you rather liked it. 

       His expression then shifted into an oddly thoughtful expression. 

       “Do you have a question for me?” you asked. 

       Thrawn shook his head.  “Not a question.  I was just musing on how you have heard so little of me and my people and yet are able to construct a fairly accurate picture.  While I comparatively have heard much of you, and yet the reality speaks to something entirely different.” 

       “And what have you heard of me?”

       For the first time since you met him he appeared uncomfortable. “I hesitate to say.  As I said, the reality is much different.”

       “I can take it,” you assured.  “I promise not to shoot the messenger.  And besides, you said it yourself; it’s often illuminating to hear stories about yourself from an outside source.”

       Thrawn nodded in consideration. 

       “I understand you were made Senator four months ago,” he began. “Your family has lived on Danu for generations and is highly regarded within its sphere of influence.  Your father was governor during the time of The Clone Wars, but was killed in a Seprestist attack.”  

       He bowed his head to you, his voice growing surprisingly gentle. “My sympathies.” 

       “Thank you,” you said, feeling your heart ache at the old wound. “Please, continue.” 

       “Governor Lir was appointed to the position soon after although not to the same success. He was the one to suggest the previous senator, Senator Trask. Unfortunately, Trask was eventually charged with corruption after being found in league with a pirate gang stealing and reselling food stuffs on the black market. Governor Lir was cleared of any involvement.  It was then, your name was selected to be Trask’s replacement.  From what I gathered, you made a name for yourself on Danu for various public works and, given your father’s legacy, it was the logical choice.”

       You nodded in understanding.  Governor Lir needed his name associated with your father’s to maintain his reputation.  The thought made your stomach twist unpleasantly.

       “As Colonel Yularen explained it to me, Danu lost much of its influence after the Clone Wars,” Thrawn continued. “It is now in direct control of its governors who are themselves controlled by Grand Moff Tarkin.”

       “So, I’m a puppet head. A naive heiress, picked out of a hat because of her father’s accomplishments,” you said, feeling like you were about to be sick. Was that why Lir had been so insistent on showing you around, introducing you as some non-threatening, pretty young thing? 

       You gave a dry scoff. “Not a very flattering portrait.” 

       “No,” Thrawn agreed.

       You laughed again, sincerely this time.  “You really need to work on your interpersonal skills if you’re going to survive Coruscant,” you said dryly.  You then let out a sigh. “Well, I’ve certainly got a much harder job ahead of me than I anticipated.”

       “Perhaps,” Thrawn said.  “Perhaps not. As I said before, what I have been told and what I have observed are very different.  You may use that to your advantage.” 

       “How?”

       “They will underestimate you.”

       It was said so calmly, so matter-of-factly you couldn’t help but be taken aback.

       “That implies I am more than what they make of me.”

       “You are.”

       And there it was again, that unwavering confidence that what he was saying was unquestionably right. 

       He raised an eyebrow. “Do you doubt me?”

       You blinked, pulling yourself back to the moment. 

       “I believe, you believe your words,” you said. “I can only hope you’re right.”

       “Time will tell.” 

       It was at that moment, your comm buzzed. 

       “Yes?” you asked. 

       “I’m sorry Senator,” Cora answered. “But you asked to remind you about your appointment with Governor Lir.”

       You frowned, but a quick look out the window told you she was right to do so.  The sun was just starting to set, and Governor Lir insisted on meeting before the next round of parties you needed to attend. 

       “Yes, thank you for reminding me.  Please message the Governor to let him know I’ll be a few minutes late.” 

       Cora offered an acknowledgement before clicking off the comm.  

       You gave Thrawn an apologetic look. “I’m sorry, I really do have to attend to this.”

       “Of course,” Thrawn said, rising from his seat.  “I will not keep you from your duties any longer.” 

       You rose as well.  “I only wish you could. You’re certainly more interesting company. Will you be joining in any of the festivities tonight?” 

       “I do not believe so.  Ensign Vanto and I must meet with the high command tomorrow.” 

       “Of course,” you said, feeling a twinge of regret.  It may be some time before you saw him again, if at all, but you pushed it down.  You each had your duties. 

       You met his eye then with a gentle smile.  “Thank you for your stories and advice.  And, please know you have a friend on Coruscant, should you need one.” 

       Thrawn gave you an odd look. “Are we friends?”

       “We were able to discuss art and politics without feeling compelled to throw things at each other.  If that’s not friendship, I don’t know what is,” you said, dryly. “But, if the word is too familiar, could we at least part as allies?” 

       You offered your hand. 

       Thrawn hesitated a moment, taking your words into careful consideration. 

       “I do not believe either term is exactly the right one, but for the sake of simplicity, friend will have to do.”  

       Your brows furrowed, unsure about what exactly he could mean. 

       He gave not further explanation as he took a small step forward and took your hand in his.  His skin was warm, warmer than you anticipated. He held you hand in an oddly gentle, but firm grip; his palms rough from years of experience and untold battles. It was a strange combination, but not unpleasant. 

       He held your gaze.  You couldn’t even guess what he was thinking, all you knew was that your throat was going dry and your heart was beating rapidly against your chest. 

       “Until we meet again, Senator,” he said. “I look forward to your career with interest.”

       “So do I, Lieutenant,” you managed. “Until then.”   

       He released your hand, and it was over. 

       You watched him as he walked out of the room, staring after him even after the door had hissed closed. 

       You let out a breath, willing your heart to calm to a walking pace. What could he possibly mean by neither friend nor ally?  

       Without thinking, you flexed the hand he had touched as if to make sure it wasn’t truly burning.  Had he felt it too?

       Mentally, you shook your head.  It didn’t matter. You had no idea if and when you would ever see him again.  He would undoubtedly get out of this court marshal and accelerate up the ranks of the Imperial Navy.  Meanwhile, you had your duties here on Coruscant.  Duties you had to attend to. 

       You quickly gathered your things, and walked briskly out of your office. 

       “Excuse me, Senator?” Cora said, her words stopping you in mid-stride.

       “Something wrong?” you asked. 

       “No ma’am.  It’s just…” she hesitated as if unsure if she was even allowed to know what she was about to say. “Lieutenant Thrawn asked me to give you a message.”

       “Which is?” 

       “He asked me to remind you he would like a holo copy of the pieces you have commissioned for the reception area.  And if it wasn’t an inconvenience, he would be interested in having holo copies of the pieces you have in your office as well.”

       You blinked unsure whether to feel flattered or utterly exposed. 

       “Should I tell him you’re unable to,” Cora asked, tentatively.

       “No,” you said, shaking out of your temporary shock.  “No, go ahead and collect holo copies of the pieces and send them along.  Contact Ensign Vanto of the Imperial Navy, I’m sure he will pass them along.” 

       Cora gave a look of confusion, but seemed to know better than to question a Senator. 

       “Yes ma’am.  Goodnight.”

       You barely gave her a wave of acknowledgment as you walked out the door, the same question reverberating in your mind; friend, ally, or something else?

[ineffable-endearments]

“I lost my best friend” (does Aziraphale know?)

One of the most confusing moments for a lot of people, myself included, is Aziraphale’s reaction to “I lost my best friend.” I’m trying to parse out whether I headcanon that he Knows, and if he does, what his response means.

It turned into a 2000-word-plus analytical post. At first I thought Aziraphale knew, then I thought he didn’t, then I thought he did again. And there are so, so many implications for the whole rest of the story. That one line is such an important moment!

But I’ll put my thoughts behind a read more, for courtesy’s sake.

First of all:

Aziraphale definitely thought there was a chance Crowley might still want to help him out after he said he was leaving for Alpha Centauri, because he called Crowley the instant he realized Heaven was determined to destroy Earth. However, on his second contact attempt, he asked if Crowley went to Alpha Centauri. While Aziraphale probably knew, given the circumstances, that Crowley hadn’t literally left the planet, the question was an opportunity for Crowley to get out of helping. Aziraphale had to have given him that opportunity on purpose because he wasn’t 100% sure if Crowley would still want to help.

Last time Aziraphale called him, Crowley had said it wasn’t a good time to talk. “I’ve got an old friend here.” They didn’t get any time to communicate, but Crowley was playing it as cool as he could. Aziraphale, who...sometimes takes things at face value, could believe that he had an old friend there instead of an enemy.

Aziraphale does not know he’s supposed to be dead. He doesn’t know the bookshop burned down, and he has no idea about what Crowley went through inside.

All of these things together would lead me to think that no, in that moment, Aziraphale did not know Crowley was talking about him. He reacted as if he might not know, and there are several reasons that he could plausibly not know.

However.

Fast-forward to Tadfield airbase. Aziraphale realizes the best way to compel Crowley to come up with an idea for stopping Satan is to threaten never to speak to him again (or, at least, remind him that if they die now they’re never going to speak again). This would indicate that he does know what Crowley was suggesting back there: that Aziraphale is his best friend, so much so that life isn’t worth living without him. And, conversely, that he might be persuaded life is worth living for him.

This tells us with relatively little doubt that Aziraphale does in fact know Crowley’s feelings and that he was the loss Crowley was so upset about.

It’s also worth noting that in the script book, Aziraphale is given a chance to label their relationship when introducing Crowley to Madame Tracy. Aziraphale just says “He’s...well, we’re sort of business associates.” He is still reticent to label Crowley a friend (even though Crowley literally just said they were friends to the army guy). So it’s quite believable that back at the bar, he would have tried to work around accepting the Best Friend moniker from Crowley.

Initially, when Crowley said he “lost his best friend,” Aziraphale had no idea about the bookshop fire, and he probably thought Crowley was referring to their relationship being lost during their argument during the bandstand breakup. As in, the two of them had a fight, Aziraphale said “we’re not friends,” and now they’re not friends anymore. As far as Aziraphale would know, this upset Crowley SO much that he just gave up on living.

This is not flattering. This is disturbing. Aziraphale has been afraid of Crowley getting hurt by their relationship - “whatever you wish to call it” - for at least 417 years, first mentioned on-screen in 1601. Is it the only thing Aziraphale has been afraid of? Certainly not. He has been attempting self-preservation as well. But is it important? Without a doubt.

THIS IS KIND OF LIKE AZIRAPHALE’S BURNING BOOKSHOP MOMENT. Crowley isn’t LITERALLY dead, but he’s resigned himself to it...and Aziraphale is blaming himself. That awkward “I’m so sorry to hear it” is, in many ways, Aziraphale trying to keep his shit together. Just as Crowley, in the bookshop, thought he’d caused Aziraphale’s death, Aziraphale thinks Crowley’s death is the final consequence of befriending an angel.

I’d like to keep in mind the one instance in the series when Aziraphale does openly call Crowley a friend. It’s when he’s lying about not having any information about the Antichrist. When reminded to call with any updates, he says, “Of course! We’re friends! Why would you think I wouldn’t?” Given how strategic Aziraphale is trying to be, I think he’s partly nervous and losing track of his lies/accidentally letting the truth slip, and partly trying to butter Crowley up because he knows that if going to Heaven works like he wants it to, Crowley will have to accept their asylum. The one difference between this moment and all the other moments when he denies their friendship (which almost always also involve lying to other people) is at this moment, Aziraphale thinks he’s figured out how to solve Armageddon.

Anyway, Aziraphale promptly goes and feels Heaven out to see if they might just stop the entire war like he wants. When the Archangels turn the conversation to how much they all love smiting the foe, however, Aziraphale backs down and turns his Antichrist discovery into a hypothetical, choosing not to tell Heaven about it right away, either. Here, they’ve reframed Crowley once again as “the foe.” After that, Aziraphale has another fit of indecision, but agrees to meet Crowley at the bandstand, where he suggests, subtly (but not that subtly) that Crowley should join Heaven.

This tells me that he still hopes Heaven might save Earth, but if he’s going to save Crowley alongside Earth, then he’s gonna have to get Crowley on Heaven’s side so that he doesn’t get Smited. He’s so certain at this point this is the only solution that he won’t even let Crowley walk away until Crowley establishes that there is another option besides Heaven.

And that second option - the option to just leave it all and flee to the stars - is what makes Aziraphale decide it’s time to end their Arrangement and deny everything about their relationship instead of simply saying “no, I’m not leaving.” After all, Crowley cited their friendship as the reason they should go off together. As far as I can see, the only way this sudden turnaround really makes sense is if Aziraphale is being protective here, trying to remove himself from the equation in the desperate hope that Crowley will make decisions for himself rather than for Aziraphale (who is occasionally dense but is not stupid; he remembers 1862, and 1941, and 1967).

This exchange loops us back to Aziraphale’s probable assumption in the bar that Crowley’s “I lost my best friend” is referring to this fight, NOT to Aziraphale’s presumed death.

“I’m so sorry to hear it.” Almost six months later, I finally believe I have a real interpretation for that phrase. With the context that it’s Crowley explaining that’s why he hasn’t gone to Alpha Centauri to escape from the war between Heaven and Hell, why he’s so devastated, why he’s given up on survival, it’s Aziraphale responding, “I’m sorry you lost something so important to you. I’m sorry I was so important to you. I’m sorry that you decided your life wasn’t worth living without me.”***

But Aziraphale:

Is not going to apologize for the fight itself. He was harsh, but he WAS doing his best, and in this moment, I don’t think he sees any way that he could have avoided it.

Is not going to acknowledge that they’re friends. Right now, he likely still believes Crowley would be better off far away from here. And he also probably believes that calling themselves “friends” remains a bad idea, because while he’s been disabused of the notion that Heaven is worth asking for help, Heaven and Hell and their punishments are STILL looming over them. I have little doubt that Aziraphale’s ideology is playing into this as well - he believes they’re enemies and therefore cannot be classified as friends - but it’s the threat behind that ideology that is motivating him, not that he loves the ideology for its own sake.

Aziraphale always eventually turns to Crowley when he doesn’t know what to do because Crowley is fucking brilliant and also the only being in the universe who actually cares about either Aziraphale or Earth for their own sakes.

However, I’d say he avoided getting Crowley involved until he realized there was absolutely no other option, rather carefully made sure Crowley didn’t have to be involved, and gives Crowley a choice every step of the way on whether he wants to risk his life all the way until the tail end. When they’re sitting at the bus stop and he’s reminding Crowley, “my side wouldn’t like that,” it isn’t only for Aziraphale’s benefit; it is a habit, yes, but he’s likely thinking about how if the Archangels caught him and Crowley living together, they’d definitely smite Crowley because that’s what they love to do. They told him as much during the conversation in Heaven, going as far as to say “Crowley and the others were cast out, but nothing was ever really settled.” They’d love to “settle” things. So would Hell, now. And it is Crowley’s determination to stay that convinces Aziraphale it’s finally okay to believe they’re on their own side.

I think, on that bench in Tadfield, the question of whether it’s time to leave the planet was still hanging over the two of them. After all, they’re now slated for punishment. I think that by saying “I suppose I should get him to drop me off at the bookshop,” Aziraphale was gently informing Crowley that he doesn’t plan to leave Earth - he plans to die here. By saying “I don’t think my side would like that” about Crowley’s idea that they should live together, he’s giving Crowley one more chance to leave for the stars.

Good Omens is about a lot of things. One of them is opposites. Aziraphale’s faulty philosophical assumption is that blending two “opposite” things (or, in this case, people) will destroy them both. As far as he’s concerned, either one of those two people must first change, so that they’re no longer “opposite” (i.e. Crowley rejoins Heaven), or they must not mix (“I need a receptive body. It’s a pity I can’t inhabit yours! But occult, ethereal...we’d probably explode.”) The real truth is that having both of them together is the only way to win, of course. The Earth is a Libra and it thrives on balance, but not separation.

All this - the fact that Aziraphale will still ask for help with saving the world but denies his friendship with Crowley and seems to try to stay away as a protective measure - really suggests to me that Aziraphale loves Crowley, cares deeply about him, but wants him to stay only if he’s genuinely going to choose Earth for his own sake, not because he’s trying to choose Aziraphale (who, in his own opinion, is dangerous to be around; see 1601, the Holy Water, the bandstand). What he’s not taking into account is that he, Crowley, and the Earth are united as one, and it’s not only safe for the two of them to choose each other, but it’s essential.

Yeah. Leaving together on the bus is Aziraphale finally letting Crowley choose him.

***A little note about Crowley’s self-worth/will to live...I don’t mean to imply that he doesn’t have any interest in living outside of having a relationship with Aziraphale. Of course he does. But in that moment, with the incomplete information that Aziraphale has, it looks to him like that’s what is being said. In reality, Crowley’s despair isn’t just about not being friends anymore - it’s the belief that Aziraphale is dead, permanently gone. When you care a lot about someone, as hard as it is to move on from a breakup, it’s even more difficult to get over the despair of knowing that person is no longer out there at all. Combined with Armageddon, it was too much.

Crowley and Aziraphale are extremely oblivious, and yes, they do have some misunderstandings. But in the grand scheme of things, it’s not their mutual feelings that they’re oblivious to. It’s the fact that they actually do have the power to save each other. It took an act not of divine but of human intervention to get them to understand that.

[davidjjohnston3]

The trees are straight and true here, and the help comes without seeming harpoons.  I considered some insane things which were ‘above my pay-grade’ and as is my wont reflected on the state and implications of my former profession and what old friends and pharons meant to me.  Right now think that my core goal in life is not to blow myself up.  As a former would-have-been SecState said, ‘I love so many people.’  I am only sad that trying as I did to uproot that carrot of love just now could have resulted in the demolition of an entire root-network, of at least my own excision therefrom.

‘Some people’ want revenge against life for not going their way or not being the color or fragrance or face shape they like or feel it ought to be - ‘no that is not what I meant at all.’  They will never hold a life reliable which doesn’t resemble their ideal, imago, or ‘soul-idol’ &c.  The meaning of the name ‘Cordelia’ as in King Lear is something like ‘heart’s ideal.’  I was driving and considering a novel that I feel touched absolute supreme greatness without knowing it or in a way that could mislead some readers Mrs. Mary HK Choi’s Yolk a novel I looked forward for a very long time.  I had all these references and fractal coreferences and forgot about actual birds, like what does the chick eat in the egg.

‘Blood is the life’ - I liked etymologies for a long time and my intellectualism caused me acute trouble in Confirmation Class at Morrow Memorial United Methodist Church in about 1998.  ‘Pastor’ Gretchen taught us the word root ‘consacramentum’ which comes from dipping the hand in blood in the concave of a Roman shield - those huge rectangular shields which could be used in formation as ‘testudo’ or turtle to stop projectile weapons and allowed soldiers to make pin-point stabbing attacks from a ‘matrix(?)’ of high protection.  I forget what kind of animal was killed to pool the blood in the shield but it might have been a rabbit.

I was reading ‘Revelation,’ I don’t recall what everyone else was talking about.  Some kind of community service project, interview your parents, buy a wedding-magazine and make a whole plan for how you would get married and how much it would cost (and while you’re at it describe how you would 1) restore a classic Shelby Cobra using newspaper and Krazy Glue 2) drive foresaid drop-top to the Moon).  

The Pastor was a pipe-smoker named ‘Painter’ who used the NY Lotto’s ‘Hey you never know’ slogan to describe sth like Pascal’s Wager; OTOH St. Paul teaches us that everyone is born knowing God exists (Romans).  The problem is that people fail or omit to glorify Him or subsequently ruin or betray their own best efforts through blasphemy, turning or falling away, cowardice, denial, attachment to certain sins or being ‘yoked unequally’ with non-believers.  

I reflected starting in 2008 that I was shy of my ‘first love’ (rather, the woman I fell in love with at 14); at the time I gloried or reveled in the shyness like a Wallace Stevens poem that ends, ‘And not to have written a book.’  I could’ve written a few books by now or walked away from book-writing or changed my mind / specified which kind of book I might have written and for whom.  

I remember always admiring the ‘magic’ of literature and feeling sad I had no characters or world of my own to work magic with.  Star Wars and my own life and later much else supplied ‘materia poetica’ and till the point that I began to think in fiction and became addicted to interpreting my own in ‘story-ideas’ although that is not to say that what happened around me didn’t happen.  

America is trying to become a better country in numerous valences, loving our neighbors, holding each other accountable.  ‘Justice’ with or without the marks is important.  It is a divine Judgment that Covid fell on the world even if eventually we all shall learn who devised the virus or leaked it or modulated its mutations.  I was eager to rejoin the world feeling I might overcome my mental illness but I mishandled specific questions and tests.  I ended up turning people against me and creating monsters more than ever as well as perhaps terminally sabotaging any chance I might’ve had of fulfilling a dream or making good on the past.  I have a lot of opinions on the CCP but should’ve focused on love and family and personal responsibilities as in the past or at least held to my long-standing feeling that Chinese people deserve better rather than associating myself with hard-liners and racists or those who would simplify issues in order to bring about ultimate victory without temperance or concern for the side-effects.

In Milwaukee where I lived for far too long everyone’s spirit - electric, intellectual, visory(?), informational et cetera seemed to be militating against everybody else’s.  There were fake vaccines, radioactive ice cream (or thermogenic ice-cream), gun-battles as usual, lines crossed, all kinds of scores that people tried to settle.  I also realized that the police were probably tracking for years my various attempts to obtain weapons from samurai-swords to handguns though the purpose was defensive and I can only trust at this point that some good lawyer will prevent the bad lawyers and cops from presenting the most damning circumstantial case they could.  People in Milwaukee own AK-47′s, automatic shotguns, probably all kinds of explosives, improvised chemical weapons and (’our Black brothers’ - Schopenhauer) biological weapons - the cops don’t stand a chance that I can tell and even the National Guard perhaps could get outclassed by retired military.  I had told myself for years that it was only the ghetto’s that bore witness to this paramilitary equipage and that the retired SEAL Team 4 member with the ‘Stop Socialism’ and ‘Jobs Not Mobs’ sign on his front lawn would protect me from the Maoist-Covid Night of the Long Knives but I feel I tempted God a lot in the past.  

I read all these books and took to heart that people thought I was just entertaining myself with but now as then I should’ve guarded my heart or not begged the question of what others thought about me or saw in me.  I literally felt of late ‘I am the anti-Christ’ - good-looking at times, preach world peace, ‘form of godliness,’ want to be friends with everyone, build bridges - and had to rack my brains to come up with an ‘anti-Christology’ and science / concept of the Whore of Babylon just to make sure it was more than me alone.  I also wished to simplify my past and help kids ‘get life right the right time’ doing battle with philosophies that opposed this consciously or otherwise but stepped into numerous minefields and also tried running when I should’ve flown over.  

Everyone’s trying to get rich and build back better and I profoundly admired the American President for doing, finally, apparently, what presidents had tried to decades even as I remember ‘Flowers 1881′ a poem that implies that basically teachers can do only so much before turning their kids loose in a world no one has yet fixed and which others keep breaking; from a California almanac that also instructed me that the same old debates and cross-fires and burdens plague teachers as always, not that it is an ‘impossible profession’ but honestly that God won’t let us establish Heaven on Earth or at least not me or at least not America or at least not teachers who savor the experience of being a teacher or the beauty of their students more than the outcomes or commitment or intrinsic value of the work or the confirmed identity / vocation / personhood of the instructor.  There are always new and old at any rate and different cultures all describe the teacher as needing to keep both alive; as do descriptions of higher education and scholarship.  

I questioned my qualifications / background and wondered about re-training but can’t afford tuition anywhere so I am trying to cling to the core of my capabilities / blessings.  ABC and XYZ.  The glory of the soul or souls.  

I kept theorizing Russian literature as well as weapons-systems and ultimate destiny, sailing ships, noble names, divisions, the flaming sword of Archangel Gabriel, the mission of Russia today with respect to the world order.  I am also simply trying to be healthy and stop for a while trying to parse out who was the love of my life or what it still left in terms of action or redemption or justice or surrender or mitigation or meeting new friends or propounding the kind of understand with carefulness I have believed in - ‘saving people from themselves.’  Driving up here I remember being distressed at a gas-station in California when I was about 5 or 6 since the pump was leaking, being very upset with my parents and family.  In those days I also disliked animal-cruelty though the world today seems so depraved and deprived with respect to human interests I would make no bones about neglecting most all animals outside of military or police use.  When I was about 3 I saw white kids set a frog on fire; my mother has a history of running over cats.

I dislike winging it and taking risks.  There is a song I call to myself ‘Run Away’ though its title is ‘Paradise.’  I am not a utopian communist for believing in secular justice and its instrinsic value... I wonder whether when I helped people in the past there were always strings attached or maybe I was just trying to close my case and discharge my responsibilities too rapidly without allowing others to gestate or make an abode in my heart besides and beyond what I could get out of them, glorifying myself, or tell others about.  

What is motherhood?  What is travail?  Is there a kind of problematic ‘female gaze’ as feminists talk of a ‘male gaze’ associated with sadism or fascination / fetishism?  It’s psychology which is not my first love at all since it appeared pretentious and distracting and retarding (in the literal sense of slowing down).

I also remembered reading various things about Victor Hugo whose ‘93′ is an important novel today due to its techno-utopianism, feminism or ‘new model egalitarianism,’ fusion of revolution and religion, etc.  But I had forgotten ‘Les Miserable’ with its themes of ransom or eventual recompense, genealogies, caution, and more none of which is to negate the various complains against me or death-warrant from China or my parents with their partial private readings of Proverbs (’Let’s stone David for embarrassing us / not doing precisely what we want’ - no mention of witnesses, tribunals, questions, mitigation-hearings, actual counsels of judges etc. but just American-German ‘coalitions of the willing’ ‘run and get my gun’ ‘team-building’ etc. which in my experience ends with tanks on the street and military dictatorships as when at the end of the CultRev PLA regulars were gunning down former justice-fanatics who’d been stripping women, kicking pregnant stomachs etc. as in The Vagrants).  Naturally having grown up in a family fascinated with Lee Kwanyew and Arnold Schwarzenegger and conflicted about ‘fascism’ I had reservations about the United States’ ability to suddenly dress up and ‘stand at perpetual moral attention’ but I guess my own problems are just that I am poor with a rich kid’s mind and no one really likes me except strangers and faraway friends who were easily spooked and/or just couldn’t be there.  ‘King of South shall attack and King of North shall crush them  with chariots &c.’ - in the end righteous will prevail whichever side of the line I end up on in the final assessment.  I also remembered today a novel called ‘The Old Capital’ about a bad artist father, a virgin daughter, straight and true pines.  Some other aspects of this novel are silly as well as criminally problematic and there's a lot of that going on in new-old old news America / Babylon or at least to quote my favorite lawyer / leave lawyering movie 'First let's get out of Milwaukee.'  Miss the land of June snow.