#the situation less than it does my feelings…

[soft-pine]

1.14 nightmare // cn discussion of domestic violence and suicide

what an aptly named episode. this is one of the most upsetting episodes of the whole show for me. while it touches on themes that i love - what if the monster was family - the way it handles ms miller is deeply uncomfortable. and max's story is just downright awful.

i do find it interesting that this is the second time this season where dean is arguing that they have to stop someone even if they happen to be human. while sam is vehemently insisting that them being "human" means they have to take another approach.

the first is in faith:

DEAN: Sam the guys playing God, he's deciding who lives and who dies. That's a monster in my book. SAM: No. We're not going to kill a human being Dean. We do that we're no better than he is.

and then again here:

SAM: Dean. He's a person. We can talk to him. 

i've said and i'll say again that dean understands that monstrosity is the result of actions and choices not something intrinsic. i think sam sees monstrosity and humanity as more of an intrinsic dichotomy and that's one reason he struggles so much in season 2. anyway.

but really what i want to talk about is ms miller. and how clear it is that she is also a victim of domestic violence. i understand, deeply, why max is so angry with her and why he sees her as an extension and enabler of his abusers. but i simply cannot fathom a world where max is experiencing the torrential abuse he's suffering where those people are not also harming ms miller deeply.

max accuses her, "You didn't do anything. You didn't stop them, not once!" their old neighbor says, "the worst part was the stepmother. She'd just stand there, checked out, not lifting a finger to protect him." the neighbor's claim always strikes me as a remarkably cruel reading of someone who is clearly also suffering and likely dissociating. like idk man of course i think adults have responsibility in situations like this (and i do appreciate the nod to the cops being useless) but like... "the worst part" THE WORST PART was the stepmother. i kinda feel like the worst part was the abuse, no?

but the upshot of it all is that ms miller's implied abuse seems like it has no witnesses. and that's of interest to me because of some interactions we've already dealt with in season 1.

in 1.03, we get this exchange:

DEAN: ... all that anger, you can't keep it burning over the long haul. It's gonna kill you. You gotta have patience, man. SAM: How do you do it? How does Dad do it?

then this in 1.08:

SAM: Remind you of somebody? Dad? DEAN: Dad never treated us like that. SAM: Well, Dad never treated you like that. You were perfect. He was all over my case. You don't remember?

and at the end of 1.14, sam says:

SAM: Well I'll tell you one thing. We're lucky we had Dad. DEAN: Well I never thought I'd hear you say that. SAM: Well, it coulda gone a whole other way after Mom. I little more tequila and a little less demon hunting and we woulda had Max's childhood. All things considered, we turned out ok. Thanks to him.

listen, i would never argue that john winchester didn't abuse sam. but i think it's interesting that though sam is critical of john's parenting and though he has complaints about how john treated him, he doesn't seem to think john treated dean poorly.

which, we just simply know he did. we know it because john does it in 1.09, 1.12, 1.20, 1.21. and because we're told he did in 1.18, 1.22, 2.01, 4.19, 9.07, 14.11, 14.12, 15.20, i mean i could go on.

and not that i have to filter everything through season 14 episode 12 prophet and loss. but i will. because it very clearly lays out how 1. dean was forced into the role of keeping the peace and 2. john would treat dean badly in ways dean wasn't sure sam was witnessing.

DEAN: I know things got dicey… you know, with dad… the way he was. And I just… I didn’t always look out for you the way that I should’ve. I mean, I had my own stuff, you know. In order to keep the peace, it probably looked like I took his side quite a bit. Sometimes when I was… when I was away, you know it wasn’t ‘cause I just ran out, right? Dad would… he would send me away when I really pissed him off. I think you knew that.

the uncertainty behind, "i think you knew that." ough.

but bad boys goes even farther here:

SAM: Hey, Dean ... I mean, why didn't you just tell me you went to a boys' home? DEAN: I don't know. Uh, it was Dad's idea. And then it just – you know, the story became the story. I was 16.

john told dean to lie to sam about what was happening to him.

so what does this all mean in an episode where dean is somewhat mirrored to and protective of the allegedly bystanding stepmother?

that abuse is shitty, cruel, secretive, and protects itself by pitting its victims against each other.

i don't know i wish i had something a bit clearer to say than all this. but it's just sad.

[lacunasbalustrade]

and yeah, you know by now that it does more harm than good to talk when you’re down like this. you’re aware that your usual saccharine ways of responding and replying is more suited than whatever this is - saying things that can’t change anything.

this isn’t productive. you aren’t doing anything productive. just trying not to drown in the tears that chase your every footstep and invite themselves into your breath. this won’t change anything.

so let me be indulgent, today, and tell the same lies I always tell later to the concerned who read my page. let me indulgent now, and say later that I’m over it and what they give me is enough to heal. it never will be, but it will always light a small portion of my oath and path for me. it will be another small reason tugging at my sleeve and asking me to stay behind.

let me be self-contradictory. let me forgive myself for burying all the pain and willing it to grow. it only became a vine that choked me, but how could I have known? let me forgive me, for taking their words to heart. for wrapping myself up in the consoling idea of self-reliance. let me forgive them, too, for not loving me. let me indulge again in silly posts and stupid jokes.

touch your own bruised cheek. let me forgive me for not having the capacity to be kindly silent right now.

[zarathelonewolf]

Some people need to write in this absence of courage though, and purely because of it, and purely FOR it.

Not to say that I don't get your point: it is a good point and I would like to see more hopeful dark stories, stories similar to what you prefer. I would prefer them too, ideally.

However sometimes people really do not have the courage to "want something better, to know that it was wrong"... Because to THEM (and I say this as someone who is similar to them to an extent, though I fight everyday to be hopeful) it does not seem like an act of courage, it seems like an act of insolence.

Why insolence? Because of a lot of things.

"How dare you (general you, not you, OP) want something better? The result of what was done for you is a negative thing that pushes you to do negative things, how dare you think that you should want something better?"

This is the insolence I speak of. The insolence they think they are culpable of. Sometimes people really do need to show the trauma "bare". They need to write out the negative voice. It's what they know and they feel isolated because people keep telling them it'll get better but they are not there yet, so they want to show their frustration. They may want to reject the idea of not taking up space, alternatively, when they show their trauma: so they show it in a gritty manner and without solution to spite the people that tell them they should just keep it all in unless they have healed, or unless they have the intention of doing so.

It may not be hopeful dark art, that's true. But that's not what dark stories HAVE TO be in order to be "good art", either. They don't want to fix something. They just want to show it. They are "vent art".

And it is needed. By people that don't have the "courage" yet, that maybe won't ever have that courage. They need to see something other than their mind crumble... something other than their body, something other than their voice, something other than their memory while it's crumbling. They need to see a story that crumbles without getting back up. That way they feel less alone, perhaps. They feel that the suffering is real and that it does not need healing to be considered suffering. Especially when others interact with the story and cry alongside them while in a similar situation.

A weird broken sort of solace so to speak.

Is it nice? No, not really. But in certain moments of people's lives it's what they need. In a twisted sense, for some people, all they will ever want to experience. It's not just insolence after all. For certain people, darkness itself is the refuge, because the world outside is too bright and a lot people want to be rid of their dark thoughts and want the victims themselves to be rid of the dark thoughts and find a solution for them, whereas these victims just CAN'T, they can't manage yet and they feel inadequate so they produce something that makes them feel like they matter for something.

Something dark and gritty and hopeless.

Art isn't good due to the fact that it expresses correct values. Art is good because it makes you feel, or merely because you feel drawn to interacting with it. Same goes for dark art. It is good dark art when it makes you feel dark stuff, whether or not it heads towards a good or bad ending.

I say this as someone who is hopeless about herself and himself and hopeful for others. Weird right? But it's how I exist. People's comfort sometimes makes me feel even lonelier. I would prefer silence and reading dark content AND hurt/comfort most of the time.

I come from a place of being pressured into healing. I want to heal on my own now, I don't trust therapists for shit. I will find my hope but not now. And dark content with hopelessness, vent art done purely for the vent and not for the healing helps me immensely because I feel my resistance to healing seen without someone telling me that I can heal because I know I CAN, I just don't want to because people have all sorts of expectations about how my healing should be, but while people can object to my healing not really being healing, they can hardly disagree that the dark stuff I write isn't dark. At least in my experience.

People have differing types of sensitivity, and not all people who are lovers love themselves. Love doesn't have to be total, not all people experience it like that. Sensitivity does not have to make you like dark hopeless stories, but it does not mean you are sensitive only if you prefer hopeful stories OR when you reject completely dark stories. People can be "lovers" and sensitive in all three of cases. So I agree about being frustrated for people saying "you're not sensitive enough" because that's not true, your sensitivity simply differs from theirs.

Vent art can be self care just as much as hopeful art. And dark content does not have to be vent art, it can also just want to make people witness gross stuff because they enjoy gross stuff being depicted for the sake of it (to make an example: people with certain laraphilias that cannot be explored safely in real life).

I am merely playing devil's advocate, with the devil being something I love: my only chance at venting without feeling pressured into a reaction. So I will concede this exposition may seem personal, almost too personal, and angry, but I tend to be passionate about the things I love.

I hope I didn't anger people with my response to this. But then again, I should take up space more often...

too much to say in a post but i re-read (partly skimmed) my manuscript of my book from a year and a half ago and it's so fucking good and also feels like a hemisphere of my brain has been returned to me. like oh yeah. my creative self. the fullness of my being. i missed you

i need to fucking talk about it but it's intimidating

[nemesis-is-my-middle-name]

was thinking abt that thing from a lil while ago where arceus cuts ingo's heart out, to spare him having to be sad about his former life. and then also got to thinking abt that thing i briefly mentioned a WHILE ago which is the idea that the reason ingo has no apparent language barrier w/ hisui is that uxie hotswapped his language from unova's to hisui's rq while he was falling as like a "sorry about your memories" consolation prize. and abt how, despite the very silly way i phrased that, that is actually like a supremely fucked up thing to do to a person and i would also consider it metaphysical violence on some level.

so anyway like. alt version where instead of it being arceus, it gets the whole lake trio in on it. mesprit takes out his heart, uxie takes out his tongue

[dresshistorynerd]

Yes I feel the struggle in my bones. And you're absolutely right, wool wasn't this expensive historically compared to other materials. For a long time in Europe wool was the cheapest option. Wool was less expensive than cotton. Cotton was in fact a very expensive fabric in Europe particularly before industrialization of cotton which happened over the course of a century from very late 1700s to late 1800s. Cotton is a sensitive plant, which doesn't grow well outside specific conditions, and it's production from plant to fabric is notoriously labour intensive (hence all the slavery used for it to this day). So naturally cotton was an expensive fabric especially in Europe, where it can't grow at all, but to lesser extend in South and East Asia too where it grows naturally. Wool was comparatively cheap for very natural reasons. Woolen animals strive in most climates, including in Europe, so wool is easily available. Wool is also comparatively easy to process. Growing woolen animals does require land and resources, so that's what causes most of the cost, but compared to other fabrics making wool fabric is not very labour intensive even without industrial production.

There's several reasons why wool is now comparatively so expensive. You can't automize the most costly part of the wool process, growing the animals. This means that while mechanization has made wool production cheaper, it's never going to be lucrative business as turning oil to fabric or producing cotton with which you can cut the costs of the most costly part (picking cotton) by using slavery. So producers will prefer the materials with which there's room to cut costs and grow profits still a bit more. This also makes wool more profitable, so it's a win-win situation for them. Because there's less wool on the market, it has higher demand compared to the supply, meaning they can ask higher prices. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

It's true that across the board clothes are less expensive. The prices have been dropping for decades. And people also own more clothing that before. But comparatively wool is more expensive than it was before. Even after cotton became very cheap and the standard fabric, it took a while before wool was turned fully into luxury. I have inherited several vintage clothing from my grandmother, mostly from 1960s-70s. One of them is a gorgeous circle skirt made from a very fine and light tightly woven wool, that's almost sheer. You don't see that kind of wool today anywhere, I'm not sure if anything like that is even produced anymore. But it wasn't an expensive dress when it was bought, it was a made by a local Finnish clothing factory, which had affortable prices that most working class people could afford. That was of course different then that what it's now. Now it would probably be fairly expensive, certainly not fast fashion prices, but people could afford that since the clothing would last and they didn't need to buy new clothing to replace the old so often. People also knew how to mend clothing and how to properly take care of them.

I hate how doing any kind of yarn craft basically means you can only produce plastic clothes or it's going to be 300$ in yarn minimum. Every yarn has some acrylic and the natural stuff is so wildly expensive. I would love to use 100% natural fibers but the options are limited

God, yeah. The price of natural-fiber materials is insane.

My average budget for like a full silk gown, trim and notions included, is around $200- and that's ONLY because I live near a discount fabric store that gets bolt-ends from big fashion houses and sells silk for like $10/yard. Wool is insane, for some reason- that place only has coating (heavyweight) and suiting (lighter but feels like plastic even though it's not), so making a dress or anything not outerwear from wool involves shopping online and some painful spending.

I just bought 6 yards of wool to make my Dream Dressing-Gown. It was $210 for JUST the wool- I still have to get lining fabric, possibly an embroidery machine pattern, embroidery thread (because my friend who's generously letting me use her machine only has polyester and rayon). Part of that was shipping from freaking Poland because finding a website that has non-stretch, dark green wool at any weight below "snow gear" in the States is nigh impossible.

(Or that actually discloses the weight in a meaningful way; that's another problem I've encountered. "Brushed wool!" Great, but how heavy is it? "It's wool!" Not helpful. It's like they can't fathom wanting to use wool for anything besides heavy outerwear. Which they probably can't, because that's all we're accustomed to seeing it as nowadays.)

Like I'm tempted to blame militant v*gans for the inaccessibility of silk and wool, but honestly, capitalism was probably just waiting for the excuse to turn all our clothes to crap. I doubt there's been enough outcry about them to push those fabrics out of reach, the way there has been for fur and leather (to clarify: pro-treating animals humanely, anti-plastic clothing, not opposed to the use of aforesaid materials if those animals are properly cared-for and humanely killed).

At least you can still find cotton and some linen things in stores- for now. They're still more expensive, though, and limited in what weaves are often seen. Cotton velvet, for example? Forget it.

It's so disturbing and frustrating.

[notmoreflippingelves]

Hi! I just read your post about Mateo recently. If I may, can you give me any specific instances in the narrative of the show where Mateo isn’t called out as heavily as they should have? I’m just curious?

During the Shuriki returns arc in particular, Mateo makes some pretty glaring mistakes that I feel like he should've gotten much more flack for (and based on what we see elsewhere in canon, I feel pretty confident that if Gabe, Naomi, Isa, or Esteban at least --and possibly even Elena-- had made these mistakes, they wouldn't have been swept under the rug nearly as quickly as they were for Mateo).

While it's unfair to completely blame Mateo for Carla's manipulating him during the "Rita" arc, I feel like it's reasonable to hold him a *bit* accountable. He did after all blab highly confidential information (on more than one occasion) to try and impress a pretty girl with how clever and important he was. (Something tells me that if any of the others had done likewise, they would've been called out for it. But because it's "beloved" Mateo, we don't even get "wait, you told Rita how to get into your workshop? And you've known her for only a few weeks? What were you thinking, Mateo?") Moreover, he never even apologizes for this or promises to do better/be more careful with such important, sensitive information in the future.

Even more aggravating is his behavior in "The Scepter of Night." Mateo is so eager to play the hero and claim all the glory for himself that he twice (!) disobeys a direct order/abandons the plan and goes looking for the scepter piece on his own. This directly leads to Fiero and Victor finding the scepter piece and (temporarily) stealing it. And it's really only due to luck and very conveniently-timed infighting amongst Shuriki's allies that Elena and co. are able to get the scepter piece back. While Mateo does receive some (brief) criticism, it's nowhere near the level that it should be.

Also noteworthy Elena doesn't really get particularly "mad" at him (especially considering how angry we see her get at other characters even for more minor things) . She's not truly, actually angry at Mateo (and Gabe and Naomi are only a bit angrier); she's just a little frustrated and disappointed at him in the moment. And apart from a (very short) little "do better next time" speech, Mateo doesn't face any real consequences or lingering resentment unlike other characters who do.

When Isa obeys direct orders in "Sister of Invention," she has to face consequences (Elena grounding her). Similarly, Elena holds a grudge against Esteban for days (if not weeks) after he interfered with the Feast of Friendship (a much lower stakes mistake than Mateo's imo). Moreover, it's possible to interpret Esteban's staying behind in Avalor when the others go to see the Norberg Lights as a punishment (either self-inflicted or imposed by Elena) for his actions in the previous episode.

In contrast, Mateo just gets a brief "I expected better from you" speech from Elena and Gabe jokingly assigning him push-ups as punishment (which he immediately takes back when Mateo tries to do them). I'll give Mateo a little bit of credit for actually apologizing this time (which he doesn't always do). But it's still frustrating that everyone is so ready to forgive and forget Mateo's missteps immediately while this same courtesy is seldom shown to others.

I think it's worth directly comparing a few Mateo-centric episodes with a few more similar ones that focus on other characters so that we can see how there does seem to be a noted narrative bias in his favor compared to the others.

Let's start with two "feeling kind of insecure" episodes: "Spellbound" for Mateo vs. "Naomi Knows Best" for Naomi. In the former, Mateo expresses doubt that he's capable of rising to the occasion as royal wizard. No one (except Gabe and he gets over it by the end of the episode) blames him for not having reached his full level of confidence and potential right away and not being able to immediately solve the problem. And Elena in particular (and by extension the narrative) gives him so much validation and support. Whereas in "Naomi Knows Best" (and to a lesser extent "Finders Leapers" and the "Carla-as-Rita" arc as well) the narrative "punishes" Naomi for her feelings of self-doubt. We're told that *if only* Naomi had trusted her gut instincts and stood her ground right away, Elena and co would not fallen right into the trap and that Naomi needs to screw her head back on straight and embrace confidence ASAP to fix her mistake.

When Mateo feels insecure, the narrative gives him every reassurance about how capable and special he is, that he can learn at his own pace, and his insecurity isn't really such a problem after all. When Naomi feels insecure, the narrative encourages her to get over her doubts as quickly as possible because unlike with Mateo, there's "no time" for her to wallow in self-doubt and actually the fact that she even had said doubt in the first place is what "caused" the disaster.

On a slightly different note, Naomi is also called out for taking a little free, fun time for herself in "The Last Laugh" when the group needs her, and yet somehow I have a feeling that Mateo would've been allowed to take a day off if he wanted without any protest. He complains about long hours in "Movin' on Up" and Elena gives him the big royal wizard's chambers for him to relax and unwind in. Naomi asks for one (1) day off to spend with her childhood friend for her birthday , and suddenly it's big drama. (And at the time, Naomi asked for said day off, all Elena needed from her was help doing paperwork. The Team Ash stuff came up unexpectedly.)

Similarly whenever Gabe and Mateo get their little rivalry on ("Spellbound," "Party of a Lifetime," "Captain Mateo" and a few other examples) , the narrative either presents them as equally at fault or Mateo as the only one in the right.

When Gabe brings in Bronzino to train the Royal Guards in magic, it's specifically because Mateo failed to explain how and why he was training the guards in the way he was. If he'd just explained how they were going apply the seemingly basic exercise they were doing to real magic, Gabe likely would've allowed Mateo to continue the training at his own pace.

(Also like. it's super hypocritical imo for Mateo to get annoyed at Gabe feeling impatient/impulsive about their apparent-lack-of progress when Mateo himself is easily the second most impulsive character in the show after Elena.) Mateo feels entitled to keep important information to himself (or blab it to a cute girl he barely knows) even when its no one else's best interest. He's only okay with being "cautious and patient" when he specifically is the one setting the pace. And yet, Gabe is the only one who is called out for his behavior in this episode--even though he might not have acted as he did if only Mateo had trusted him and the guards with an explanation in the first place.

And then there's just a few other "dude not cool" little moments that never really get acknowledged/Mateo never apologizes for. For instance, there a two low-key terrifying Mateo moments in "Captain Mateo" that are not only not acknowledged but are also framed in context as Mateo being just "so funny and quirky". Near the end of "Should be in Charge," Mateo magically gags Gabe so he can't protest anymore about Mateo taking over as leader of the mission. And this is after having already enchanted one of the stationary suits of armor to come to life and fight Gabe. (Gabe admittedly does lightly shove Mateo out of the way during his parts of the song, but that's still a far cry from literally drawing a sword on Mateo as Mateo does via magic to Gabe.)

It's played for laughs (The Grand Council is just smiling happily in the background throughout the scene which is so yikes), so it's easy to overlook what's actually happening. Frankly, it's pretty horrifying that Mateo's natural instinct upon his experience/authority being questioned is to literally attack and then silence. (And attack and silence someone who is supposed to be one of his best friends and closest allies at that!)

Rather than the narrative acknowledging that maybe it's a bad idea to immediately grant power to someone to someone who is so retaliatory against fairly minor criticism, the Grand Council just gives Mateo exactly what he wants and doesn't even offer a "maybe next time, let's not gag or attack our friends, okay?" alongside it. I mean sure Mateo does step down as captain at the end of the episode, but it's very specifically presented as his and Gabe's voluntary choice and not an order from Elena/the Council.

[varpusvaras]

I'm back on my Bail/Breha/Fox bs (I haven't left even for a second but anyway) and I was thinking of that one post where someone said that just imagine the political implications these three together would cause, and I think there would be one moment where everything would start to go different with them in the timeline, and it's the wrong Jedi arc.

Padmé is close friends with Bail. She is close friends with Breha. They belong very closely to the same political movement and couldn't make things work without each other. I'm not saying Padmé's political career is wholly dependent on her relationship with Bail, but them working togerher is one of the main things that keeps them afloat against the war. Now, Bail would be professional enough to work with her even if they have personal differences (which they do already), and he knows better than putting one person above everything else, but I do think he wouldn't take Anakin threatening Fox lightly. I don't think he would make up a huge fuss, but he would, most likely, make his disagreement about his behavior known to Padmé. Now, Padmé knows about the whole Tusken massacre, so she knows how Anakin can get when something gets in his way. She knows, even though she wants to pretend that Anakin is a good person, that her husband is perfectly capable of treating people he doesn't like badly and even worse. She can try and tell herself that no, Anakin wouldn't do anything, but she knows. This is about Ahsoka, after all, whom Anakin has said is like a little sister to him. His personal feelings are on the line.

Padmé can either be delusional about it, tell herself that nothing will happen, and hey! Maybe nothing will happen! But she cannot be entirely sure. Because what if. What if something does happen. What if something happens to Ahsoka, and Anakin reacts badly? What then?

She would have to decide then. Does she stay with Anakin, to the end, and thus claiming that his personal feelings are more important to her than what's good for everyone, and thus ending his friendship with Bail and Breha, which would more than destroy her whole career and put everything she stands for in danger? Or does she say no, and stand with her ideals, no matter what Anakin feels is correct or justified? Because this time it's not a group of people who have no impact on her life and who she can forget about. This time she would have to decide her course of action even before anything happens.

Maybe trying to decide would make her think harder about their relationship in general. Maybe, just maybe, something that he does having consequences to her would make her do something about it before it's too late.

[princeloww]

-Campbell and his mother used to be super close, especially when he was young and before his illness became obvious. Whenever he started struggling and becoming harder to manage, I think a rift was created in their relationship -- particularly because I think his mother blames herself for Campbell's issues. Campbell's dad says that she's worried sick. She's literally made herself unwell with worry for Campbell - yet we never once see her visit. Maybe she can't bear to, because despite loving him so much, she feels responsible for his illness; a guilt that accidentally pulls Campbell even further away from her, because it comes across as being ashamed of him. She pulls away and becomes a shell of herself because she's so worried and worries that she did something wrong to cause his illness - which leads to Campbell also pulling away, for obvious reasons.

-For some reason when I'm writing her I always imagine her a bit like Francine? I always write her with dark curly hair and I have no idea why. Since she's literally made herself ill with worry, I imagine she's a bit frail and not herself half of the time. She's eaten up with guilt over what she perceives as a parental failing, to the degree where she's sick and barely herself. In one of my fics, I wrote in a specific detail that she would often pretend to watch the TV, while just zoning out in that general direction, because she's so lost in thought. Campbell basically calls her a loony as well, for the aforementioned sick with worry thing - so maybe she does display some traits of mental illness?? Because he would know what he's talking about, really

-Especially in the play, Campbell has very clear issues with his father. He literally shouts at him to fuck off (or is it fuck you? not sure) in the play. There is definitely major tension there, and I get the vibe that while his dad might be well-meaning, he completely misunderstands Campbell's disorder and doesn't make any effort to understand it. I think this leads to further stress and conflict between them, and therefore more stress for Campbell's mother. It's a sticky situation, when someone's parents make no effort to understand or accommodate for their needs. Campbell's dad wants him to get a proper job and squash his dreams just like he did. Campbell is all about dreams. That shit is not going to end well.

-Campbell's dad is also just really mean for no reason in the play its so sad. I hate that guy. I imagine he has a bad temper, especially when it comes to Campbell's behaviour (possibly in the lead up to his hospitalisation) - so his temper and stubbornness combined with Campbell's mother's guilt would create tension between them as well, possibly causing disagreements WHICH, terrible cycle, would probably only fuel Campbell more. Leading to an entire dysfunctional, stressful situation that 1) can lead to a person being hospitalised and 2) can create even more misunderstanding and a lack of empathy.

-I think that really, Campbell's mother feels very deeply about him and has his best interest at heart, but due to the times and where they are (Glasgow in 1994) lacks the proper guidance on how to deal with that sort of situation.

-Also for angsty fanfiction reasons, on a less foundational note, I definitely think his parents fought a lot and really struggled to properly manage his disorder when he was still living at home. Something had to have gone on for him to actually be sent to the hospital. I know in the play it's the whole BBC Scotland thing, but - again, primarily for angsty fanfiction reasons - I think it's gotta be more than that.

-So, for summary, I think that Campbell and his mother used to be very close - but they've drifted apart because she feels responsible for his illness and thinks she did something wrong while raising him. This obviously alienates Campbell, creating a rift in their relationship - combined with the fact that she never visits, he easily gets the impression that she is embarrassed of him.

-And angst and issues follow idk im too tired to conclude this idk where im going. also this is all headcanons and mostly not based on actual facts. i am jumping all over the place to every possible conclusion

i have so many headcanons about campbell bains mother and you WILL be hearing about it

[bylertruther]

some of you never grew up in a small conservative town as a (gay) nerd that was bullied, harassed, and excluded for years on end for not fitting in and for visibly and enthusiastically liking geek things—geek things that then branded you a satanist in everyone's eyes and as something Other, Lesser, and Undoubtedly Unworthy of Basic Human Decency even though you were literally just an actual child with harmless interests and not a satanist or an evil disgusting subhuman thing, and it shows.

you cannot apply modern views and beliefs to a show that is set in the eighties, especially not when it's set in conservative midwest eighties which is a whole other beast. being a socially awkward and nonconforming geek is something that people STILL get bullied for if you don't do it in a way that the majority deems "acceptable", especially if you live in a conservative, religious area.

your experiences are not universal and your inability to relate to a certain motif or story does not make it "lesser" or "bad writing."

[mejomonster]

I hate panic attacks

[insanechayne]

~ ~ ~

[vampyroteuthid]

subaru count while waiting for the bus while my phone is almost dead: 23 or possibly 24 i didn't get a good look at some and also i have the memory of a goldfish. no offense to goldfish

[rearranging-deck-chairs]

hes cute when he thinks hes about to be murdered

[jaggededges123]

me staring at the lyctor silas ficlet i wrote while i was still in the middle of htn, which i have had fully drafted on ao3 for over two weeks: yknow i think i'm gonna post something else today

[winepresswrath]

i'm obsessed with the mean princess now. she's awful but the direct contrast between IU's sincerity and innocence and her calculated attempts at manipulation have enthralled me.

[longagoitwastuesday]

I keep thinking of that reply in my Odysseus/Agamemnon post about how I regard differently Odysseus' and Agamemnon's actions, while acknowledging that at times Agamemnon is written as a sweet man and Odysseus is always straight up shitty, and how it was taken as some sort of defense for Agamemnon and as a form of pointing out the double standard; and that wasn't at all what the post was about for me, even though I can see where they were coming from. To be honest, given I didn't imagine it would spread anywhere other than my own blog, I didn't explain myself very well (or at all).

The fact is that when I talked about Odysseus not caring about hurting someone else's child to start and end a war I was indeed comparing his actions to Agamemnon's, but my words about supporting Odysseus' wrongs and cheering him in his terrible actions, while in a joking tone, weren't entirely a joke. I do think that Odysseus does some very shitty acts, and some quite terrible ones depending on the sources. That's a fact, that he does is at the core of his characterisation and it's what makes him so much fun; but not even when he is at his most cruel does he harm his family, his own son. Agamemnon, while sweet and loving at times in some texts, at his worst is willing to sacrifice Iphigenia. When readers regard with more sympathy Odysseus over Agamemnon despite both being responsible for children dying, I don't think there's a double standard in this aspect at all considering it's never his own kid Odysseus harms. And that's the key, I think.

Odysseus and Agamemnon have very different priorities, a very different view on loyalty and duty. It could be said that Agamemnon acts out of selfishness, but it could also be read in a kinder light, saying that Agamemnon is ruled by the gods first, and by his role as head of the achaeans; Agamemnon is not entirely himself. In opposition we see Odysseus acting perhaps mainly for himself and his own family and men; yes, he is a king, but he has not the role Agamemnon has. As a consequence, Agamemnon submits his family's wellbeing to the war, to the gods, while Odysseus stops the plow before hurting Telemachus but is (depending on the source) the cause of Iphigenia's sacrifice and Astyanax's death.

Both Odysseus and Agamemnon have reasons to support their actions, and both can be sympathised with; it's fiction after all. When it comes to fiction, at the end of the day which character a reader is drawn to or sympathises with is mainly an issue of personal taste, but I suppose it also implies a certain level of one's own views or preferences on morals, what makes us find certain actions more justifiable, or tasteful (perhaps that's a more accurate word), than others. Agamemnon sacrificing his daughter, no matter how sympathetic or understandable the reason, generally sits worse on people than Odysseus doing the same with someone else's kids, because they're someone else's. This different emotional reaction they provoke has place not just metanarratively, but also inside the very story; it is narratively significant, given it determines how their arrival home plays out, how their wives react to them, and thus their futures. Ultimately it determines whether they live or die.

I think both terrible acts go in line wonderfully with each characterisation, showcasing the role they hold in their world, what they value, what they care for, what they're willing to sacrifice for themselves and the others, how much of their own they're willing to give and bend. While looking at the wider picture it could perhaps be drawn that Agamemnon is the better person out of the two, but Odysseus' selfish actions are perhaps easier to empathise with, especially from a modern viewpoint. Odysseus is treacherous and prone to betrayal, but not against his own; Agamemnon follows the rules of the gods. How fitting in that context that Odysseus doesn't die at the end of his story, that he cheats the death heroes so often are fated to, almost as if cheating the narrative itself, bending the rules of the world he is ascribed to; how fitting in the context of those texts that point towards Sisyphus being his father. But that's another topic, and I've already talked a lot.