#some of these are probably more obvious than others but i think they're interesting. everything about this production is so good

[alexxncl]

‼️NIGHTBRINGER LESSON 55 SPOILERS‼️

masterlist | all lessons | season 3 | lesson 54 | lesson 55.2

not they ended last lesson on the cliffhanger and barely addressed it in this one 🧍🏾

honestly that's on par for someone as closed off as raphael but FUCK i wanted some insight on how he's actually feeling. what's up with angels and not letting themselves show weakness ???

also the fact that this part of the lesson is called "back to the sorcerer's society" ??? mc's had too many death scares i can't keep doing this

gotta get all the mammon crumbs i can now that i know that the stupid date feature is 30 FUCKING DOLLARS 😐 i'm semi p2p but this shit is getting more and more ridiculous as the days drag on. like i'll just use character and and fanfiction atp

it's the way that i forgot the fact that mc's existence can literally tear apart reality at the seams. like that whole thing that happened in season 3 (4?) of og when simeon had to steal lucifer's ring and ended up becoming human bc of it

i feel like his punishment would've been way more lethal if the stakes weren't so dire. mc having lucifer's ring was the only sure fire way to ensure stability within and between the human, celestial, and demon realms without having any of them implode

this also explains why magic sickness is so concerning for mc specifically. to quote marvel, kayden is probably this universe's anchor being. if they go down, so does everything else in the timeline

me and sol got beef now bc what /lh

like yes he did what had to be done but did he HAVE to do what had to be done ????

also the fact that mc broke the measuring device after solomon had to fix it with reinforcements bc he himself broke the device before is so ??? like how fucking strong is mc ??????

this brings even more of a concern to the fact that a war breaking out between any of the realms would literally be life and death. if any of the brothers or their friends family get hurt, mc would cause irreparable damage to whoever or whatever is closest to them, whether the target caused the problem or not. like that's terrifying

this is why i love satan

he's almost more no-bullshit than lucifer is, which makes sense all things considered. in his eyes they still don't know anything about mc's power. all this is to satan is an educated guess, and when it inevitably gets disproved, then what? what if they do end up hurting someone

i doubt that'll happen since there's so little time left in this season but idk. it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility

i'm very glad that they used the very obvious answer as to why mc's powers are going haywire, bc the whole "it's just bc they're so loving and kind" thing just seemed like a cop out to me. like where are the stakes. what about the first 40 lessons of the game

ANYWAYS i'm very interested to see how this'll play out. part of me thinks diavolo and lucifer already know bc 1) they're not stupid and 2) dia is in close enough proximity to the time demon himself to know when something happened to the time stream (or as barbie himself called it, "time soup")

like look at the way barbatos reacted and the way diavolo immediately changed the subject. they both know something's going on, but whether or not diavolo knows the specifics is up in the air

satan is also the funniest mf on the planet idc argue with the wall. he really is the product of all his brothers bc this SCREAMS mammon and levi

:((( poor raph

i honestly can't even imagine what it feels like. the only angels he probably has left that he's actually close to are michael and maybe luke. even then, he probaboy sees luke as someone he can't confide in and feels like he's losing his brother(s) all over again

at least with simeon in purgatory hall, he can delude himself into thinking that simeon's still an angel. but if he's not there anymore, it's all but set in stone that he's lost what little connection he had left to simeon and, in a way, the other brothers, bc luke wasn't around or old enough to remember pre-war times

on a brighter note...michael lore. kinda. and mephisto being a kisser of multiple asses (mephisto fans i'm sorry he's so fun to dog on)

i wish he could get his head outta his ass though. like actually. just pay your boyfriend a visit ffs, he'd be beyond happy to see you

of COURSE he's not in his room and of COURSE this is how the lesson ends

watch lesson 60 end with a michael-related cliffhanger. like watch them tease his design reveal and then just cut the shit off right before he's shown

but i need the michael design asap i'm so serious. solmare count your days

[bumblingest-bee]

a non-exhaustive list of details about the broadway production of assassins that i only noticed recently:

after the balladeer burns a page out of booth's journal and tosses it on the ground, squeaky picks it up and reads it during the following scene

the shooting target silhouette banners for each assassin have the number of their president on them

moore is waving a tiny american flag during another national anthem 😭

the balladeer starts the show wearing a jacket but has it off by the ballad of czolgosz, almost like he's already slowly turning into oswald

after squeaky cuts her forehead during unworthy of your love, she appears with the scar on her face for the rest of the show

during the "what does a man do" speech czolgosz is changing the bandages on his hands and looking at the burns

[petermorwood]

More on pre-electricity lighting.

Interesting to see this one pop up again after nearly two years - courtesy of @dduane, too! :->

*****

After experiencing a couple more storm-related power cuts since my original post, as well as a couple of after-dark garden BBQs, I've come to the conclusion that C.J. Cherryh puts far too much emphasis on "how dark things were pre-electric light".

For one thing eyes adjust, dilating in dim light to gather whatever illumination is available. Okay, if there's none, there's none - but if there's some, human eyes can make use of it, some better or just faster than others. They're the ones with "good night vision".

Think, for instance, of how little you can see of your unlit bedroom just after you've turned off the lights, and how much more of it you can see if you wake up a couple of hours later.

There's also that business of feeling your way around, risking breaking your neck etc. People get used to their surroundings and, after a while, can feel their way around a familiar location even in total darkness with a fair amount of confidence.

Problems arise when Things Aren't Where They Should Be (or when New Things Arrive) and is when most trips, stumbles, hacked shins and stubbed toes happen, but usually - Lego bricks and upturned UK plugs aside - non-light domestic navigation is incident-free.

*****

Here are a couple of pics from one of those BBQs: one candle and a firepit early on, then the candle, firepit and an oil lamp much later, all much more obvious than DD's iPad screen.

Though I remain surprised at how well my phonecam was handling this low light, my own unassisted eyes were doing far better. For instance, that area between the table and the firepit wasn't such an impenetrable pool of darkness as it appears in the photo.

I see (hah!) no reason why those same Accustomed Eyes would have any more difficulty with candles or oil lamps as interior lighting, even without the mirrors or reflectors in my previous post.

With those, and with white interior walls, things would be even brighter. There's a reason why so many reconstructed period buildings in Folk Museums etc. are (authentically) whitewashed not just outside but inside as well. It was cheap, had disinfectant qualities, and was a reflective surface. Win, win and win.

*****

All right, there were no switches to turn on a light. But there was no need for what C.J. describes as stumbling about to reach the fire, because there were tinderboxes and, for many centuries before them, flint and steel. Since "firesteels" have been heraldic charges since the 1100s, the actual tool must have been in use for even longer.

Tinderboxes were fire-starter sets with flint, steel and "tinder" all packed into (surprise!) a box. The tinder was easily lit ignition material, often "charcloth", fabric baked in an airtight jar or tin which would now start to glow just from a spark.

They're mentioned in both "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings". Oddly enough, "Hobbit" mentions matches in a couple of places, but I suspect that's a carry-over from when it was just a children's story, not part of the main Legendarium.

Tinderboxes could be simple, just a basic flint-and-steel kit with some tinder for the sparks to fall on...

...or elaborate like this one, with a fancy striker, charcloth, kindling material and even wooden "spills" (long splinters) to transfer flame to a candle or the kindling...

This tinderbox even doubles as a candlestick, complete with a snuffer which would have been inside along with everything else.

Here's a close-up of the striker box with its inner and outer lids open:

What looks like a short pencil with an eraser is actually the striker. A bit of tinder or charcloth would have been pulled through that small hole in the outer lid, which was then closed.

There was a rough steel surface on the lid, and the striker was scraped along it, like so:

This was done for a TV show or film, so the tinder was probably made more flammable with, possibly, lighter fuel. That would be thoroughly appropriate, since a Zippo or similar lighter works on exactly the same principle.

A real-life version of any tinderbox would usually just produce glowing embers needing blown on to make a flame, which is shown sometimes in movies - especially as a will-it-light-or-won't-it? tension build - but is usually a bit slow and non-visual for screen work.

*****

There were even flintlock tinderboxes which worked with the same mechanism as those on firearms. Here's a pocket version:

Here are a couple of bedside versions, once again complete with a candlestick:

And here are three (for home defence?) with a spotlight candle lantern on one side and a double-trigger pistol on the other.

Pull one trigger to light the candle, pull the other trigger to fire the gun.

What could possibly go wrong? :-P

*****

Those pistol lanterns, magnified by lenses, weren't just to let their owner see what they were shooting at: they would also have dazzled whatever miscreant was sneaking around in the dark, irises dilated to make best use of available glimmer.

Swordsmen both good and bad knew this trick too, and various fight manuals taught how to manage a thumb-shuttered lamp encountered suddenly in a dark alley.

There's a sword-and-lantern combat in the 1973 "Three Musketeers" between Michael York (D'Artagnan) and Christopher Lee (Rochefort), which was a great idea.

Unfortunately it failed in execution because the "Hollywood Darkness" which let viewers see the action, wasn't dark enough to emphasise the hazards / advantages of snapping the lamps open and shut.

This TV screencap (can't get a better one, the DVD won't run in a computer drive) shows what I mean.

In fact, like the photos of the BBQ, this image - and entire fight - looks even brighter through "real eyes" than with the phonecam. Just as there can be too much dark in a night scene, there can also be too much light.

*****

One last thing I found when assembling pics for the post were Folding Candle-lanterns.

They were used from about the mid-1700s to the later 20th century (Swiss Army ca. 1978) as travel accessories and emergency equipment, and IMO - I've Made A Note - they'd fit right into a fantasy world whose tech level was able to make them.

The first and last are reproductions: this one is real, from about 1830.

The clear part was mica - a transparent mineral which can be split into thin flexible sheets - while others use horn / parchment, though both of these are translucent rather than transparent. Regardless, all were far less likely to break than glass.

One or two inner surfaces were usually tin, giving the lantern its own built-in reflector, and tech-level-wise, tin as a shiny or decorative finish has been used since Roman times.

I'm pretty sure that top-of-the-line models could also have been finished with their own matching, maybe even built-in, tinderboxes.

And if real ones didn't, fictional ones certainly could. :->

*****

Yet more period lighting stuff here, including flintlock alarm clocks (!)

[cuntylouis]

"Armand is Alice and Daniel's wife/s and kids aren't real" has become a popular fan theory (even Luke Brandon Field said he liked it!) but i'd be surprised if it was right. I think it's definitely possible that Devil's Minion will be adapted in the show (though probably not exactly like in the books), but i personally think this whole imaginary family thing would be a poor way to handle the storyline for a variety of reasons. I think a twist like that would probably come across convoluted and (as Daniel might say) like something from a telenovela.

We see children's toys in Daniel's house and he's public figure who many people know with an autobiography and everything. Creating decades worth of false memories for Daniel and somehow also maintaining that imaginary life story for decades wouldn't be enough, Armand or whoever did it would also realistically have to have an absurd level of control over the physical world, public records and many other people's minds to sustain an illusion like that. I also frankly think it would be difficult to avoid having some sexist and biphobic undertones to the idea that Daniel's relationships with women were unreal and meaningless and only his relationship with a man matters.

However, the most important reason why i think Daniel's wives and children should be real is that they make him a richer, more nuanced character and are actually central to understanding him and his motives. He has lived a full and complex life that has been influenced and to some extent defined by his encounters with vampires, but those vampires still weren't his whole life. I think it's more interesting to see Daniel's human life and his relationship with Armand and Louis as something connected and overlapping that both affect each other. We actually learn quite a lot about Daniel from what he says about his partners and children.

This scene - as well as how Alice in general is discussed - reminded many people of how Daniel in the books talks about Armand, such as this famous passage:

Parallels between Daniel's relationships with Alice and Armand in the books are obvious but i think they're just that, parallels. Both the sweet little scene where Daniel is talking about Alice's eyebrows and the book scene where he's talking about loving Armand not despite but because he's a monster reflect in different ways who Daniel is as a person; he feels drawn to unconventional and strange and sees beauty where others might not. He ended up in this situation with vampires too because he wanted to interview people who're rejected by the society.

If Daniel already had some sort of relationship with Armand in the past it makes sense that it would be associated with Alice in his mind. There may be an overlap between the timelines of those relationships. A memory of Armand rises when Daniel is reminded of Alice rejecting his marriage proposal, in the books Armand rejected his wish to be turn him into a vampire, which would've been something akin to marriage. I think Alice being real is much more compelling for Armand's character too, with Armand expressing surprising understanding and sympathy toward Daniel's wife rather than just speaking about his own experience through an imaginary woman.

Completely putting aside Devil's Minion and is it a thing in the show or not, i think Daniel's family is particularly important to Louis' and Daniel's relationship. Something that hasn't technically been explicitly said but to me seems obvious is that Louis and Daniel strongly relate to each other as fathers. Many scenes where we see Louis and Daniel show vulnerability in front of each other have something to do with their partners and children. In 1.02 as one of the earliest examples of this Louis replicates the dessert Daniel had with Alice, trying to connect with him and his humanity through it, Daniel shares personal memory and they eat together in companionable silence.

I would argue that Claudia, her memory, and Louis' relationship with her is the heart of the story in these first two seasons. Claudia entering the story in 1.04 marks the shift in the interview and Daniel's approach; he becomes both more combative and more emotionally invested. He has a strong reaction to reading Claudia's diaries, and it's not difficult for any parent to guess that he's also imagining her own daughters in similar circumstances to Claudia.

I think this conversation at the end of the episode (alongside Louis' speech to Daniel in San Francisco and them remembering it in 2.05) is the most important scene between Louis and Daniel. They share the understanding what it feels like to have children and love them so much you don't even have words for it, but still fail them. It's not a coincidence that in the original interview in San Francisco what leads to Louis attacking Daniel is Louis telling the story of Claudia leaving alone and Louis going back to Lestat, and Daniel acting dismissively and clearly not understanding why this is so painful memory to Louis. Daniel was young, stupid and high - and he didn't have children yet. Daniel now wouldn't act like that when hearing this story, and he doesn't in 1.06 when hearing it again. And notably when Louis says that he would now agree to turn Daniel, Daniel says he doesn't want it anymore and specifically mentions his daughters as one of the reasons. Having to watch your children die before you is the most horrifying thing in the world. It's something Louis had to go through and Daniel wishes he never has to, even if vampirism still intrigues him.

Daniel realizes quickly that it all comes down to Louis' feelings of guilt and shame about failing Claudia and his inability to protect her, because he has similar feelings about his own daughters. Louis' story unravels in s1 finale because Daniel recognizes that Louis' more palatable narrative around what happened with Claudia isn't fully true. Daniel carefully read through Claudia's diaries and tried to learn to understand her, and he positions himself as someone who's trying to defend her integrity and reveal the injustice that was done to her. This is again about Daniel's own children as much as it's about Claudia. He knows that he's a bad father, his daughters don't talk to him anymore and it's implied that he neglected them when focusing on other things that interested him more. When Daniel defends Claudia he's on some level trying to rectify his own mistakes and when he calls Louis out he's also voicing his own self-loathing.

Eric Bogosian remarked that the scene in 2.01 where Louis cries and thanks for Daniel for helping him to remember that Claudia could dream is another shift in their dynamic. Daniel looks at Louis with genuine concern, and after that he tones down his usual sarcasm and jabs significantly. Daniel, again, can sympathize with how important this is for Louis. There's a new sincerity and empathy in their interactions. Sometimes the audience forgets that this story is ultimately about Claudia, but Daniel hasn't forgotten it since he first realized it. They're trying to understand together what happened to Louis' child and everything that led to it. I think if Daniel wasn't a father he would've acted differently, and Louis wouldn't have trusted him in the same way either and been able to share his and Claudia's story. I think this shared sorrow, love and guilt they feel as fathers is one of the most crucial parts of their connection.

[bisnes-socks]

i have a lot to say about this one so pack a snack and let's make sex moneyyy

i think this is one of the most openly culture and media (and social media) critical songs he has. i think it's a super daring song that probably makes the likes of certain helsingin sanomat music critics a little bit uncomfortable, because he is spitting facts - and because he has a relationship with sex for show that people for some reason are still quite weird about.

to start a little further back: we all know sex sells. we all know the music industry uses sex to sell their products. but for some reason, in the year of our lord 2024, a musical artist verbally recognising that they are using their sexuality and sexual themes to build their brand is somehow scandalous. it's like.. it's okay to use sex to sell your art, if it's like "accidental" MTV sexuality or like agreeing to looking objectifiable. the media will call you hot and sexy and wow. but if you own your sexuality, make it obvious that yes this is sexual, i'm being very deliberately sexual and i am trying to be sexual..? oh no that won't do! scandal! we've seen it with so many artists, especially female artists. like WAP is a great example! how scandalous that suddenly these women had agency in their own sexuality! but no-one said a word when their sexuality served the usual male gaze agenda. it's like people are so much more comfortable being peeping toms who sexualise and objectify artists when they're not looking, but as soon as the artist does it as part of their whole thing? well now it's inappropriate actually.

he talked about this in a helsingin sanomat interview, saying how he does actually think things revolve too much around sex in the music industry, even though he uses sex and sexual themes himself to sell things as well, and that he sees the irony in saying that. but the difference, in my opinion, is that the way he, or someone like erika vikman for example, is so open and upfront about the sexual themes, that it becomes carnevalistic, it becomes camp. it's not insidiously using sexual and heteronormative objectifying imagery to get people horny. what käärijä does is playful and fun sexuality, and for whatever reason that is so unusual it needs to be talked about separately as something a bit wild and scandalous, and he needs to be asked to explain his actions.

and that's what this song is. he's very clearly saying none of this is accidental. the visuals of his brand, the social media content, the onlyfans thing, none of it is coincidental, accidental or anything other than his perfectly deliberate way of selling sex. and he has talked about these themes before, he has talked about like the rammstein live stuff that inspired him (some of it is pretty hardcore stuff) so to his fans it's nothing surprising that sexual themes are present in the brand and interest him. but he has also talked about how, even if this song is a bit tongue in cheek, he's also serious. and he is right. and for some reason calling people out about the fact that sex makes them buy things, even when it's true, is still.. scandalous somehow.

and he's basically calling people easy lmao. like, i needed to figure out a lil boost to my career and well, i know what will make you throw money at me. and i won't be shy about it either.

i'm getting sidetracked. the song.

and then that is enough to warrant lyrics such as "koko perheen käärijästä koko perheen krapula" meaning "käärijä for the whole family turning into a hangover for the whole family".

but it was all already there! let's not for a second pretend CCC was some sort of family show and a family song. it's not. but people were okay with that, because they could happily confuse the camp and carnevalistic sexuality of käärijä with the campness and carnevalistic nature of eurovision, and because it wasn't more than the suggestive sexual nature of everything else around them. and it was all just fun, when kids came up with their own lyrics to the song because they couldn't understand the references to drinking. so then people took their kids to see him at shows and became scandalised by the adult nature of it all. it's like.. people were fine letting their kids see the everyday media sexuality that we see in every eurovision, fine letting their kids get used to that, and then just sort of didn't think käärijä would be anything different. but he's only different in that in his show and brand, sex and sexuality aren't denied while still blatantly obviously there.

but again, a lot of this is to do with media, and what media normalises and what it doesn't. what it deems newsworthy and what it doesn't.

if in ready to go he's telling haters that i know you want to see me try and fail, maybe even be too embarrassed to try, but baby i'm ready to go, then in sex = money he's saying i know you want to see me naked and i know you want sex from all of this, so here you go, i'll sell you some sex. and then he stands there holding eye contact like what are you going to do with it. what a cunty king.

and there are so many fun and funny little details in this song.

right in the first verse we have "kieli taittuu sköödi föödi." good old sköödi föödi. i tried to find the earliest example of sköödi föödi, but i'm starting to think it might predate the internet, or at least social media. not to bring up köpi kallio again, but they use sköödi föödi a lot in viki ja köpi show, and köpi just happened to tweet about it in 2020, saying he believes sköödi föödi has been around for at least 20 years (someone tried to credit viki and köpi for it). so, what does sköödi föödi mean, you ask. it does not mean anything at all. sköödi föödi is just a sound, a noise you make, when you need it, usually in place of something in a foreign language but not exclusively. in this instance, sköödi föödi is him demonstrating his excellent english skills. sköödi föödi (pronounced almost like a sterotypical tv american would say skirdy-firdy) means nothing and it means everything, whatever you need it to mean.

it is also noteworthy to point out that "kieli taittuu" can be a reference to two different things here. the finnish word kieli means both tongue and language. so he could also be saying that he has a very bendy and flexible tongue, like literally. which, of course, all of europe has already seen. taittua literally means to fold or bend, but it's a common phrase to say, that if you can do something, you bend it (or more like it bends as a result). so literally the line translates to "language/tongue bends sköödi föödi".

the first verse ends in "sekö jos mikä on varma nakki" meaning "that, if anything, is a sure thing". nakki literally means a sausage, a hot dog sausage, weiner sausage, you name it: a small sausage. so translating literally: "that if anything is a sure sausage". it's a common phrase in spoken finnish, nothing unusual about that, but i love that he used it, because it makes the next line hilarious on a first listen, when the chant comes in. so when they start chanting NAK- NAK- i really thought they were gonna shout NAKKI. but no, it is nakuna, naked.

okay still with me? good. let's look at the "tein onlyfans bägin, koko suomen daddy" section next.

i remember when the song came out, people did explain who danny is, but in case anyone missed it, danny is a singer from finland, and he was a MASSIVE star back in the day, especially in the 70's. so to say he is bigger than danny is indeed quite the flex, because danny was like.. the finnish equivalent of elvis, basically. but danny is not just a flex, he turns danny into a clever thematical scheme here (more on thematical schemes in the bananas post, if you're interested). he says "kadulla on kuumaa, ne pyytää mua hätiin" and this is a reference to one of danny's most popular and famous songs, kesäkatu. smart, smart, smart! and then of course "kadulla on puumaa, mut mulla on jo täti" meaning there are cougars on the street, but i already have an aunt. which, that to me reads like both a cunty quip and a himbo line all at once. like shutting down some man wanting to be your daddy by telling him "but i already have a father". i nearly choked laughing the first time i heard the line.

also can i just say, calling himself the daddy of finland? like, thinking about the whole context i talked about at first, how people are comfortable with sexual stuff and sexualising, but not comfortable recognising it or being real about it or celebrating it? yeah knowing all that, he just called himself EVERYONE'S daddy in a song called sex = money, and he's not even wrong 😭

in conclusion: i love this song. and i love the attitude in it. it's like he is looking everyone, from every uncomfortable insecure hetero man, every scandalised parent to every tabloid journalist, straight in the eye and saying "yes, i'm selling sex. why? well i couldn't think of anything else, but then again, why should i? isn't this what you want? this is what you want. i know what you want. i'm your daddy."

like if he truly wanted to, he really could have this country on their knees for him, don't tell me last independence day didn't prove it. as much as he gets crap as well, at the end of the day, he has people under a spell by simply being, well, bigger than danny. and he-man.

now. the placement of the song on the album, right after autiomaa.

i personally don't think that the album builds one cohesive narrative from beginning to end. but i think this can be read two ways: a sad way and an empowering way. the sad way to read it is that he means it when he says he couldn't come up with anything else and his creativity is fried, but sex sells so he does that, and it's a bit mindless. but given the context of what he has had to say about this song, i'm more inclined to read this the empowering way: he has worked on himself and found a way to see things more clearly, and he has found it in himself to even be confrontational about things. the whiplash of the song order i think is more to highlight the fact that autiomaa is a rare glimpse into something different, and now here we go again. to me, sex = money makes autiomaa even more powerful, but autiomaa doesn't change the interpretation of sex = money all that much for me.

you really can't be upset about the song without proving his point. and you can't love the song without proving his point. facts have been spat and points have been proven. absolute king behaviour.

and if you read through this whole thing, i owe you money. cash money, not sex money. well, we'll talk about it.

++

bonus: i absolutely love that he knows how to say "make some noise" on this track, but continues to say "give me some voice" or some sort of a hybrid word between voice and noise, something like.. woise, at his international shows. the king of in through one ear, out through the other. he, she, noise, voice, he doesn't know the differences and does not care.

bonus bonus for the sad bojere bitches:

second verse: "täl alal ei sua kukaa huomaa" meaning "nobody will notice you in this field (of work)". maybe my brain is rotted but this moment reminds me so much of the famous liverpool bojere lunch date video where bojan tries to parrot jere, who is saying "tääl ollaa nyt, tota" and bojan goes "talalaiteta" and then they both proceed to giggle about it like it's the funniest thing anyone has ever said. "täl alal" goes out to you, bojan titanic.

[sunandmoonseisai]

"Yeah. And 𝘐'𝘮 real!"

I think about this episode a lot because it really encapsulate wander's core flaw. Wander is a very obsessive person. He has a very tunnel vision and when he has an idea in his head, it overshadow everything else. In this episode, wander is so engrossed in his own imagination that it's like everything around him dissappear, including Sylvia.

He even goes so far as turning Sylvia into a literal puppet in his head.

This finally hit a breaking point for Sylvia who call him out for being so self-centered. Now, I need to point that we don't know if wander had any partners before Sylvia. What I mean is that wander isn't intentionally selfish. He's just not used to consider how his actions affect others. But now, he has Sylvia. And his actions affect her because they're life-partners.

If it wasn't for Sylvia, wander would probably spend eternity in this endless void, losing his sanity and sense of reality in the process. Instead, he chooses Sylvia over his thirst for discovery, allowing them to escape.

There's another example of wander disregarding Sylvia for the sake of his obsession. In "the tourist", wander become so hyperfixated on one-upping another traveler that he drag poor Sylvia all accross the galaxy. Sylvia eventually had enough but wander still end up going back to her, once again choosing her over his obsession.

I think this is an example of Sylvia positively influencing wander. Now, I don't need to explain how wander is a good influence for Sylvia because it's so obvious. Just by looking at them, you know that he bring out her more caring and sensitive side. But Sylvia's influence on wander is more subtle. Just by existing in his life, she keeps him aware of his surroundings. She keeps him aware of his own well-being because what affect him affect her as well. She's the one thing that can bring him out of his tunnel vision. In other words, 𝘚𝘺𝘭𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺.

And I don't know how to end this aside that there's a distinctive lack of wander/Sylvia meta so I'm here to fix that. These two bring the best out of each other, they're so different but complete each other so well and their relationship is much deeper and more interesting than the fandom give them credit for. I had troubles organizing my thoughts so I hope it makes sense. I hope this post will generate some discussion.

[blockgamepirate]

R = Rose (well, it's probably her), E = The Ender King

R: Long ago, E: A lifetime ago,

R: there was a child of the sky… E: there lived a man who fancied himself an explorer. . .

R: whose feathers were as dark as the night, of wings E: who flew with angels' wings,

R: that span across the Heavens. E: as vast as the endless Void.

R: He would take flight, possessing an unwavering spirit E: He soared wherever his whims took him,

R: and journeying through the unknown with a brave heart. E: claiming the treasures and secrets of the unknown as his own.

R: Day by day, E: Time after time,

R: he overcame trials and tribulations, an unwavering soul. E: he fought through trials no person was ever meant to survive.

These opening lines match so closely and it makes the differences in wording and tone very noticeable and interesting.

Rose (I'm just gonna assume it's her, alright) calls Phil a "child of the sky", the Ender King a "man who fancied himself an explorer". Rose is older than the Ender King and she's a protector, she views him as a child. The Ender King is scornful of others doesn't care about anyone but himself and views Phil as a man but immediately implies that Phil himself doesn't understand himself as well as he understands him.

Rose refers to the wings as "dark" but for the Ender King dark wings are kinda obvious, I mean what other kinds of wings are there, right? Instead he focuses on the comparison with angels, because feathers are kind of an alien concept for him, maybe, idk.

What Rose sees as "unwavering spirit", the Ender King sees as "whims", what Rose sees as journeying with a brave heart, the Ender King sees as conquest of the unknown. I think both are majorly projecting here lmao. They're describing themselves more than they're describing Phil.

Rose stresses Phil's unwavering soul "overcoming" trials, the Ender King sees them as battles to be "fought", maybe with a hint of grudging respect for Phil's success against all odds?

The rest of the text in each letter is less obviously mirrored, but the broad lines are still the same:

Rose describes Phil’s misfortune as seemingly having no clear reason, it’s just something that happened and it was a tragedy, but there's still hope for him. She focuses on his feelings of sadness and the way his presence was missed.

The Ender King blames Phil and sees this as some sort of divine punishment for his greed, again projecting his own faults onto Phil, that can only be escaped through redemption. This is clearly how he sees his own predicament now. And he draws that connection himself, explicitly.

I think by this point it's obvious that Rose views Phil as a child (her child?), the Ender King views him as a reflection of himself.

Rose only mentions herself off-handedly, doesn’t make a big deal of herself and even tries to dismiss her identity as unimportant. She only expresses her familiarity with Phil and that she feels his pain and wants to help him. She assures him that they will meet again (not realising that her message ended up being everything but comforting for him, oops.)

The Ender King talks about himself almost as much if not more than he talks about Phil, and only sees Phil’s value in his relation to himself. He makes a big deal about being THE ONLY ONE who can help Phil, which he offers to do, in the most condescending way possible. ”to grant you the peace of mind you so desperately seek”, okay dude.

And of course the way he addresses Phil is full of mockery where Rose's is full of gentle praise. It's interesting that he calls Phil by name, though, while Rose only addresses him by the same sobriquet she used in the beginning, "child of the sky".

It's also interesting how Rose seems to focus a LOT on Phil's wings, but it's hard to say if this is metaphorical or literal (or both). The Ender King's letter definitely makes it sound more like it's about Phil's mental state, him seeking "peace of mind". Rose also sort of touches on something related to that with the comment about his memories, but that's kinda it. The Ender King refers to his derealisation episodes very bluntly. Although I don't think either of them mean the problems with derealization is the thing he needs guidance for, considering they're BOTH actively making it worse with their messages.

If I were to guess, it's probably about him losing his memories and getting trapped on Quesadilla Island? idk. Possibly also the wings but I'm starting to lean towards the wings just needing to heal on their own and he probably doesn't actually need help with that.

Anyway, there are a lot of differences between the letters, but there are also a lot of core similarities: both of them are in a way treating him as a child, or a naive and childish person, both of them recognise his pain, both of them offer guidance and relief for said pain, although one through "faith" and one through "redemption" (oh boy there's a lot to say about that particular contrast that one could maybe make some real life comparisons about...) and although Rose does it a lot more, both of them associate him heavily with his wings.

I feel like there's also a certain level of respect for him in both letters, paradoxically. You wouldn't think that from how you have this almost coddling tone on one hand and mocking and condescending on the other. But they both describe him as a larger-than-life figure, almost like a mythical creature or a legendary hero (hero in the ancient sense of the word). And the way they BOTH emphasize the unfathomable vastness of his wings in such similar ways also doesn't seem coincidental. That's not how you (as a god) describe a mortal man, that's how you describe a fellow divine being.

(Honestly, these descriptions almost sound like he's a personification of a natural force, like he isn't just like the night or like the darkness, he is the night, he is the darkness, he is the void. What else would have wings that stretched out across the entire sky?)

And of course they both ultimately see him as someone worthy of their divine guidance.

I'm so excited to see if the other deities send him their own messages, I can't wait

[shanastoryteller]

Happy pride!!

Fem MXY WWX pls!!!

a continuation of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

They're back to riding, only a couple hours away from Jin Tower, and Wei Wuxian is happy to be off his feet, but he can't even focus on that.

He's too busy feeling desperately sad for Mo Xuanyu.

She lived as a pauper in a family that despised her, had a father that ignored her, was so lonely that she named her sword Friend, and killed herself rather than marry Lan Zhan.

Lan Zhan would have been nice to her. It took him a while to warm up, but he's trying now, to do his duty as a proper husband. Which is inconvenient for Wei Wuxian, but probably would have meant the world to Mo Xuanyu.

She didn't have to die. If she'd been able to hold onto hope for just a few more days, instead of giving in to revenge and despair, then she could have lived out her life out from underneath the thumb of other people.

"Are you okay?"

He startles out of his thoughts, looking up to see Sizhui has pulled his mare up beside his and is peering at him in concern.

He forces a smile, because he's put Sizhui through enough today, and he's a good boy that doesn't deserve to be involved in any of this. The worst part about dying again is going to be leaving behind Sizhui. He's such a sweet boy who loves him so easily and he just knows that it's going to break his heart when either the cultivation or the curse mark has run its course. "I'm fine, I'm fine. Just thinking."

Sizhui looks unconvinced, but nods before looking up towards the front of the procession, where Lan Xichen and Lan Zhan are talking about something while Jin Guangyao pretends to be interested. He reaches into his sleeve. "I found some of these in town when I went looking for you."

He pulls out a small bag of the sweet, spicy pepper candy that Wei Wuxian likes so much and hold it out.

"You're the best!" he says, taking the bag and also pausing to squeeze his arm in thanks, only not pulling him into a hug because he's not sure how tolerant the horses will be about it.

The food in Cloud Recesses is ass and he can't cover everything with chilli oil because the only person he'd met who liked food as spicy as he did was - well, no one. So having Mo Xuanyu like spicy food had seemed like edging a little too close to obvious.

He'd been so happy when Sizhui had brought pepper candy back for him for the first time and had sworn him to secrecy to how how much he loved them.

Wei Wuxian pops one of the candies in his mouth, sucking on it to more quickly get to the firey pops of pepper, which is his favorite.

There's about five seconds of deliciousness and then his stomach rolls with nausea. He tightens his grip, trying to ride it out, but the taste of the candy he loved turns sour and he's seriously worried he's going to hurl, which Lan Zhan would never let him hear the end of.

He spits the candy out onto the ground, rubbing at his mouth.

"Lady Xuanyu?" Sizhui asks startled. "Is - sorry, did I get the wrong one?"

"No, no, it's perfect," he assures, internally sighing in relief as his stomach starts to settle. "I guess I shouldn't eat them on an empty stomach! It ruins the flavor. Who knew?"

He's eaten them on an empty stomach a dozen times before and never had an issue.

"Okay," Sizhui says slowly. 'Are you sure you're alright?"

"I'm perfectly fine, Sizhui, don't worry," he says, and means it, even though he sort of wants to cry.

The pepper candies were one of the only things he could get his hands on that he enjoyed eating, and now even that's gone?

At least the Jin go all out on the banquets.

[emperor-palpaminty]

Possessive HCs

Minors DNI, must have age in bio to interact or else ya get blocked. TW for possessive kink and all that jazz. i am unhinged and have no train of thought that makes sense. Also my inbox is open for requests hehe

(This post features Price, Ghost, Soap, Gaz, and Alejandro with anGN reader)

Price

LAWDY this man gives me possessive vibes. He's a captain after all, he's used to having his way and people respect his property.

And you are, after all, his... Right?

Price doesn't get the appeal of hickies at first. They seem immature, silly even, and he thinks they're more trouble than they're worth. And then he sees you with one that he gave you the day before.

Totally changes everything.

He'll cover you in hickies if he can, where where your flesh is soft enough. If your job is more "professional" and would frown upon it he would make sure to leave some just where the corners of a bruise is peeking out from under the collar of your shirt, just so people can still know you're his.

If someone comes up to flirt with you, he makes sure he winds an arm around you and maintains eye contact with the intrusive party until they get the hint and leave. He's the kind of guy who would stare the flirter in the face while kissing your neck, or up your arm, and he would carry the conversation on calmly.

Casually refers to you as "my girl/lad/love", "pretty thing", etc. Just as long as it's obvious you're his.

Ghost

In my brain, he's the most possessive but because he wants to stay as anon as possible, he doesn't get super grabby or touchy in public. The second you get behind closed doors however? Hooooo mama.

He marks you up good. Scratches, hickies, everything. Even if they aren't visible to others it is enough to remind you and that's enough for him. He is fine with getting some of his own too, but he prefers they stay somewhat hidden. Part of him wants to make sure you're as safe as possible, and that includes not letting the enemy know he's getting hickies from someone.

If someone comes up to flirt with you, I can see Simon standing nearby- but always staring down the person seeking your affections. You are polite to them but tell them you aren't interested, and if they press on that's when Simon comes over. He's probably thrown a guy through a window before TBH. After that he takes you home and treats you real good ;P

Soap

Yeah. yeah. yeaaaaahhhhhhh. This man is loud as hell and has a short ass temper when it comes to you. When others come up to you or are even looking your way, he grabs your waist or hand or pulls you close. He has one hundred percent given you a hickey in the middle of a crowded room (club? bar? who knows?) just because he saw a couple of folks looking your way with eyes that lingered too long. If someone tries to flirt, he is not shy at all about speaking up or pulling you behind him ("Sorry, this one's taken, lad. Go find someone else for the night.")

He will also mark you up too with all the hickies and scratches but he loves when you do the same to him. Honestly, the more hickies the better. If you give him any, he WILL walk around shirtless just to show them off. (Price scolds you for quote, "defacing government property")

Gaz

In my head Gaz isn't like. super kinky. He just seems so sweet in the games. I could be totally wrong though and he could be a kinky bastard (drop your Gaz HCs). But this is MY HEAD, welcome to the terror dome.

Yeah, Gaz isn't super possessive in a kinky way, but he does like when people know you're together. He'll slip an arm around you, or put his hand in yours. At one point as a joke you got a shirt printed with his face on it that said "Gaz's Guy/Gal" and he thought it was the funniest thing ever.

If someone comes up to flirt with you he's pretty quick to intervene. He will slip between you and the person and try to redirect them away- but if it comes down to it, he will knock a guy out for flirting with his partner despite a plethora of rejections and "no"s.

Alejandro

Alejandro is PASSIONATE deadass, and doesn't give a shit about who is watching. He'll pick up your hands and kiss them any time any where, or hold your face, or he will just stare into your eyes from across the room. The tension is palpable, you can palp it.

When it comes to showing you off or being possessive, he's more defensive. He will stand between you and the person coming to flirt with you and square up, just to remind them that this is not their place or purpose.

Afterward, he of course kisses you and makes love to you rather intensely ("Amor de mi vida, no one can do this to you, and even if they were lucky enough they wouldn't do this like I do"). And no matter what, you wouldn't let anyone else do that to you, because it's true- no one could do this (or you) like he can. Also he's vocal- he lets the both of you be heard if he's enjoying himself and he wants everyone to know that those sounds from your mouth were because of him.

[witchinatree]

i'm having so much fun with the new tmagp characters (and i will miss them dearly until april 11th) (side note: patreon members get access on my sisters birthday which is pretty cool) and i don't want to compare them to the tma characters because they are unique and different in MANY ways, i just also notice some parallels

gwen is very similar to jon, she has had a somewhat skeptic attitude but has now clearly been exposed to the horrors (bonzo..) and she's also climbing the corporate ladder if you will. she runs the place, she's grumpy, and i think she's closer to becoming an avatar than any of the others (even sam) (see my other post about it if youd like) (idk how to link it on mobile sorry)

alice and tim are kinda obvious, both comedic with younger brothers and are very susceptible to romantic feelings (sasha/sam). there was a lot more going on with tim and we haven't seen much of that side of alice, so i'm really excited to learn about her backstory and/or traumas. less excited about what that might to do her but yk.. yk..

sam/sasha is the most interesting one to me. sam is curious like sasha was. sasha wanted to know which made her archivist potential in everyone's eyes. sam also wants to know, he'd make a great archivist. except he's not cautious, he's like sasha if she had never worked in the artifact storage. i think sasha's strength was what she had already experienced and what she knew, but she didn't know enough and ultimately that got her killed. sam is going to keep learning until he does know enough, but he doesn't have that prior knowledge to stop him from going too far. very interesting characters from both of them

celia and martin i guess? celia's different since she's not exactly from tmagp

lena and elias because creepy murder boss

and finally colin and gertrude which is kind of insane of me to say but hear me out. gertrude cut out the eyes of book covers and magazines and everything in her home. she was incredibly paranoid she just was also a boss ass bitch about it. i think younger gertrude must've been a lot like colin, but she figured it out quicker and realized what she needed to do to survive. she asked the right questions and took the right precautions. she had the archive full of knowledge. colin doesn't have the archive, he's messing with the wrong thing and he's taking every precaution and hurting himself and those around him (sam's phone specifically comes to mind). i think gertrude was like colin but she had the right resources to get through it

idk all of these are very interesting and it makes me worry a bit, but ofc every character is unique and has aspects to them that change their stories. they're probably still gonna die though, we know jonny sims loves killing characters ☹️

[lemotmo]

Another really good one, I like this because we're starting to see a lot of this redemption thing in the BT tags. This was a question about Gerard and his connection to Tommy. And now that we know they're not upset about us sharing their answers I feel okay sending it to you.

A. Happy Friday to you as well! Unfortunately, based on your question, I don't think you're going to like my answer, but I promised you guys my honesty so here goes. Gerard is not here for Tommy. Gerard is not here for a Tommy redemption arc. Mainly because we (the audience) are not meant to see Tommy as needing redemption. Tommy is a general audience character. Meaning everything we're supposed to know or care about where Tommy is concerned is what the show told us in season 7. He is the guy Buck is currently dating and he used to work at the 118 before Bobby took over. That's it. That's all the show needs the audience to care about, at least right now. Fandom people are the only ones who remember his exact history, and no offense to anyone, they didn't bring him in for us. He is there to serve a specific story purpose so his individual history is irrelevant. Gerard is there for Bobby, and increasingly I think, Eddie. The Bobby stuff is obvious, but Ryan has mentioned Gerard now in a couple of interviews so I think he's giving us a clue that Eddie and Gerard will be some kind of story.

The Tommy stuff depends on whatever reason the show decides to give for his breakup with Buck. And yes, I do genuinely believe that is what's coming. If he's meant to be the one responsible for Buck figuring out his feelings for Eddie then I don't think his history with Gerard will be brought up except maybe as a scene or two in passing (if it's not necessary for the breakup, it probably won't be mentioned at all). If Buck is the one they want to end things, and have him figure out his Eddie feelings another way, then I think Tommy's past with Gerard will play a bigger role in their breakup. Especially if he tells Buck to deal with him by just keeping his mouth shut, and his head down and ignoring him. We all know Buck won't do that, especially if Gerard makes Eddie a target. So it depends entirely on the reason for their breakup. They don't need Tommy in a ton of scenes to accomplish either scenario, which is good because I do think he will also be filming SWAT and his availability won't be great. If he's supposed to figure out the Buck and Eddie thing, and point it out to Buck, we will need his reaction to at least some Buck and Eddie moments, (or at least his reaction to Buck's reaction to some of those moments), so they might need him for a few more scenes if they go that route for the breakup. Either way I don't see him lasting past the winter finale. Whatever the plan for Buck, I think he'll be ready for Eddie by the break, maybe even before. I think the second half of the season will be getting Eddie ready and then building up to Buddie. I don't see them dragging the Buddie thing out all season but I do think it will be the latter part of the back half of the season. Depending on Lou's availability he may be done sooner than the winter finale. We just don't know yet. But as someone who has watched the show from the beginning I don't know what other direction the Eddie storyline could be going. It's he's queer, or they're writing him as never going to be in love again because he was that in love with Shannon (which would be god awful television), or he becomes a devout Catholic (absolutely not). Those are kind of the only outcomes they've given themselves. And I'm sorry you don't like them, but Buck and Eddie learning to navigate an actual relationship, given Eddie's intimacy issues, inability to communicate his feelings, and his family/upbringing, as well as Buck's abandonment issues and need to fix everything is interesting storyline after interesting storyline. No one will force you to watch. And you're correct that lots of people will be pissed off, but many more would love it. They're very well liked by the general audience, people have got to stop trying to convince themselves otherwise because it's simply untrue. They're popular, people like them and most people would be interested in watching that storyline play out. It feels earned. Earned by Buck and Eddie and the audience. I know this answer has probably upset you and many others, and that is never my intention, but I also don't believe in telling people what they want to hear when the canon events seem to be leading in a different direction.

*chef's kiss* love it love it love it

Hi Nonny, thank you for sending in this really interesting message from the ‘anonymous blog I love’.

For those of you who have missed it, the OP of these very interesting posts on BT and Buddie has contacted me yesterday. They are a BT shipper that also like Buddie and they are okay with me posting their messages. They do however, wish to remain anonymous because they don’t want to attract any more negative attention. Their inbox is probably already a minefield, so let’s not add to their stress and respect their wishes. Thank you.

If you are interested in the OP’s posts, you can find all of their posts so far under the tag: anonymous blog I love.

Now, let’s talk about this answer:

The answer above is very interesting to me. They talk about Tommy’s role in the whole Gerrard saga and I fully agree on most of it. They point out again that Tommy is there to serve a purpose in Buck’s story, so essentially he is there as a plot device in Buck’s narrative.

As for Tommy’s role in Buck’s story, I am of the belief that Tommy will be the one to tell Buck to just ‘Keep your head down, your mouth shut and pretend it isn't there.’ as he complains to him about Gerrard and how he treats his friends on the 118. This is something Buck could never do. He isn’t like Tommy, he can’t just accept and tolerate his friends being bullied by their new captain.

I agree with OP that Tommy will probably be gone by the end of 8a. His arc will be finished and the queer Eddie/Buddie arc will be in full swing by then. This arc won’t find its satisfying ending until well into 8b though. There needs to be drama first. And I do believe that there will be a lot of drama before we actually get the payoff of the Buddie storyline.

The fact that Eddie’s arc is most likely to go into the direction of him realising he’s queer seems unavoidable. It’s like OP said: It’s either queer Eddie with eventual Buddie or ‘never again in love’ Eddie. Two options and we all know which one will bring along the most press and a whole gaggle of new viewers. 😉

Now, as a treat, I have a second post from the OP for you today. This was sent to my mutual and friend @buddiebeginz and she has kindly allowed me to use her post on my blog in order to centralise all the posts from the OP. Thank you Justine!

For context I’d like to relay to you why this post was sent to Justine. She received an ask earlier which she replied to here. I urge all of you to read her reply as well, as it was very insightful and I do agree with most of it.

Anyway, someone else sent her an anon ask later on as a response to the post she made. This anon had found a reply from the OP as to why they thought that Tommy is ‘good’ for Buck ‘right now’ and why they enjoy the character’s role in Buck’s story for as long as it will last.

Keep reading under the cut. I didn't want to clog anyone's dash with too long of a post.

Here is that ask with OP’s answer:

I admit I really like this answer. The way they break down Tommy’s role in Buck’s story as Buck having a ‘fun and light’ first experience as a newly out bisexual, before the more ‘heavy’ Eddie and Buddie story will start. I understand it and I can see how that could be some valuable life experience for Buck, so he is strong enough to tackle the next part of the Buddie journey. I can logically 'perceive' that this is what the writers originally intended for the BT storyline.

Does this mean that I suddenly like Tommy and the BT arc? No. Definitely not. And I think the problem can be found in the way that Tommy and BT was written. He wasn't written as a very appealing character. I don’t see the chemistry between him and Buck and I think they don’t fit well together. Their ‘energies’ just don't match. I don't see enough proof of him truly caring about Buck in any of the episodes. So, I admit I can't see the 'light and fun' experience OP talks about. To me Tommy is just weighing Buck down with too much negativity.

And let's not forget about how we were all introduced to Tommy in season 2 and the way he treated Hen and Chimney. The man was never meant to be a 'nice and likeable' character with a questionable background like that. They tried to redeem him somewhat with the helicopter cruise ship rescue storyline, but to me it fell kind of flat.

And yes, of course there is also the ‘Eddie factor’. I have been shipping Buddie for years now, so whether I like it or not, I am biased towards Buddie. I am also not a multi-shipper. I just don’t have that in me. Once I latch onto a ship I never let go. 😊

So yeah, ultimately… different opinions make for more interesting conversations, right? And I love reading about OP’s opinions. Sometimes they match my own and sometimes they don’t, but I still respect them and value their view on 911. That’s what fandom should be about: sharing opinions, respectfully agreeing or disagreeing with each other, listening and learning from each other. It’s so much more enjoyable than sending anonymous hatred to someone’s inbox.

Anyway, once again I ask everyone to not post any hate towards the OP in the comments or reblogs. I do highly encourage a civil conversation about the topics discussed in this post. 😊

[vanillaanillav]

flower symbolism in alien stage

So, we have two confirmed flowers mentioned in the series—Clematis from Round 1 and Edelweiss from Round 2—and the red flowers from the Anakt Garden. I have a few options for what those could be, so I’ll go over each option at the end. 

Of course, Clematis is the most obvious flower reference. Here’s what they look like if you’re unfamiliar. It’s a beautiful flower, available in pink and purple varieties, colors which you can find in both of their color palettes. 

They represent transformation and wisdom, the pursuit of knowledge, determination and spirituality. Very compatible with the themes of the series, and specifically of Mizi and Sua’s love for each other. They deify each other and transform each other, through meeting and knowing each other. Sua’s knowledge of their world and Mizi’s lack of it is what leads to her death and to Mizi’s subsequent transformation.

Clematis grow on vines, constantly racing up towards the sun. Sua’s sacrifice, I think, is what will allow Mizi to finally reach it.

It’s really lovely and terrible. A perfect fit for them. 

Now Edelweiss! It’s a very tough plant, but also very short-lived, and nearly impossible to get your hands on, as they’re native to the lonely peaks of the Alps. 

It’s representative of devotion, nobility, and purity, which is FASCINATING to me. There are many more romantic flowers out there, even ones with meanings specifically related to unrequited love, but Edelweiss specifically so perfectly encapsulates why I think Till likes Mizi. 

He sees her as something pure, untouched by the nightmare of their lives. She’s kinder than the others. Naive, still believing in good things like homes and friends and love. 

Even when he hallucinates her, he imagines her as a child, big-eyed and smiling—her purest form. He hates their capture. Hates living, fights and fights and fights. I think he clings to her as a symbol more than a girl by the point of the Alien Stage, devoting everything to this ideal of her, continuing to sing his confession at her even while she’s crumbled into a ball of grief. That version of her may not even really be the being he’s singing to. 

He clearly has her on a pedestal in his mind. When he loses that idol, both watches his friend lose her innocence and then his symbol of purity go apeshit and beat the hell out of their competitor, he loses everything. By the time we see him in Round 6 he’s been completely broken down by the system, never fully developing the will to live for himself, only for his Edelweiss. 

As for the red flowers…

They have five petals, with a black center. Honestly, given that one of Mizi’s likes is “artificial Anakt flowers,” which are presumably these, they're probably not intended to be a specific type of real-world flower. But I’m going to play in the sand here anyway!

Poppies have four or six petals, but they do have the dark core. Red ones specifically symbolize death and remembrance, which is… obviously fitting the themes of the series. But, the red flowers are used mostly to depict their childhoods, specifically their playful childhood love rather than their deaths. I think some of the other options are more fitting.

Geraniums are commonly red and have five petals, but no dark inside. They symbolize deceit and preference, with the red variety further meaning stupidity and consolation. Yowza!!! 

Preference is clearly applicable—Mizi and Sua choose each other to give their flower crowns to, Till makes his flower crown for Mizi. It seems like a ritual among the kids that they give their flower crowns to someone they like.

Stupidity could be for Till not noticing Mizi’s clear mutual interest in someone else, or for Ivan, either not realizing that the flower crown he stepped on was Till’s or thinking it would get Till’s attention in any other way than Till jumping him LMAO.

As for deceit or consolation… I feel like these don’t quite fit? Deceit isn’t present in the scenes with the red flowers, though maybe in Sua and Ivan’s decisions to sacrifice themselves? Consolation is unfortunately not really present in the series at all. Much to all of our collective pain and suffering.

So, petunias are my favorite option for the red flowers. They’re five-petaled and have the dark center, even if they're not as similar as poppies... just hear me out!!!

They represent two conflicting ideas—anger and resentment, and “being with you is soothing.” I think this fits all three of the pairs they’re shown in relation to. Till’s anger with Ivan in their childhoods for ruining his flower crown is pretty clear, his anger with him in general, even with the world.

Then Mizi and Sua’s reciprocated love—of course, being with each other is soothing, and Till finds Mizi soothing as well, as we covered in their section. 

I love the double meaning. I think the meanings flip as they age, as well. Mizi resents Sua for leaving her, and Till only realizes once Ivan’s gone that he did, in some way, appreciate his presence. 

Anyway I just had to get this out of my system because I have so many Thoughts about this series. Also fun tidbit: Till is said to specialize in floral art. Much to think about...

[raayllum]

Chessmaster Ezran

It's no secret by this point that Aaravos is a chess master. He has literal pawns, his game motif is consistent across seasons (though mostly carried by the Key of Aaravos in arc 1), is associated with black and white, "eight in a line" from the 6x08 poem could reference 8 across as that's the number of pawns/pieces in a line in chess, and he's been referred to as a chess player, literally:

After more than a millennium of careful planning, moving and manipulating generations of humans and elves like pieces on some cosmic chess board, the machinations of the Midnight Star known as Aaravos are finally coming to bear.

The symbolism behind chess itself also talks about a "cyclical nature," the "unavoidable consequences" of each movement, the relationship in chess "between will and fate, but likewise between liberty and knowledge" and ideas of foresight and knowledge. (Meta here.) These are all things, of course, that Arc 2 is increasingly interested in exploring, looking at the ways characters are trapped by circumstances and choices and also deconstructing the idea of having "no choice".

I don't think at this point we have to prove, then, that Aaravos is a chess master of sorts; this is just the text, particularly because moving pawns around isn't that dissimilar from moving puppets around.

What is far more questionable, then, is Who exactly is Aaravos playing chess against?

Now, there's a few answers that could be the case. As displayed above, Aaravos lost one match against the Archdragons and was subsequently imprisoned, but it seems like maybe he was totally aware they were in the game, per se ("he let his guard down" / "as the day you betrayed me"). And while Aaravos hates the archdragons accordingly ("I'm glad you took down that arrogant monster"), they're very clearly not who his endgame victory is against. If he'd wanted to just destroy only them, he probably could've done so a long time ago.

At the same time, I don't think we can directly say the Startouch elves themselves. While they're the people he seems angriest at ("and when everything they have built lies shattered, I will savor their fall from the sky"), and therefore probably the people he wants revenge against the most... It doesn't seem like the Stars have been aware of what's going on down here in Xadia in centuries, and therefore, haven't been 'responding' to any of Aaravos' moves since he was banished and left behind. I wouldn't that it couldn't be him and Leola in some kind of proxy war, but if First elves like Aaravos are at the top of the magical hierarchy, and magic-less humans are at the bottom, it makes sense for a human to ultimately upend said hierarchy (with or without magic), don't you think?

Additionally, none of this is to say being cognizant of the Game is required to be Aaravos' opponent, but that Aaravos needs an active and reoccurring adversary to respond to. The good news is that he has one.

Now let me explain.

Set Up

While Ezran may not seem like an obvious choice — he's not a mage, he's not even one of Aaravos' current pawns to reward a 180 turn around if they turned against him, nor has he directly foiled Aaravos' plans the way Rayla has (at least once) — I think that's precisely why he's the one who's potentially in this role, symbolically at least.

While other characters are tied to the game motif in being pieces (Avizandum, Harrow and Sarai's graves, Callum and Viren's intros, the wooden Rayla doll from 1x04 of all episodes), Ezran is tied to being a piece mover and recognizing that the game and puzzle exists, each time. One that he can solve; one that he can win.

Now, part of that is helped by Ezran inheriting Harrow's status of being a thematic opposite to Aaravos. Aaravos 'serves' in order to gain control and power, and Harrow tries to even out of the scale of his control and power by serving the people: a servant king. Where Aaravos doesn't seem to see anyone as a person, in line with the way he literally uses his pawns, encourages dark magic, and dismisses his enemies, Ezran sees everyone — including animals, elves, dragons, enemies, etc. — as people (re: his sadness in 3x09 as he has to fight and kill people he wanted to save, because they literally won't stop attacking and have been robbed of their own humanity wilfully).

Piled on top is Ezran's own dichotomy of being both a child and a king ("A child is freer than a king") that mirrors Aaravos deriding the group as "pathetic children" while also relying on Claudia (whose the same age) to free him, and that he's playing a game at all that likewise involves his key ("It's a toy, a piece from a children's game" / "The whining child king, in over his head, and he knows it").

And more than that, Ezran has his own game motif. So let's talk about it:

Hide and Seek (Truth telling and Game Motif)

What begins as a little boy's favourite game, in addition to heartbreakingly always reminding you of just how young Ezran is in canon, evolves into a hide and seek game of world altering proportions. Arc 2 is largely about searching for / the acquirement of fully actualized knowledge (befitting of a mystery, mind you) and subsequently, the game of hide and seek is on for that knowledge. They just have to beat Claudia to the finding, first of the map, and then of the prison.

Knowledge of where the prison is hidden that Ezran uniquely carries and uniquely puts him at risk for. This is, of course, a call back to Ezran being the one to uncover the initial mystery of the egg (similarly to how Callum uncovers the truth behind primal magic and the fates of Rayla's parents). He discovers the egg in the dungeons, he advocates for telling the truth and being open and honest, and he is the Truth Teller of the series in so many ways, even if that doesn't mean he's infallible.

I had a speech planned for today. It was about peace and love and hope. But I think I left something out. I ignored something that was true. I denied something that is undeniable. 

Ezran bears witness to the things that other people don't see, or the other things that people don't understand, as while usually we're let in on the loop ahead of time, Ezran's actions and discoveries — finding the egg, retrieving it, showing up the Bookery in the nick of time — are kept behind closed doors until the reveal. Much like Aaravos, I might add. Ezran wears the blind fold like is father did (screams in Celestial elves) properly, but can see clearly at the same time by extending it to all peoples simultaneously.

If the stars are evil because they are indifferent and potentially ignorant, if Aaravos is evil because he is aware of what's going on but unsympathetic, than Ezran is their true opposite in being 1) consistently and constantly thematically and literally aware of what's going on (i.e. his brother's sadness, Rayla's feelings upon her return, the feelings of dragons, Claudia's fight with Ibis) and 2) holding sympathy regardless (even for Aaravos).

If the truth is hidden, Ezran will find it. And that's exactly why he's uniquely fit to go up against Mr. I never lie in a thematic chess match across the whole series, so let's start unpacking it.

Kingship and Clarity (2x08, 2x09)

I'm not going to touch on S1 that much as the majority of what I would've noted is already in the previous sections, so with that in mind I want to talk the back half of S2, specifically Ezran finding out about Harrow onwards.

Upon receiving the news, Ezran is cruel to both Rayla and himself.

E: You knew? I'm such an idiot! I should've figured it out. When we met you, you had two of those assassin-y ribbon-y things. But one of them fell off that night! R: Yes. That must've been when he fell. E: Fell? Fell?! R: Yes. E: He didn't fall Rayla, he didn't trip and fall on the ground, he got killed!

Now there's parallels here about how Moonshadows will dress things up in prettier language than what's actually happening, and in Harrow's rejection of the same thing from Viren ("Call it what it is: dark magic") and Callum's critique in 3x08 ("You've got a nicer word for it?"). But the most overt thing is what we know about associations with falling and death from the elf we just recently got the name of: Aaravos.

Moving on, I want to talk about how Ezran's realization and acceptance of his father's death causes him to realize that he likewise needs to go home: "Maybe I can help the world better from the throne. I can do whatever I can to stop the war". (Something something Aaravos giving humans magic because he believed they could be 'better'.)

Aaravos was cast out of power and 'heaven' and Ezran ascends, yes, but Aaravos' descent caused him to lose clarity in childish revenge, whereas Ezran acquires clarity by moving into altruistic adulthood. He's not being radically changed morals or principles wise, but he's not stagnating. Furthermore, Ezran's bond with Zym that he acquires in 2x09 is like a 'healthy' version of Aaravos' channelling through Viren.

Ezran and Zym find that, due to their bond of love and understanding, they can see where the other person is, embodying the principle of the blindfold's basis being that you can see through another person's eyes and perspective. Here, Ezran's empathy / compassion is made completely literal, and helps Zym achieve the victory of flight in order to likewise save his brother and friend. Aaravos, meanwhile, channels power through Viren, and subsequently withdraws it entirely when it no longer suits him; Aaravos is seeing through Viren's eyes only, and they don't even win. Aaravos is eagerly participating in the fight at the beginning, but when he realizes his pawn may die, he switches tactics and "stays" with him. In contrast, Ezran and Zym achieve their aims and maintain their literal separation while being emotionally closer than ever.

This is all just set up for the Game, though. The first match that Aaravos and Ezra have, of course, is in 3x04 with

An Exchange of Kings (3x04)

As a game, chess is all about exchange and sacrifice. When Ezran is pushed into a corner of treating people like pawns (like symbols), he hates it.

What follows, then, is an exchange. In chess, if you get a pawn to the end of the board, you can exchange it for another piece that's already been taken (with the sole exception of your king, as that's checkmate). We see Aaravos do this slightly with Sir Sparklepuff and Viren in theory in 5x09, but we also see it here more directly with one king (Ezran) being swapped for another (Viren).

This is also, currently, the closest we see Ezran be a 'pawn' in any conceivable way. He's at the end of the board, he's being exchanged, except this time it's for the benefit of the opposing side. The main reason I mandate, then, that Ezran is still an Opponent rather than a piece is because of how this trade is inverted on an even broader scale later on this season:

The Final Battle (Or Not)

As king, and this is the particular piece of Chessmaster Ezran I think I adore above all else, he is fundamentally encouraged to treat his subjects like pawns.

Now, Ezran doesn't want to treat anyone this way. He doesn't view anyone, animal, human, elf or otherwise, as Not People. Even when the human armies are decidedly no longer literally human, and raging fiery monsters attacking him and everything he has left, he still holds sympathy for them and compassion for Claudia.

Claudia — and Viren — meanwhile, don't see their pawns that way at all. Claudia has yet to ever see Rayla as a person, only recognizing the elves who conveniently help her (Terry, Aaravos) as worthy of identified personhood; Viren and Aaravos' overall "plan" was to kill a baby dragon and use all the human army as "distractions". They never cared about anyone's personhood, once they'd gotten that far.

It is Ezran's distaste for seeing people as pawns ("Bait's not for sale, he's my friend!" / saving the baby glow toads) — preferring to see himself, like his father, as a servant king — versus that being all Aaravos has seemingly done for centuries that makes me feel like Ezran is the personal perfect opponent to eventually triumph in the end.

And going forward into S4, we see a few more of their matches take place:

S4 Ezran as the decision maker (4x04, 4x06)

One of the things I was most excited going into S3 was that Ezran, who'd been decisive but largely passive in the first two seasons, was going to be forced to make some difficult decisions. I was extra pleased, then, when we see Ezran step even more into that leadership role in S4 and S5; no longer is he mostly going along with Callum and Rayla's plans. Often times he's the one ultimately setting things up or making said decisions when the group is together.

It's his idea to tackle things together, and help Zubeia after all, in 4x04 (though he looks to his brother to receive an encouraging nod) and to bring Rayla along when she expresses doubts.

It's his idea to go find the puzzle pieces and express those next steps.

It's even his idea to bring Zubeia to Katolis that helps free up the Storm Spire for Claudia, as she takes the dragons leaving "as a sign" (unintentionally on Ezran's behalf, of course). But if Ezran is the stealth opponent here and there to Aaravos' mini matches, this is also something has happened before and will likely happen again, thanks to

The Orphan Queen

Chaos and confusion erupted and war threatened to tear Xadia apart, as now the elves suspected that the dragons had killed their queen. But truth came from an unexpected source. A young human girl discovered a great secret of history. A dangerous deceiver was revealed.

The last time Aaravos' plans firmly fell to pieces, and what led to his imprisonment, was ultimately the Orphan Queen. I've talked more about her potential parallels to Ezran in my Mirrored Trio theory post (as well as Callum's potential parallels to the Jailer) so I won't repeat too much here, but is an option if you'd like to see more.

The important thing to note here, though, is that Ezran's arc will 1) probably parallel the Orphan Queen's in ultimately being part of Aaravos' permanent defeat and 2) perhaps being one of the first to recognize the full scope of Aaravos' plans. I'd love it in particular if in S6, while at Katolis, Ezran does research into his ancient royal ancestor and learns more about her. Too late maybe to pass on the relevant information to keep Callum and Rayla from disaster, but... I expect this:

I should have seen it before. Ha! Long ago, it was a human who saw through the Fallen Star's schemes and helped Xadia put an end to them. You look so much like her.

to come to fruition eventually, in S7 probably. Aaravos may win his chess game in S6, after all, but he will eventually lose.

Season five, of course, also offered more evidence aligned with this reading:

Season Five Set Up

In S5, we see Ezran continue to be the Retriever and finder of objects in ways that thus far no else has really achieved.

Claudia tries and fails to retrieve objects, mostly; Viren probably comes closest, and it'll be more of an aim for Callum and Rayla in S6, I still expect Ezran to ultimately pull ahead in future seasons.

He's also associated heavily with light in the TDP short stories in ways we've largely only seen given to Rayla in canon as well, highlighting another similarity between them, and placing Ezran in a similar position as Zym as the world's hope ("Look at them, playing together. That's hope. They're the ones that are going to break the cycle"):

Even the waning moonlight struggled to pierce its veil. Somewhere out there were his friends. His duty. His king. Two years before, when the world had seemed darkest, Soren began to imagine Ezran as a kindling flame, a bright little light holding back the abyss. When he’d named Corvus a Crownguard, he’d told him that the young king was not only Katolis’ hope, but all of Xadia’s, too. Soren had sworn to protect and tend that light. To nurture it. And in his darkest moments, that oath gave him a reason to feel strong again, a way to keep smiling.

Ezran also acknowledges outright in 5x01 exactly what Aaravos is doing and is the first in canon to use language that references Aaravos' game as a chess game with it, too:

The Archmage Aaravos is trying to escape his magical prison. His pawns are working, even as we speak, to find him and release him back into our world. We need to stop them. Can you please help us find his prison?

Ezran's Plans

In the latter half of s5, we also see the group routinely go with or accommodate Ezran's plans as well, even if they don't all necessarily agree. This is true in 5x05, in which we see Ezran reiterate that violence is a last resort:

E: If Akiyu made it, then she must know where it is. Then we can stop Viren and Claudia from releasing Aaravos. C: Or, hear me out [...] How bout we hitch a ride up there, borrow this Novablade, then we wait for Aaravos to get out, and just stab stab, buh-bye bad guy! E: Wait, slow down. Shouldn't that be the last resort? If we can stop Aaravos from getting out at all, we can solve this without any violence.

and in 5x06 with talking to Finnegrin and saving the Baitlings.

R: But he's not known for doing favours out of the goodness of his heart. E: It's not a favour. The fate of the world is at stake. I'm going to go talk to him. C: I'll go with Ezran while you and Soren try the docks.

5x09

That said, I think about this line from 5x09 when it comes to all of the above:

E: One step ahead is okay. Because Domina Profundis told me something they don't know: the secret of the prison.

We find out, of course, that this is the prison is a pearl in a clam's mouth... something that Soren seemingly knew on account of travelling with Ez, but that Rayla and Callum did not. This puts a target on Ezran's back in the confrontation scene — she primarily attacks and interrogates him ("You know, don't you? Tell me everything you know little king, or I'll squeeze it out of you!") — and Ezran nearly gives the game away to disaster, so it's, again, not like he's perfect.

It does however showcase yet another example of Ezran knowing something that other characters discover after the fact, and more rarely in TDP, that the audience discovers after the fact (compare this with how we know Harrow is dead well before the princes do, for example, or that Claudia and Viren are already up to no good in early S4).

I also don't think I have to spell out that Ezran knowing the Secret of the Prison — the very thing he set out to find in 4x05! — in seasons called the Mystery of Aaravos is noteworthy, either. While there are certainly more secrets to uncover — how, for example, the prison was built exactly; how was Aaravos trapped within it; how did two humans like the Jailer and the Orphan Queen get involved — I think those are firmly moving into Aaravos backstory territory alongside the rest of his mysteries (cube included) than just relating purely to the prison's construction, per se.

Ezran received the last pieces of the puzzle, and he carried it through to the end to what, technically speaking, should be checkmate.

I can't wait to see him do it again some day, successfully this time.

Values and Gift Giving Subversion

I've already said that Ezran primarily takes on Harrow's mantle in being the the clearest thematic opposite to Aaravos thus far. That doesn't mean Callum and Rayla don't have their oppositions and parallels to Aaravos as well (they absolutely do; Rayla is currently a pretty strong foil!) but again that Ezran is the certified Opponent.

A few final ways we see this manifest is in Ezran's values. We've already seen the ultimate difference in their views on personhood, but one of my favourite ways that heavily intersects it that Ezran loves all his friends for the exact reasons Aaravos berates them in 4x04.

Aaravos taunts Rayla over her seeming inability to kill, but Ezran is the first to tell Rayla that's unequivocally a good thing: "You do realize I'm an assassin who hasn't killed anyone?" "I think that's a good thing."

Soren is a failed son 'unloved' by his father, but Ezran reaffirms time and time again how much he loves Soren, and the two always have a kind word or look for each other ("I just don't want to fail you too" "Thanks Soren [...] You're the best crownguard a king could ask for").

In a season where Callum learns his path of magic may have gotten him in a world of trouble, Ezran reminds him of the positive effect magic has had on his life, even if it's difficult: "Lots of things are hard, Callum. Like magic. But you figured that out".

We also see that Aaravos is prone to false gifts and dangling carrots. He gave Ziard a staff that couldn't ultimately protect him. He gives Viren another month of life mostly to bait Claudia into helping him. He uses and discards; these people don't mean anything to him. Not anymore.

Ezran, meanwhile, is nothing but sincere, particularly in his presentation of his crown to Finnegrin and Rex Igneous ("It's not worthless, it's made of my father's sword" / "I wanted to carry that strength with me") while also recognizing the error in his thinking: "We've got it all wrong. We offered gifts that meant a lot to us, but the truth is, they don't mean anything to you." He then realizes what Rex Igneous truly needs, and it is successful; we see this again in how his speech in 4x03 helps heal Zubeia. Ezran sees emotional scars clearly, especially after 4x03, and he responds accordingly and sensitively to them most of the time. He knows what people truly need, and that's why he's a good gift giver.

Conclusion

In the final season I think it would be Neato if Ezran had to spearhead an army against Aaravos' forces and send his brother and friends in as generals and soldiers because he doesn't want to treat them like pawns, he loves them, but to beat Aaravos at his own game he has to do so (until maybe Callum can flip the board on its head, thematically, anyway). Thank you bye

[sarnai4]

Opening Up

About opening up...Dagur kinda doesn't. (Spoilers ahead)

This is something I've seen some fans talk about where they say Dagur would reveal personal information easily. I see where they're coming from with this. Looking at Dagur, I'd expect that too. He's outspoken, emotional, unrestrained, etc. He seems like someone who could randomly say, "I had a good cry today," and it wouldn't be anything surprising. HOWEVER, that changes for me when I look at the proof from the show. If Dagur was half as open about things as this would imply, then we wouldn't be forced to speculate so much about his past and the things that have happened to him. In another case of me spending too much time studying Dragons (probably. Still worth it), I tried to collect all the examples of Dagur sharing information. They have something in common. Each time, there's a specific reason. I'll go in chronological order.

In "Enemy of My Enemy," Dagur tells Hiccup how revenge can make you do things you didn't think you were capable. This was an interesting moment of really getting to see how the villain we saw Dagur be wasn't who he always was. It even shocked him how extreme his actions became. This has the potential to be some heavy stuff, but he didn't just outright say it for fun. He said it because he saw Hiccup going down that same path. This isn't, "I can't believe the things I've done and really need someone to talk to." It's, "I see you following in my footsteps and they led me in a terrible direction. I don't want that for you."

It takes Dagur F.O.R.E.V.E.R. to admit he didn't kill Oswald. Even as a good guy, he doesn't say it easily. In "Family on the Edge," he implies that something Heather said out of the sent her adrift, killed their dad, and tried to kill them list wasn't true, but he doesn't just say it. He writes it in the letter, admitting that and how he was worried that the other Berserkers wouldn't follow him otherwise. If he wanted to do it for emotional release reasons, he could've just said the first time or even told her way back when he thought they were on the same side. Rather than that, he puts it in a letter so that her final relative won't be quite as bad as she thinks he is.

In "Searching for Oswald...And Chicken," Dagur has two moments. First, he tells Heather how he's spent most of his life in varying stages of existential crisis. (Just wow for that. Wish we had heard more about it because that is quite the emotional load he nonchalantly dropped) Again, this clearly isn't to get something off his chest because it's not even something he brings up again. He just tells her so that she'll have proof he knows what is meaningless, hopefully getting her to stop throwing herself in harm's way to find Oswald. Later, he tells Hiccup he keeps anger, frustration, and rage to himself. This also isn't to share so much as to prove he can keep secrets and deserves to be trusted with the location of Vanaheim.

Then, we have "In Plain Sight." There, we find out he used to get bullied. He waited until as much of the last moment as possible to tell Fishlegs and Snotlout this. They had already flown from the Edge to Berserker Island and were literally walking down to meet Ansson. So, I don't think it's him wanting to share sensitive information. It's him knowing they're about to be there with the bully and since Ansson doesn't care about playing nice, it's going to be obvious that he used to bully him. This is just softening the blow a little by telling them first. Didn't really help, though, since they still laughed at him being called "Dainty." (Not cool even though I get how weird it would be to hear someone call him that)

Unless I'm mistaken, that's everything. I don't think there's another time when Dagur reveals something personal. Each of these had some deeper purpose. This is why I don't believe Dagur would start speaking about his past traumas without a prompt. Now, I'll say I do enjoy having him talk about this in stories and I support other writers who do. I just believe it takes a little nudge. He's not going to sit down next to someone and talk about his time in jail. He has literally never spoken about his time in jail in the entire show except the first RTTE episode to say that he spent 3 years thinking about Hiccup. So, it actually leaves a lot of room to be creative with what his past even has first, then what situation would get him to spill the beans.

[lu-is-not-ok]

I see! I see! then in turn, envy probably does fit better, but I'm going to give an alternate viewpoint on these sins that I think you'll find interesting.

personally, I don't think the sins involved are the primary lessons of the sinners, but can be interpreted as the failings of the antagonist. Don is more obvious, given the first kindered's "ingenious" ideas that led to his children suffering. his pride blocking the idea that this dream wouldn't work.

while for heathcliff... I doubt he'd have this much of an issue if more than one person in his life gave enough of a damn, its clear cut that the butlers didn't even bother to feed him if he weren't nelly, slothful neglect.

It's an... interesting viewpoint, I'll admit.

I can definitely see what you mean with the First Kindred's main failing being Pride. Him having excessive confidence in his plans and not pausing to hear out the grievances of his Kindreds more closely is what eventually led to everything falling apart, as he was unable to account for his own flaws and did not foresee the consequences of his actions. That is, very much, a classic Pride move for sure.

...However, I think your assessment for Heathcliff and Canto 6 has some flaws in it. Mainly because saying that "the butlers" are the antagonist of Heathcliff's story is... Did we read the same Canto?

Let's dissect this Chapter a bit to get to the bottom of this and see if there is any way for Sloth to come from a Canto 6 antagonist. For the Canto itself, there are three notable antagonists (-ish). Hindley, Nelly, and Erlking Heathcliff (with a bonus Every Catherine as part of the same archetype).

Hindley's all about bullying and hurting Heathcliff out of his own feelings of inadequacy, he feels as though his father cares more for a random kid found on the street than he cares about him, his own son. His Sins could be read as somewhere between Envy (his lack of self-worth being the core of why he lashes out) and Wrath (him feeling cornered and unloved cause him to try to change it by doing everything he can to get Heathcliff out of the picture).

Nelly is... interesting. Her colluding with Hermann is caused by her feeling like she's trapped, helpless to change her fate of being hurt by the fall-out of whatever happens between Heathcliff and Cathy in every Mirror World. This is, also, a very Wrath-coded action. However... she does accuse Heathcliff and Catherine of being too Slothful to actually communicate their feelings for each other and in the process causing harm to everyone around them. Put a pin in that, I'll come back to this later.

Then there's Erlking Heathcliff and Every Catherine, which have fairly simple motivations. They both independently came to the conclusion that they themselves are the reason why the other can never be truly happy, and so decided that the only way to fix that is to kill every Mirror version of themselves. This can be read as many things Sin-wise, primarily Gloom (sinking into the self-destructive hopelessness of being unable to find a World where they can be happy together) and Envy (lacking a sense of self-worth to the point they fully blame themselves for everything going wrong in every World).

However, while these three are the antagonists of Canto 6, they're not really antagonists of Heathcliff's past. It's... a lot harder to say if there is an exact culprit for the suffering Heathcliff went through during his time at Wuthering Heights, but I'll try.

One culprit I'd like to define as more so the environment itself rather than any specific people. Not just the butlers of the manor, but the whole Earnshaw family and the classist system they all live in. All of that in one way or another contributed to the abuse Heathcliff had to endure.

...Could you define all that Sloth? Kind of, maybe, since it's blind acceptance of the system that led to the abuse. But you could also make a strong case for Pride, since a lot of the abuse came from the people around Heathcliff treating him as a lesser being, as someone who isn't worth as much as they themselves are.

So if not any of the Canto 6 antagonists, and if not the Wuthering Heights itself, then who else could be the source of the Sloth?

This is where I'd like to take out that pin from how Nelly described both Heathcliff and Catherine as Slothful. Because, yes, I believe our Heathcliff and Catherine are in a way antagonists to their own pasts as well. Let me explain.

The miscommunication between Heathcliff and Catherine, their inability to share their feelings with each other, them resigning themselves to never be able to do so. Not only is it one of the main sources of a lot of suffering both they and people around them go through, but it's also, just as Nelly commented, very Slothful behavior.

...Which is. What I would like to say. But unfortunately, Nelly can only describe what Heathcliff and Cathy's actions seem like on the surface - in reality, the Sins that are actually on display are not Sloth.

For Heathcliff, it's Envy - he feels like he's not good enough for Cathy, and so feels like he's not worth it to confess his feelings to her.

For Catherine, it's Pride - she feels like she and Heathcliff aren't on the same level, and so feels the need to help Heathcliff become a better person and reach her level before she can even consider confesshing her feelings to him.

I really, really tried to find a way to make this theory work, cause it is a very interesting one that I think could work considering what we've learned about the Golden Boughs in Canto 7. If they feed on people's desires, it would make sense that the Sins they take on as Saplings are of those they fed from. After all, the Bough stabbed into the First Kindred very clearly sapped him of all his Pride, leading him to lose all of his confidence and belief in his dream. Like, it's too perfect for there to not be an in-universe connection!

Unless... we're looking at this all wrong. While narratively, it makes sense for Heathcliff to be the one unlocking Hokma, in-universe it could be a coincidence. After all, there was no Bough able to feed on anyone's desires in Canto 6. One got obliterated, and one got stolen.

So then what other Bough could have fed on Sloth...

...

AH FUCK YI SANG AND DONGBAEK-

IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO COULD HAVE FED A BOUGH WITH SLOTH IT WOULD BE THOSE TWO GOD FUCKING DAMNIT.

[readypanda]

Indigo Park Spoilers (and very long post) ahead

Since Indigo Park is the newest fandom I've been dipping into, I figured I might as well make my own analysis for the game. The question I'll be discussing today is,

WHAT EVEN ARE THESE THINGS?

(sry for bad picture quality lol)

The thing I find interesting about these mascots (Molly, Lloyd, and what we've seen of Finley) that kind of sets them apart from other monsters in the mascot horror genre is...they almost seem like they're just animals. (I'll go over evidence for this in this post)

Think about it. In other mascot horror games, we've gotten:

animatronics possessed by dead children

employees/kids surgically(?) turned into toys

people mutated by a giant ink machine

animals/people who have had their DNA spliced with a mutagenic chemical

A little girl somehow turned into a monster (I think??)(really sorry Amanda I don't know what you are)

etc.

(I'm not up to date on all these properties and I know there's many more, so forgive me if my lore understanding is less than adequate. you know how it is with indie horror)

The important note about all these is that for the most part, these mascots are intelligent, or at least have the capability of intelligence. Almost everything on this list was at one point human, in fact.

So why do I think Indigo Park is any different? What leads me to believe they aren't intelligent? (at least, the animal versions of the characters that we run from in the game. Whether they are separate from the versions of the characters Rambley interacts with is something I'll touch on later)

I think the most obvious piece of evidence in regards to Molly and Lloyd (again, not much info on Finley yet) is how Lloyd acts. He doesn't talk at all, he just stalks the main character and attacks like an animal might (with the exception of a couple times he stands on two legs or props himself up here and there).

As for Molly, I hear you saying, "But she talks! We hear her speak!" And yes, dear reader, you are right. Molly does speak. This would disprove my argument of the mascots being purely animalistic, if it weren't for this kill screen.

Now, do we ever actually hear Molly say something that isn't a repetition or couldn't reasonably be a repetition? Has she said anything to prove her intelligence at all? (genuine question here because I haven't examined every one of her voice lines lol. If I'm wrong about this then whoopsie!)

Despite the past 250 words of speculation, though, whether they act just like animals isn't actually that important. We'll see more of them in later chapters anyway (or Lloyd and Finley at least) so that will likely prove or disprove this point with time.

The more interesting question is, what are they? Like, physically?

When Molly dies, we clearly see blood around her decapitated head. At the very least that rules out animatronics or something mechanical. In addition, in the audio of the hidden tape you get when you show Rambley one of the collectables, you can hear two staff members complaining about being replaced by "new mascots" right after they "got a new raccoon costume." This could mean a few different things, but it seems to imply that the mascots we see in this chapter are meant to be replacements for actors in suits (for meet and greets, promotion, shows, etc) and/or replacements for limited, expensive, and cumbersome animatronics. If this is true, we can also probably rule out them being human. Unless Indigo Park also had a secret human experimentation lab, which I wouldn't put past them.

I think it's too early to definitively state what these mascots are, but based on the evidence of above, I have a theory.

My personal theory is that these mascots are just animals who have been changed or mutated in some way to allow the park to have more "realistic" representations of the characters (also probably to cut down on the costs of paying a human employee). That would explain why they act the way they do and why they are so violent. They literally are just wild animals who have been warped to represent these cartoon characters.

Another important caveat to this theory is that, if this is true, then the mascots who attack us in the game are most likely NOT Rambley's "friends" as he knows them. That would explain why he doesn't call attention to Molly chasing us or Molly's dead body (with the exception of one very small reaction when he talks about the mascots). You would expect him to seem a little more upset if he thought that was his friend, but maybe on some level he knows it's not really her, just a representation of her.

That brings up another question, which is a can of worms I won't fully open here: Do Molly, Lloyd, and Finley have sentient "AI" equivalents like Rambley? If not, does Rambley know his friends aren't real? I'll let you decide.

Anyway, that just about closes my thoughts on this silly raccoon game. Thanks for letting me ramble on about it, and thanks for making it to the end of the post!

Lemme know about your own theories in regards to what these things are, or if there's any key evidence I missed. Kinda threw this together lol. Most of it will likely get disproven by future chapters but hey, thus is the price of theorizing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯