#stream-of-consciousness rant

[icedille]

@0-k-4 this is getting way too long so i'm putting it in a reblog under the cut bc it's. i'm insane sorry. also quick disclaimer this is maybe a bit of a harsh rant bc i really felt like this movie was treating me like an idiot so i'm just a little bit annoyed but i don't think anyone is dumb or wrong if they liked it or thought it was good. honestly i'm not even sure it's objectively bad rn i just. really really did not enjoy it. and most of my complaints are about stuff that i can see were intentional choices it's just that i don't respect most of these god bless. ANYWAY

my problem with the repetition is that it's on literally every level. the scenes themselves are unending and just doubling tripling every action or sequence when it really doesn't need to be every single time. and when you think it's done there's another one just restating the main point right after. and everything is just insisting on shit i already got like the few lines of dialogue are mostly spent restating things the completely unsubtle symbolism already told us same goes for the sound design the way it's shot EVERYTHING for example that one scene in the end where she reinjects the substance in herself and there's the line "please give me a better version of myself" which was. so unnecessary to me like i get what she's doing i get the point of this substance and why she's using it and we've heard that so many times already you don't have to spell it out like that!!! there's nothing more to this line than just restating the point!! i'm not fucking stupid just have some faith in having a scene speak for itself for once!!!!! and i can enjoy not so subtle things sometimes sometimes it's good and interesting to be on the nose but for me it really didn't feel like the themes or commentary or whatever were expanded at all outside of. plainly stating them once and then just repeating them for the entire runtime. it just constantly felt like the movie was hitting me over the head with the same shit over and over again asking did you get it? did you get the point about beauty standards and body dysmorphia and female self-hatred? the point mostly being that those are things that exist did you get that did you get that we're talking about that. also did you get how hot sue is bc if not here's another shot of her ass.

and i GET that the ass shots are there for a reason but i just don't think it was executed well sorry like the point about her repeating the same cycle of social pressure does not work very well considering how she doesn't have any interactions with female characters ever (i'll come back to this later). and it just undermines scenes that could have been way stronger like the part where she dreams (?) that a chicken leg pops up in her butt and the whole crew goes to look at the camera that was zoomed in on her ass to see if they find anything strange. and the sequence of all these men very seriously investigating a close-up of her body and going over it in slow-mo was very much supposed to be extremely uncomfortable and make it obvious just how much she's being treated like an object to be ogled but. the movie was already doing that for the past twenty minutes so personally it just didn't really hit like. who cares. they're looking at her ass ok bitch me too bc you the director put a camera there for five minutes straight right before this. again i don't think that's completely unintentional i could see that it's because you're also supposed to re-examine how her new perfect life was presented until then and interrogate your position as the audience or whatever (though i do always find that a little annoying considering that i. don't have any say in that like oooughg isn't it fucked up to sexualize the women on tv well sure but i'm not the one with the camera and editing software here.) but idk to me it's just. TOO insistent on that spends way too long just repeating it over and over again and it just ended up feeling condescending to me. and that's just to exemplify that phenomenon basically every little isolated point was like that for me just so repetitive and felt like i was being talked down to constantly. idk it pissed me off

also and that's more personal preference but i didn't like how. individualized? everything felt from a narrative standpoint. like the fact that elisabeth/sue doesn't have any interactions outside of the men who either desire or exploit her and even those are super underdeveloped. so everything she goes through feels very internalized and mostly coming from herself and. sure there's the catalyst of losing her job and overhearing what the guy says but that's really it once she comes back as sue she's unconditionally seen as perfect and that just goes on for the rest of the runtime there's not really any consistent pressure or pushback that could explain how you get to the point elizabeth got to. like again i know the extreme contrast is the point but i just don't think presenting something like this as "one day you're young and pretty and nobody says anything to you ever and the next you're 50 and basically everything's over just like that" is. the most interesting route. idk i believe in gradual shifts i think that kind of immense pressure makes itself known at more points in your career including the very beginning like being told she should smile once in a while is not. the worst it gets even when you're at the height of fame!! there's just not enough external factors for meeee and the way sue gets everything handed to her (+ as an example the scene where her neighbor comes over to complain abt the noise and then immediately walks back on it when he sees she's hot) felt really reminiscent of the whole belief misogynists have that being a young pretty woman is the easiest way to live life. and i guess it could be satire of that very idea but idkk it did not feel like the movie was really deconstructing that in any way since the very destructive consequences she gets at the end are really just because of her own actions and choices. and again i get that part of the point is about self-hatred and your own body image (+ i heard some pretty interesting stuff about this aspect so i could admit at least there's Something there) so it's normal if she's mostly doing shit on her own but idk it's just not a direction i enjoy a lot with smth that presents itself as social commentary like ok girl but where's the "social". i don't think it's bad necessarily to focus on personal responsability bc in the end it is true that she chose to do that but i just wish there was. more. about the context or whatever. more nuance and variety in characterization especially of the audience especially especially of her boss the crew all the industry stand-ins they're all such. cartoonish caricatures that for me it makes most of the criticism feel really weak and secondary to the rest that's essentially "elizabeth gets really old and gross bc her hotter self exploits her to stay rich and famous". like the plastic surgery angle is really mostly focused on how SHE's fucking up her body and never really adresses the entire industry behind that that has a very concrete financial motive to keep women insecure and make it so that having some kind of procedure done really early on is currently a hollywood standard (like you genuinely do not get anywhere without that rn. more or less everyone you see on screen has had smth done) and yeah women do participate in that in the sense that they're not literally coerced to do it but it's still. i just don't think focusing your criticism mostly on the individual really gets us anywhere! (and again the "she's perpetuating the same beauty standards bc she's currently profiting off of it" point falls flat for me bc of the lack of other female characters. i think that to really make a point about that kind of influences and interactions and projections of an ideal you need to compare and contrast at least a little bit.) especially if your movie is TWO HOURS AND A HALF you can afford to spend a little more time on different things!!!!

bc for me that lack of. well everything else ended up presenting the issue of getting plastic surgery or other "artificial" ways of modifying your body to fit strict beauty standards as mainly "if you do it too much you'll end up even uglier in the long run" which is not. a take i think is. good? and again i could see that they're trying to satirize this exact thing at least a little bit (i actually think the ending works pretty well in that regard like everyone freaking out and calling her a monster is on some points a really good representation of how people do turn on celebrities who've had things done once they're old and it gets more noticeable, the whole focus on "botched surgeries" etc that's a very real and common reaction. but again i didn't think it was executed very well bc it tries to do both that AND the moment where she gets through and is acclaimed with the fucking poster on her face for me the point once again got really muddied and it's just. a shame!!!!) but when the main horror of the movie IS how monstrous she gets in the end and how unnaturally old elizabeth gets throughout it, for me it's just. a little bit hard to really distinguish between satire and just perpetuating the very same thing. like in the end it's the same problem i had with x, how meaningful can your commentary on ageism in the entertainment industry/society in general and the lengths we go to to avoid looking visibly old really be when the aged features of your character are one of the main sources of your horror and are constantly presented as gross and scary and horrifying? tbh i don't think there's a fixed answer to that, like maybe that's just a personal hang-up i have here and i can accept that other people would think this works well but for me it was too much. straightforward hagsploitation to really make the "it's fucked up that old women get discarded like that" sound entirely sincere instead it mostly felt like "it's fucked up that 50 yo demi moore who's still super fit and hot got put under so much pressure that she ended up ACTUALLY old and gross". aynway. i don't know. maybe it just wasn't for me maybe it's really good and i just fundamentally disagreed with the angle it used to get at most things. i still think it was annoyingly condescending and that the pacing was terrible and ruined a lot of things tho <3

ok i'm FINALLY done. quick first impressions on the substance bc i need to rethink some stuff but: the actual horror was great loved the concept loved the designs loved the horrible horrible things and the general metaphor is good on paper. everything else about this movie is dumb as shit it did not work for me at ALL

[milkbreadtoast]

ppl who talk/leave nice comments in the tags on art u r the backbone and lifeblood of tumblr 😢 <33 🛐����🫰

[hidden-among-stars]

Fitting In - or The Lack Thereof (A Stream of Consciousness Essay?)

I often think about my place under the label of therianthropy and the way I often feel like I still don't quite fit in. It's odd - I can blame that feeling on a lot of things, but none of them seem to give the full story behind it.

Maybe I don't fit in because I'm an adult, and so many therian spaces are filled with kids. There's definitely some truth to that, but then I go into therian spaces with solely adults and I still feel like I don't quite fit in.

Maybe I don't fit in because I don't experience the act of shifting between a more human and a more animal state, and so much of the therian experience seems to be focussed on what it's like to shift. And there's some truth to that too, but there are plenty of therians who don't shift at all, and I still feel like I don't quite fit in with them either.

Maybe I don't fit in because I only have one theriotype. Which is ridiculous, because a lot of folks only have one theriotype... And I still don't quite fit in with them either.

Maybe I don't fit in because I'm a contherian with experiences that have stayed steady through my entire life, from practical infancy up to now 25 years later. But there are other contherians out there, and I still don't quite fit in with them either.

Or maybe it's because of my anymic identity - inherently I won't quite fit in with anyone because my species identity doesn't really match anyone else's, let alone anything that is known to exist. But it's still not quite that either, because there are lots of anymic therians experiencing what it's like to be something without name and potentially without equal, and I still feel like I don't quite fit in with them.

In reality it's probably a mixture of all of those things, but that still doesn't seem to be the answer. In all of those cases I still should fit in somewhere, and yet here I am, feeling like I don't.

The question of whether or not my identity's "origins" have anything to do with why I still feel like I don't belong has definitely crossed my mind a few times - so many folks can fit theirs into neat categories as past lives, spiritual, psychological, etc., but I'm certainly not one of them. Somehow it feels like I am all of those and also none of them at the same time.

I feel like maybe I was just born with the wrong soul in the wrong body - that's spiritual for sure. And I feel like maybe my brain is just completely and totally wired wrong - that's psychological. But there's something else. Something not quite spiritual and not quite mental.

I started to wonder if maybe I'd feel more at home with the holotheres and physical therians, but no, definitely not there either - I understand that I'm in a human body, I am under no impression that I currently physically am my theriotype in any way (and my species dysphoria won't let me forget that). So it's not really a current physical identity. I'm also under no impression that I can physically transform into my theriotype in any way, so it isn't Clinical Lycanthropy either.

There is something viscerally physical about it, though. I never really believed that I could physically transform or that this body was entirely nonhuman, but I absolutely believed that someday I would break free from my human skin and become my nonhuman self. I believed it lived just underneath my skin and that when I became an adult, it would emerge and I would be free from my human existence. Obviously that never happened, as I sit here 25 still painfully human in shape and form - and painful it is, as my body has seemed to continuously deteriorate as I grow. What started as just severe asthma and immunodeficiency transformed into multiple physical disabilities over the years.

My disabilities, my chronic illnesses, these have nothing to do with my nonhuman identity. Logically, I know that. Emotionally, it feels like my body is rebelling against its own existence, as if it is rejecting the mind and the soul that are so unfit for living within it, willing to sacrifice itself in the name of eliminating the viruses that are the spirit and brain that don't belong inside it. This is one of those experiences that I can confidently say I have never seen mirrored in the alterhuman community in any way - maybe i just haven't been in the right spaces to hear about it, or maybe it's just too heavy of a topic for most folks to talk about, or maybe I really am alone in this experience.

Circling back to my younger self's belief that my nonhuman self physically existed just underneath my human skin, I can't blame them for feeling that way. This is another experience that seems either non-existent or extremely rare in the community: my phantom appendages feel nothing like what most folks describe them as. I feel them in their full forms, but those full forms feel ghostly - they "clip" through things, I am fully aware that they aren't actually there. That in and of itself seems to be a fairly common experience... but for me it's combined with another sensation. I can feel these things - the wings, the tail, the claws, the teeth, the ears - as if they are physically trying to push through my skin. It's not pain, but it's a strange sort of pressure. I wish I could explain it better, but... just imagine. Imagine feeling as though there are other limbs or different appendages just beneath your skin, pushing to break free, constantly, all the time, every day, for as long as you can remember. It's uncomfortable, it's awkward, and it gets even more uncomfortable when the ghostly versions of the limbs "clip" through things. A signal seems to get sent from where they phase through whatever they're phasing through, all the way to the point where I feel like the physical versions are trying to push out from - that results in an even more uncomfortable tingling/pulsing sensation, both from that basal point and from wherever the "clipping" is happening. This kind of an experience is another one that I have not yet seen mirrored in the community - whether or not others experience it, I don't know, but it's a point of mental contention for me. Others explain their phantom shifts and I just cannot actually relate to it. I feel like what I experience is so fundamentally different, and it's another reason why I often feel like an outsider in the community.

As I continue to ruminate on this feeling of not belonging in a community that I should belong in, I come up with so many answers - like the way I've always known I was nonhuman but how my exact species identity, despite having many consistencies between them all, was so difficult to figure out, and how I still feel like I don't have a full grasp on exactly what it looks like. Every time I try to imagine exactly what it looks like, the image is blurry, shadowy, not quite whole - I can make out the vague shape, I can see its golden yellow eyes, but that's about it. And then I wonder if maybe this thing must be some kind of a past life identity, maybe I'm seeing it through its own eyes, not quite able to recognize itself beyond the most basic shape and the eyes, but it doesn't feel like a past life. It doesn't feel like a current or future life either, though. It just feels like the life I was supposed to be living, a life I keep running and reaching toward but always falling short.

And then I think about the way the community talks about shifting, or the lack thereof. As I said, I don't shift, I just constantly experience everything all the time. But what I mean by that seems so different from others. Other contherians exist as both human and nonhuman simultaneously - I seem to exist solely as nonhuman, only human in physical form, and via masking. When I fully allow myself to unmask, there is nothing human about me other than my body. Those who have seen it will attest. It's disturbing to witness, it's uncanny - it skips past cringe and dives straight into "would be seen in a horror movie" territory, apparently. The way I move, the way I react, the way I sound (if making any sound at all), the way I stand (or don't stand, if I'm somewhere where I can physically be on all fours), I become something seen as monstrous in the eyes of orthohumans and alterhumans alike. It isn't my species identity that is monstrous - on the contrary, my species identity poses little to no threat to humans - but I suppose it comes down to the idea of the uncanny valley. When I fully unmask, it becomes glaringly obvious that I am something inhuman in a human's body. I have seen the reactions some nonhuman identifying folks have had to me being mostly unmasked - in the case of one, seeing me fully unmasked - and it becomes clear that, even though none of us identify as human, there is something different about my identity. There is something fundamentally different about the way I experience it.

I want so badly to know that my experience isn't the only one of its kind, I want so badly to know that i have a place in this community (and that I have a place in this world, frankly), but I keep trying, and I keep coming back over and over to the realization that what I go through lies in some liminal space where I definitely don't fit in with orthohumans but I don't quite fit in with other nonhuman identifying folks either.

I'm not leaving the community, it's still the closest I have to finding others even vaguely like me, but I fear that "out of place" feeling will never go away. That I'll never actually find the place where I really belong.

[wishfishy]

When I first heard that a new Endless Ocean was going to be released, I was incredibly excited. Just absolutely over-the-moon excited. You see, Endless Ocean 2: Blue World (also called Endless Ocean 2: Adventures of the Deep) is one of my favourite games of all time. Scratch that: it is my favourite game. It was far from perfect, but I loved it dearly and happily sank hundreds if not thousands of hours into it.

EO2 is a diving game for the wii that was released in 2010, and I have never been able to find a game quite like it. The main story was a bit cheesy, but charming and engaging, with a bevy of likeable if occasionally one-note characters, and the game itself had surprising depths (diving pun fully intended). The game had 12 different diving maps in 6 locations and while the specific areas were fictitious, they were based on very real places (the South Pacific, Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, Arctic and Antarctic Oceans, as well as a freshwater river in the Amazon) and this was reflected in the species found in each area, with a few exceptions here and there.  You could explore shallow coral reefs, a sunken castle, ancient temples, abyssal depths, a kelp forest, sandy beaches, riverbanks, hidden coves with murals, and much more. You also had a small private island as a hub location, a personal reef you could decorate, and a public aquarium which you could fill with any of the non-legendary species you discovered.

Speaking of which, the game featured 340 different species of marine and freshwater fish, sharks, rays, marine mammals, penguins, shore birds, reptiles, crustaceans, cephalopods and other invertebrates. Some of these also had different models for young or different genders. You could find truly miniscule species that most other diving games overlook entirely in zoom-spots (such as gobies and nudibranchs), and you could interact with most by feeding, touching or even riding in the case of large marine life. And on top of this you could also find legendary creatures, which could be individuals of extant species with unusual colouring or size, or even extinct species, and could be exceedingly hard to find but entirely rewarding.

This is already getting to be much too long but on top of all this you could customize your diver character, buy things for your island hub, decorate and populate a private reef to propagate and release fish, create various aquarium exhibits, discover a great many side-quests, upgrade equipment, take and sell photographs, heal sick animals, search for and sell salvage, find collectable coins, train dolphin partners, take requests for guided tours, dolphin shows, salvage and photos, dodge or placate aggressive sharks, and more that I am probably forgetting. It’s been a while since I’ve played the game, as I no longer have a wii and don’t have the first clue on how to emulate games on my PC. All this is to say that this game was something special, and I have never been able to find anything remotely close to it. And seeing as how the last one was released almost 15 years ago, I had long given up hope for an Endless Ocean 3.

And then lo and behold, a trailer dropped from out of nowhere for Endless Ocean Luminous! And it was releasing in a month! Holy Shit! What!? Yes!

But alas, the more information came out about the game, the more that excitement started to wane. A focus on multiplayer? Procedural generation? Only one map? The only character being an AI that sounded like all those awful tiktok voices? To be clear, I wasn’t expecting Luminous to be the next GoTY. I wasn’t even expecting it to be an exact replica of EO2, or continue the storyline. If it had even a fraction of what I liked about the previous game I was going to be one happy camper. I assumed that the marketing was focusing on the multiplayer aspect instead of the single-player story, that hopefully the procedurally generated map was exclusive to that multiplayer. Surely the single player mode would extend past what little was shown in the trailers. Some things seemed promising, such as an advertised 500+ species, and even more prehistoric marine life. But again, alas, what I have seen since the release is the barest and palest reflection of what I enjoyed about the previous game. I could understand cutting some content, such as the dolphin training and shows, considering the controversy of cetaceans in captivity. But it seems like there is no aquarium, no central hub of any type, no characters beyond the aforementioned AI and a single faceless diver, salvage reduced to a single click, an incredibly reduced story consisting mostly of scanning fish, no ability to feed or interact with fish and fish behaviour also seems to be quite reduced. At least photography still appears to be in the game, though its unclear to what point. Are there still photo requests? The ability for some critters to swim along with or attach to your diver looks cute at least. But everything I’ve watched so far just feels so… lifeless. Empty. As if the whole game was AI generated, which I’m at least %75 sure isn’t the case.

But I’m left kind of baffled by the direction that this game was taken in. I’ve been trying to find any information about it’s development with little to no success. Why the focus on multiplayer to the exclusion of a single player story beyond the bare minimum? What lead to the choice to have a single, procedurally generated map instead of separate, smaller, but more scientifically accurate maps? Or even a single smaller but purposefully designed map? Was this game more like the previous games at any point in its conception or development or was it always intended to be such a departure?

[stripedwolf88]

Low key dreading work tomorrow guys. Remember the girl I mentioned that I said fucked me over? Well I work with her. And tomorrow is our first shift together after 1. Not seeing each other for weeks and 2. After the drama that happened.

I said I didn't want things to be awkward but I don't think I'm gonna be able to just pretend like nothing happened. I know it would be unprofessional to bring anything up at work so I won't but I don't want to put on an act. Oh well. I'm just going to try and be civil I guess.

Maybe I'll rant about what happened at a later time to truly get it out of my system. Give you guys some tea lol. It's not much but I kind of want to hear your guy's perspective on it. That'll be for another day though.

Hopefully I remain firm in my self respect but also remember to not be rude or petty.

[a-trick-or-two-with-lepers]

Religion in Relation to Jesus Christ Superstar

(CW: Religious trauma, slight stream-of-consciousness, imposter syndrome)

It's no secret now that I love Jesus Christ Superstar. The music, the way the story is presented, the history of the musical, and the talented actors are what drew me to it and kept me interested. Hell, it even made me download TUMBLR just so I could interact with others who enjoy the show (which is lovely, you're all lovely and I'm having such a good time).

Sometimes when I'm doing my wholely unnecessary research on JCS, I find a bad review from a devout Christian, claiming it to be blasphemy of the highest degree. This doesn't particularly bother me, as I am no longer a religious person, and I can easily brush these reviews off as extremists finding things to complain about.

I've found myself researching the book the rock opera was based on. You know the one. It's a fascinating story; I don't think many people disagree with that regardless of what religion they align themselves with. However, as with most things on the internet, it's hard to find information that is unbiased (unless I choose to read the full Bible, which I'm not interested in doing at the moment). I see how passionate these people are about their faith, and how many use that as an excuse to belittle and isolate others. This is something I've always been aware of, and it's something that's affected me personally.

When I come across these kinds of things online, I start to feel a pit of anxiety growing in my chest. I respect anyone of any religion so long as they do not use it as a means to harm others (physically, mentally, psychologically - in any way). But when I am presented with a Christian explaining why everything I believe in and stand for is inherently wrong, I begin to feel as if I'm still a young girl being berated for going against the Lord. To make matters worse, I am queer, though I am well aware that any accusations that this is a shortcoming are without truth.

Part of what drew me into JCS is what I and some others believe to be queer undertones. The intense relationship between Judas and Jesus is captivating to me, and I find it healing to examine the story of Christ this way. I had been avoidant of all Christian-related media for such a long time after I decided to detach myself from the religion. Any mention of it brought back years of shame and fear that, in my opinion, do not align with the morals the Bible depicts. If that is not what I am meant to feel when presented with the power of the Christ, then why should I subject myself to it? But when I found this musical, I was so intrigued that my inhibitions became insignificant. I only notice now how unprepared I was for the feelings that arose within me when re-introduced to my experience with religion.

I think the main issue comes with Christians believing they are entitled to the words and story of the Bible. Against my better judgment, and due to my past, I feel sometimes as if I'm intruding on an aspect of human culture that was not meant for me. In reality, I recognize that all I'm really doing is enjoying a story that I relate to and that inspires me to create and live my life as I want to live it. My learned instinct is to feel repentant when any person says I am wrong, especially when it comes to my experience as a queer woman. I read the relationship between Jesus and Judas in JCS as romantic. I have seldom seen such an intense portrayal of homosexually-charged angst, even if that is not how it was meant to be read. And I relate to it. And it heals a part of me. And I may be reading way too far into this, but I'm already devoting so much of my time to this property, so I may as well get something useful out of it.

I wonder if any other fans of JCS have felt this way. Like we are not allowed to enjoy something simply because it is not a story that is meant to be heard as we are hearing it.

My mother wonders why I haven't since converted back to Christianity after watching Jesus Christ Superstar. But this is the furthest from Christianity I have ever felt. And it the most at peace with Christianty I have ever felt.

[stargazinglesbian]

legitimately what the fuck am i doing

[portraitofavoyeur]

The world continues to leave me behind

I am incorrect and unfitting

Let the backdrop of the sky collapse to see God behind

Pleading for an explanation for it all, reassurance or a request I could fulfill

Looking for somewhere to place my devotion

[all-my-ocs-are-evil]

Welcome to my page!

Expect nothing here but chaos, art, and obscurity :)

[maareyas]

Ok so Bittercold and Dark Matter. I am not over this.

(This became a sort of analysis of GTI's themes too LMAO)

My issue with Dark Matter is that there was little build up to it. I'm not talking about it's actual presence, but rather what it represents. "The negative feelings of all pokemon" then where was this negativity in the story?

I understand that the main theme of Super was connections and all. The protag duo helping and being helped by different pokemon are a consistent Thing in the plot. The climactic fight with Dark Matter involves pokemon coming together to stop its ascent.

But I ask again, where was the negativity that Dark Matter was apparently born from within the story? Krookodile?? The Partner having self-doubt?? Pancham and Shelmet being mean?? Nuzleaf and co??? These are all less "incidents of negativity the Dark Matter was born from" and more "general plot events/stuff the villains do".

So it feels like the concept of the Dark Matter feels like it came out of nowhere.

Compare it to how GTI handles the Bittercold. It's the manifestation of all pokemon's collective desire for the end of everything. The loss of hope for better circumstances. And is there narrative build up to this? As a matter of fact, yes!

From the beginning, it's established that the pokemon world in GTI is becoming more and more selfish/dangerous/distrustful etc etc. Gurdurr's and Verizion's arcs connect to this, with both of them choosing to close themselves off from the world. Dunsparce's arc too, to a lesser extent. His first few attempts to get "stronger" end in trouble, almost as if being discourages from having hope to achieving his dream. It isn't until they meet the Protag duo that they have their Character Development™

It all connects to the overall theme of "Believing in other people" and having hope in the face of uncertain circumstances and pessimistic fatalism--which is the opposite "side" in the story, represented by the Bittercold itself, as well as Kyurem and Munna's gang.

We get to see the effects/source of the Bittercold ourselves because we got dialogue like this:

(screenshot courtesy of @rutabga)

AND because characters losing hope/being unwilling to trust others happens several times in the story. Even during the climax.

In other words, the feelings that makes up that the Bittercold is composed of is present throughout the story. So when the Bittercold itself was actually introduced, it made sense for when it was explained what it truly was.

THIS is the build up I was looking for with Dark Matter.

The final stretch of the Player being supported by the voices of the Partner and other pokemon in Paradise/Post Town hits SO much harder compared to Super because of this, despite having less people.

And you know what else? The Bittercold itself could be considered a narrative foil to the Partner. Partner's goal is to make a pokemon Paradise and help others--the ideological opposite of the Bittercold (or rather, what it represents). AND IT'S GOOD!! it gives the Partner so much more Narrative Depth and I love it.

Even the concept of it specifically being ice and found within a glacier dome is sorta neat? A "cold" person is someone who remains closed off from others. It's literally ice. It's found in the heart of a glacier that's isolated from the rest of the world by 1.) A castle (and Kyurem) 2.) A HUGE DOME 3.) "uncrossable" crevasses--once again tying into the idea of staying isolated from the rest of the world.

In conclusion: Dark Matter/the stuff it represents doesn't have much of a presence in the narrative and thus makes Super's narrative as a whole weaker. Meanwhile, I hate the Bittercold as a boss fight but goddamn is it great as a symbolic entity and ties together the themes of the game.

[morning-star-joy]

Good morning my dears! 💜

This week has been a busy and then not so busy one. I took a trip early on in the week (Canada baby!) that helped me break out of my brain fog I was struggling with, and then when I returned home I fell right back into it.

I think I’ve been struggling a lot with the self-imposed fear of not being good enough, and I’ve been having a hard time enjoying writing lately because of it. Of course that caused a never ending cycle of wanting to write because I usually enjoy it, trying to write and not enjoying it, and being mad at myself that I wasn’t in the correct mindset to write.

I’ve had to take some time to reflect which is why I haven’t been super active on here, and I’ve come to the realization that not everything I create has to be the best thing I’ve ever written. It’s okay to write for the sake of writing. It’s also okay, and really good for yourself to take breaks! I have to remind myself I’ve been writing nonstop for months and it’s okay to take a breather, even if I want to keep writing because I love it so much.

Of course this is easier said than done. I’m sure I’m going to keep being frustrated with some of my fics rn, so I’m focused on working my way through the drabbles in my inbox, which is helping break out of my slump.

Thank you so much to the lovely friends I’ve made on here who I’ve talked to the past few days about these things, you guys have not only given me insight to what’s been going through my head but offered unconditional love and support that has made all the difference to my silly little depressed brain.

Love y’all 💜💜💜

[riverofinkofficial]

...Those are the hands that play the keys of a piano that may never reach anyone at all. One which the puppet master casts into shadow because what is played is honest and not bound by their strict lines. There are no right notes to play than those which are ugly and raw...

[darkwisteria23]

We just become a stranger.

One week. One month. Suddenly it's been five months since we last talked. Next week marks the 6th month. Hope he's fine. Hope he's happy.

I'm not. I'm ruined and it's tragic. Some times I wish someone could poison me, kill me. Burn me to ashes and throw me out in the raging sea.

[funkily]

its been really interesting to see the cultural shift with flower husbands . because they were icons obviously and they at least HAD the highest amount of non-dsmp mcyt ship fics on ao3 (havent checked lately) . and then around afterlife they (relatively) died down with scott saying he wasnt doing anything else, "flower husbands is dead," etc . the general Hot Take is that people are a little burnt out on it actually . and then double life comes around with ranchers and theres this sort of opposite resurgence , in which scott is treated as a toxic ex (not that toxic scott content didnt exist before this mind you) and tango is jimmys "savior ." after this fh content lulls again . with the steady stream of ranchers content theres some angst every now and then . some things arise from empires 2 , more angst from liml . now the common take is that flower husbands would realistically Suck (shocking a ship that isnt healthy in real life (<- silly)) but in a more general sense , usually removed from ranchers . and theyre right , but its still interesting . like what happened to "they are the blueprint"

[britneyshakespeare]

So yesterday I read "Slimed with Gravy, Ringed by Drink" by Camille Ralphs, an article from the Poetry Foundation on the publication of the First Folio in 1623, a major work without which most of Shakespeare's plays might very well have been lost today, possibly the most influential secular work of literature in the world, you know.

It's a good article overall on the history and mysteries of the Folio. Lots of interesting stuff in there including how Shakespeare has been adapted, the state of many surviving Folios, theories of its accuracy to the text, a really interesting identification of John Milton's own copy currently in the Free Library of Philadelphia, and the fascinating annotations that may have influenced Milton's own poetry!!! Do read it. It's not an atrociously long article but there's a lot of thought-provoking information in there.

There's one paragraph in particular I keep coming back to though, so I'm just gonna quote it down here:

...[T]he Play on Shakespeare series, published by ACMRS Press, the publications division of the Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Arizona State University... grew out of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s plan to “translate” Shakespeare for the current century, bills itself “a new First Folio for a new era.” The 39 newly-commissioned versions of Shakespeare’s plays were written primarily by contemporary dramatists, who were asked to follow the reasonable principle laid out by series editor Lue Douthit: tamper in the name of clarification but submit to “do no harm.” The project was inspired by something the linguist John McWhorter wrote in 1998: “[the] irony today is that the Russians, the French, and other people in foreign countries possess Shakespeare to a much greater extent than we do … [because] they get to enjoy Shakespeare in the language they speak.”

Mainly it's the John McWhorter thing I keep coming back to. Side note: any of my non-native-English-speaking mutuals who have read Shakespeare, I would love to know your experiences. If you have read him in translation, or in the original English, or a mix of both. It's something I do wonder about! Even as an Anglophone reader, I find my experience varies so much just based on which edition of the text I'm reading and how it's presented. There's just so much variety in how to read literature and I would love to know what forces have shaped your own relationships to the stories. But anyway...

The article then goes on to talk about how the anachronistic language in Shakespeare will only fall more and more out of intelligibility for everyone because of how language evolves and yadda yadda yadda. I'm not going to say that that's wrong but I think it massively overlooks the history of the English language and how modern standard English became modern standard English.

First of all, is Shakespeare's language completely unintelligible to native English speakers today? No. Certain words and grammatical tenses have fallen out of use. Many words have shifted in meaning. But with context aiding a contemporary reader, there are very few lines in Shakespeare where the meaning can be said to be "unknown," and abundant lines that are perfectly comprehensible today. On the other hand, it's worth mentioning how many double entendres are well preserved in modern understanding. And additionally, things like archaic grammar and vocabulary are simply hurdles to get over. Once you get familiarized with your thees and thous, they're no longer likely to trip you up so much.

But it's also doubtful that 400 years from now, as the article suggests, our everyday language will be as hard to understand for twenty-fifth century English speakers to comprehend. The English language has significantly stabilized due to colonialism and the international adoption of English as a lingua franca. There are countless dialects within English, but what we consider to be standard international "correct" English will probably not change so radically, since it is so well and far established. The development and proliferation of modern English took a lot of blood and money from the rest of the world, the legacy of which can never be fully restored.

And this was just barely in sight by the time that Shakespeare died. This is why the language of the Elizabethans and Jacobeans is early-modern English. It forms the foundations of modern English, hence why it's mostly intelligible to speakers today, but there are still many antiquated figures within it. Early-modern English was more fluid and liberal. Spelling had not been standardized. Many regions of England still had slight variations in preferences for things like pronouns and verb conjugation. We see this even in works Shakespeare cowrote with the likes of Fletcher and Middleton, as the article points out. Shakespeare's vocabulary may not just reflect style and sentiment, but his Stratford background. His preferences could be deemed more "rustic" than many of his peers reared in London.

Features that make English more consistent now were not formalized yet. That's why Shakespeare sounds so "old." It's not just him being fancy. And there's also the fact that blank verse plays are an entirely neglected art nowadays. Regardless of the comprehensibility of the English, it's still strange for modern audiences uninitiated to Elizabethan literature to sit there and watch a King drop mad poetry about his feelings on stage by himself. The form and style of the entire genre is off.

But that, to me, is why we should read Shakespeare. We SHOULD be challenged. It very much IS within the grasp of a literate adult fluent in English to read one of his plays, in a modern edition with proper assistance and context. It is GOOD to be acquainted with something unfamiliar to us, but within our reach. I'm serious. I do not think I'm so much smarter than everyone else because I read Shakespeare. I don't just read the plain text as it was printed in the First Folio! The scholarship exists which has made Shakespeare accessible to me, and I take advantage of that access for my own pleasure.

This is to say that I disagree with the notion that Shakespeare is better suited to be enjoyed in foreign tongues. I think that's quite a complacent, modern American take. Not to say that the sentiment of McWhorter is wrong; I get what he's saying. And it's quite a beautiful thing that Shakespeare's plays are still so commonly staged, although arguably that comes from a false notion in our culture that Shakespeare is high literature worth preserving, at the expense of the rest of time and history. It is true that his body of work has such a high level of privilege in the so-called Western literary canon that either numerous other writers equally deserve, or no writer ever could possibly deserve.

The effort that goes into making Shakespeare's twenty-first century legacy, though, is a half-assed one. So much illustrious praise and deification of the individual and his works, and yet not as much to understanding the context of his time and place, of his influences, forms, and impacts on the eras which proceeded him. Shakespeare seems to exist in a vacuum with his archaic language, and we read it once or twice in high school when we're forced to, with prosaic translations on the adjoining page. This does not inspire a true appreciation in a culture for Shakespeare but it does reinforce a stereotype that he must be somehow important. It's this shallow stereotype that makes it seem in many minds today that it would be worth it to rip the precise language out of the text of a poet, and spit back out an equivalent "modern translation."

[httpch3rry]

imaginary wishes

there's so much i want to say

like i wish we had more time

i wish you knew how to hold me

i wish you saw me as i want to be seen

i wish you knew how to love

i wish i was strong enough

i wish i was brave enough

to kiss you

i wish i wasn't so proud

i wish you'd wait forever

but it isn't right

wishes aren't real

and you deserve to be kissed

i can't keep trying to punish you

for crimes you've forgotten