#sometimes it was an entire show?

[haedalkoo]

The car conversation and grammar: "When I was busy, you were free but you never called me."

After rewatching the episodes a few times (I just couldn't get enough of them) and reading the opinions floating around, I wanted to add my two cents to the car conversation discourse. This post is mostly about language and interpretations. Keep in mind I'm not 100% fluent in Korean, but I understand the language to a significant degree.

Let's get started!

It's time to put on my Korean-is-an-awfully-ambiguous-language cap. Buckle up.

The conversation starts with Jimin saying they haven't gone somewhere in a long time. I would say it's not that they haven't hung out, but that they haven't traveled together or gone out like that. This is just my interpretation, though. JK tells him, "we were supposed to get a drink" (as in, meet up and go for a drink 만나서 (meet and) 술 한잔 하자 (go get a drink)). Then, Jimin says "원래 그런 거 아니겠니" which loosely translates to "isn't that how it's supposed to be originally?" as in, that's what happens, you talk about doing this or that together and it never ends up happening. Like the travel show, if JM hadn't flown to JK. Like the times he tells Tae to meet up but never happens. Life gets in the way.

But this is the interesting part. Jimin's reply to me comes off a little defensive (in a joking manner), as if saying, "don't blame me for not meeting up (it's not like I didn't want to, I couldn't)." but JK keeps pushing him. He says:

"형 바쁠 땐 / 내가 겁나 한가한데 / 안 찾고. 나 바쁠 땐 / 형 한가한데 / 안 찾고."

This sentence is a grammatical nightmare. He isn't using any particles, which help indicate who's the subject or object of the sentence. So you can only guess based in context. I've marked Jimin (hyung) in orange, JK refering to himself ("me") in purple, and "didn't come looking for" in pink. 찾다 (jatda) means to search for, look for.

Many K-armys have been pointing the same thing out, and I agree. The repetition of 안 찾고, to me, feels like he's making the same point in different situations.

When you were busy, I was so freaking (겁나) free

When I was busy, you were free

And in neither of these cases you came looking for me.

That's why Jimin jumps in immediately to defend himself in a whiny tone.

아니지 찾았지! That's not true, I did go looking for you! (The ending 지 indicates a reiteration, something both the speaker and recipient know as true.)

He took that personally LOL. But this makes so much sense in retrospective, think of all of those 2023 lives were JK was asking JM to come over, to do a live together, and JM's response was always "I'm busy" "Hyung needs to go" "You/I have a schedule." Jungkook was lonely without him. Jimin probably felt bad and did as much as he could to see him ("I did reach out!") - to the point he flew fourteen hours to spend quality time with JK. HOWEVER, this is just an interpretation. The lack of clear pronouns and particles makes this really hard to translate, which is why the show translator interpreted it as "when you were busy and I was free, I didn't call you." Both interpretations are valid, but giving their reactions and context, I feel like this one makes the most sense to me.

If we go with my interpretation, after that, I feel like Jimin tries to ease the conversation/justify himself by saying how him and Tae don't meet up either even if they videocall often. As if saying "I'm not pushing you aside, I'm really not meeting up with anyone else either". This makes Jungkook laugh, but he still wonders lightly "I don't think we would be seeing each other (either) if it weren't for this (trip/shoot)." I want to reiterate how lighthearted this comment is, he's simply wondering (but still teasing a little.)

But again, Jimin feels the need to defend himself "yah, that's why I (hyung) came here!" (again, he uses a grammar that highlights the information being said is something the two of them know, something obvious.) To me this felt very whiny/cute, like, "stop saying I didn't make time to see you! I'm literally right here!!" and I think JK gets the hint that if he keeps pushing JM might get upset, so he smoothes things over by repeating over and over again, "that's right, you came, you came."

It's a response to the previous "you weren't looking for me." You did come looking for me. You found me. We're okay now.

Finally.

[kingofattolia]

Honestly I cannot overstate how much seeing Hayden as TCW Anakin changed EVERYTHING. Matt Lanter's Anakin is a frat dude. He wears a backwards baseball hat and says vaguely offensive things without realizing, while being a fundamentally chill and outgoing guy at heart. Hayden's Anakin is... not that. His voice. His expressions. His physical presence. It's off somehow. It's just left of normal. It's completely unremarkable and yet deeply uncanny for reasons you can't quite describe. TCW Anakin was always a flatter, blander portrayal, but I don't think I realized until now what exactly was missing: the serial killer energy. The inarticulable conviction that SOMETHING unhinged is going on behind those eyes.

[boylikeanangel]

ohhh the change from the game. that joel doesn't find her. that joel doesn't pull her off david whilst she's still attacking him. that she's actually allowed to fully release all her rage and her fear and rightfully brutalise this man who violated her and only after she escapes using her own wits and strength does joel find her..... THAT'S giving ellie agency baby!!!!

[puppetmaster13u]

Prompt 168

So. Apparently halfas are like phoenixes or something, which Danny would’ve really liked to know. 

See, usually with ghosts if they’re forced to retreat to their cores they reform as was, but apparently, since they’re still partially living, schrodinger's people and all that, halfas have to regrow their body from scratch. At least that’s what he’s understanding from Frostbite. 

But how come he has to deal with it? It’s Dan’s fault for trying to pull such a stunt! Oh, it’s either him or Vlad? Well fuck, he might have calmed down and is going to therapy in both the living realm and the Zone, but he’s waaay not equipped to raise a child except for like, monetarily wise. 

Well dammit, how long will this core incubation thing last, he has his new job in… let him check which offer he accepted again… He has his new job in Coast City that he needs to finish packing for and then all the rest of the stuff to do. 

What do you mean it’ll take months?! He doesn’t have months?! Urgh, fine. At least being a mortician isn’t that exciting, nor dangerous. Just hand him Dan’s core and he’ll figure things out for the living side of things. He’s sure Tucker and Sam wouldn’t be against helping, if only to try and claim favorite aunt or uncle spots. 

[ryllen]

something i promised on my kofi 6 months ago... 🫠

[sammygender]

wrt prev post and sam’s original ‘fed demon blood by azazel as a baby’ arc like. actually that was the most insane thing to see depicted on my television especially when it seemed like no one else i knew or followed was talking about it. it felt so explicit and yet it was sooo deep in metaphor. she walked in on us. sammy, you’re my favourite. god it must be terrible to know something happened but that you’ll never be able to remember it or tell anyone about it. never be able to rip it out or scrub it clean. so azazel could get into my nursery and- bleed in my mouth? because i wasn’t clean. these trials - they’re purifying me. anyway. augh

[whiskeyswifty]

surprise song o'clock is fun and all, but nothing will match the utter chaos madness confusion of the 1989 tour surprise guest each night. for one, she was at the height of her popularity up until then and would sometimes bring out the most confounding people, fully out of left field people she'd never spoken to before in her life and you could never predict who it would be. and another, there were no live streams so you were at the mercy of someone in the stadium barely coherent as they tried to post who just walked out. all you could do is read the most insane guest announcement from a url that looks like a swiftie bot and you think, surely, no... she didn't bring out fetty wap... this is fake. but the third thing is that text posts barely made it up due to stadium wifi being powered by a rat on a hamster wheel but photos or god forbid a video wouldn't make it, so even if a text post made it, you had no proof. which was even more chaos inducing given the wild shit people were claiming they were witnessing. you couldn't verify anything until 3 am that night when someone finally got home and uploaded a blobby, overexposed iphone 6 photo and you get confirmation that holy shit, it actually was fetty wap. taylor swift singing about making cocaine in her kitchen with mr. trap queen himself holy fucking shit, well okay then!! then you gotta do it all again the next night.

[anoant-haikyuu-dump]

Ukai doodle with the chunky brush

[al-luviec]

I got so insanely mad while drawing this

+ closeup and normalness

[tierracottas]

made something for the bear! so deeply enamored with the whole show :•)

[yoku-yukihime]

Sleeping over at marisa's house.

[nat-20s]

Pitching Red Dwarf to people as "it's like if Doctor Who was exclusively about roughly the same four people all of whom fucking suck. It is one of the best sci-fi shows in existence. So much of it is so so bad."

[cuddlytogas]

there was some Twitter madness recently where someone left a comment on someone's art to the effect of, "Ed shouldn't wear a dress, he's a man!" which I do disagree with on principle, but unfortunately, it brought out one of my least favourite trends in the fandom

so, naturally, I had to write a twitter essay about it. and I already largely argued this in a post here, but the thread is clearer and better structured, so I thought I'd cross-post for those not on the Hellsite (derogatory). edited for formatting/structure's sake, since I no longer have to keep to tweet lengths, and incorporating a couple of points other people brought up in the replies

so

I want to point out that the wedding cake toppers in OFMD s2 aren't evidence that Ed wants to wear dresses. Gender is fake, men can wear skirts, play with these dolls how you like, but it's not canon, and that scene especially Doesn't Mean That.

People cite it often: 'He put himself in a dress by painting the bride as himself! It's what he wants!' But that fundamentally misunderstands the scene, and the series' framing of weddings as a whole. I'd argue that Ed paints the figure not from desire, but from self-hatred; it's not what he wants, but what he thinks he should, and has failed to, be.

(Yes, I am slightly biased by my rampant anti-marriage opinions, but bear with me here, because it is relevant to the interpretation of the scene, and season two as a whole.)

The show is not subtle. It keeps telling us that the institution of marriage is a prison that suffocates everyone involved. Ed's parents' cycle of abuse is passed to their son in both the violence he witnesses then enacts on his father, and the self-repression his mother teaches, despite her good intentions ("It's not up to us, is it? It's up to God. ... We're just not those kind of people. We never will be."). Stede and Mary are both oppressed by their arranged marriage, with 1x04 blunty titled Discomfort in a Married State. The Barbados widows revel in their freedom ("We're alive. They're dead. Now is your time").

But even without this context, the particular wedding crashed in 2x01 is COMICALLY evil. The scene is introduced with this speech from the priest:

"The natural condition of humanity is base and vile. It is the obligation of people of standing ... to elevate the common human rabble through the sacred transaction of matrimony."

It's upper class, all-white, and religiously sanctioned. "Vile natural conditions" include queerness, sexual freedom, and family structures outside the cisheteropatriarchal capitalist unit. "The obligation of people of standing" invokes ideas like the white man's burden, innate class hierarchy, religious missions, and conversion therapy. Matrimony is presented as both "sacred" (endorsed by the ruling religious body), and a "transaction" (business performed to transfer property and people-as-property, regardless of their desires), a tool of the oppressive society that pirates escape and destroy. That is where the figurines come from.

When Ed, in a drunk, depressive spiral, paints himself onto the bride, he's not yearning for a pretty dress. He's sort of yearning for a wedding, but that's not framed as positive. What he's doing is projecting himself into an 'ideal' image of marriage because he believes that: a) that's what Stede (and everyone) wants; b) he can never live up to that ideal because he's unlovable and broken (brown, queer, lower-class, violent, abused, etc); c) that's why Stede left. He tries to make himself fit into the social ideal by painting himself onto the closest match - long-haired, partner to Stede/groom, but a demure, white woman, a frozen, porcelain miniature - because, if he could just shrink himself down and squeeze into that box, maybe Stede would love him and he'd live happily ever after. But he can't. So he won't.

The fantasy fails: Ed is morose, turns away from the figurines, then tips them into the sea, a lost cause. He knows he won't ever fulfil that bride's role, but he sees that as a failure in himself, not the role. It's not just that "Stede left, so Ed will never have a dream wedding and might as well die." Stede left when Ed was honest and vulnerable, "proving" what his trauma and depression tell him: there's one image of love (of personhood), and he'll never live up to it because he's fundamentally deficient. So he might as well die.

This hit me from my very first viewing. The scene is devastating, because Ed is wrong, and we know it! He doesn't need to change or reduce himself to fit an image and be accepted (as, eg, Izzy demanded). Stede knows and loves him exactly as he is; it's the main thread and theme of season two!

(@/everyonegetcake suggested that Ed's yearning in these scenes includes his broader desire for the vulnerability and safety Stede offered, literalised through unattainable "fine" things like the status of gentleman in s1, or the figurine's blue dress. I'd argue, though, that these scenes don't incorporate this beyond a general knowledge of Ed's character. Ed is always pining for both literal and emotional softness, but the significance of the figurines specifically, to both Ed and the audience, is poisoned by their origin and context: there is no positive fantasy in the bride figure, only Ed's perceived deficiency.

Further, assuming that a desire for vulnerability necessarily corresponds with an explicit desire for femininity, dresses, etc, kind of contradicts the major themes of the show. OFMD asserts that there is nothing wrong with men assuming femininity (through drag, self-care, nurturing, emotional vulnerability, etc), but also that many of these traits are, in fact, genderless, and should be available to men without affecting their perceived or actual masculinity. It thematically invokes the potential for cross-gender expression in Ed's desires, especially through the transgender echoes in his relieved disposal, then comfortable reincorporation, of the Blackbeard leathers/identity. It's a rich, valuable area of analysis and exploration. But it remains a suggestion, not a canon or on-screen trait.)

Importantly, the groom figure doesn't fit Stede, either. Not just in dress: it's stiff and formal, and marriage nearly killed him. He's shabbier now, yes, but also shedding his privilege and property, embracing his queerness, and trying to take responsibility for his community. In a s1 flashback, Stede hesitantly says, "I thought that, when I did marry, it could be for love," but he would never find love in marriage. Not just because he's gay, but because marriage in OFMD is an oppressive, transactional institution that precludes love altogether. All formal marriages in OFMD are loveless.

So, he becomes a pirate, where they reject society altogether and have matelotages instead. Lucius and Pete's "mateys" ceremony is shot and framed not like a wedding, but as an honest, personal bond, willingly conducted in community (in a circle; no presiding authority, procession, or transaction).

That is how Stede and Ed can find love, companionship, and happiness: by rejecting those figurines and their oppressive exchange of property, overseen by a church that enables colonialism and abuse. Ed is loved, and deserves happiness, as he is, no paint or projection required.

ALL OF THIS IS TO SAY: draw Ed in dresses! Write him getting gender euphoria in skirts! Write trans/nb Ed, draw men being feminine! Gender is fake, the show invites exploration, that's what 'transformative works' means! But please, stop citing the cake toppers as evidence it's canon. Stop citing a scene where a depressed Māori man gets drunk and projects himself onto a rich, white, silent bride because he thinks he's innately unlovable and only people like her can find happiness, shortly before deciding to kill himself, as canon evidence it's what he wants.

(Also, please don't come in here with "lmao we're just having fun," I know, I get it. Unfortunately, I'm an academiapilled researchmaxxer, and some of youse need to remember that the word "canon" has meaning. NOW GO HAVE FUN PUTTING THAT MAN IN A PRETTY DRESS!! 💖💖)

[theatreslave]

I fully need you all to realize

in another universe, each and every one of us, is making Severus Snape stutter and blush.

[stealingyourbones]

Gotta love when folks write Superman incredibly anti-clone even though he had good reason in the beginning to Not Like Superboy (HES A WINDOW INTO WHAT CLARK WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT THE KENTS) and decide that forever on he’ll be spiteful towards clones even though he literally Does Not Care if you’re a clone unless you’re Superboy.

[strangeswift]

who up grieving their faded hyperfixations because there is unfortunately nothing that makes you enjoy living more than being hyperfixated on a good piece of media and now it’s just gone.