#the books didn't give me a lot to work with this time so I'm shoehorning a connection to Yang here

[diaryofamadsunwukongfan]

Daichi Yatsuhashi

Race: Human

Nationality: Mistral

Ethnicity: Mistrali

Weapon: Fulcrum (A massive, two-handed sword from the GW era. Yatsu can use it with one hand.)

Gender: Male

Sexuality: Straight

Starting age: 18

Aura Color: Pale green

Handedness: Right

Complexion: Tan

Eye color: Black

Semblance: Bōnenkai (A Mental Semblance that directly attacks the Frontal and Temporial lobes of the human brain. In other words, it deletes memory and at little cost to the user.)

Occupation: Beacon Academy sophmore

Yatsuhashi is the eldest son of a poor farmer family within Mistral. In allegiance with that responsibility, he transferred to Beacon Academy to become a huntsman in a slightly more economic country than Mistral... but really, he came to Vale to spend time away from his family, and away from his younger sister.

[dipplinduo]

So you would want to write more Sweet & Sour? Interesting. Anything you wish you could rewrite in hindsight?

(Context: this ask)

OOH this is a good question! xD 'Cause yeah, there's some things I'd handle differently. I could be knit-picky about a number of things, but these are the main ones tbh:

Make Kieran & Juliana have an even slower burn (like pre first-kiss). I pulled the trigger on making them more romantically involved with each other because I knew I was going in that direction and felt that I would've only written repetitively about their dynamic if I kept things where they were. BECAUSE OF COURSE MORE IDEAS CAME IMMEDIATELY AFTER I PULLED THAT TRIGGER- I am a bigggg enemies/rivals to lovers fan, and I don't like it when the pair gets together too quickly. I honestly wonder what I would think about their development if I was a reader lol. (I will say that keeping the fluidity & tension up after the fact was good, though. A lot of books I read suck at doing that xD) But like, stuff like early Kieran taking care of sick Juliana and having conflicting feelings over it? That felt like a great sweet spot. I'd love to give Juliana a little more reluctance about how she feels about Kieran too; I wanted to show that she's compassionate to a fault (and now y'all may see why xDD), but yeah. I really like the early stages of their feelings, and tbh it was part of why I wrote DIOH. I chuck things in there that I couldn't go back on with S&S D.

More flashbacks, especially for Juliana. Although...:) Chapter 22 and CHAPTER 23.... (that's all I'll say on that because I have a plan to address this LOL).

As much as I dislike it, draw out the E4 battles and whatnot. S&S D is by no means a battle-oriented fic but I 100% shoehorned the challenges in to progress a necessary part of the plot and I'll own that. It's honestly one of the smaller things given that the fic has more of a romance/chain lore/dorming au/some slices of life moments in it, butttttt yeah. xD Essentially I'd have Juliana challenge them in a more gradual way.

Some writing style things. As I've been growing as a casual writer, one thing I caught myself doing - unintentionally - is some bait-and-switch writing at times.

E.g. Applins are missing at the end of one chapter -> Applins are found in the next & the plot point is immediately resolved.

It didn't feel like that to me at the time because I wrote the chapters separately at different times & it does take a whole long ass chapter to get there, buuuuut! Yeah! I could see how this could get a little frustrating as a reader (imo); however, I acknowledge it can also give a (positive) episodic feel.

Since I self-identified this, I'm trying to be mindful about it with endgame stuff. There is something coming up that does dress itself up in a bit of a bait-and-switch manner, and I'm gonna work hard to hopefully demonstrate that this was the plan all along (thank you foreshadowing xD)

Another thing is the way I describe things at times. I can tend to get very descriptive because I want to immerse people, but this in itself can likely get repetitive. I will continue the writing style in S&S D for the most part to keep the cohesion in the story though. :)

[ihazyourkitty]

Why John Hargrove is full of it p.1

Multiple people have expressed interest in the detailed Blackfish rebuttal I am working on. The plan is to put it in video essay format on Youtube. This not only has the potential to reach a larger audience, but it also gives me more creative/expressive flexibility that would otherwise be difficult to get across in just written text.

This project will not be completed for quite some time, as there are a lot of things to cover. However, I did want to provide a short glimpse into some things I've uncovered thus far.

You see, I plan on not only refuting the movie itself, but also covering the consequences of Blackfish, and major figures like Naomi Rose, Ingrid Visser, etc. So as part of this project, I am listening to the eBook version of John Hargrove's Beneath the Surface for the second time. It's..... so.... much..... fun.....

*sigh* Warning, there's a long rant ahead. TL;DR John Hargrove comes off as very full of himself in this book, and it's annoying.

______

Now, on a purely emotional, literary level I guess, the book is certainly very gripping. It's difficult to put down, even when you know that much of what is alleged therein is utter bullcrap. However, I don't think this is just because the whole "little-guy turns against evil corporation" trope makes for good storytelling across the board. I think it's also because, unlike Mark Simmons' Killing Keiko, or Hazel McBride's I Still Believe, John Hargrove's Beneath the Surface has the luxury of both professional editing, and a co-author (Howard Chia-Eoan).

To be clear, I'm not saying this as dig against Hazel McBride or Mark Simmons. I bring this up merely to illustrate the stark contrast here. As far as I know, their works were self published, or at least lacking the same polish and publicity from big name publishers, or sensationalist documentaries.

However, this contrast wouldn't be so noteworthy to me were it not for these two things I'm increasingly noticing in this reread of Beneath the Surface:

It is never clearly stated which parts were written by Hargrove, and which were ghost written by Chia-Eoan... but the amount of contradictions and shoehorned information in here gives me some serious suspicions.

John Hargrove... seems incredibly full of himself!

I don't have the time to elaborate on #1 right now, so we'll just talk about #2 today. John Hargrove is almost never in the wrong. He is always painted as the hero, the true advocate for these animals. You don't hear much about the other trainers he worked with or learned from. Mostly, it's just about him. He bemoans the allegedly poor conditions SeaWorld's animals are kept in, while simultaneously boasting about all his accomplishments with them. He speaks of differing perspectives between him and some of the other trainers, but seldom elaborates on what exactly those differences were. Instead, he usually just frames it in a sanctimonious "me vs. them" way.

The closest he gets to admitting any mistakes he had to learn from is when he recounted an aggressive incident with Freya at Marineland Antibes, and even then.... the whole reason why that incident (allegedly) happened was because Hargrove overestimated his training/waterworks abilities with a whale he didn't have a relationship with. His admission of that mistake is then overshadowed by the rather self-righteous tone he frames the resolution with. All the success was about him. You don't hear anything about how he worked with the other trainers there, what they brought to the table, and certainly not the stronger, lasting relationships they had with Freya. It's not that he had to mention them by name, but he didn't even mention them at all!

To be fair, this interpretation is partly subjective on my part. Still, as someone who is personally working in animal husbandry right now (albeit not with marine mammals), the gaping holes in this narrative raises some red flags.

Here's some free advice to anyone interested in working in the zoo/aquarium industry: I have been told by multiple hiring managers that they don't want someone who "just wants to work with the animals, and not deal with people." That's not how this works. You still have to work with people in some form or another.

It doesn't matter which animals you are working with. When you're on an animal husbandry/training team, you gotta ask for/provide help, seek/give feedback, communicate with other departments, etc. Complaints, conflict and disagreements will inevitably happen, but you gotta be mature about it.

And yes, in that process... you are going to make mistakes, and you're going to have to own up to them! It's part of how you learn. You're also going to inevitably work with people who don't see things the same way.

The people who can't do this tend to not only get stuck in their own way, but are more likely to start resenting coworkers and/or management whenever disagreements happen. They'll constantly complain about how other people do things, but then can't/won't take constructive feedback themselves. It's worse when it's someone with more experience under their belt because of the massive ego. Let me be clear: this kind of mindset does not help your animals! It only creates a toxic work environment that's resistant to change!

DO. NOT. BE. THIS. PERSON!!!!

No, this does not mean you can't vent frustrations. No this does not mean that you can't take pride in your work. It means that you gotta be able to swallow your pride, and not alienate other people.

So, what does all that have to do with the contrast mentioned earlier?

Like Hargrove, McBride details her career journey, but doesn't just paint it all in glamour. She talks about her setbacks, how she grew, things she learned from other people, the internships she did, the grunt work she was willing to do, etc.

Killing Keiko has less to do with the details of Mark Simmons' career path, but he does give credit to other people where it is due, even at times towards those he fundamentally disagreed with. I can remember one part where he explicitly admitted that he made a mistake too, and tellingly, it was in an instance where he played the "I've been doing this for years" card. In the very next sentence he admitted it was the wrong thing to say in that situation, and highlighted the perspective he was missing in that moment.

These things are conspicuously absent in Beneath the Surface. I don't remember anything of the sort that stood out when I first read the book, and thus far it's certainly not there in my second time around. The first third of the book is dedicated to how he dreamed of becoming a trainer as a kid, and the path he took to get there. Most of this path, though, is painted in glamor, when the reality is.... the path to getting into animal husbandry isn't particularly glamorous. Not only do you have go to college, but you also have to settle for various unpaid internships or volunteer gigs, and then apply for multiple jobs only to get several no's before it works out (to say nothing of how underpaid zookeepers/aquarists/trainers are).

Hargrove, on the other hand, kept pestering lead marine mammal trainers at SeaWorld since he was a kid, practiced his swimming/diving abilities, and started his degree in psychology. Then, as luck would have it, an apprentice trainer position opened up at SW San Antonio, and when he got the job, he jubilantly quit college. Not much is said about what kind of volunteer work he did before that. I think he did some stuff with marine mammal rescue in Texas, but I'll have to go back and reread to be sure... in any event, I wish I'd heard more about the experience he got besides swimming and pestering the SW animal training department.

And like.... great, he got the job, but it seemed more by luck than by the sweat of his brow. Then he balked that he was put in the SeaLion Stadium, and/or that he had to spend a lot of time washing dishes and spotting before even being allowed to work directly with a whale, which like..... yeah? I don't know what you were expecting dude.

(Btw, this part isn't just me being nit-picky, Duncan Versteegh from ML Antibes corroborates Hargrove's resistance to doing grunt work like cleaning)

Whenever mentioning people at SW who didn't want to work at Shamu Stadium, Hargrove couldn't understand how anyone wouldn't want that.... because heaven forbid other people have different preferences? To be fair, from what I've heard of SW work culture in general, Shamu Stadium is kind of painted as the glamorous A-team, but DANG does Hargrove really lean into that attitude!

Later on, he detailed some of the conflicts he had with SW's entertainment department. At one point his manager explicitly told him he needed learn to get along better with other departments. And like... yeah... yeah you do!

Look, I'm not interested in doing blanket apologia for SeaWorld. I'm sure Hargrove was in the right more than once when he'd argue with people, but I'm also not convinced that the whole of the entertainment department, management, et al., were just a bunch of unfeeling jerks who didn't care about the animals.

This part actually ground my gears quite a bit. Before I became an aquarist, I was an educator, and sometimes I would overhear certain husbandry staff gossip about us in a really patronizing way whenever there were miscommunications. Not that they never had valid reasons to complain, they did, but to be treated like you're just a dumb educator/guest services person is not pleasant, and certainly not professional. I don't know how common this is at other places, but I bring this up to illustrate the importance of being able to work with other departments, especially in the face of disagreements or miscommunication.

That Beneath the Surface paints Hargrove's inability to do this as a virtue rather than as the character flaw that it is... well.... it's um... it's a choice. And it's telling.

Again, some of this interpretation is subjective on my part. Ultimately, none of us can know for sure what is in someone else's heart. Hargrove does seem to sincerely care about the animals, despite the narcissism. However, the vast majority of people who are going to be reading his book are not people who have spent much if any time working in the zoo industry, and thus may not pick up on some of these things. I'm not the only one to point these things out either.

So even if one is against keeping orcas in captivity, I think being aware of the egos behind figures like Hargrove is important. When you get to the end of his book, you would think that all his former colleagues are, at best, just timid little clogs in a corporate machine, brainwashed to do as SW says. This is just not true. These people are dedicated to their animals, and have worked very hard to get where they are at. Some have gone on to get their masters, or PhD's, provide expertise to other facilities, or take part in rescues, etc., and they did it without chasing clout.

SW Corporate should absolutely treat their employees better, but their treatment of them pales in comparison to how people like Hargrove basically erase their accomplishments altogether. In this way, he tries to have it both ways... his time at SW proves how much of an expert he is, you know, because he was a senior trainer with two decades of experience after all! Oh, but when someone else from the field speaks up to refute what he says, nope.... their accomplishments don't matter, they're just brainwashed. If that doesn't scream "massive ego", then I don't know what does.

I'm only halfway through the book on this second round, so there is a chance I'll come back to correct some things here. I do encourage people to try to read this book themselves and come to their own conclusions. You don't have to buy it either, check your local library (it's how I got a hold of this eBook).

[jjba-smash-or-pass]

Who are your top 5 favorite JoJo characters and why? Who are your least favorite characters?

Alright I'm gonna go into more detail because I love talking about characters <3

1: Foo Fighters. Like I've said before, Kakyoin and them have some similar motifs, namely the motifs of feeling othered from the world and not really having friends until they become a part of the main Jojo group of their respective parts. As a (probably) autistic person and a (definitely) ADHD person, I heavily relate to this message, as I never really feel like I belong unless I'm with my tight-knit friend group. What I like better about FF, though, is that this "otherness" is a key aspect of their personality and characterization, instead of being shoehorned in right before their screen time ends. That, and their overall personality is just more fun. Also nonbinary representation is always cool in my book.

2: Josuke Higashikata. He's the manifestation of my favorite things about Jojo all put into one character. He's got a snazzy outfit. He can switch from silly to serious at a moment's notice. But most importantly, he has a heart of gold and won't stop fighting for peace. The fact that he's a former fictional crush of mine definitely kicks him up a few places as well.

3: Yoshikage Kira. I know I said Josuke includes all of my favorite things about Jojo, but Kira is a manifestation of all the minor things I love about Jojo. He "looks normal" in canon but wears a Bright Purple Outfit. He has really unique dialogue. He's insanely smart. And, of course, he's a needlessly cruel villain. Araki seems to love creating villains that like to kick puppies for fun, and I love seeing them in his work. The funniest part is that Kira would actually just be a normal guy, if not for his urge to kill women. There's a lot of other things about his character I like, but none major enough to mention here.

4: Jolyne Cujoh. I really appreciated seeing her character growth throughout the story of Stone Ocean! Jolyne, like Josuke, has a lot of that fighting spirit and willpower, but instead of fighting for the sake of others (although she definitely does that don't get me wrong), her story is about fighting for the sake of herself. She's been through a lot. She grew up without a father figure. And now, she's stuck in prison for a crime she didn't commit. Her story is about fighting for her own future, fighting to make amends with her father, fighting to free herself and her soul. And in the end, it was her decisions that ended up defeating Pucci.

5: Danny. The bestest boy. Little ouppy. He deserved better.

okay but really my number 5 pick is Iggy. He's a dog who gives absolutely zero shits about humans unless they're giving him coffee gum. But underneath that shittiness is a tenacity that's almost human-like. He reminds me of my own dog, in a way. She's a grumpy old lady who doesn't listen to a word you say unless there's food involved, and she refuses to die. Seriously, she's gotten her little paws on SO much chocolate during her lifespan, and she's had to take a medicine that was supposed to give her leukemia years ago.

And for the sake of not making this any longer than it needs to be, I'll just list my least favorite character from the main cast and then overall.

My least favorite Jojo character from the main cast is Giorno. I feel like there's a lot of missed potential with his character. This is a 15-year-old boy who has both Joestar and Brando blood. There was so much Araki could have done with Giorno that he didn't, and instead created a character with very little personality who was supposed to be the driving force of his part. I think he's part of the reason Golden Wind is one of the most forgettable parts to me.

My least favorite Jojo character overall is Forever the orangutan. His Stand fight could have been really interesting but instead we got a child's bare ass on screen because Forever was a creep. I actually watched the Jojo OVA from the 2000's, and they cut Anne's character out entirely but keep the Strength fight. Because Anne wasn't there they altered how some of the events went down and honestly? It was super cool. I liked it a lot more. And do keep in mind that I don't think Araki was trying to write this as a sexy thing. I do think he was trying to incorporate shock factor though so it's still not very redeemable.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2024 MOVIE LIST

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

I re-watched Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

Normally I wouldn't discuss a Star Wars film. I honestly don't have too much to say about them. However, I'm making an exception for this one, because it allows me to discuss my feelings on the whole series.

The daughter of a reluctant imperial technician must join the rebellion to find her father and learn of a way to destroy a dreaded superweapon.

I'm not a huge "Star Wars" person. I know a lot about it. I've seen most of what it has to offer. I grew up on the original trilogy, I saw the special editions and the prequel films in the theater as a kid. I've watched most of the new trilogy, a lot of the cartoons, played the games, read some books and even watched some of the Disney+ shows. "Star Wars" has always been a part of my life and seemingly always will, despite my low enthusiasm for it.

Out of all of this "Star Wars" I've experienced, the original trilogy stands out as the best and the most influential films in the series. They're all good movies, with "The Empire Strikes Back" being a legitimately great film, which deserves all the accolades it receives. But other than those films, what stands out in the Star Wars universe as genuinely good filmmaking is "Rogue One".

With the special editions of the original trilogy, things begun to tank for the series. All the stuff that was originally cut or just abandoned due to time restraints, budget restraints or technological restraints was shoehorned back into the original films. This marked an era, where going forward, all "Star Wars" projects would be unbound by restriction. No budget too big, no time frame too long and no special effect undoable. The filmmakers no longer had to get creative or re-think something. And, we can't blame anyone more for this than franchise creator George Lucas.

With the prequel trilogy Lucas abandoned his original universe, overhauling the look into uninspired and glossy technology and blue screen digital backgrounds. Match this with poorly written characters and a director who was no longer being questioned and things got muddy. Lucas had split the universe and forever damaged the coherence. It didn't look the same, the characters had no charisma and no chemistry with each other, and every idea was thrown against the wall, creating a bland finger painting that felt like a completely different sci-fi universe was being built, rather than a return to the one which was beloved by so many fans.

In 2016 "Rogue One" director Gareth Edwards tried his best to reverse this, while also reversing one of the greatest story flaws in the original saga (by fixing the death star weakness plotline). Returning to the original aesthetic with a bit darker flare, Edwards created a world that felt perfectly in step with the original trilogy's 70's and 80's style. The ships looked great, the costumes looked amazing, the locations were on point. This was the "Star Wars" universe again. Edwards then populated the world with a cast of misfit underdogs, who form a bond through their adventure and come together as a team. Along With a hateable new villain, Edwards uses old villains in a way that does fan service right.

On top of all that "Rogue One" is a legitimate War film that works as a war film blended with an adventure story structure. Their are thrilling battles, exciting ship flying scenes, clever and creative uses of tension within the battlefield space. The last 40 minutes or so is an all out battle that works and works well.

This felt new, but it felt like "Star Wars", and Rogue One" should have been the star wars film from which all future films in the franchise took the lead. Sadly, that wouldn't be the case.

"The new trilogy started alright, with a brighter tone than "Rogue One" but it felt like it was adhering to the original universe. But, all that would falter and give way to silly alien casinos, space flying princesses and an awkward story structure full of poorly plotted moments. The Disney+ shows would be hit or miss. Even within the shows themselves, some things would be good and some would be downright bad, boring or cringe worthy. And, all these shows would be filmed on sets that look like tourist spots at galaxies edge in the Disney theme park, making the universe feel smaller and weightless. The use of "The Force" became inconsistent and overpowered. Characters became bland. The universe became oversaturated. "Star Wars" became nothing but a money making content machine.

"Rogue One" has its flaws. The character bonding happens too easily which feels slightly formulaic, and like most Star Wars the story is a bit basic. But, it's a real "Star Wars" film, with an understanding of what made those original films so special and a good sense of how to branch off slightly in its own darker direction. It could have been the quality savior of the franchise, but instead it's just a bright spot in a sea of special effects and bad storytelling.

[showyoumyfavoriteobsession]

long-ass tl post below. i'm not trying to start shit i'm just venting bc i've been thinking about this episode for like 12 hours today lol

man. anyway. there were definitely good moments in the finale but I was just so disappointed by the execution of almost all of the storylines' conclusions.

I want to start off that I'm not particularly broken up by any of the ships we thought would happen not happening in and of themselves, but the way we got jerked around this season for all of these storylines to have no real resolution is really frustrating.

The Roy/Keeley/Jamie triangle is a big one for me. We spent all of this season developing all of their characters individually, focused on Roy and Jamie becoming friends (which was great and one of the strongest parts of the season!), and then we wrap it up with... a literal fistfight and shitty, sexist pronouncements of ownership? Taking the foundations of their relationships, the things they've been working on for three seasons - trust, communication, accountability - and just throwing it out the window? And for what?

The Beard/Jane thing makes me absolutely furious. This is the plot thread that makes this finale feel the most rushed and shoehorned, as if they were planning to go somewhere else and just didn't have time. What was the fucking point of Beard After Hours if they were heading towards this shit the whole time

(I do think that montage at the end was supposed to be a dream, but Beard leaving the plane for Jane wasn't!! And if Ted was imagining Beard and Jane being happy together forever that's still pretty fucked up!!)

What was the fucking point of the Zava storyline. What was the fucking point of the Jack storyline. What was the fucking point of the Shandy storyline. What was the fucking point of the Tish storyline. What was the fucking point of Trent's book

(i edited that above bullet like three times while writing the rest of this post because i kept remembering other storylines that went nowhere lol)

Ted himself was giving absolutely nothing during this episode. I thought he was being quiet and reserved because he was bottling up to have a breakdown of some kind towards the end, but he just seemed... empty. Even his final speech to the team felt distant. I couldn't tell if he was conflicted about leaving, happy about leaving... I get the future was supposed to be ambiguous, but I couldn't even tell if he would ever want to go back to Richmond for a visit.

It's been pointed out before (and I agree) that the actor playing Henry is... not the best. He's very flat in a lot of the emotional scenes that he's in, and it made it harder to believe that he really missed Ted that much, especially in 3x08, which was probably supposed to be an important link in that storyline. But I can't blame him for everything - there hasn't been a lot in the script for him, so Dottie's "your son misses you" last week felt kind of unearned. And Ted's reaction to it last week felt real! But then there's barely anything in this episode that makes it feel like he's actually excited to see his son again. (When Henry was coming to visit in season 1, he was tracking the plane! He was chatting about it to Beard and Nate and Rebecca! In this episode we got one text of a gif.) If Ted's story was actually about the sacrifices of being a parent, why don't we get one (1) scene expressing that?

Nate. I really really really wanted to like Nate's storyline this season and the conclusion still kind of pissed me off. It was really that all the important parts were offscreen in this episode - did he choose to be a (assistant) kit man again or was he demoted? How did the team welcome him back? What was Ted and his reunion like? The only good thing was Nick Mohammed's acting - his apology to Ted just instantly made me start crying - but it was like a 2-minute scene! We couldn't have cut that stupid K/J/R scene for more closure on Nate?? There's something to him being back in the same place but more secure in himself, but we didn't actually get to see him choose it in any real way.

I was a big Ted/Rebecca fan in the earlier seasons, but I truly would have fine with them being completely platonic, and by the middle of this season, I was thinking they probably would be. Unfortunately, by this episode they don't even feel like friends anymore. Again, Ted is just doing absolutely nothing during their scene in the stands, and barely anything more at the airport scene. Where's the trust? The openness? And again, all the hints, the misdirects, the biscuits with the boss, the army men... and for what? To barely look each other in the eye, to leave with no promise that they'll ever see each other again?

Again, I do think the montage towards the end was a dream, but Rebecca reuniting with the Dutch guy felt like another really sloppy ending. We didn't spend an entire episode with them specifically not learning each other's names for them to suddenly be soulmates

Overall, I felt like this season varied in quality pretty drastically from episode to episode. I do think part of it was that they wrote seasons 1 and 2 back-to-back before any of it was released, and then this season was written after the huge response to the first two seasons. The rest of this is pure speculation, but I've thought a couple times this season that it felt a little "tryhard", like they were suddenly self-conscious of the goofiness and earnestness of the show but still wanted to do it. And now it feels like all of that led to last-minute rewrites, plots getting shifted around due to audience reactions, and maybe some marvel-style spoiler avoidance (that thing where whenever something leaks/gets guessed, they just change the script to something else to 'preserve the surprise' even if it makes no sense). It's fine when this show is predictable! The first two seasons were still fun when they were predictable!! It seems a little bit like this season was left open-ended in case they decide to do another season or something, but they did the rest of the show such a disservice by doing this that I'm not that interested in anything else they want to say past this point. This whole season, all the plot threads that went nowhere, I still trusted that the writers had a plan to tie it all together in the end because they've done it before, and this is what we got.

There's a place for ambiguity, but when everything is left ambiguous it's just sloppy. If we weren't sure where Ted's mind was at OR Roy/Keeley/Jamie was still up in the air OR Nate's future was uncertain OR Rebecca had maybe found a healthy relationship... any of those would have been fine, but when you have all of them unresolved it feels like no one wanted to commit to actually ending the thing.

whew. anyway. it's just such a bummer when a show you've gotten invested in shoots itself in the foot like this. this post is already too long but i'm going to end with the moments i did like:

I actually liked (most of) the opening scene, it made me laugh maybe more than anything else. I had just convinced myself that no, they're never actually going to have a canonical throuple on this show, and then I really thought for a second that they just plunked Ted/Rebecca/Beard down in front of us with no warning lol

Colin! I'm happy he got his happy ending.

Frankly, my general disinterest in Trent and, to a lesser extent, Colin, really stemmed from the fandom valorization of them from the very first season. It felt like (and I think it was, at least for a while!) that very Tumblr thing of "paying vastly more attention to conventionally attractive white men in very minor roles than any women or people of color that have actual storylines". But they had really good storylines this season - some of the better ones - and I really enjoyed them as written! I just still find their fandoms kind of annoying.

The scenes with Jamie and Roy (before they go to Keeley's) were mostly really lovely. I think that's been the strongest subplot of this season, and it's been a real joy to watch.

(i just realized 'joy' could be a ship name for jamie/roy lmao)

In a general sense, I really like that a lot of the major characters did not end up in romantic relationships, because those aren't the most important journeys they went on. Obviously I have quibbles about the execution (and larger quibbles about the ones who did (see above)), but I love that as an overall message.

Roy going to therapy!! You absolutely love to see it!!!

i keep trying to think of other stuff and keep coming up with more stuff i'm irritated about and it's past midnight so i'm going to stop lol. definitely going to be sitting on this episode/show for a bit but. yeah

The return of the Believe sign. As I've said, I'm a sucker for some well-timed cheese, and that was a really sweet scene.

ETA: OH the diamond dogs scene was actually lovely!! It got so lost in the rest of this episode but it was the only part that attempted to address the actual themes of the show!

[lizzybeth1986]

I seriously need to hear your take on the mess with Aurora. I don't know if they are trying to demonize her or to dumb her down. I don’t even know what the writers expect us to think about this situation. Are we supposed to be mad at Aurora? I agreed I’d do the same and the writing still made it look like Aurora was a snake. They have created a great female rival who had nothing to be redeemed for, so they thought 'we should give her Landry's story.'

Disclaimer: The read more doesn’t appear to work properly for asks, so apologies if it’s not functioning properly on your end!

TW: discussions on racism in PB’s books

I'm sorry it took me such a long time to answer this, anon, but this question sparked a LOT of thoughts that I wanted to sort out and make sense of before I could present them as a response! Some of these were thoughts that I had for a long time but never really got to talk in detail about, and I'm happy I can expand on those thoughts through this ask. Thank you so much for this question because it's one I've myself had been thinking about often before I deleted the game.

In my mind, the hate towards Aurora had always exceeded her perceived crime. Aurora is viewed with scorn and suspicion pretty much for minding her own fucking business and not liking the MC (ultimate crime right there). Even though the narrative does mark her as innocent in the end, show Landry as the culprit and eventually integrate her into the friend group - it is done in such a way that Aurora is

Not allowed much opportunity for pushback even after being suspected. For instance, Aurora is so aware of the extent of the MC's dislike that she spells it out to them that they were suspecting her. Yet the MC doesn't exactly apologise to her and Aurora is instead expected to be grateful for the small kindness of allowing Aurora room in their flat later on.

Sympathized with only by option rather than default, even when it's obvious we were wrong about her. Even Landry is given better - he has the upper hand in the conversation where we confront him, and we behave civilly to him during the time we  have to help Banerji (as opposed to Aurora, who the MC could choose to blame for her very legitimate reasons for keeping a distance. The MC also has the option in the closet scene to tell her to "suck it up" and minimize her negative previous experiences as well). In this way the treatment reminds me most of Kiara because Kiara, too, has to jump through hoops to get the tiniest crumb of sympathy from the MC and Drake, with zero remorse for putting her through that...while women who have behaved worse than her can demand 5-star treatment. So the MC is allowed to only optionally sympathize with her in the closet scene, still allowed to accuse her of being a jerk in the best option, and never really has to apologize for their misconceptions about her. In both cases the MCs are viewed as ultimately right in their treatment of these characters.

Still disrespected, even after the narrative shift that marks her as innocent. Not only does Jackie still make snide remarks on her nepotism - the MC who is aware that Aurora is practically blameless and in fact is under immense pressure from her aunt Harper doesn't bother to correct her. The words "Princess Nepotism" are still used against her as well.

Still subject to what could become a future pattern of behaviour from the MC's side, where they're allowed to shit on her even when it's clear she's innocent or didn't intentionally cause harm. Many many Open Heart stans have pointed out by now how we're given practically no options to fully have her back and show her sympathy that isn't rooted in blame. And this is not a pattern we even  see in ALL people who embody the love-hate or even antagonist trope - but I will discuss that later.

Might I add, Landry was allowed to be treated better and he ratted us out. Until the fandom called the team out, the narrative was VERY happy to shoehorn an immediate redemption arc around the same time that the MC's friend was still snarking on Aurora.

I'm not very surprised they went this route with Aurora. Well...maybe a little, because somehow I assumed that her popularity among the fandom would protect her a little more - but I guess when you're a person of colour who has seen story after story after story of  characters of colour being repeatedly thrown under the bus, there are certain patterns you learn to expect.

Here's (IMO) the most important one: check out who the narrative rewards you for treating well, as opposed to who will be made to support you either way.

You're allowed to show basic decency to a black or brown woman. But you're expected to show kindness, understanding and empathy to a white woman, and richly rewarded if you do. In some cases you will also face consequences if you don't. (Fandom - take note of the difference, and be sure not to forget it).

The woman of colour can get penalized by the narrative for something as basic as not liking, or not wanting to interact with, the MC. Very often, she is written as an inferior foil to either the MC or to another character (preferably white) and very little effort is made to explore her origins, motivations or backstory. In certain stories we are allowed to speak garbage about her behind her back, we're allowed to say things about her that have no basis in canon. In certain stories (TRR, Open Heart, perhaps Veil of Secrets may apply in this category as well) the narrative encourages us to suspect and blame her, with no consequences to us as such when it's revealed that she was innocent all along. In a lot of cases, she isn't even allowed to call you out on your words or behaviour. It's also interesting to note: a lot of the black female "antagonists'" behaviour (since the trope has been misused often in their case) doesn't even begin to match the way a white woman in the same role is allowed to behave  with us.

The white woman's rude behaviour, on the other hand, is often followed up with elaborate backstories, excuses and explanations - often in such a way that their initial crime is forgotten, ignored or retconned and what they do to the MC and/or their friends is almost viewed as secondary. The narrative begins with framing her as an antagonist before using her (sometimes tragic) past to excuse her actions, and you as the MC are expected to be understanding and let her off easily, even when her actions have caused serious damage. In some cases (like Olivia's) she is praised merely for being the "snarky badass" who will make snide remarks and underestimate you/your friend, while you rejoice for even the smallest crumb of acknowledgement for this friendship. In some cases (like Madeleine's or Vanessa's) she does unforgivable things which are then immediately followed by a massive sympathy arc - one that diverts our attention from the previous action...and eventually faces the barest minimum in terms of consequences.

Vanessa Blackwood is an obvious and glaring example of this pattern. She targets our child with the word "guttersnipe" from the moment she meets her. She delivers the papers contesting the MC's custody of the child with a smile, rejoicing over the thought that this child will be ripped away from her impoverished mother. She enables and in some cases even encourages her son August's bullying. She engages in classist, racist and homophobic behaviour. In a bid to make her case in court  stronger, she devices the plan to frame the MC for shoplifting at the store she worked in so she would lose her job.

Who faces the (arguably not enough) consequences for this? Tallulah, the brown woman who stole items on Vanessa's say-so, for Guy's benefit (Guy is also her accomplice, which is hardly ever addressed in court).  The worst that happens to Vanessa is that she loses her case, but given that she ultimately chooses to do so…is it really that much of a loss after all?

And what does Vanessa get in the end? A nice, cushy little diamond scene where you have to stand patiently, listen to her sob story, and maybe tell Vanessa she was "a little bit racist". This is the story that I had seen some on my dash hail as "the god-tier realistic story that acknowledges racism and sexism". A friend of mine argued once that Tallulah's accusation would probably not work since it would be seen as hearsay, but it's not like PB are powerless puppets in the hands of their own story. They were the ones who created it. They're the ones who encouraged that expectation that they would address sensitive issues like these with sensitivity and respect. They could have found ways to not hide the evidence behind a paywall and to leave solid proof along with that accusation, but in this case Tallulah wasn't even allowed to mention their names.

Constantly, Vanessa was shown in a position of power, and was shown abusing that power then getting away with precious little consequence. Contrast that to Xanthe, who had very little real power in ACOR, could wreck very little real damage in the overall story, yet met a cruel, horrific end that two black people were witness to, and were made (by the narrative. I refuse to believe that Syphax as he was written would NOT be disgusted if he saw/heard about it) to laugh at. I don't recall her ever getting a nice cushy diamond scene aimed at getting us to sympathize with her circumstances (which in fact are pretty tragic if you actually sit down and think about it. She'd be groomed to be a courtesan since she was a literal CHILD!)

And you can see this with so many books that by now I've lost count. A Rowan Thorn can be punished for betraying Kenna (even if, in that playthrough, Kenna is a tyrant who doesn't deserve to rule a can of beans, much less a kingdom) - and it's made easier for her to die even if we've secured her loyalty, whereas Diavolos lives on and can even marry Kenna BECAUSE of said loyalty. A Madeleine will be given a sympathy arc, after which writers will then use her victim to majorly retcon a bullying incident so the writers would never need to address what she'd done, but a Kiara will be hated, treated with scorn and suspected for treason just for being ambitious. An Ellen would only get respect for her hustle towards the tail end of a standalone series about the cutthroat journalistic world, a Scarlett wouldn't even be given a future - even the goddamn bed and breakfast owner gets more importance!! And all of this happens alongside the other characters praising the MC for being an inspiration, or being "different", or being a "trusting kind person". Sometimes even a character from the list I've just named is made to heap those praises on this person.

Within this book itself, Landry the real antagonist is allowed to push a narrative that blames us for not gassing him up to Ethan — even though our very first diamond scene involves him having an opportunity to engage with Ethan but being too nervous to take it and instead passing the task to us. The narrative is written such that it sounds like Landry had a right to be angry with the MC for "not doing enough", and for having the attention from Ethan that he craved. In doing this, the same narrative ignores the positioning of Landry as a mediocre white male armed with privilege that an optional person of colour who is new to the environment, will not have, and ignores that you can't equate the MC not recommending friends to superiors to deliberately sabotaging another person's career. Despite his duplicity, gross entitlement and flimsy excuses, the narrative still jumped on his weaksauce redemption arc faster than you could say 'scalpel'.

Aurora was a character that in some ways could fit Olivia's particular trope very well - the prickly rival who is shocked by your uniqueness and (sometimes) kindness and gradually grows to be your friend. In fact she fit it even better - because she never really knowingly harmed someone or tried to undermine us. This is what a lot of people in the fandom wanted to see as well - an arc that somewhat resembled Olivia's or Becca's (I will always see the fandom as complicit in the way black and brown women in these books are treated, as many in fandom also value said women less. But in this case, Aurora was eventually viewed as an exception and loved). Yet the treatment she is given at this point fits Kiara's more. The character who has potential, has promise, should be respected the way white women in her narrative position already are - yet is never really allowed her own voice against the horrible treatment meted out to her. With such characters, it always makes me severely uncomfortable to see them not address their pain and instead praise the MC, or watch them call them/her a friend. I'm acutely aware of how those MCs (or sometimes, their group as well) do not deserve their loyalty or devotion, or how little they give them in return. I'm aware of how all this will end too: the MC will be "right", again - never have to apologize, again - be treated with a respect they do not deserve, again. In a better book, I'd much rather Aurora or Kiara gave the MC the middle finger and left them for good.

I'm tired. Honestly. Women of colour (men of colour suffer this too, but this is perhaps not the post to address that. It's important to note also that often the men of colour pushed into similar situations are often not even antagonists to begin with, but our own friends and potential partners in the story.  Shane Parker of Platinum is a good example of this) in these stories are forever expected to place the comfort of others above their own pain, and I'm done with it.

[vimesbootstheory]

Reactions/reviews for works discussed in episodes 131-140 of the Overdue podcast. Beware for spoilers for The Martian specifically. Also 1984 but like. That's a pretty old book, I feel like people know what happens in 1984.

The Two Towers by J.R.R. Tolkien [4.25 stars] -- I am very surprised to announce that The Two Towers is actually my favourite LotR book??? Who knew! (Not me, and that's what counts I suppose.) Just like Fellowship of the Ring was a weird book to review, Two Towers is also weird to review in new and exciting ways, as well as all the ways that were applicable to FotR. It still kinda feels like I'm reviewing the Bible, but fantasy (though less so than FotR). It's also weird because it's two books in one -- literally, yes, but they feel more separate than lots of discrete novels within genre series do. Separate casts, for one thing. And the two books have very different appeals to me, and there's a pretty big gap in enjoyment for me as well. The first half of TT is... fine. I like Merry and Pippin, and the Ents are fun concepts, but it's all kind of a blur for me. I found that I did not give two shits about the non-hobbit members of the fellowship, except maybe Gandalf. But I enjoyed the second half of the book so much that I find I can't allow the first half to bring down the rating at all. The much more character-driven dynamics between Frodo and Sam and Gollum are the best showcase I've seen of Tolkien's writing ability, and it lacks some of the shoehorned conflict that the movies brought to it, which I appreciated. That's another aspect that makes reviewing TT hard, though: the temptation to compare it to the movie all the time. TT seems to me to be where the movies started to diverge more from the books. Long stretches of the first half aren't in the movies, or if they are they're in the Extended Edition (I can't remember what's in the Extended Edition). So there's some novelty in this book that you can't get as much from FotR, which I believe was adapted more closely by Jackson. And novelty is fun. Also, continuing my love affair with Sam Gamgee. I knew factually and from cultural osmosis that Sam was the real hero of the story but yeah actually and literally he's the real hero. He should get ALL the songs! Not that I dislike Frodo, I like him, in TT he is still has quite a bit of energy and I still enjoy his character, which is an advantage over RotK where... well, we'll get to that in the next review. The Martian by Andy Weir [4.0 stars] -- One of the few exceptions to the rule that the book is almost always better than the movie adaptation. Nevertheless, I like The Martian (book AND movie), enough that I was hyped to re-read it even though I last read it as recently as 2018. I view this book as a kind of companion to the movie, which I love. If you want to do a deep-dive on any of the logistics touched on in the movie, this is your one-stop shop, e.g. after reading the book I was annoyed when the movie would frame suit leaks and other air-related problems as being a danger of losing oxygen rather than a danger of rising CO2 or dropping air pressure. The book is certainly light on character development, but I guess I just remember the Matt Damon version of the character so well that I just project that version of Mark Watney onto book!Watney and my enjoyment mostly escapes being dented. Even though I knew perfectly well from multiple watches of the movie and a previous read of the book that Watney escapes Mars alive I still got very tense and invested whenever a new problem arose. The death of the potato farm always fills me with dread, as does the impending sand storm. In general, I'm always excited about very hard sci-fi, particularly hard sci-fi about space, so it was difficult for this book to fail me. (And it didn't.) The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien [4.0 stars] -- This is a weird book to review. It almost feels like Lord of the Rings should be Beyond Reviews in some capacity, and to be honest I think my attempt will automatically fall short. Part of my experience of reading this was to listen to a post-read podcast episode with input from one person who had seen the movies but not read the book, and one person who had not even seen the movies, which seems bonkers to me. Anyway, the latter's

perspective was illuminating in that she thought of a lot of faults to this book that would not even occurred to me, e.g. that the book never really establishes WHY Sauron and his forces are a bad thing for Middle-Earth, so the stakes do not seem to be as high as we are told they are. Also, Tolkien's obsession for naming things with multiple names, but reluctance to describe any of them. She pointed out that orcs are never actually described and I could only gape. Surely we all know what orcs look like? But I guess we don't. Tolkien didn't invent orcs but he certainly popularized them. Anyway, my point is that I am already so familiar with Lord of the Rings (I've seen the movies a couple times, and this is a re-read of the series) that I don't have any capacity to criticize it, in particular the world-building. It just IS. I can only say that from a personal enjoyment perspective, I found this to be comfy, nostalgic and fun. One of my favourite aspects was re-discovering the respective personalities of the four main hobbits. I think I've been underrating Sam before this re-read. He is incredible and also the best. (One last note which will be true of all the LotR books: As we are all aware, Tolkien is bad at writing women. It's not news, but it bears repeating so we don't get complacent about it. It's not OK.) Bunnicula: A Rabbit-Tale of Mystery by Deborah Howe & James Howe [3.75 stars] -- I loved the sense of humour of this book, reminded me a bit of A.A. Milne, and that's high praise. I'd thought that Bunnicula was actually a proper vampire when I started this book, so in that sense the plot kept me guessing. Harold is a himbo and I love him. The Return of the King by J.R.R. Tolkien [3.75 stars] -- I don't have a lot to say about RotK that I didn't say about the other two: Sam is amazing, it's weird to critically discuss a series this iconic, they made a movie adaptation and it's coloured my experience, yadda. One thing I do absolutely have to mention is that the pacing and structure of this book is... pretty bad? Like legitimately poor. Tolkien left off on a cliffhanger concerning Sam & Frodo and then does not go back to them until the book is half over. It's not as if he COULDN'T do that, since he head-hops within the first half between Merry and Pippin and their different (honestly pretty boring) battles. Then when he gets back to Sam and Frodo, the book doesn't give you any real sense of progress so you don't know if they're almost there or if they have the whole rest of the book left to reach and climb Mt Doom... until suddenly whoa we're here! And there goes the ring, with 25% of the book left. The RotK movie got this criticism too but the book is worse about it: this does NOT know how to end. The whole thing in the Shire, it was very wise to cut that for the theatrical release. Even as someone who cares about the hobbit characters way more than everybody else, I did not care about them taking back the Shire, I was just sitting there like cmoooon the book's OVER. That last part should have been a separate short story. Also, don't see this mentioned much, but that whole bit with the fantasy indigenous people was so weird. Was there fantasy!colonialism in Middle Earth history? (Don't tell me, it's in the Silmarillion, isn't it?) 1984 by George Orwell [3.0 stars] -- I know 1984 has probably been compared a LOT to The Handmaid's Tale but welp I gotta follow where the rhythm takes me, eat my shorts. Specifically, just like The Handmaid's Tale, this is interesting (though credulity-straining) world-building with a half-assed plot thrown over it for structure. The plot is far and away the weakest part of 1984. The romance plot in particular is bare minimum of effort. We're told that they love each other and to be frank, I do not believe it, I expected it to be going someone completely different just 'cause they did not seem to actually care about each other at all. They're fuck buddies, which yknow, more power to them, but don't expect me to be rooting for them or being sad when their love is ~vanquished when most

of the time I'm wondering whether they even like each other. The long stretches of Winston being tortured and brainwashed and etc etc etc were draining, and the plot stops for long stretches for Winston to read a book. Obviously the relevance and impact of 1984 cannot be overstated but at the same time I see why, when it's used as a rhetorical device, that it so often turns into an outlandish slippery slope argument. I think now especially, as I'm watching Americans get so ra-ra over individualism that they can't think of another person besides themselves long enough to contribute to eradicating COVID-19, it's particularly hard to believe that they'd ever go to the opposite extreme from individualism as this book portrays. I also very much do not buy that all three super-states would be functionally identical. It's just asking too much of my willingness to suspend disbelief. Which is too bad because I feel like a good bit of the intended impact of 1984 is like "woooOOOooo what if THIS happened?". Other points on the other hand are VERY relevant, it's just too bad there are these distracting elements keeping the central concept from being as intimidating as it should be. Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee [3.0 stars] -- This is a difficult one to address. I will say I think I liked this more than most people did. This may be in part because I read fanfiction, so I don't find it unusual to read a piece that does not really stand up on its own, but is dependent in any enjoyment or even comprehension derived from it on a larger, more complete work. I don't mean the comparison to be insulting to either Go Set a Watchman or fanfiction, by the way. I think that the theme of realizing that your parents are human and fallible, and having to come to terms with finding bigotry in places where you only ever expected to find love, is a fascinating one to pursue. Finding out one of your heroes is a bigot is very hard -- any Harry Potter fan can attest to that. In fact, now that I'm writing this, Jean Louise's rage against Atticus is VERY applicable to the anger I feel towards JK Rowling. Maybe that's why I found their confrontations to be so cathartic, even if they're a bit muddled and ego-centric. When Jean Louise makes the whole thing about herself in the end, I found that alienating. I felt lucky while reading this to not have been very attached to Atticus Finch, and I expect that if you have any nostalgia for him, this book is a much less pleasant read. For me, I didn't mind him being a source of moral betrayal. The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien [2.75 stars] -- I'm sorry, I really don't think this has held up. Even given that it's supposed to be targeted to kids -- nah, fuck that, ESPECIALLY given that it's supposed to be targeted to kids, The Hobbit is wildly overrated. For an extreme illustration of this: it had me wistfully thinking about the bloated movie adaptations, just hoping for a single shred of character dynamic progression. This was a re-read for me, and I had forgotten how The Hobbit is pretty much entirely plot. There is a brief flicker of genuine tension between characters when Thorin finds out that Bilbo has given the Arkenstone away, but it's blink-and-you-miss-it. Other than that, it's largely a loosely-connected series of adventures where plot contrivances rule the day. I laughed aloud when Bilbo wakes up from a TBI coma to realize that he'd be unconscious for the bulk of the final battle of the story -- man, how lazy can you get? Pratchett's Guards! Guards! has ruined my ability to take the death of Smaug seriously, though it isn't Tolkien's fault that his work became such a big deal that it garnered parody. Also, many have said it before but it bears mentioning, there aren't any female characters in this book. Talk to a woman, John. Put some time aside and just talk to a single woman. The Amityville Horror by Jay Anson [2.5 stars] -- I'm not going to talk about the nonfiction/fiction issue because I don't think it's conclusively Anson's fault that the supposedly "true story" was pure invention. I'll just talk

about the story, which unfortunately isn't great. It wasn't actively offensive or anything, and on a couple of occasions did make me feel mildly spooked (with the added help of my reading it in bed in the dark with my toes peeking out from under the covers). The spooks are pretty tame, however, and the lack of any real escalation leeches any further spook potential from the latter chapters. Like, a marching band in the living room? A mysteriously relocated porcelain tiger statue? This shit isn't spooky, and the latter isn't even particularly strange. The prose is very curt and direct, just the facts ma'am (but with more than its fair share of superfluous facts). The exclamation points are obnoxious and only serve to further drive the point home that the "twists" at the chapter breaks are not nearly as interesting as the author thinks they are. Disappointingly low in spooks, would not recommend. Ghost Train (CYOA) by Louise Munro Foley [2.25 stars] -- The novelty of this one is that it takes place in BC, a bit east of where I live. It's funny, I tried a couple of endings and never actually came across a Ghost Train, just a lot of the POV character being racist to some poor indigenous lady.

[bigskydreaming]

I'm not sure if you got my request because i didn't had internet when i sent it, so i'll write it again xd Do you think Dick (and the batboys in general) are famouse like Bruce? Because in the comics there's not any clue about it, i've never seen anyone say something like "oh look! Its Dick Grayson!, y'know, Wayne's first ward/son And its a shame, because reporters would make such a hard life to all of them, it would maka a good narrative tool

Honestly, this is a prime example of that inconsistency I rant about, and also DC’s refusal to just COMMIT on even the most basic aspects of their universe like….uh…how many kids does Batman have. 

afhsahfklahsklfhal

Like, you would think that would meet the MINIMUM requirements of “shit you should probably have figured out and make sure everybody’s on the same page with” but DC’s like….nah, that’s not important.

So I mean…..I’m reasonably certain - like this is just my personal belief, but I’d put money on it being right, lol - but I think the primary reason there’s so little mention in the comics of how Bruce’s kids are viewed in the public eye/how much the public are aware of them (in the New 52, at least, as pre-Flashpoint there was a lot more plot around that kind of thing, especially back in the 80s and 90s)……

…is because 90% of the writers and editors have no clue either, and nobody wants to be the one to ask, and like, open that can of worms. I 100% think you could ask five different writers at DC which kids Bruce has OFFICIALLY adopted in this current continuity, and get five different answers, lol.

There’s been so much handwaving about Dick’s status ever since Spyral, and again - I think its because nobody bothered to think through the logistics of the Hypnos/global-mindwipe machine BEFORE writing it into the story, and then once it did occur to any of them to like….wonder just how specifically it worked, they were like, fuck it, better just be as vague as possible. So, according to Grayson, everyone Helena didn’t program into the exclusion list before the satellite was activated should have no recollection of Dick Grayson, which is why he was able to ‘go back to his old life’ and be Nightwing again, without worrying about his secret identity having been unmasked…..

But what does that mean for his official identity as adopted son or even just ward of billionaire Bruce Wayne? People can’t have NO memory of Dick Grayson and still remember that Bruce Wayne took in a kid named Dick Grayson. I mean, as far as I can tell, the overall consensus in the comics seems to be that after the satellite was activated, Dick just kinda started from scratch as ‘Dick Grayson’ like, he was free to be himself again, but it was like he was a blank slate/came out of nowhere as far as everyone else was concerned. But again, that means as far as anyone outside of their close circle of family and friends know….Dick Grayson is a non-entity to Bruce Wayne and the two have no history. 

Which I mean, is fairly shitty and you’d think if nothing else, there’d be massive story potential there for delving into Dick’s character and his relationship with Bruce and examining how he felt about ‘having his old life/identity back’….except with the caveat that as far as the world is concerned, his life and identity don’t and have never included his father.

Cut to DC: Naaaaaaaah.

But even WITH that, plot holes persist, and abound, because…..why didn’t the satellite erase the Court of Owls’ knowledge/memory of Dick? Even before Luthor gave Cobb those goggles and files to help him with bringing Ric into the fold, Cobb clearly was already stalking Ric and knew exactly who he was….the Court obviously already had that doctor in place while he was still in recovery…so, whoops. I mean, you could probably come up with an explanation about the Court, via their own tech and resources, having had some protections in place 24/7 that kept the satellite from affecting them even though they weren’t on guard for it specifically…..but again, Occam’s Razor….I feel like the real answer is DC just didn’t care enough to think things that far through. Especially since the average Bludhaven citizen, like Bea, at least didn’t seem totally blown away when Ric revealed to her that amnesia aside, he was supposedly some rich billionaire’s adopted kid….which again suggests that as far as the writers were thinking, people in general are familiar with the idea that Bruce Wayne has more than one kid.

Then you’ve got Jason’s whole situation, and to be honest….I really only have the vaguest idea what’s going on there, because reading Lobdell books is against my religion, and I am a devout and deeply spiritual person, as you all probably can tell. I mean, I know that there’s something going on where like, Jason had himself legally resurrected in the public eye and is openly referring to himself as Bruce Wayne’s formerly-assumed dead foster kid……but like, is that the official official word, or would other writers if you asked them say they’d been operating under the assumption Bruce had adopted Jason too at some point in the Rebirth timeline, or….idek, man.

I…..honestly don’t have the faintest fucking clue what to make of the many back-and-forth retcons about Tim and his parents and his official place in the Batfam/relationship with Bruce, and am actually slightly terrified of even trying to make sense of that clusterfuck of a Gordian knot, so my official stance on Tim is to just like….back sloooooowly away from the anthropomorphic-migraine-masquerading-as-a-backstory, without like….agitating it and accidentally setting off another multiverse Crisis birthed wholly from just that one all-consuming black hole of a retcon.

I mean, there’s a reason I basically just shoehorn all the kids’ official pre-Flashpoint family statuses into anything I write in Rebirth continuity, and that’s not just stubbornness and my refusal to play the “now this kid is adopted…now he’s not…now he is again….except he’s not….oh he’s adopted again…..oh wait now he’s not again" game. 

Its like. Also for the sake of my sanity and stuff.

(And also hahahahaha fuck you DC times infinity, every time you use the words “blood son,” or “real family” in a comic, or have one of Bruce’s other kids refer to Bruce as “your father” when talking to Damian, as if that’s not an utterly bizarre and roundabout way for any sibling to refer to their mutual parent and thus I j’ete REFUSE to acknowledge it as valid….ahem, anyway, my point is, every time they do that in a comic, I double down and headcanon Bruce throwing a random as fuck gala for literally no other purpose than to remind all of Gotham that he has half a dozen kids and they’re all better than everyone else’s. Ugh. Kill it. Kill the “blood son” nonsense with fire and lightning and also lots of stabbing maybe).

Anyway, that’s my official stance on DC’s stance on Damian in the books.

Then as far as Cass goes….ugh, her origins were pretty much utterly butchered by the New 52, which IMO has also failed to give us Cass and Bruce bonding and dynamics sufficient to Sate Mine Ire™, sooooooo…..I mean, my perception of the current canon is that Cassandra’s official status is “secret mystery foster child that nobody really knows about,” but because I do not care for that and there’s the whole not sufficiently sated ire thing I mentioned, I officially reject this canon and willfully replace it with pre-Flashpoint Bruce and Cass love and adoption. DC’s welcome to kiss my critically acclaimed hiney if I’m doing it wrong.

Which brings us last, but certainly not least, as its only this way because I go sequentially and Duke is still Shiny and New comparative to the others and will be until the next inevitable fostering/adoption/clone hi-jinks bumps him up the sequential ladder (except I randomly switched Damian and Cass around this time because LOOK I DONT MAKE THE RULES, THERE ARE NO RULES i hvea Adhd hiccup sob leavem e aloooone soooooob)…..

Duke’s official status, much like the rest of the Batkids, can be summed up as Honestly, I Really Don’t Have A Fucking Clue And Am Just Winging This Whole Thing.

I mean, there’s less inconsistency with him, due mostly to the fact that so few writers other than Snyder use him (boo, hiss, and not just because I hate having to give Snyder credit for stuff - look, I love his Duke, but I loathe how he writes Dami, its a thing, I just…don’t get me started). But what inconsistencies there are….well….they’re a bit glaring.

Basically one major storyline showed Duke as being an official foster kid/ward of Bruce’s and living out of the Manor with Bruce and Damian and occasionally Tim when he’s not off road-tripping around the multiverse….and then Batman and the Signal had Duke in the care of his uncle, who was stated to be his legal guardian and Duke was constantly sneaking out in order to meet Bruce in the special Signal-cave he built specifically for Duke to operate out of so he didn’t have to like, drive all the way out to the Manor to change just so he could then drive back into the city and patrol. And then Batman and the Outsiders just said fuck all that, here’s Duke and Cass hopping hemispheres with the Outsiders every other issue, so apparently nobody’s making unscheduled visits anywhere back in Gotham to make sure these two are where they’re legally assumed to be, which again, for the record is…..*error, source not found*

LOLOL and the really fun thing about this little back and forth is I’m pretty sure allllll these conflicting takes are all the work of the same writer. Like. GET ON YOUR OWN PAGE, DUDE.

Also, again I have to assume the “Can’t Be Bothered To Give A Shit, Or Maybe They’re All Just Really Bad At Logic” curse has struck again, because….uhhhh…..

….at no point anywhere in Duke’s stories have I seen Bruce or literally anyone else express concern about the fact that Duke living with Bruce as his official foster, like he definitely and clearly was at some point at least…..means that literally every single one of his We Are Robin friends who knows that he was taken in by the Batfam (and there’s several of them who know this)….like, by the transcendent properties of You Can’t Honestly Think They’re That Dumb, that’s a good five or six civilians out there who probably took all of five seconds to play connect the dots and figure out the Wayne family, having officially taken Duke in on paper…..is pretty likely the Batfamily.

I mean, I like all of Duke’s friends and would definitely headcanon/write them as all being trustworthy and able to keep this knowledge to themselves for Duke’s sake, if nothing else, but I mean, its pretty unprecedented for Bruce to out himself and all of his kids/allies by extension, to like, that many civilian teenagers all in one swoop….

…sooooooo, you’d think, AGAIN, logically, maybe, perhaps, this is the kind of thing that should be brought up in a narrative somewhere as a plot point worth delving into, y’know, just for shits and giggles and maybe a little bit of that whatchamacallit - oh right, character development, but.

Cut to DC: Naaaaaaah.

 *throws up hands and does the I Can’t Even Shuffle all the way home*

In conclusion:

DC is a mess. The official/public status of each and every Batkid is a mess. Except for Damian, the blood son, but we have that pencilled in on the schedule to be killed with fire and also stabbing, so he can get filed under ‘just a fucking mess’ with the rest of his siblings. Hashtag Solidarity.

I mean, I say just write or headcanon their official status however you damn well please, and it’ll STILL be more effort than I believe DC has put into organizing and staying consistent with all of this, and thus STILL make more sense than what we currently have to work with.

*Shrugs* If they don’t care enough to provide a clear canon blueprint to follow when mapping the Bat Family Tree, I can’t be bothered to care if the one I make up myself happens to contradict one single mention of one kid’s official status as claimed by one issue of one book.

Especially if it was written by Lobdell.

Jason’s just a foster son my ass. grumble mumble bitter vengeful swears and a pox on all DC’s houses. WHY DO YOU PEOPLE HATE ADOPTION SO MUCH, INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW AND ALSO FUCK YOU.

[llycaons]

okay highlights

this last chunk of the show has the most natural dialogue with the fewest lines from the book forcibly shoehorned in. this is probably because it's the most content that's new to the show. like their relationship and personalities in the show are different than the book and when neilman gets out of his ass and writes something that goes beyond superficial "ANgelS AND demONS CAnt be frIENds" drama it actually works. this last part is the final development of that so we're finally getting somewhere

see what happens when you actually adapt the story and writing for, you know, an adaptation 🙄

the sheer hilarity of az and crowley being main characters but doing absolute fucking nothing of value. I mean it works because the humans are the ones who save the world, as they should, but it's so goddamn funny

"Imagine how badly things would have gone if we were at all competent"

crowley smiling when he sees his car is very cute

wait actually that was aziraphale. az looking like crowley is very cute though

ms and dt switching roles is obvious once you know what to look for and they both did a great job, but if I wasn't spoiled I don't think I could have picked it up

return of the cute goth bunny demon 🥰

"I'm the Archangel fucking Gabriel"

crowley's stupid 1920s bathing suit and knee-length socks

see even when you know the truth they're still both in precarious, dangerous positions and anyone could kill them at any time so the tension isn't even lost when you rewatch

crowley saying the "big one' would be all of humanity vs. heaven and hell, and the implication they'd be n the side of humanity. that was a great line from the book I'm glad they kept it

the last scene was actually quite nice but I wish they didn't shove in one last line from the book and piled on the nightingale references. I think THREE mentions of in within 15 seconds was more than enough. so on-the-nose. but ms put his whole heart intp looking as besotted as possible and I respect that even if I don't respect his other choices

cons

not so bad but really could not get over's dt's five-o-clock shadow

they definitely did not hold hands on the bus. im sorry to people who wanted that to be the case they just didn't

anathema and newt in bed together 🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢

im not joking it does actually trigger retching in me

it was ony onscreen for a split second but the demons' human disguises looked very off to me. hastur's was definitely transmisogynistic

shadwell ruining madam tracy's last appearance

kind of homophobic how they let go as soon as possible after shaking hands

didn't really hold hands. didn't kiss :/

see I feel like allmthe garbage bullshit would have made SENSE if they at LEAST held hands

having just the song and the shot of the nightingale was PLENTY

I swear neilman can do subtext but not subtlety

I mean the book line wasn't that good. get your head out of your ass

I can't even give this a final score or anything. the good parts are very dear to me but the I hate the bad parts more than almost anything in media I otherwise like. gay and homophobic but like, not even gay. I would attack the creator in the street should I ever meet him. the book was a formative experience but the show's changes had some real merit to them that genuinely inspired quite a lot of interest and enjoyment. I could not bear to watch most of it. crowley is the one of the most important characters to me. his wigs were utterly hideous. I love old balding men who listen to queen. I would set several male characters in this show on fire. azcrow are in love in simultaneously the straightest and gayest way imaginable. there's religious repression. beelzebub is hot only when she's surrounded by flies and covered in filth. there's a great love for humanity in this show but I feel like it didn't come through as well as the gay subtext did. don't expect me to talk about it for the forseeable future. this show took a mental toll on me. I'll never forget it

alright everyone *puts on my clown nose for the last time* I'm ready to finish g**d *mens

[skyereadsthings]

Book Review: Ahsoka by E.K. Johnston

3.5 out of 5 stars, also on Goodreads.

This review is spoiler-free as far as the contents of the book, but I will be alluding to events in the Star Wars prequel trilogy and The Clone Wars.

Ahsoka follows Ahsoka Tano as she navigates the galaxy and avoids the Empire during the tumultuous years after Order 66. She spent a year in relative peace on one planet disguised as a mechanic named Ashla, but the Empire is tightening their grip on the sector and she is forced to leave it behind. She ends up on an Outer Rim moon named Raada and ingratiates herself with the local farmer population. But Raada soon comes to the attention of the ever-expanding Empire. Rather than leave her new friends to their fate, this time Ahsoka decides to stay and help them fight, even though she risks revealing herself as a Clone War veteran and former Jedi Padawan. The story is told mostly from Ahsoka's point of view, with a few other perspectives sprinkled through.

The book is fast-paced, easy to read, and kept me turning the pages. There is one new character (Hedala Fardi) who I am very intrigued by, and I would enjoy seeing her turn up in other tie-ins.

We have a few scenes from Bail Organa's point of view, and these were excellent. I would very much like a companion novel detailing Bail's movements during this same period of the timeline. And seeing him think about and interact with baby Leia was a real treat. We also have some short flashback POVs from Anakin and Obi-Wan that I really enjoyed.

It's a shame that my favourite parts of a novel about Ahsoka are those that had very little to do with Ahsoka herself. In fact part of the reason why I enjoyed these little scenes so much is that they broke up Ahsoka's lacklustre story and gave me a bit of a breather.

Ahsoka fails to shine very brightly on her own, and her scenes are a constant stream of reminders of all of the more memorable characters that she has interacted with. Even for a die-hard prequel fan like me these became incredibly tedious. There is one point where Ahsoka mournfully informs us that the 'little voice in her head' sometimes sounds like Padme. She then proceeds to not think about Padme again, or do anything particularly Padme-inspired, and we never actually hear what this 'little voice' is saying. I don't think it's uncharitable of me to say that the line was a shameless Padme name-drop designed to tug on our heartstrings. And it so easily could have been more! Even a single throwaway line of 'Padme would have suggested/thought/said this...' would have grounded the reference and made it worthwhile.

There are countless other references to Anakin, Obi-Wan, and the other Jedi and clone troopers, but these have a bit more context because of the story so they weren't as jarring.

The writing is much more Middle Grade than YA, and that's not a bad thing at all (I can definitely enjoy a good MG when I'm in the right mood), but it's not what I was expecting going in. After fifty or so pages I actually paused to fact-check myself, and it is indeed marketed as YA. So I have no choice but to judge the writing and plot development as I would any other YA. And if I do that then this book barely rates 3 stars.

The low writing level makes itself painfully apparent in the shoehorning of one particular subplot. Ahsoka begins a little collection (keeping it vague, so as not to spoil), and refers back to it every few chapters. This is ostensibly an attempt to 'weave' the theme of the collection through the larger story, but... it doesn't work. Nothing is woven, because weaving is art; and this subplot is artless, and amounts to jarring reminders of "This thing exists! Don't forget this thing! But I won't give you any further information or clues about it!" at regularly-spaced intervals. And ultimately the resolution is skipped over so quickly that I get the feeling the entire concept was crammed in at the last minute purely to give the novel some canon relevance. Again, like with the 'little voice' above, this could have been easily improved with just a few extra lines and/or the reworking of some lines throughout the book so they weren't all exactly the same.

I have more disappointments that I won't go into any significant detail over. There is a dull unrequited romance that is stuffed in for no reason whatsoever. There are two almost-plots involving Ahsoka which would have been more far interesting as main plots than everything that happens on Raada, but these are both glossed over. The timeline doesn't make all that much sense (the clone troopers are being 'aged out' of the Imperial Army after just one year and have been almost fully replaced by new recruits?). The action scenes were difficult to follow because it seems the author was shying away from showing any actual violence (another reason why this seems more MG), so the battle scenes involve a lot of Ahsoka going to look at what's going on and then coming back to tell her companions what she saw. Actually, that's the overarching theme of this book: Telling instead of showing.

I so badly wanted to like this book, and even when I didn't I so badly wanted to write a good review, because Ahsoka is a great character and she deserved a great standalone tie-in. But this just wasn't it for me. I did tear up at one point, but that was about Artoo, not about Ahsoka. So this book gets one star for Artoo, one for Bail, one for Anakin and Obi-Wan, and half a small star for Ahsoka herself. I still love you, Snips.

I would still recommend the story to all Star Wars/Ahsoka fans, because it was such a quick and easy read that you won't lose anything by indulging.