#the canonical way I interpret this based on what I think might be within what Maguire intended is Glinda as a closeted social climber

[werewolfsquadron]

actually if you have a queer reading of Glinda in the Wicked musical/film you're being true to the source material

[zenkindoflove]

Fandom Shipping Terminology 101: ACOTAR edition

Hi! So I decided to put a little resource together for the ACOTAR fandom. Since many people join the SJM/ACOTAR fandom and have never been in fandom before, they encounter a lot of fandom terminology that they are not quite sure what it means or have seen others use it incorrectly so they get a false impression of the meaning of the word. So I put this together, including examples from the fandom, so that people can use it as a reference to learn more about what these terms mean and when they're appropriate to use. This list is focused on words related to shipping.

Tldr definitions (note: these are definitions that I wrote based on my own experiences/research on fanlore. These are always up for interpretation and meaning and nuance change over time and depend on fandom context)

Canon ship - a relationship where the characters have romantic interactions in canon

Fanon ship - a relationship where in canon the characters are platonic but the fandom has accepted as a ship with romantic undertones, canonical potential, or has become so popular within a fandom it's has surpassed the need/desire for canon

Crackship - a pairing of two characters where the idea of them together is strange or funny depending on the circumstances. Often in these ships, the characters have little or even no interactions in canon

Rare pair - agnostic to fanon or canon status. A rare pair simply means the fandom does not make a lot of fan content for it.

End-game - This is a canon ship that is together by the end of a series.

Slash ship - Fanon ships that feature queer relationships. M/M usually takes on the term slash and F/F has the term femslash.

OTP - Stands for One True Pair. This is a ship that a shipper considers to be the most important one that they love in a fandom.

NOTP - anti-OTP, or a ship that a shipper detests/is squicked out by

Multishipping - the act of shipping a character with multiple other characters.

For more context and thorough examples read more under the cut 

First, what the heck is a ship?

The origins of shipping and becoming obsessed with fictional relationships predate our modern understanding of fandom. Modern fandom roots can be traced as early as Star Trek: The Original Series. But the terminology of calling a couple you like a ship or the act of obsessing over fictional (and sometimes non fictional) couples "shipping" has its origins in the X-Files fandom. While ACOTAR is a romance, many fandoms do not have romance as a central element of its plot, and yet, shippers find a way. That's exactly what happened for the fans of Mulder/Scully. Those who wanted them to be in a romantic relationship were called "relationshippers" which then got shortened to "shippers". The verb "to ship" would appear later from this origin.

The way to think about "what is a ship" though is really based on do people think up romantic scenarios with these two characters? If yes, then you have a ship. And in ACOTAR, oh baby, are there MANY, MANY SHIPS.

Canon vs. Fanon ships

Where does a canon ship end and a fanon one begin? Now that, my friends, is not as clear cut as you might think.

I think this discussion is very important for the ACOTAR fandom because of the state of the ship war currently. Often, there is back and forth about which ship is canon or fanon (and *eye twitch* people throwing around crackship as a derogatory term to de-legitimize a ship which makes me wanna punch shit).

I'm gonna burst everyone's bubbles and say, I personally think Elriel, Elucien, and Gwynriel are all CANON ships.

Why? Well, that's the part that is up for interpretations my friends. What is deemed canonical romantic interactions? That is where a lot of lines can become blurry and if you have ever shipped a fanon ship before - you KNOW what I mean by that. Is it a charged glance? A caress of a hand that lingered too long? Is it a shared kiss? Or do the characters have to explicitly declare "I'm yours and you're mine"?

I've shipped a lot of kinds of ships. Canon. Fanon. Canon that had its end-game blown up. You name it, I've shipped it. And to me, a canon ship is anytime the writer of the canon is putting characters in a romantic situation, regardless if they end up together or not by the end of the series. If they wanted you to feel butterflies and think "could they?", and you felt butterflies, well my friends, you're responding to canon romance. And we've seen evidence of all three ships having those moments.

But, what does that mean for fanon ships? I have shipped a fanon couple where I got butterflies from their canonical scenes together. I've read into their moments and thought "wow, that was romantically charged". I think this is where the lines of canon and fanon are blurred. Because what this comes down to is, did the author intend this? Or am I seeing more into an interaction because I like it? Most fanon ships do hinge a lot of their interest in said ship because of what happens in canon. But, often times, the authors of said content are not necessarily wanting you to take away from their writing that these two characters are interested in each other romantically. You just can't help it. You see it. You see the potential, and you want it to go there so you see more of it the more you look.

Sometimes fanon ships are very clear that the canon is not even hinting at these two characters together romantically. And that is perfectly fine. To me, a fanon ship is a ship that has become so ingrained in the fandom community that the fandom thinks of these two together romantically. That it doesn't really matter anymore what the canon says or doesn't. The fandom has created this relationship and it lives and breathes within what the fandom builds for it. Azris is a perfect example of a fanon ship in ACOTAR. The canon interactions between Azriel and Eris are sparse and platonic in nature, yet the fandom itself has created a whole fanon around them with a large enough community that as soon as you enter the ACOTAR fandom, you immediately know this ship exists.

Rare pairs and Crackships

These two terms are often used interchangeably as if they are synonyms. Now, a rare pair can be a crackship but not all rare ships are crackships and vice versa.

Generally, a rare pair is devoid of canon or fanon connotations. A rare pair is a ship that receives little attention from fans and has few associated fanworks. So, a rare pair could be a fanon couple that few people think about romantically. For example, Emerie and Gwyn have a lot of interactions in canon. I would not think shipping them together to be a crackship because I mean, they're friends, they like each other, they read smut together. There are a lot of scenarios one could imagine them falling in love. But they have a whopping 12 fanfics under their tag in AO3. Therefore, they are a rare pair but not necessarily a crackship.

A rare pair can also be a canon ship. For example, Thesan and his unnamed lover are canon. However, when you look up their relationship tag on AO3, there are 23 works and most do not appear to be focused on them.

I also have seen people use rare pair for very popular ships (like Azris) when they mean fanon. Again, rare pair is really an indication of "how much fan content can you find for this" not necessarily are they canon.

Crackships really were birthed from the intention of putting two characters together "4 da lulz" to bring back early 2000s internet lingo. Crack shipping is usually a pairing that the idea of them together is a little absurd but also fun. Beron/Tamlin is a quintessential crackship example, especially why it came to be (but we will avoid getting into all the origins of that). There is no real reason to think Beron or Tamlin would ever have a romantic interaction and thinking about it makes you laugh. Crackships can sometimes turn into fanon ships. This is another example where the lines do get blurry. But really, crackshipping is about intention and the use of absurdism within fan creation.

I also want to say, often what I see in the Elucien v. Elriel and Elriel v. Gwynriel ships wars is the use of crackship in a derogatory way, and thinking that if one of these ships does not become end-game, therefore, it proves the other was a crackship. Simply put - no. That's not how it works.

End-game

Related to the above point, I think often where the ACOTAR ship wars really derail themselves, is conflating fanon/canon/endgame with each other. I don't see people often using the term end-game, when really, it would help so much with the judgmental and strange ship policing that this fandom loves to do. Specifically, this fandom has a hard time talking about the value within shipping fanon, or shipping the blurriness between fanon and canon for any characters that do not have end-game potential. ACOTAR is not a complete series. Therefore, in a strict definition, no couples are end-game. However, given the genre, there are several couples who are clearly going to be end-game. And really, what I think the ship war community needs in their discourse, is to start using the term end-game when they want to discuss the outcome of Elucien, Elriel, or Gwynriel having a canonical Happily Ever After. The reason being is that you can use end-game, and not insult another ship. End-game is simply a fact. There is no hierarchy involved in what ship is best or not. Because ships can be beloved whether they're canon or fanon or canon who did not end up together. And they all can have very valid reasons why people ship them despite not achieving end-game.

I also urge the ACOTAR fandom to realize that end-game is not the end of YOUR experience of your ship. Your ship lives on despite what the canon may or may not give you. Even if you ship a canon ship that does not achieve end-game, you can create those fanon end-games for yourself. Many popular ships end up being popular because of the effect of that ship not achieving end-game. And while I am using the prime-ship war as examples within this post, I've seen other microshipwars popping up within the fandom as well. So, I'm not trying to pick on this specific set of conflicts, it's just the one I see most prominently.

OTP vs NOTP

I think the ACOTAR fandom could also really benefit from adopting this terminology.

The point of declaring OTPs and NOTPs is a way for you to signal to others in your fandom, "This is how much I care about this ship. Whether I love it it or hate it. Tread carefully". These terms are not meant to say one ship is better than the other from a moral standpoint. Instead, it's to indicate to others that you have a strong preference. You're going to love your OTPs regardless of what arguments others throw at you to convince you to not love them. You will probably be very annoyed by your NOTPs regardless of what others try to do to convince you that they're actually cute/sexy/hot/perfect for each other. And what the ACOTAR fandom could benefit from, from readopting OTP/NOTP language, is having a common understanding where different shipping communities boundaries are and how they can better utilize those boundaries to prevent constant fighting. Now, ship wars are inevitable because of how people see their OTPs and NOTPs, but general rule of thumb is - don't engage with your NOTP's content for your own mental sanity.

Multishipping

Multishipping can be used in many ways. Some people use it to say, hey I'm in this fandom, and I ship a lot of couples. But the origins of multishipping as a term, comes from ship war discourse in other fandoms. Multishippers generally are people who ship one character with multiple other characters. For example, if you ship Elain/Lucien, Elain/Azriel, Elain/Gwyn, Elain/Tamlin, etc etc etc, you are a multishipper. I generally would not consider someone a multishipper if all of their ships do not cross streams. It just sort of means that you ship a lot of couples. Which tends to be normal for romance series with a lot of couples. Maybe not a single of those couples is your true OTP, and that's what you mean by saying you're a multishipper. And that's okay. I think though that multishipping generally in other fan spaces is a marker of you telling others that you don't draw harsh lines with who you see characters with. I often see multishippers not declaring NOTPs. It's kind of a state of how you go about shipping often. I, for one, identify as an OTP shipper. I've never really multishipped. But I also have a very strict standard of what I call my "ships". Anyways, this is to say, this term has a lot of uses. And sometimes it can be confusing which of these uses a person means when they say it.

Slash shipping 

I've seen over the years that slash as a terminology has fallen out of favor. In the past, slash shipping was the pinnacle of shipping in fandoms. The term slash comes from the first modern fanon ship, Kirk/Spock, where the / between their names, which we now all know and use to indicate a romantic pairing (note: & is used to indicate a platonic interaction between characters), exists because the Kirk/Spock shipping community really were the originators of shipping communities creating fan content and sharing it in with each other in a massive way. In general slash (and femslash) is an important modifier of shipping because it explicitly tells you that this is a queer ship which often were not mainstream and considered canon until more recently. With the rise of canonical queer ships, I think the subversiveness of shipping queer couples has lost it's edge, therefore slash is not needed as much anymore to directly state the nature of your ship.

I wanted to keep this in the post though, because I think it's incredibly important history for ALL ACOTAR fans to understand. Shipping queer couples, and especially shipping FANON queer couples, has always been the backbone of fandom. Kirk/Spock walked so Destiel could fly. These are all queer ships that have strong fanon roots (and that fanon has had impacts on their canon) and have shaped fandom and your concept of shipping and romance tropes in inextricable ways. You don't have / without Kirk/Spock. You don't have Omegaverse, without gay shipping within the Supernatural fandom. And I wanted to make this point because this fandom has a strong het (heterosexual) ship bias. Which is okay. It's a romance series with a lot of heterosexual canon couples. But, I think because of that, many people are not entering this fandom with an understanding that people shipping queer fanon couples have been the ones who were the originators of many fandom terms that we have come to know and use today.

Conclusion:

I hope you all found this informative and that you can take away something from this post that can help you have better interactions and ability to communicate with others in this fandom. Again, I want to stress, that this is heavily influenced by my own 25 years of experience being in fandoms. And I haven't seen it all. Others will have different interpretations of these terms and experiences using these terms. So, feel free to add on anything that you think would be helpful to those in the ACOTAR community to better understand how to "ship and let ship". I do think that ship war are inevitable and not necessarily a bad thing. But using the right terms can help you engage in a more respectful way within ship war discourse.

[machiroads]

Don't look, i'm about to overthink this panel

Long post under the cut.

Notwithstanding that I can't figure out what's going on with Aizawa's legs here because he's twisted around or something—it's a good panel. Look at them, they're adorable. 11/10 no notes.

Actually that's not true I have so many notes.

Will someone also please get this man a blanket for god's sake

I'm going to unpack the implications here from two perspectives: Aizawa telling Eri he got hit by a truck, and Eri trying (and failing) to save Aizawa.

Tis But A Flesh Wound

Aizawa tells Eri he got hit by a truck, and a common interpretation I've seen of this is that nobody told her what happened to him. I don't necessarily think this is true, because:

A) She rewound Mirio the day before the raid

B) She was watching the fight on TV with All Might.

Canonically, she is at least tangentially aware of what happened. Aizawa also knows that she's at least somewhat aware of what happened, vis-a-vis excerpt A.

I've also seen the interpretation that Aizawa is trying to obfuscate the truth about his injuries from her (presumably because the quirk-deleting bullets were created from her blood), but again, she was watching the fight on TV.

The most rational (hah) explanation is that he's just back on his bullshit, lying to children for his own amusement.

which is. hysterical.

Anyways, onto item 2!

The Deus Ex Machina

As we saw above, Eri rewound Mirio the day before the raid. I am not a scholar of the BNHA timeline, but I did do some research while I was writing Nine Lives. My understanding is as follows:

The Shie Hassaikai raid is sometime in September

The Jaku raid is at the end of March

Mirio corroborates these two points when he arrives at Jaku, noting that he's been out of the game for about 6 months

Post-Jaku is where the timeline gets weird.

Tartarus is breached the night of the raid on Jaku and Gunga

Midoriya is brought back to UA about a month after that

The Star & Stripe fight happens the day after that

The day after that, All Might reveals they have at least a week to prepare for the final battle. Aoyama is revealed to be the traitor on the same day.

In summary, the final battle happens somewhere in the ballpark of a month and a half to two months after Jaku / Gunga.

With the timeline sort of squared away, let's move on to the interpretation I've seen some readers make, which is that Eri didn't have enough energy to rewind Aizawa. The translation of Ectoplasm's dialogue has varied between the original leaks, the fan scanlation, and the official release, leading to some ambiguity of interpretation here, but there are a few different reasons that this doesn't make any sense:

Based on the timeline outlined above, where Eri successfully sends Mirio back 6 months on the day before the raid, it doesn't really make sense that 0 to 2 months later, she couldn't hypothetically rewind Aizawa by 0 to 2 months after he loses his leg and eye. Eri's power is wishy washy at best, but this seems like it's entirely within the realm of plausibility if Aizawa wanted to be rewound.

From a storytelling standpoint, what's the point of rewinding Aizawa to de-nerf him for the final battle if him and Monoma are ultimately removed from the fight via Sad Man's Parade anyway?

My interpretation is that this doesn't actually have anything to do with Eri trying and failing to rewind Aizawa, but rather she's trying to go rescue Midoriya and help him the same way that she did during the Shie Hassaikai raid.

The inference Ectoplasm is making is that it's too late for that, because she's at home watching the fight on TV rather than already being on the battlefield. This was also the case at Jaku, where she was canonically watching the fight on TV with All Might. She must have seen Aizawa go down and wanted to go save him, but it was already too late for her to try to help.

There's an entire separate essay worth of discussion on why Aizawa continues to live with one leg and one eye (both from a canon and a meta perspective), but I won't get into that here.

In conclusion:

This panel is fucking adorable

Aizawa continues to lie to children for fun and profit

Eri is baby and is physically perfectly capable of controlling her power at this juncture, she's just geographically removed from the action because she's like seven years old

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk

[princeescaluswords]

Almost Universally Accepted

If you ever wonder why people like me think the Teen Wolf fandom has become fundamentally corrupted by racism, you simply need to recall that there is, as one person on this site remarked recently, an 'almost universally accepted' headcanon among the fandom. Based on a single glance near the end of the first episode of the third season, Tattoo, a large number of people in this fandom believe that Stiles Stilinski helped Derek Hale and his pack look for their kidnapped betas over the summer between Scott's and Stiles's sophomore and junior years. In terms of the television production, this would be the hiatus between Season 2 and Season 3.

At first, it seems a perfectly harmless headcanon, but I believe it's a blatant example of how fandom racism degrades media literacy. Allow me to walk you through my reasoning. To start, most headcanons exist in a neutral state with regards to canon. When you speculate on a character's favorite ice cream flavor or whether they spend Christmases with their grandparents, it is most likely not going to affect how you view the canon. This particular one, however, modifies a crucial canon event, one which establishes both the relationships and a major part of the plot for an entire season. Coincidentally, those relationships and that plot are primary motive forces for the lead protagonist's character arc. Thus, accepting this headcanon requires the viewer to radically reinterpret the starting point of an entire season differently than the production's actual intention. It's such a radical change that any critical thinking requires a person to ask what the goal of this headcanon could possibly be, since it simply cannot fit within the canon itself.

Point One: The headcanon is entirely unsupported. Consider the image at the top of this post. That look on Stiles's face is, as far as I can tell, the sole trigger behind the creation of this suspect headcanon. Stiles makes eye contact with Derek and, apparently, looks guilty to the fandom. From this, Stiles is supposed to be sharing a private moment of remorse with Derek, to which Scott is not privy, about their inability to find Boyd and Erica over the summer.

Even given the possibility that the look on Stiles's face could also be interpreted as genuine concern for the fates of Boyd and Erica, regret that something new is coming for Beacon Hills, or even frustration that Scott is getting involved once more in something dangerous, the headcanon's interpretation does not in any way mesh with the actual lines spoken in the scene.

Derek: A pack of 'em. An Alpha pack. Stiles: All of them? How does that even work? Derek: I hear there's some kind of a leader. He's called Deucalion. We know they have Boyd and Erica. Peter, Isaac, and I have been looking for him for the last four months. Scott: Let's say you find them. How do you deal with an Alpha pack? Derek: With all the help I can get.

If Stiles has been working with Derek all summer to find and rescue Boyd and Erica, this dialogue makes no sense. Wouldn't Stiles already know about the alpha pack and how it works? Why would Derek not list Stiles among the people searching? It would require Stiles and Derek (and later Peter and Isaac) to deliberately decide to exclude Scott. Those who adhere to the headcanon never actually explain why that Stiles and Derek would want to conceal Stiles's participation in the search from Scott, but that's not their point.

Yet, while a conspiracy might explain why they don't reveal the secret here, it doesn't even begin to address while it is never mentioned elsewhere during the season (or any season). It also renders the dialogue between Derek and Stiles and between Peter and Stiles in Chaos Rising (3x02) incongruous. It makes the relationships between Stiles and Isaac and Stiles and Boyd incoherent. It makes the way Stiles treats Derek throughout the rest of the season nonsensical. But that's not all.

Point Two: It shreds characterizations for everyone but Scott. Take Stiles. In the last appearance of Stiles in Season 2, he tells Scott that "you still have me," in an incontrovertible statement of support. Why would a Stiles who made that promise hide this information from Scott; not just in this scene but in every scene about the Alpha Pack to come. If he was trying to keep Scott out of the supernatural things, then he didn't do a very good job; after all, he's the one who tells Scott about the Darach once Stiles discovers it. If he's secretly angry at Scott for something (whether it be not finding him when Gerard kidnapped him or some other fandom-conjured reason such as Scott 'ignoring' him all summer), then why wouldn't he use it when he argues with Scott in Unleashed (3x04), Frayed (3x05), Motel California (3x06) or Currents (3x07)? For this headcanon to be even remotely valid, it has to suppose that Derek and Stiles established a positive working relationship, but Derek is the one person to whom Stiles doesn't bring his ideas about the Darach. Why the sudden and unexplained change in regard?

Take Derek. If Derek trusted Stiles enough to have him help his pack look for Boyd and Erica over the summer, why would Derek so casually and cruelly dismiss Stiles's assistance after the recovery of Isaac ("Not You!"). If Derek is simply trying to keep Scott out of this -- which is actually seen on the screen -- isn't it callous of him to not have tried to keep Stiles out of it? And if Derek is angry enough with Scott not to seek his help over the summer (though this emotions doesn't stop him from accepting and asking for Scott's help visually on the screen), why doesn't Derek ever bring up that he trust Stiles enough to help but not Scott?

Keeping this a secret throughout the entire season doesn't match anyone else's character, either. Why didn't Peter use it to needle Stiles in Chaos Rising or needle Scott in Unleashed? Why does Peter, who is consistently portrayed as manipulative and using other people's misdeeds to excuse his actions ("I'm not the only dysfunctional family member.") not use it to undermine Derek's or Isaac's trust in Scott? For that matter, why doesn't Isaac use it in any of the conflicts he has with Stiles? It simply doesn't fit in with anyone else's behavior or characterizations.

Part Three: It does, however, serve to undermine Scott's role as lead protagonist. This is, at the base, the point. It's not really a starting point for Sterek that they claim it to be; a massive conspiracy doesn't really establish the impetus for their relationship considering how they both canonically treat Scott later. It does, however, serve as a coded way to establish the white male characters in the show as a social group in and of themselves, one from which Scott must be excluded, perhaps because of his inadequacies (he has to go summer school, see, which in Beacon Hill seems to be envisioned as a boot camp-slash-gulag) or his sins (not sacrificing Allison) but there has to be a reason. When you take in the way it doesn't fit into anything happen and doesn't really help what they want to happen, the only logical reason for the creation of this headcanon is that it demonstrates their belief that Scott does not deserve his position as lead protagonist, and that Stiles's professed loyalty is slowly being transferred to a man he had on a list of people responsible for human sacrifices twice.

But it is inevitable that such headcanons go against the themes of the show, the plot of the show, and the established characterizations of the cast, because consistency is not really important to parts of the fandom. What is important is that it suggests the true focus of the story should be where the believe it belongs: any white male character. This ill-fitting whim has become almost universally accepted, to remove a character of color form his position as lead protagonist with a subtext so deep it appears for exactly 2 seconds.

It is indeed racism.

[heraldofcrow]

SOTE haters be like: "boohoo it is all FromSLOP's fault that fans are babyfying Marika and making Miquella a villain, had they not written Marika as an actual person with the story instead of a caricature and had they not put Miquella through tragic descent instead of wholesome hopepunk stuff they literally never did, fans would magically stop ignoring obvious canon clues to make a character into what THEY want instead!!! Bad writing!!!" 🤦‍♂️

So, "good writing" is writing characters like bland caricatures that have nothing to do with how real humans and world we live in are? Honestly I have no idea what's going on in people's heads when they blame realistic writing (nobody is BORN evil @ naive idealism doesn't work on humans so you either give up or force people to be friends) for the takes they dislike

There is this thing that happened in the Elden Ring fandom that keeps reminding me of the DS2 backlash, but it’s not gamer rage over mechanics and the physical experience of the game — it’s that newer (?) (probably not) wave of nonsense that is permeating countless other fandoms that people recently blame on “puriteens.”

Basically, those younger people that haven’t had enough experience to see the world beyond black and white, Tik Tok-based morals; where everything has to be moderated and pure enough, progressive enough, GOOD enough to meet some high standard of ethics.

I’m honestly relying on the Soulsborne fandom as partial proof that this issue HAS gotten worse in some ways because of Elden Ring…but I wouldn’t be surprised if it started and flourished in places like the Undertale fandom, where the game itself trying to teach a valuable moral lesson resulted in younger people that played it becoming extremely hostile online towards anyone who dared to take the Genocide route to see the outcome.

People who wanted to see the end of that route were going to learn the lesson of the game. They were MEANT to learn that lesson and find out why it was the morally unsound path to take within the context of the story. There were also people who could take that route every time just to enjoy the tragedy of it or simply because it was more interesting.

That was absolute heresy to the puritan fans who wanted to control other players and condemn them for even thinking of committing that crime against the poor characters. They didn’t want the “lesson to be learned,” because in their minds, who would ever willingly go kill to learn that killing was bad?? Oh no, anyone who would do that is evil already!

(Forget that all of it wasn’t real of course…or that the Genocide route was essentially just a regular video game lmao.)

And even since then, I’ve seen this blossom in so many big fandoms.

“Just because I like doesn’t mean I condone blah blah”

Nobody should have to say that statement ever again.

Nobody should have to rigorously defend the satire of “my mass murderer did nothing wrong.”

And more people should understand that even the worst of the worst!!…the… *gasp* justifiers!! of fictional war criminals are often just viewers swayed by the villain or antihero’s philosophy or reasoning for revenge. Or mayhaps they were charmed by devilish good looks. How could the young ladies do this??? /s

The people screaming “Thanos was right!” or whatever, are usually….90% of the time…not mass murders in real life. Some of them might be assholes or creeps, and sure, you might have to smack them upside the head with “Hey! Your justification of this character within the story is a bad interpretation and rooted in bias or misunderstanding!”

Yeah, that can be a problem. Those people can be troublesome in the heat of fandom drama. But then again…toxic fans of any kind can be this way too. Toxic shippers are often some of the cruelest, most actively harmful members of fandoms, and even then…cases where people start getting murdered en masse is rare, mind you. Lol.

Fiction is not what affects reality in a negative way, it’s people’s IDEAS about fiction that affect reality in a negative way…IF they choose to not be responsible with how they react or behave.

That’s it.

Their interpretations, their takeaways, their decisions on how to engage with it or be inspired by it, all of this CAN be negative, yes.

The Genocide route in Undertale did not inspire anyone to go commit genocide, but it did create a wave of fandom puritanism that caused harm to others. And that’s ironic isn’t it? That shouldn’t be the case, right? A story that intended to share a moral lesson about why harming others is wrong ended up inspiring people to harm others in fandom. How does that make sense?

Well, it doesn’t if you blame the game and story.

It DOES make sense if you observe how people were choosing to interpret it. The story itself does not have to be taken seriously, engaged with, or even acknowledged. It only has as much power as you give it.

FromSoftware being blamed for people CHOOSING to treat Marika like she did nothing wrong or people not seeing the signs of Miquella’s downfall is taking the responsibility away from fans for how they engaged with the story.

Now, having said all this. Bad writing does exist and authors absolutely can mislead an audience. That’s a fair complaint and that’s one case where fiction causing people to react negatively lies partially with the fault of the writer, but it’s a spectrum in that situation as well. As fans, we still have a responsibility to not act like animals or treat each other poorly when bad writing upsets us.

I don’t believe the DLC was badly written. I think Marika’s story was beautiful and Miquella’s downfall was built up to reasonably well while still creating a nice mystery for us. I think FromSoftware is smart in leaving gaps in the story for us to fill, because that leaves us with room to decide what we think happened.

But even if they didn’t. Even if the DLC was objectively just bad…it sucked ass….that still in no way justifies what’s been going on this fandom since it released. That still would not be something to blame for people justifying the Hornsent genocide or getting too heated about interpretations of Miquella.

“Honestly I have no idea what's going on in people's heads when they blame realistic writing (nobody is BORN evil @ naive idealism doesn't work on humans so you either give up or force people to be friends) for the takes they dislike.”

Why do people blame writing at all for the takes they dislike? Why do they blame writing for OTHER people’s views and reactions?

Because of everything I just said. They shift responsibility off of others and themselves and blame it all on the story.

Video games cause violence, kids.

[hroscek]

Il Dottore segments - what I could gather

⚠︎Massive spoilers for the Sumeru archon quest and other Dottore-related media ahead⚠︎

Okay so as far as I can tell there's little to no official info about dottore's various segments. Nevertheless they're an important part of my fav lunatic ✧˚ so I decided to document what we know so far and what we've made up within fandom.

Keep in mind this is in no way 100% canon or conclusive, just to help myself (and perhaps you) keep everything somewhat consistent. If there's anything I missed PLEASE let me know and I'll try to keep this up to date.

◄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░►

Okay so first the canon stuff.

We know that Dottore made segments of himself at various stages of his life in order to gain additional perspective and transcend the limits of a mortal mind. We can also make a few educated guesses as to how many there are and what their personalities might be.

There were at least 3 different segments seen trough various media. Firstly there's the two segments we see during the Sumeru archon quest. One of them is the one that talks to Tighnari and later leaves on a boat. The other we see in a cutscene talking to Nahida. He is also the one that ends up killing the others in exchange for the electro gnosis. The last confirmed separate segment that we get visual confirmation of is the one from the manga.

To make is easier we can assign them names since we'll talk about them a LOT in this post.

The original - Zandik

He is the real Dottore who created the other segments and the one they are based off. We haven't seen him on screen yet and due to his standoffish nature we can't really get a good grasp on anything about him because we can't confirm whether the source talks about a clone he sent in his place or not. The only confirmed info I feel safe about concluding is accurate to him is his backstory/pre-fatui days.

The Prime - Omega

This is the segment Nahida talks to and presumably (if he is to be believed) the last segment standing after the archon quest (unless Dottore already started working on new segments in the meantime). He is said to be the most selfish of the segments and is shown to be quite proud. The label of omega comes from the in-game cutscene where he is introduced as the omega build. He is said to be "in the prime of his life" which is why many call him that. This also causes confusion in many that assume that Prime is the Original, likely thinking Prime is just short for Primary.

Webtorre - ???

This is the segment that appeared in the manga and was later killed off by Prime. We don't know his build or much about him, with many speculating that he's actually two different segments that are just never explained to be separate by the text. He's also shown with a different design and a more offhinged personality.

Boattorre - ???

Another mystery build. This is the one we see confront Tighnari in the Sumeru archon quest and later leave by boat. From his interactions as well as dialogue from the fatui guards around him we can deduce he's more "friendly" and upbeat than the other segments. An NPC speculates that the Doctor's picked up the attitude of people in Sumeru, which could also mean that even most fatui don't know (or at least can't tell the difference) when it comes to the segments.

That's it for the 100% confirmed on-screen stuff (with some generally agreed upon speculation)

What we're guessing

Then we get into speculation territory. From the cutscene where the segments are allegedly destroyed we can hear 11 distinct voices. Combined with Prime and the original that's at least 13 Dottores.

Some people also interpret the use of Omega as there being 24 separate segments since there's that many letters in the Greek alphabet.

Personally I think both are valid trains of thought, but realistically we're probably lucky to see six segments so unless there's a Dottore expansion or he gets his own universe there's really not much point in speculating on how many there really are and who they might be. Not saying it's not fun though!!

Another thing we might guess about is any other appearances. I placed these under speculation as there's always an argument to be made that either of these could just be an already named segment. Nevertheless, if we take each instance to be a separate segment we end up with quite a few new Dottores to take a look at.

First we have the one seen at La Signora's funeral that talks with Columbina. The discoure around him is often focused on whether he is the one "in the prime of his life" as Columbina puts it. Personally I think omega takes that title and is also the one seen burning irminsul (logically speaking it's him as he's commiting blasphemy by burning the sacred tree as well as physically the last one standing after the archon quest).

Then we have the Snezhnaya segment, who could as just well be any of the previous but for the sake of extending the list I'll treat him as separate. In the conversation between the fatui in the Boattorre scene they remark that in Snezhnaya he's much colder (ha) than the one they're with.

Also the likelihood that Webby is multiple segments due to his varying personalities, but again that might just be him ❤︎.

₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚₊˚

I might update this with more fanon names, but I'm still not confident enough to deal with all the different OCs and whatnot. Hell, I'm still not fully confident in what I wrote here with all the conflicting opinions. I tried my best though. If there's any new info I'll definitely try and update as soon as I can. If you have anything to add or I forget to update please don't be afraid to reach out!!

Thank you all for reading! ✿

Last meme cred to XS_DENIED on hoyolab

[ogsherlockholmes]

The Hound of Watson's Grief

I made a post a few weeks ago about how all of the Holmes stories could be interpreted as Watson's imagination in order to compensate for his loneliness (sorry for putting that idea in your heads) and I wanted to expand on that by focusing on The Hound of the Baskervilles. So, prepare for some inarticulate rambling which I hope will make sense.

One of the things that has always struck me about this particular story is ultimately how different it is from the rest of the canon: not just Holmes' noticeable absence in the mid-section, but the emphasis on Watson's description and the supernatural features. Although these can still be seen in the other stories, The Hounds of the Baskervilles still seems to exist separately from them, and I have a an idea why this is.

The Hounds of the Baskervilles, as a story, was never meant to be. Holmes was dead- ACD was proud to announce that. He had rid himself of the so called 'great detective', and could focus on more historical serious novels. But, alas, he thought of an interesting story line, and could think of no other way of conceiving it without help from Holmes. So, Holmes was prematurely resurrected, without any form of indication that he was actually alive, or if this was D Watson writing up his notes, or if the audience should just suspend their disbelief and read the story as an undefined prequel.

Realistically, that is about all there is to say about the premise of The Hound of the Baskervilles: the story just is, and we have to accept that. But what of THotB is purely a work of fiction, including within the realms of the fictional world of Sherlock Holmes? In some ways, THotB could be read as Watson finding an outlet for his grief for Holmes.

Firstly, Holmes' absence: not just in the story, but in Watson's life and in the public's life. Holmes was dead, with no chance of return... supposedly. He had died offstage, with no witnesses, apart from the man who died with him, so no one could check with him if Holmes was actually dead. For Watson, the only proof he had of Holmes' death was a letter, with no body to bury; for a man who had spent so much time with someone so furtively based on facts, I can't imagine that that would have felt right to him. Holmes was dead, but where did he die? It's reasonable to suppose that Watson went through a stage of denial, believing that Holmes was still alive. Of course, he couldn't admit that to the public (like so many other things... the unreliable narrator that he is) so he would need another outlet. So, why not write a story involving Holmes? Maybe Watson began writing, including all the quintessential characteristics of Holmes (his quick deductions, sarcastic quips and his effortlessness in complimenting Watson), but then the realisation of his friend's death dawned on him. Watson looks back on his work, and remembers that he now must solve mysteries by himself. Holmes is busy elsewhere, and Watson is alone.

Watson begins a tirade of long, flowery descriptions (in the words of Holmes "cut out the poetry, Watson") which are usually skipped over in the shorter stories. We are fully immersed in the gloomy Dartmoor with its "tinge of melancholy", and the introduction of an escaped prisoner: Selden, the Notting Hill murderer. This feels like compensation for Watson forcing Holmes' logic in the earlier chapters, almost as though he's trying to build another story for himself. The addition of the Baskerville legend also seems more alligned with Watson's interests than Holmes: overall, THofB becomes more of Watson indulging himself in a fairy tale than reporting facts, as Holmes would prefer.

Still, Watson is just as dutiful as ever, writing letters to Holmes, but receiving little response. Again, this might be a parallel for Watson's life: he wishes to communicate with his late friend, but hears nothing back. Here, Watson might be doubting himself again: he's obsessing over Holmes' death, so much so that he can't be sure he's even dead. A glimmer of hope: maybe Holmes is alive, and he's out there, waiting to come back. Watson mentions "the figure of a man upon the tor", the "tall, thin man" which is undeniably Holmes: he allows himself this fantasy, to the point where he explicitly states this idea when he reveals that Holmes has been with him in Dartmoor all along, but hiding away from him. But, he can't be too certain, so Selden (who could be seen as a mirror to Holmes as he is confused with Holmes as being the figure on the Moor) is killed off as soon as Watson finds Holmes. Again, Selden is killed offstage and by falling off an edge, which sounds familiar...

Now, Watson has his Holmes back, in theory. He ends the story by describing Holmes being involved in other matters which he doesn't provide too much detail on, as per usual. The story was quickly and almost effortlessly resolved, with the antagonist, Stapleton, seemingly dead but the protagonist, Henry Baskerville, saved. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that Stapleton and Baskerville are Moriarty and Holmes substitutes, respectively (Stapleton's academic backgrounds and unusual characters; Baskerville's assertiveness, Watson's detailed descriptions of his movements and appearance, the implication that Selden's death was originally confused as his). So, here is another instance of Watson applying the narrative he wants, almost as though he's manifesting Holmes' resurrection.

I've thrown many ideas together which can probably be easily disregarded, but I tried rereading the story with this perspective, and I think it helped me make sense of certain aspects of the story which never sat comfortably with me. Although I'm not claiming to know the true reason why ACD wrote THotB, I do hope that you can understand the point I'm trying to make.

[luthinks]

I think a lot of people really need to go back and read all of Rafayel's story if they think he's not fully capable within his own resolve to feel and act that way. I'm not saying he can't be influenced in the segment of the story we see in the trailer by some higher power, but everyone seems to forget be "wants to settle the score" with MC is there are heavy implications all over his story that he believes she did, in fact, betray him. Whether he knows why or how or if she was also influenced by something else is unknown. I just need the fandom to fr stop trying to princess this man who is capable of mass murdering people who have hurt and hunted Lemurians and can both love and resent MC for whatever jumble of memories he holds. The biggest problem this company created was giving Rafayel purely sappy cards to cater to his huge fan base in China. It's made everyone forget he is dark and angry.

Rafayel is definitely fully capable of taking action on his own against the people who have wronged him and his people and he does so many times. But the mass murdering aspect is also kind of exaggerated. The only people he has canonically killed which we as players have seen are, the person in the theater from Siren's song anecdote and possibly Raymond. Other instances we hear are from other characters — like the sea monster murders and stuff — I take that with a grain of salt cuz the people who were murdered, who worked for ever and experimented on lemurians, left ever group before they got murdered. It could also be ever group killing them and landing the blame on Rafayel. We'll never know, it's upto us what to believe. Knowing papergames, it's not going to be this straight forward but we'll just have to see how they expand on it.

And coming to the "he wants to settle score with MC" part, to me, he didn't sound malicious while he was saying that ... The first thing he did after coming back to linkon was to look up information about MC and make sure she's safe. He even confronted one of the raincoats to inquire if MC was on ever's list. In my personal opinion him settling the score with MC here probably refers to her having forgotten him. I don't think he's even going to hold it against her if she ever betrayed him. He has had multiple dialogues that say, even if she's leading him into a trap, he'd willingly walk into it.

He's definitely bitter that she had forgotten him and everything that happened but he doesn't want to harm her. Like in chapter 7 while he was going to fight the big sea monster, he told MC to stay away because he can't ensure her safety otherwise. And when MC invokes the bond and tells him to not go, he's melancholic that she forgot everything but even then she insists.

Tbh I think one of his major fears is MC will come to dislike him when she comes across his changed self (as he mentioned in omnipotent perception).

In my opinion both the extremities, that Rafayel is all sunshine and roses who's just a brat doing his bratty stuff, and that he's a cold blooded killer that despises MC and wouldn't hesitate one bit before killing even her are two ends of a spectrum. How people feel about him lies between that depending on their own interpretations.

While I believe him to be somewhere in the middle, (I'm team "Rafayel is never going to harm MC no matter what it looks like unless he's possessed, but he'll end anyone who tries to harm her or his lemurian subjects no questions asked" 😂) but at the same time I think it's okay for people to have different beliefs on that scale. Some might have liked the innocent care free side of his more which led to a sharp contrast with recent branch PV, so the angst is inevitable... It's okay for them to lament the loss of this sunshine aspect of his character ... While others might be excited about the dark aspects of his character being explored more, that is also fine. It's a game where all of us are playing at a different pace, and also some of the lore locked behind limited cards ends up with different people having different interpretations, even the timeline of how we get all the content is out of order. So it makes sense that, a complex character like Rafayel would generate a spectrum of opinions 😅.

All in all as long as people aren't being rude to other players I think it's fine how they personally interpret Rafayel's character... I personally believe that the sunshine carefree Rafayel and ruthless cold Rafayel are both part of his personality, neither is more real than the other. But my interpretation might not be in line with others, and that's completely fine too.

P.S. I'm very sorry if this came off as preachy or condescending. I'm not very good at expressing myself while writing 😅

[dseval]

What are your thoughts of CrossDust? What dynamic you think they have?

Permission to yap about CrossDust??

Short answer: funny i like both of them they should kiss

...Long yapping ahead (there's yapping about my Murder Sans interpretation, then there's also CrossDust. It's long.)

I'd like to first clarify that my interpretation of Dust may be different compared to many (I think, at least). Since I base his character on the canon information from Ask-Dusttale and fangames— particularly Evan Streblow's Dusttale (if you don't know, it's the one with the psychotic HAHAHAHAHAHAHA and "We're gonna have a MAD time!")

I also slot in some headcanons (and self-projections, can't help it) and some character adjustments because I think canon Murder is extremely difficult to work with, especially in the context of shipping and anything else this fandom does with him in general.

But just the gist of it so you all don't have to read that much (I can go on for ten more paragraphs. I'm obsessed with this guy):

I'll use the names Murder and Dust interchangeably and within different contexts. I like to think Murder is a front that Dust puts on— an apathetic murderer who finds emotions difficult to feel, someone who always lies to get his way, a sociopath. While Dust is quiet, honest, and more contemplative. It's mostly Murder who interacts with others.

Murder and Dust aren't necessarily two different people. Ultimately, Dust directly influences Murder's choices, and Murder may disappear one day once Dust feels content.

His hallucinations aren't only Papyrus, he also hallucinates about others although Papyrus is the most often. And these hallucinations speak different things according to the state he's in. Murder's hallucinations would encourage him to hurt more. While Dust's would induce guilt.

Murder is a very focused person, not afraid to take the lead, and he hates it when nothing happens. Dust on the other hand is content just doing nothing.

Murder finds love absurd. Dust too, but he entertains the thought of it.

Murder and Dust both think words are silly, insincere, and can change meanings, so they are more action-oriented.

He's demisexual. That's a headcanon.

And if anyone has any different interpretation of Murder/Dust Sans, that is absolutely okay and amazing. Dusttale is a very hard AU to actually get into (all the informations are scattered). Plus, there is nothing wrong with fanon. I think it's great, I like fanon. I sometimes like fanon more than canon.

Now CrossDust.

For their general dynamic, I think it's very difficult for them to get together. They just go back and forth between something and nothing. They have like... The slowest of slow burns.

I'd like to implement the entire Underverse thing. Remember how Cross stole Classic's soul? Apparently, Sanses across different alternate timelines can share a memory. So Geno knows Cross stole 'his' soul. Killer also acknowledges this and says to XChara that they stole 'his' soul.

So technically to Murder/Dust— Cross also had stolen 'his' soul (And Murder would've had felt all Cross's pain while at it, too). I think Murder would find it hilarious that Cross brought literally every single innocent AU into his problem. Dust would feel like Cross's plans are ridiculous, but since it's XChara's plan, and XChara is the human, Dust wouldn't even question it.

In a way, they share SOULs once, even if indirectly. Murder/Dust knows probably a lot about Cross. But Cross didn't know who the hell this guy is. Either way, with that in mind. Murder probably didn't have a good first impression of Cross. Dust might empathize with him, since Cross also committed a genocide in order to 'make things better' which is also Dust's reasoning. Cross might learn about Murder's actions later— but cannot judge Murder/Dust for it.

They are very similar. Kindred souls in a way. They went through similar struggles but they turned out to be completely different people. Because Cross in his entire life is under control, while Murder acts on choice. Because Cross knows what he did is horrible and he'll carry that sin to the grave, while Murder justifies his actions.

Cross is too trusting (he doesn't trust easily now), too seeking for approval, he doesn't know what to do if no one orders him. Murder thinks he himself is enough, Murder thinks he is the hero, he doesn't need anyone else.

Cross thinks Murder is a bad person, an absolute jerk. Murder likes to toy with him, probably also uses Cross to his advantage. Murder can either try to hurt Cross, or will try to win his favour. But can Cross judge him? Not really, hell, I don't think Cross even noticed if Murder did manipulate him. Low-key toxic these two.

But then there's the private moments, the intimate moments where Dust shed the front that is Murder. Where Dust is sincere; he doesn't talk, but the way he gazes and acts towards Cross is honest. And although reluctant, maybe Cross desires to bring that side out of him more.

It's both difficult for them to trust. But eventually Dust will learn that Cross cannot lie— Dust will trust words again. Eventually Cross realizes that he's not the only one hurt, and he can find a home in others, he can choose to find a home.

Cross will find it frustrating how Dust shuts himself down. Dust would find it frustrating how hard Cross tries for him. But eventually, Dust would learn to no longer front himself up with Murder. Cross would need a signal from Dust that what he's doing is okay and perfect before they can advance further.

They'll care about one another.

Eventually, they'll trust each other.

In a relationship sense where they're both happy and recovered, though. I think both of them like cuddling. Dust still had a hard time with words, but he knows how much it means for Cross to have words of affirmations, so he would praise Cross a lot. Cross knows Dust is as restless as he is, so he makes sure they both have a full schedule with a lot of things to do.

All in all, they're comfortable with each other. And that's enough, really.

(i almost yapped for ten more paragraphs but I think this is enough for now sksksksk)

Dust Sans by Ask-Dusttale

Cross Sans, Underverse, & XTale by Jakei

Mentioned characters: Killer Sans (by Rahafwabas), Geno (by loverofpiggies/CrayonQueen)

[crazylittlejester]

Sooo, I know that you are technically the “Wars expert”, but you are really good at predicting things that will happen the LU comics.

I keep thinking that Twilight is getting more and more fed up with everyone treating him like he’s made of glass. What do you think, how long will it take until he snaps at someone for being overprotective? And who will it be? ( my guess is that it’ll be either Wars or Time and that it won’t be long 😉)

okay pardon the fact that my brain is soup rn my head is pounding lmao, none of this is gonna be coherent and most of it is off topic rambling i dont think a word of this makes sense-

I don’t really think the others are treating Twi like glass, at least not now

so in my mind i separate the group a bit into “kids” (wind, four, hyrule, legend, wild) and “adults” (time, wars, twi, sky). Now I think the only thing canonically established in LU is that Wind is the youngest and Time is the oldest, so the rest of the group hierarchy can go literally whichever way you interpret it, but I definitely think of Wars and Twi as pretty close up there to Time in regards to how much “power” (for lack of a better word-) they have within the group. They’re the only two who feel like they have the power to “talk back” (again for lack of better words) to Time in a way where Time might actually LISTEN. I feel like it’s not that the others are treating Twilight like glass, they’re worried about him because he almost died, but they have faith in him. But Time on the other hand has to look at Twilight and see his own future with Malon and all that, and based off the conversation in “Malon 5” it seems like Time might feel at least a little bit responsible for keeping Twilight safe and uninjured. But despite this I think that hasn’t impacted his view of Twilight’s capabilities, like yes he might keep more of an eye out for him, but he knows Twilight can handle himself

The new added element to this whole situation is Warriors and “Wild’s” dungeon inexperience. Because now Time, unofficial official leader, has his two “second” in commands as “Guy who has never stepped foot in a dungeon before in his life” and “Descendant who almost died”, and as we’ve seen he’s been really stressed lately and this is just adding to it. Which, yeah, I would be stressed too 😭

My theory isn’t necessarily that Twi is going to snap because he’s being babied, but rather if we DO see him getting snappy at people (Time) it’s going to be because of how strict he’s getting

That being said I have theories about the breakdowns of the groups, and I’m not sure I see a scenario in which Twi, Time, and Wars would be in the same group. MAYBE two of them, but I can’t imagine all three of them would be in the same spot. If they are tho, that’s be hilarious and the fucking DRAMA- oh my god

I think if Warriors WASN’T with Time, he’d be with either Twi or Legend, but not both, and I think the third person could be Wind. If I were the one building these groups, I’d make it Wars, Legend, and Wind

If Time WASN’T with Twi, he’d be with Wars, and if not Wars then I think Four and/or Hyrule. High Stress Adult + two experienced but very chill “kids”. They’d have their differences in how they do things, but I think those three would work well together. But if Jojo’s feeling evil I think Time, Wild, and Legend would be an EXPLOSIVE group of clashing personalities and all three of them would argue the entire time because they’re all very stubborn. I think poor Wild would really get the short end of the stick in that scenario-

I predict, if these groups are gonna be 3 groups of 3 and the goal is to create well balanced teams:

Twilight, Sky, and Wild would be a POWERHOUSE: two adults + one “kid” with ‘half’ dungeon experience. They’d get along well, they’d work well together

Time, Four, and Hyrule: Again, High Stress Adult + two quieter “kids”, but I really think Hyrule and Four would work well together, and they’d balance out Time’s stress with their goofy little guy-ness

Wars, Legend, and Wind: It’s giving a mom taking her two kids to indulge in their hyperfixation she knows nothing about. Wind and Legend are totally capable in a dungeon, and they both have a good dynamic with Wars that could be very entertaining and funny, and definitely just enjoyable to witness

but the evil voices in me want the groups to be Wars/Time/Twi, Legend/Hyrule/Wild, Sky/Four/Wind, because I’m just imagining Drama Queens (crying, screaming, emotions involved), Triple Threat (pure crack), and The People Actually Getting Shit Done, and that would be so epic

aight thats all i got

*falls over and dies*

[laboratory-for-peace]

thanks for the timeline, though I would have to suggest it's probably too early to conclude that the Sora comics are based on the current generation only. an SBS has mentioned that Judge modified the children "to fit the suit", leaving room for the possibility that the suit has existed in Germa's inventory for much longer. Of course it's also possible that Judge himself was the one who designed the suits before the children were born, but it's a bit misleading to definitively say that the Sora comics only started running in the time period you listed.

Yeah it's one of those interesting cases where information seems to be conflicting or lacking I canon itself! The assumption I have is based on a few different elements of the current canon.

My personal reading of it is that the Sora comics have indeed existed before this current generation, and have indeed featured Germa as the villains a long time now. But just like in real Tokusatsu and Henshin Hero type shows, the names and designs of the fictionalized villain group were probably "updated" to fit current events and people. Rotating and changing villains and heroes isn't uncommon for the genre. That being said, this is entirely my theory, although it's based on two elements of canon.

The first one, and the main point of contention around the Raid Suits and their designs, seems to be the conflict between what Yonji said to Sanji in WCI and what Judge's Vivre Card says.

Yonji states that Germa has been a "Kingdom of Science for generations", which of course would imply their father just continued this tradition, and as a result, prototypes of the Raid Suits might have indeed already existed before him.

On the other hand, the Vivre Card says that Germa wasn't a Kingdom of Science before Judge, and that he's the one who turned it into one after joining MADS.

Obviously, these two facts don't jive with each other very well, and I'm willing to assume this is a case of retconing. If that's the case, then with the Vivre Card being more recent, it's probably the latter which is canon. And if that's indeed true, Judge is definitely the one who first made and designed the suits.

But once again, this is dependent on the assumption that Oda retconed what Yonji said with the Vivre Card information. You could theoretically find a way for both to be true, like maybe Germa indeed had a focus on science for generations, but it was the non-technological and theoretical kind you'd see in early centuries in real life, only for the explosion in progress caused by MADS, and therefore Judge, to be the first to introduce modern and Sci-fi advanced elements to it. Who knows! Either way, although not fully confirmed, I think it's unlikely that the Raid Suits existed before him.

On the other hand, most North Blue characters like Law, Hawkins etc, whom we see nerd over Germa/Sora, act like they grew up with the comic since they were kids. Then again that's also an assumption, perhaps they all just got into it as adults and it is indeed recent. After all Law recognizes "Stealth Black" specifically, which would have been based on the unused No. 3 Raid Suit and the assumed "lost prince", since the fake funeral was probably well spread news.

Either way, considering the names and numbers of the fictional characters match the current Vinsmoke family too perfectly, either the comic was indeed directly based on them and was created recently, or it already existed but only started featuring the current set of (fictionalized) Vinsmokes after they made a name for themselves within the last 13 years, replacing the previous set of fictionalized Germa villains or something.

There's many ways to interpret it, and I'm not sure what the truth is myself! A big part of the "pink section" of the Timeline is based on assumption, especially compared to the rest of it which is based on confirmed dates, so take it with a grain of salt!

[maniacwatchestheworld]

A Basic Guide to Harvey "Two-Face" Dent for Misha stans

With love, from a Two-Face fan who hasn't watched Supernatural and doesn't really intend on watching Gotham Knights.

Now before getting into this, you need to keep in mind that Harvey Dent (at the time of his creation, Harvey Kent) was a character first introduced to comics in 1942, and even within Batman canon, he is one of the most wildly inconsistently written characters. If you pick up any two stories that feature Two-Face in them at random, you are very likely to get two entirely different characters. As such, there are dozens of entirely valid ways of interpreting and writing his character, so what I write here is either based off of general consensus or my own personal opinion on the character.

If you are already a Two-Face fan who is reading this, I'm not trying to diminish your preferred way of interpreting the character and would be perfectly happy with discussing our differences in opinion in a separate post, but here I'm just trying to make a somewhat digestible guide to his character for newbies based off of my own perception of him and what I've heard about his character from Gotham Knights and what might appeal to his fans. If you disagree, you're welcome to write a similar post about him yourself.

Overview

Harvey Dent is Gotham City's District Attorney. He's actually a legal genius and savant. (He is also just generally DAMN smart when written well!) He became District Attorney at a very young age (~26 years old, making him the youngest District Attorney that Gotham has ever had,) and is the best damn lawyer in all of Gotham! At his best, he was locking up criminals left and right no one could stop him, and this ended up ticking off Gotham's criminal underworld. As District Attorney, he would work alongside Batman and Commissioner Gordon to make his convictions stick, which is something other District Attorneys before him couldn't do. For this, the public loved him. This also makes Arkham Asylum and Blackgate Prison exceedingly dangerous places for him to be, as a good percentage of their residents are there because of him.

Harvey Dent is Bruce Wayne's best friend. Sometimes they are even childhood friends! At the latest, they became friends after Bruce had already become Batman, but usually they are long-time friends, sometimes meeting as kids, though also often meeting in college. (They both went to Gotham University.) I think there are some iterations where they're even college roommates! They tend to have been very close in college. Regardless of when they met, they found kindred spirits within one another as they each sought to bring justice to this city that they love in their own ways. Because of this kinship, the two got extremely close and were the best of friends before Harvey's incident.

Harvey Dent is an abuse survivor. When he was a kid, Harvey's father would beat him and his mother. But his father made a game of it. The details sometimes change a little, but in essence his father would flip a coin. If it landed heads, he would beat Harvey. If it landed tails, then he wouldn't have to be punished. The coin was heads on both sides.

Harvey Dent is neurodivergent. Most iterations of Two-Face have OCD and many (but not all) are plural, presumably with some form of Dissociative Identity Disorder. It is generally thought that his childhood abuse caused him to have these conditions. After leaving his father's control, Harvey was able to get a handle on his OCD tendencies and deeply suppressed his one other disassociated identity. However, if Harvey experiences high levels of stress or anger over a prolonged period of time, that could make these two conditions show themselves again. When the incident that melted half of his face off happened, these conditions came back to stay. He is indeed legally insane. But this is because of his OCD (specifically how he flips a coin to make all of his decisions), and NOT because of his plurality! Note: Plurality is more common that you probably think it is. It's estimated that 1-5% of people are plural. I've also spoken to at least 2 people who are plural or system members that dearly love Two-Face as a character. Two-Face is very unusual as a system (you are a lot more likely to find a system of 12 members than one of as few as 2), but I have no doubt that systems that work like him are out there. Because of all of this, I try my best to be sensitive and understanding towards plural people at all times while in this fandom space. I can not speak for them as I am not plural myself, but I am always trying to listen to plural voices and learn from them. I would ask that while you're in this space that you try to do the same. All of the plural people and system members that I've spoken to and know want to be thought of and addressed to as different people, and therefore I try to think of Harvey and Two-Face the same way that I would a real plural person, and see them as different characters. When I say "Harvey Dent" (full name) I'm usually talking about the general character and in-universe legal identity or the body. When I say "Two-Face" I usually mean their shared criminal identity or Harvey's "dark side" as this is the generally accepted way to refer to him by. For the sake of this post I will try to generally refer to "Harvey's dark side"/"Two-Face" (the character) as "Harvey's associate" or "the Associate" to more clearly differentiate him from Harvey. Harvey is Harvey.

Duality and the Number 2

Since Harvey and his Associate have OCD, they get compulsions and obsessions that they can't entirely control. In their case, they have a particular fixation on the concept of duality and the number 2.

They often theme their crimes around the number 2, be that having them take place on the 2nd or 22nd of the month and starting at 2:00 am, the locations having 2 in them like 2222 Doubleday Street or the Second National Bank, or conceptually relating the to number 2, like kidnapping twins, or stealing two-of-a-kind, matching artifacts. If the scheme can do two things at once, like receiving a payout AND killing Batman (killing two birds with one stone), that's even better!

They think in very dualistic ways and try to apply those themes to themselves. Harvey is good, the Associate is evil. Harvey is clean and calculated, the Associate is messy and unpredictable. Harvey is friendly and polite, the Associate is mean and rude. The Associate might also do things that he knows Harvey wouldn't for the sake of 'balance' or being Harvey's opposite. They might also try to apply this duality when it comes to their relations to other characters. Batman is good, they are evil. Batman represents order, they represent chaos. Whether these statements are actually true or not may not reflect the reality of their characters, but they want it to.

Expect lots of puns around the number 2 and for them to get agitated when other numbers that don't relate to the number 2 to get brought up.

The Coin

The origin of Two-Face's coin varies between iterations. The original story from 1942 had it as a piece of evidence. It was the good luck charm of a mob boss that Harvey was trying to put away and was a piece of evidence that placed said mob boss at the scene of a crime. This mob boss was the same one that tried to melt Harvey's face off. Harvey would keep the coin after the incident, for some reason. Later on, the coin was rewritten to previously belong to Harvey's father as I wrote about above. In this iteration of the coin's backstory, Harvey's father gave Harvey the coin and Harvey kept it as a good luck charm.

The coin is usually a silver dollar, minted in 1922 and has the heads side on both sides. However one of these heads has been defaced and is all scratched up, making the coin fair again. Clean heads is considered to be the 'heads' side and is often referred to as 'good heads.' The scratched side is considered to be the 'tails' side and is often referred to as 'bad heads.' Harvey and his Associate feel a kinship with this coin, Harvey being represented by the good heads, and the Associate being represented by the bad heads.

Often times their OCD leaves Harvey and his Associate unable to make decisions and so they have a compulsion to flip their special coin to make their decisions for them. This will sometimes be used as a tie-breaker between Harvey and his Associate- if they get good heads, they do what Harvey wants, if they get bad heads, they do what the Associate wants. Other times when it comes to more neutral decisions, good heads will represent yes and bad heads will represent no (Example: Do we talk to this person? Good heads, yes. Bad heads, that person can fuck off). However most famously, they flip the coin to choose the morality of their actions with good heads being they do the moral thing and bad heads meaning they do the immoral thing. They are known to flip their coin to decide whether or not to kill. Good heads, the person lives. Bad heads, the person dies.

Because of their compulsion to flip their coin to make decisions, they will often end up doing things that they don't actually want to because the coin told them to. This also does occasionally lead to Harvey and his Associate helping Batman out and actually doing the right thing.

About the cooler Harvey (aka "Harv", "Two-Face", "Big Bad Harv", "Harvey's Associate" or "Harvey's dark side")

In plural terms, the Associate usually starts off as a Protector- a system member that protects other members of a system from harm (external or internal), but has become a Persecutor- a system member who does harm to others, be that to the body, other system members, or people outside the system, often because they think this will somehow help the system.

It is very likely that the Associate also holds Harvey's anger and trauma, and may have experienced the brunt of the abuse they have been subjected to. Because of this, the Associate is known to lash out and hurt others.

Before Harvey becomes Two-Face, his Associate will sometimes come out to the front, but only a little. He may pop up when Harvey is under a lot of stress for a long period of time or when he gets exceedingly angry. He may also come out any time Harvey gets into any kind of physical altercation with someone.

Where Harvey usually keeps his temper under control and is not likely to fly off the handle, the Associate has MAJOR anger management issues! The Associate WILL fight you with his fists if you provoke him enough.

The Associate is NOT nice! He is mean and cruel and sadistic. He is usually more brutal and violent than Harvey. Where Harvey might want to do things nice and clean, the Associate isn't afraid of letting things get messy. When they kill, you can usually assume that the Associate was the one to pull the trigger.

The Associate HATES Harvey for suppressing him for so many years. The Associate tends to see Harvey as weak, ineffectual, and a coward, unable and unwilling to do what actually needs to get done. For this, the Associate does not like it when Harvey gets to front and will often do what he can to shove Harvey into the back. Because of this, Harvey may not be seen fronting for long periods at a time.

The Associate and Harvey are often seen to be co-conscious and may co-front.

In many iterations of these characters, Harvey has often tried to get rid of his Associate, but it never tends to stick.

The Associate often REVELS in their compulsions where Harvey is upset and disturbed by them.

While the Associate is often a viscous and cruel thug, that doesn't mean that he is entirely unsympathetic. The instances of him being genuinely sympathetic are rare, but they are out there! Therefore he should be thought of as more than just an 'evil alter ego.' Just like real life Persecutor system members, they shouldn't be considered to be purely malicious and evil, but should rather be a character who deserves understanding and help just like any other system member character would!

Harvey Dent's Love Life

Just so you know, BruHarvey/TwoBats (Bruce Wayne/Harvey Dent) is indeed the most popular ship that Harvey has. To you people who immediately started shipping the two, just know that you're not alone in feeling the gay vibes from them and that these two do indeed refuse to be straight about their relationship in a lot of the media that they share! Most Harvey fans that I know do indeed ship BruHarvey, and there is some good media out there that have a lot of BruHarvey vibes!

Harvey is often married or engaged at the start of his story. His wife is usually Gilda Gold who (when we know that she has a job) is a very skilled sculptor. She likes sculpting Harvey's face because he's beautiful, even sometimes calling him by the nickname "Apollo."

Gilda may or may not be the Holiday Killer- A serial killer who targets mobsters and kills them on holidays (Christmas, Halloween, Thanksgiving, Valentines Day, etc).

In the current mainline DC continuity, Gilda is dead. Harvey is a widower. In previous continuity they had gotten (understandably) divorced.

Other characters that Harvey has dated include Poison Ivy (who wanted to kill him) and Catwoman (who wanted to steal from him). Given that and how Gilda is sometimes the Holiday Killer, and you can comfortably say that Harvey has questionable taste in women.

Harvey falls in love HARD and FAST! As an example, in Batman: the Animated Series, he knew Ivy for a week before proposing to her. He does something similar with a different woman later in the series (a Gilda analogue, so that one partially works out).

Often Harvey wants to have kids. He seems pretty down with the idea of adopting.

Harvey Dent's relations to other characters that may appear

Dick Grayson (1st Robin): They hate each other. Early on in his career as Robin, Two-Face almost beat him to death. Dick has decidedly not forgiven him for this.

Jason Todd (2nd Robin): Not always the most friendly with each other, but have worked together in the pages of Task Force Z (which is a specialized Suicide Squad task force that consists of undead supervillains). In Task Force Z, there were kinda vibes that Harvey was the team dad who was just trying his best (but sucked at his job) while Jason was his angsty son with anger issues. Jason's biological father was killed by Two-Face (he worked for/owed money to Two-Face. He didn't pay back, so he was killed), but at this point Jason doesn't really seem to hold a grudge over it. Probably Two-Face's favorite Robin since he's the second Robin.

Tim Drake (3rd Robin): The story that introduced Tim Drake (A Lonely Place of Dying) was a Two-Face story, so in a way, you could say that Two-Face pushed Tim into taking on the role. (Otherwise I personally don't know much about their relationship.)

Commissioner Gordon: They used to be good friends back when Harvey was Gotham's District Attorney. They used to work together a lot, but now they seem to have 0 issues with the idea of killing Gordon.

Other notes:

He has almost no consistent visual design outside of 'male,' 'face is half messed up,' and 'split suits'. While he's usually supposed to have brown hair and green eyes (to make him look different from Bruce), this isn't always stuck to. Hell! There are a handful of iterations of Two-Face that are black!

Harvey Dent/Two-Face are decently influential characters within popular culture. You know the quote, "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." ...? That quote comes from The Dark Knight (2008 film) and is said by Harvey before he becomes Two-Face and ends up being about him. Also the quote of "He isn't the hero we deserve, but he is the hero we need" relates to Harvey as well, though it's spoken about Batman. Also apparently this is a meme that exists and was apparently popular on Reddit, and I only just now learned of it soooo... Pop culture contributions yay?

Recovery is precedented for Harvey! In his original appearance in the 1940's, Harvey actually decided to turn away from his life of crime for the sake of the woman who became his wife and got his face fixed after she proved that she still loved him in spite of his disfiguration. Apparently in the 1980's newspaper strips, Harvey went on to recover there as well! And he even kept his scars that time! (You can actually read this story on Tumblr here!) However in most iterations, when Harvey 'gets better' he usually takes the turn for the worst at some point and sadly goes back to being Two-Face again. But for the most part, Harvey wants to recover and get better, but his Associate wants them to get worse.

A long post, I know. But I hope that you find this helpful or at least mildly interesting! If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'd be more than happy to try and answer to the best of my ability! If you made it this far, color me impressed! And if you are indeed a Misha stan who's new to this space, I'm happy to see you here! I hope you have a good day! Love you!

[katyspersonal]

Fandomry tips on hcs.

I've met another user that was afraid to share their cool Maria story ideas out of fear that they'll get shunned as "hating masculine lesbians", so, just a few things:

1) No matter how popular a headcanon is, it doesn't become canon. Fandoms do not abide by majority rule in which you could never have an unpopular idea.

2) With LGBT+ headcanons, the less you justify them - the better. The rude minority might think that Maria "has" to be a lesbian because her hunter outfit resembles male Knight garb and she cares about a female friend, and everyone who disagrees "lack media literacy" and "has bias". What is it trying to say? That bi or straight women could not look masculine? That the only reason a woman would ever dress masculine is to be the 'man' for her femme? Or that women could not care about other women deeply unless they're attracted to them? Even "historical accuracy" excuse is obsolete, because Bloodborne clearly doesn't abide by real world's history Victorian antics. Female vicars/doctors/hunters and people of color being equal to white people is a dead give-away to that.

It is even more confusing with Malenia, who doesn't even look masculine. Not feminine, either. She looks like 'just a person'. So what makes her "canonically a lesbian"? The fact that she is a strong fearsome warrior? Why? Because bi or straight women would not fight but instead latch onto some guy to protect them...?

You see what I mean. Justifications for why an interpretation HAS to be one thing and not the other only make things worse and push people into very narrow, at times outright offensive stereotypes. 'She is this because I think so' is a good enough reason - and that's where you can see that someone else's thoughts will be JUST as valid!

3) Headcanons and fandomry are not activism. No minority will be effected just because in some fandom people ship some character in some ship. EVER. These things are for FUN, lesbians aren't fairies within which one dies every time you say "I don't headcanon X character as a lesbian". What do you think will happen if many, or even majority of people like bi (or even straight) headcanon instead of lesbian? A life essence of a whole demographics will be dried out?

4) "It is not that hard" is not an argument. It is never anyone's business why someone would deny a very inviting opportunity for a headcanon. Freedom and autonomy is the VERY base of having fun in the fandom. In fact, very often, it is this same toxic attitude what makes average users NOT want to celebrate a strong female character as a lesbian. Because they feel like they had no choice! And many people possess contradictory spirit, that might make them choose something as affirmation that they won't be mocked into thinking a certain way.

_______________

Honestly, it is NOT okay that here and there people have to feel afraid to do something as innocent as to share their ideas, and might just end up leaving an interesting character aside because loud and rude people scared them away. Do not let a character you like get "claimed" by some group just because they were the meanest, do not hide your awesome ideas but instead post them and TAG them. Fandoms are free spaces, not a middle school where the popular girls set the trends and decide who gets to be bullied.

And if some people can no longer enjoy a fandom or a character because other people got a different headcanon? Well, then they were not built to be in fandom spaces to begin with.

[queer-ragnelle]

hello!! i am pretty new to tumblr so still finding my way around, and part of my current project was going to be looking into fandom space to see how some of the word of mouth and online space mimics oral storytelling. i am especially looking at villains in arthuriana and fan interpretations and headcanons for this, so any advice of where to look hereabouts would be really lovely!! ty for your time and hope you have a great day!!

Hi anon! Welcome!

Honestly I'm at a bit of a loss where to even begin. The scope of Arthuriana and what constitutes a "villain" is so vast. There are the obvious Black Knights and usurping nephews, but even those characters have more than their fair share of morally gray/nuanced portrayals depending on where you look. Medieval literature in and of itself was varied even before we get into modern interpretations and the far reaching corners of fandom. I think in regards to this, it might help to narrow your scope to specific "villainous" characters—Morgan le Fay, Sir Mordred, False Guinevere, Sir Meleagant, and the mysterious Knights of Green and Red and Black.

There's also the matter of where you intend to make the cut off. What constitutes "canon" character interpretation? Where does "canon" end and fan extrapolation begin? To my mind, personally, anything after the Middle Ages falls into the "modern" category, which would include Alfred Lord Tennyson's The Idylls of The King on our end of the divide. Speaking for myself, I don't devalue any interpretation based solely on the era of it's inception. If Sir Thomas Malory wrote in Le Morte d'Arthur that Sir Gareth married Lyonesse, then it is so. But when Tennyson claims that, no, Sir Gareth married the Savage Damosel Linet, then he is also correct. Each iteration is it's own self-contained world and anything is possible within that framework. So it is for "villains," as well.

But that said, the beauty of Arthuriana is that each new addition to the literary tradition (and I include films, TV shows, video games, comics, and every other conceivable medium) builds on what came before. I don't necessarily enjoy or recommend them all, but there's definitely a connection from one retelling to the next. In John Boorman's Excalibur (1981), Percival is first revealed as a strange boy wandering the forest who happens upon Lancelot sleeping. Percival is captivated by him. He endears himself to the knight by waking him with the smell of meat he hunted and roasted especially for him. From there, he's brought back to Camelot to begin working under Kay in the kitchens and eventually rises to knighthood. When I first saw this, I was elated. "It's just like in The Adventures of Sir Lancelot!" Go back thirty more years. In The Adventures of Sir Lancelot (1956-1957), there's a character named Brian, a kitchen boy. After Lancelot helps end the siege that was threatening the castle Brian worked at, he begins following Lancelot around, and one morning, cooks breakfast for the knight. By the end of the episode, Lancelot has all but adopted him, and enrolls him in lessons to begin his squiredom, and eventually, achieve knighthood. Sound familiar?

Could it be that John Boorman, as a child, watched The Adventures of Sir Lancelot, saw what they did with their Brian/Gareth hybrid, and said, "I like that idea, I think I'll use it for Percival." To me, Boorman drawing on that 50s show for his own work is no different than Tennyson building on what Malory had done, who in his own turn wrote from the Post Vulgate.

Now we come to the present day. Bloggers share these stories. We quote the texts. I stream movies and TV shows every weekend in the Arthurian Theater Server. We make connections from one creation to the next. You can see the web of inspirations all interconnecting. Then we branch off into our own new interpretations based on the foundations of these creations that came before. I don't know how popular an opinion this is, but I think that goes beyond "head canon," because there is no canon. Arthuriana is a continuously flowing font made up of tiny beads of details. The stories can only function with the existence of the others. It's not derivative in the same sense as one drawing a little too heavily from their favorite childhood fantasy novel. This tradition dates back hundreds of years. We're just continuing it with the technology of our time.

You want to focus on "villains." But I wonder—Is Morgan le Fay's character beholden to a specific source? How do we determine what that is? If one chooses to write Morgan le Fay sympathetically, or even outright benevolent, is she still a "villain?" Is she still Morgan le Fay? Personally, I think we should respect what came before us, and consider how that impacts the new addition we intend to create. Change Morgan too much and she ceases to be recognizable as Morgan, and I'm here to read about Morgan! I think it's important to maintain the same resonance which has kept us interested for so many centuries. And yet the basis for sweeping changes is all around us. Just as Morgan plotted to kill Arthur and seize his throne, she also rode by his side in the boat to Avalon, where he sleeps still. The range of possibilities is vast beyond imagination. So go wild and get creative, I'm not your mom.

I don't know if that answers your questions or not lol. You're welcome to send me another ask or a private message if you want to talk more.

I also open up this question to my followers for a larger sample size—What do you guys think?

Thanks for the ask and have a great day!

[ostrichmonkey-games]

Everything I see from Dark Confluence looks sick, and you should use this as an excuse to talk more about it

I don't think I've actually talked a ton about what Dark Confluence is going to be like as a completed game, so I'll take this as an excuse to do so lmao.

So, I like the souls-borne "series" a ton. But my favorite part of all the games is the world that you're let loose in and get to explore. Piecing together the story through bits and pieces, hidden clues, secrets, implication and interpretation. The goal of Dark Confluence is to do that together at the table.

To that end, Dark Confluence is all about the setting and unfolding story you all put together. It is as much a game as it is a chopped up setting book that never tells you exactly what's going on - because that's the fun! Making it all up! Crafting your own unique crumbling, melancholy universe and then rooting around in it to see what you can make sense of.

Character mechanics draw a lot from my other game Extracausal, so its a lot of tag/trait based stuff, but there's also DNA from games like Wanderhome in there, with how the Realms ("levels") and Lords of the Tower ("bosses") work. I want the game to give the table a bunch of tools for getting into weird and complicated situations, and then stringing it all together into something uniquely cohesive.

Most of the mechanics are mostly done and written at this point, all that's left is just all the other writing lmao. There's 36 character backgrounds (each with their own set of 3 unique items), 12 Realms, 12 Lords, 18 Magical Spells, 18 Artifacts, 18 Major NPCs, 36 Creatures and Wretches (and more!), all of which have embedded within them little "lore sparks" for the table to play around with. Nothing is "canon", but there's a lot of moving parts - building blocks - for the table to play around with.

You're all gonna be wandering around your unique version of the Infinite Tower (the dark confluence of the multiverse), confronting the Lords of the Tower as you shape the universe to come. Along the way, you'll meet weird and interesting NPCs, horrible and dangerous Wretches, and uncover and create your own deep lore and secrets.

As a reward for everyone reading through all this text, here's a new Artifact

Ossifrage Great Bow; tags - ravenous, violent A great bow shaped from many fragments of bones. It glistens in the light, bleeding like an open wound. Effect: The wielder never runs out of arrows, as the bow fires massive, barbed, missiles grown and harvested from the skeleton of the wielder themself. Burden: The wielder’s sternum must be kept pried open, beating heart exposed. Augments The bow can launch a flurry of smaller arrows that darken the sky The bow can steal the bones of another whom it has injured The projectiles fired from the bow leave a burning stream of blood in their wake

And! A new Spell!

Fragmentation Effect: Unleash your manifold soul, allowing the hungry, grasping hands of Fate within you to reach out and unravel whatever they touch. Requirement: Consume an entire age’s worth of Fragments, becoming infinite, fractal, and glorious. Ember Moves Like tangled strands of a knot, all Fragments are secretly connected. All Fragments must take a Curse. The howl of the dying cosmos echoes louder, consuming the dreams of those within the Realm, replacing them with something else. One of your many soul-pieces sloughs off, becoming a Fragment all its own, one with the Fate of bringing about your final Dissolution. They say that souls are the building blocks of the cosmos, and the gods merely stonemasons. From where then, do souls come from?

It's gonna be done eventually. I might be on the lookout for playtesters once I have the text done. So, keep an eye out for that maybe?

[zarvasace]

Another Point in Favor of Vidow

By this point, many of us in the Four Swords manga fandom are aware of the relationship that is (or maybe isn't) implied between Vio and Shadow. I agree that it is up for some debate, but also my opinion is that the relationship is as clear as it can get, operating within the bounds of its context—that is, early-2000s Japan, kids' manga, the bias against gay couples.

This is just another pin on the conspiracy board of red lines!

The moon is present in three main places during the Vio/Shadow arc—very first (and most damning) when the two meet one-on-one, once in a panel showing the Fire Temple that the two are hanging out in, and once behind the two as they ride on the dragon to cause chaos. (Many thanks to @hauntinghyrule for helping me find those!)

There is a common belief in Japan that the author Natsume Souseki once told a student that their translation was wrong. They'd translated "I love you" as "kimi o aisu," and he thought it was far too blunt. He was a product of the Meiji era, and preferred the idea that the Japanese language should be more poetic and subtle. He then proposed the idea that instead of "ware kimi wo aisu," one should say "tsuki ga kirei desu ne" instead, which translates to English more as "the moon is beautiful, isn't it?" (You can read more about that, and why the guy might not have actually said it, here!)

You can see where I'm going with this.

Whether or not Souseki actually said it, the phrase is widely understood to be a sideways way of saying "I love you." The moon has a lot of meanings in Japanese culture and language, and I won't say that this is the interpretation, or if our lovely authors meant this at all, but they might have. They seem fond of hinting at it. ("We feel blessed that the characters' feelings came across so clearly.")

If we can read into the presence of the moon as presence of romantic possibility, what happens then? Well. A lot.

When Shadow first approaches Vio, he's seen hanging out on top of a pine tree with the moon bright and full behind him.

This isn't the actual manga panel, I don't have that right now, but this art was based on that specific scene, and you may recognize it. There are a few other panels this scene that Vidow shippers like to call out—Vio's apparent blush when Shadow casually moves his sword away (a power move regardless of intent that made me fall in love with him), or the way Shadow hangs on Vio when persuading him to turn to the dark side. If we can read the moon's presence as a hint towards romance, then it's pretty clear what's being implied here—there's an element of seduction.

The second place we see the moon is just after Vio and Shadow's heart-to-heart on the balcony, one of the only canon interactions between them during this period without a lot of plot happening. Here's the panel I mean:

Like hauntinghyrule pointed out, if the moon is visible here, it was likely present during that conversation. That feels like reaching, but I think it's pretty significant that we can see the moon in this panel, too. It's here for that bonding moment. It's part of establishing the tone and setting. If the moon is inherently romantic, then so is this scene.

And then the third panel that the moon is seen in is this one, Vio and Shadow flying on a dragon to bring chaos and fire:

If the moon means romance, then this is a date. They've had their moment, they're in love, all is going well.

It might not mean that much. I could be veering into atla-levels of overanalyzation, for sure! However, this feels like something that could definitely be intentional. "月が綺麗ですね" is understood to sort-of kind-of mean "I love you," turning the moon into a symbol of implied love.

And...it's very thematic, even if it isn't intended. Come on. The moon, hinting toward unspoken romance in some of the scenes where Vio and Shadow's dynamic is at its most stable? Dramatic. Amazing.

...You could read even more into it, and say that Vio is Shadow's moon—reflected light of the Hero or the Princess, guiding him to see the good, a desirable light in the darkness that Shadow insists he has to stay in. There's something lovely about that interpretation, too. :)