#there are so many actually good arguments against this theory. which i have also made. but uh. guys. idk something to consider

[the-way-astray]

more evidence against the elwin is sophie's bio dad theory: sophie's hair is straight, and oralie's is canonically curly (ringlets). now, maybe it isn't natural, but the point is that sophie clearly didn't inherit her hair texture from oralie. so her biological father probably has her same straight hair. elwin's hair is also canonically curly. so if it was him, where did she get her straight hair from

[demodraws0606]

Okay so I have made a really bad post trying to descredit Eden taking the tape as something super important so I'm just gonna drop the actual post I was preparing instead of trying to catch Eden!Culprit theories with a half baked post.

The main issue I'm having with Eden!Culprit theories right now is mostly because of stubborness that since Eden took the tape then she HAS to have done it even though if she was the culprit it would make 0 sense as to why she wouldn't just take the tape after Teruko and Ace left the room ? Like someone could've easily told her to take the tape, it's not that hard and it just makes more sense with the other evidence layed out for us.

The main reason I accepted Eden as the culprit before is because there were no possible culprits since Levi was pretty much confirmed innocent and there was still a likelyhood of Eden working for someone. However, this pretty much now rendered null and void. I swear all of this makes it sound like I have some grudge against this theory but I really need to put this subject to rest before the answer is probably revealed to us on friday. I want to make sure this theory is dead in the ground even if it's just for me personally, because it just has too many holes for me.

Also sorry if this seems mainly just a repeat of stuff I've already said, I'm not really good at structuring my posts :')

I've seen the argument that Arei actually wasn't knocked out with the turpentine because why would they bind her wrist then. However, we know she had to have been knocked because there is no struggle shown, either on her body or the floor of the playground. Weither she was suffocated or knocked out, the tape was still used on her wrist so this can't be something to be used against the idea of turpentine knocking her out. This means there is high likelyhood that it was used because it would make no sense for the culprit to just suffocate Arei before killing her (and again suffocating would show more signs of struggle than what we see on the crime scene).

There's also no other items that Arei could've been suffocated with other than the rope which would've left marks, the ball of starch clearly is stuck together most likely by turpentine which means it would've been used to knock out someone.

This would mean the culprit had to have used the turpentine to knock out Arei as well, meaning the culprit had to have gotten their hands on the turpentine.

I also refuse the idea of Eden trying to kill Ace, not only because I just find it ridiculous from a character standpoint but mainly because we know it was Hu's murder weapon that was used against Ace (the wire) considering there is no evidence of any other wire existing in this killing game that would be sharp enough to slice someone's throat. Hu's wire is part of the weapons which is evidence alone that it would be sharp enough to harm Ace bc otherwise what purpose does a wire serve. I don't believe for a second that Hu would just have her weapon lying around for anyone to yoink, unlike the turpentine which we know had to have been used by Nico and Rose when they were painting together.

In fact the story has made it clear how complicated taking someone weapon's is by having Arei's weapon only being available after she discarded it. The same can be said of the turpentine which was used out in the open and would make it easy to take with Rose's absent mindedness. If taking someone's weapon was just as easy as that, they wouldn't have given us the scene of Arei throwing out her rope like that in the first place.

Eden also has no reason to want to replicate Ace's murder onto Arei, there's basically no logical motivation behind that. In fact the progression between Ace's attempted and Arei's succesful murder proves alone that it's the same culprit (if the turpentine's existence wasn't enough). We can see the progression of the culprit trying to avoid the same mistakes they committed with Ace's failed murder (trying to snap Arei's neck to avoid the possibility of her getting saved last minute like Ace, bounding her hands potentially to make her more stable to lift upwards).

We don't even know if she figured out how the murder even worked considering it was completely undone when Teruko and Eden saw it.

Even the timing of when Eden knew about the clothing is off. We know the ball of clothing is probably sticky due to the turpentine because there is no other leads to explain why this ball of clothing is even a thing in this murder case. Turpentine is both clear and sticky, which would explain how the ball of clothing is both clear of stains and sticking together like that. Considering also that we know for a fact Ace was knocked out, and I don't think the culprit straight just shoved a jar of turpentine on his face, they most likely used some sort of tissue to smother them with (meaning it couldn't have been used to asphexiate Arei). This means the ball of clothes was used in Ace's attempted murder.

Eden only knew about the clothing change from Hu, we can only assume the same day that Ace's was murdered and probably not long before the attempt. This both clears Eden going to the changing room as the ""ball of starch"" was most likely already created before that, the only arguemnt it could be used for is that she was trying to retrieve it but it barely makes sense.

In terms of the timing of when Eden knew about the clothes and Ace's murder, if Hu only told her the same night that Ace was almost murdered it makes the timing insanely more difficult to justify. Unlike Hu who would have the pieces ready way more in advance.

All of these contradictions cannot be debunked by saying "well Eden took the tape", as it could easily be explained by the culprit asking her to take the tape from the gym or her just taking it without purpose and then the culprit getting their hands on it later.

The Eden!Culprit theory is barely hanging onto one piece of shakey evidence that can easily be broken by one justification.

If Nico can't be the culprit despite having the turpentine (well I don't think they do but 99 pourcent of Eden!culprit theories rely on Eden not really committing the attempted murder of Ace) then Eden doesn't have to be the culprit taking the tape.

The only way you can argue Eden is the culprit is if she tried to kill Ace, however this is impossible because of Hu's weapon. This is basically the summary of my main issue with the whole Eden!Culprit theory.

[jonsnowunemploymentera]

A previous post of mine re Jon's resurrection has been doing the rounds lately so I think I need to clarify a few things (because some people seemed to misunderstand what I was saying - thought tbh I'm a bit surprised).

I was not - and have never - made the argument that Jon is going to walk away from his assassination (whether he actually dies or is just severely wounded) - with no ramifications. Obviously there are going to be many mental and physical changes. For one, he's basically become a human pin-cushion. And given that his heart will probably stop, we might see other things like his fingers and toes turning black. There's also a popular theory that he might lose an eye (to complete the Odin symbolism/parallel). Then we remember that he has been betrayed by his subordinates which is obviously going to cause severe trauma. Anger, hurt, and maybe even resignation will be emotions that he has to grapple with. And let us remember that Jon spent five books (but most of all ADWD) ignoring the magic within and around him. So that's even more trauma because he now has to come to terms with the magical changes within him. It's a lot to deal with. His chapters are going to be depressing af. I think most of us, and most of us Jon fans, can agree on this.

But here's the problem: recent fandom discussion re Jon's death has been very narrow and one sided. To certain communities, he has to turn evil or villainous. This view is actually what led me to making that post. Because there has been an uptick in bad faith arguments brought on by people saying "well my fave is held to an impossible standard so I have to make straw man arguments for why we should willfully misinterpret Jon's arc/situation to make him be the bad guy for a change". And this is so incredibly annoying because it achieves nothing except bring in even more bad takes re Jon. I didn't want to point any fingers and I won't do that here because I don't really believe whataboutisms will do us any good. Really, I'm more interested in dispelling the idea that Jon has to turn into some one dimensional, unthinking, evil zombie because that suits a few fans' narratives; and given that I'm a Jon Snow fangirl, I have to defend my boy here.

This is what led me to specifically calling out the idea that Jon will be Stoneheart 2.0 or like Varamyr. The Varamyr comparison was especially jarring because the argument I was going against implied that Jon would be like Varamyr morally. I don't think I need to go too much into why that's a bizarre argument that has absolutely no basis in the text. Before his death, Varamyr had be a local homicidal tyrant who had spend much of his life terrorizing the wildlings beyond the wall. He did not die, warg into an animal, and then go crazy. He was already severely messed up to begin with. So no, it makes no sense to compare him to Jon because they're on two opposite ends of the spectrum morally. Jon is not and will not turn in to a raping, murdering, maniac with no regard for humanity around him. In fact, the one thing that drives Jon's arc is having to make moral choices to do the most good for everyone. GRRM is not going to suddenly change that and turn him evil.

But we can use that ADWD prologue chapter to infer what could happen to Jon in other ways. Varamyr's chapter tells us that a warg who spends too much time in their bonded animal begins to lose himself/herself over time. And most people accept that Jon will become more "wolfish" by spending an extended period of time warging into Ghost. But here's the thing, we do not know how long Jon will be out of commission. And we do not know the rate at which one begins to merge with their familiar. So it also doesn't make sense to say that Jon will completely lose himself to Ghost because there's still so much that's up in the air.

Another thing that often gets overlooked is that there is a spectrum in regards to how resurrected beings function. There are those whose psyches are near permanently damaged and there are those who are relatively high functioning.

Ice wights - the most severe case of mental degradation that we've seen so far. They can hold a grudge (i.e. the wights that attacked LC Mormont) but we haven't seen them communicate or function in any way that's similar to regular humans.

Patchface - on the severe end of the spectrum. We don't really know too many details about what happened to him but the prevailing theory right now is that he is a "wight" brought back through the machinations of the drowned god. Patchface can't communicate normally so he has to do it in cryptic rhymes (which are most certainly prophecies). And let's remember that he had also been dead, with no place for his soul to go, for a few days before being brought back iirc.

Catelyn/Lady Stoneheart - closer to the severe end of the spectrum but I wouldn't say she's the most extreme case. She's singularly focused on getting revenge on the Boltons and Lannisters who were responsible for her family's downfall - more recently, her son's murder. Her body is severely degraded as well. But I wouldn't say she's on the same level as Patches just because the only reason she cannot communicate is because her throat was cut through. Still she can form thought, lead a group (the BWB), and if fan theories are correct about a RW 2.0 coming, she's even capable of carrying out semi-large scale conspiracy. But as I outlined in my previous post, Catelyn isn't doing the revenge thing because dying and being resurrected automatically turns someone into a "crazy monster". Catelyn, quite literally, watched the last of her line die right in front of her. And, she had also been severely depressed by her husband's death and the news of Bran's and Rickon's deaths prior to the RW. So as she was in her last moments, she was clawing her face with her own nails, screaming in anguish. Which led to her murdering Jinglebell!

Beric - pretty high functioning. Can lead a group of people, can fight, can communicate well enough with those around him. However, he cannot eat, sleep, his blood has turned back, etc. He also loses his memories. BUT let's remember that he was brought back several times which means that there were more adverse effects with each resurrection; and he became so tired of it that he gave his breath of life to Catelyn the minute he got the chance to. And Beric was not some unthinking zombie wrecking havoc across the Riverlands, killing everyone he could get his hands on. He did not lose his morality, nor did he lose his sense of purpose (well, he is singularly focused on carrying out the task delegated to him by Ned Stark). There's obviously a sense of loss (again losing human anatomical functions and also the memory loses) but he hasn't become some one dimensional character.

Coldhands - we don't really know exactly what brought him back (most likely COF magic) but he's relatively high functioning. Sure, he is like Beric in that he doesn't eat or sleep but he can think, he can plan, he can function mentally with little to no constraints. He's not going around murdering people willy nilly and being a menace to society. He is focused on doing something beyond the wall but we don't know too much about him. But we have hints that he is a skinchanger(!) and that could've helped him maintain his faculties.

Melisandre - no on page confirmation yet but the popular theory is that she is some form of fire wight (she doesn't need to eat, sleep, etc, like Beric and Coldhands). However, Mel functions as well as anyone else. And no, she's not burning people because she died - meaning that all people who die and are resurrected get really into human sacrifice. Mel's religion (and even background since she's from Asshai) is already heavily marked by these practices; just like Varamyr was already a morally degraded man before the ADWD prologue chapter. Mel is also decidedly NOT one-dimensionally evil, and GRRM has said before that she's his most misunderstood character.

As evidenced above, there's quite a few differences with the people brought back. There's no one-size-fits-all shoe for everyone. So no, Jon won't become Beric 2.0 or Stoneheart 2.0 or Coldhands 2.0 because that's just not how it works. He'll be his own being, something new.

But here's the thing, Jon is already different from all of these people in life. As @swordsandarms has had to point out multiple times (to a point where I'd imagine it's become quite the chore for them), Jon is a completely new entity by virtue of him being a magical being - something that neither Catelyn Stark nor Beric Dondarrion were. So even if we accept that they establish a lot of the changes that wights face, we should also make sure to point out that there is a massive difference between them and Jon. Saying that the effects on Jon are going be less severe due to him spending some time in Ghost is not at all saying that he'll get away scot-free. Pointing out that Ghost is not some savage animal but a direwolf who displays human-like characteristics and intelligence (that is quite ahead of his siblings) isn't saying that Jon will face no changes. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone in fandom who argues that Jon will just get up and resume life as usual.

And lastly, something else I want to call attention to is that we should be looking to already established precedent among other wargs and skinchangers. Because here's the thing, Jon's death and rebirth is going to be a massive event in the magical realm; I mean so many practitioners of different magic systems have seen it in some way or the other. From a Doylist perspective, Jon's death serves as a vehicle to bring him closet to magic. By the time he gets back he'll be a more practiced and powerful warg, he'll possibly be on the receiving end of more powerful and frequent prophetic visions, he could also gain the ability to wield fire magic (e.g., making his own Lightbringer a la Beric and as foreshadowed by his ADWD dream), and he's certainly going to become a fully fledged skinchanger. We know this last part to be true because of precedent set by Bran and Arya - Bran who had a near death experience and Arya who lost her eyesight - and I'd argue that we can throw Jojen Reed into the mix as well. So when we talk about the changes death will bring, we should also talk about these characters who obviously serve as foreshadowing as well.

(@daenystheedreamer gonna tag you for visibility since you tagged me in a previous post. Really sorry I didn't manage to reply in time but I think you deleted the post. Hope it's ok tho but long story short, you didn't misinterpret that post at all and what you said was exactly my point. But yeah, just letting you know that we're in agreement lol).

[acourtofthought]

It genuinely made me laugh out loud! “Shadows disappearing is confirmed good by HOFAS!” I was confused at first thinking when tf did that happen.. and then had a chuckle when I realized they were talking about Ruhn.

I typically stay out of the subreddit, and have their tags blocked on here, but I was curious to see what theories or hints they gathered from HOFAS. Seems like the bulk of it is:

- ruhnlidia “parallel” confirms mate language for e/riel from the bonus (or something like that, I’ve forgotten which precise passage they warped).

- stone mother song is about elain (vast stretch, seems punitive to focus on the song and not everything else that happened in that scene). And is so fucking interesting because that’s a bonus chapter and they’re still claiming BC aren’t canon/down voting when you point out they are. Can’t seem to make up their minds !

- today show article & interview about fans expecting the story to be Az & Elain, and SJM saying there’s a lot to explore in a rejected bond. The first is whatever imo, and the second they seem convinced is about them but I’m more convinced it’ll be Eris & Mor. Admittedly, Helion & LoA is another possibility more likely than e/riel, but their story breaks my heart already and I desperately want them to have HEA

Are there any other arguments you’ve seen/heard of? I’m curious what you think of these three as well!

🧼💖

The Stone Mother argument being about E/riel is just bonkers to me. First off, we have no idea if the song itself is actually based off Native American legend or whether SJM just liked the name. But to take a Paiute legend and claim it about a white women's love story is very cringe to me. I agree with you, I think the rejected bond is going to be Eris and Mor and the effects of an unaccepted bond will be Helion and the LoA. I could see them eventually getting together but for the last however many centuries, they do seem to be an example of a "rejected" bond. And you're right, they have selected very specific lines from the interviews and articles while ignoring the rest. First SJM said she only asks herself those same questions when writing. Is there choice? Is it destiny? What if it's wrong? But she's already written that into the series, where the characters wonder how it happens, is there choice, etc. And every time, the characters have said that it doesn't matter because at the end of the day they still chose one another. Bryce confirms that it didn't matter where her bond with Hunt came from or who it was determined by because it's what she wanted. Nesta struggled with the mating bond because it meant giving up her humanity but in the end she decided she wanted Cassian as her mate. They take that to mean SJM is proving to the reader that she's definitely going to write a rejected bond for two main characters when all she's saying is she makes sure to have the characters ask themselves the important questions so in the end they know without a doubt it's what they wanted and not just something decided by fate. But they ignore SJM saying that characters end up with who they need to be with for the most growth. How her MMC cheer on the FMC and encourage her. These things clearly go against the E/riel narrative but they conveniently leave those quotes out of their arguments. The one big argument I heard going around during the release was how the Cauldron was corrupted therefore Elucien's bond is. So basically.....an event that happened 15,000 years ago and in all that time the ONLY corrupted bond to come out of it was Elucien's? That's quite convenient, don't you think? There is also zero proof that the Cauldron or the Daglan were responsible for mating bonds. So yeah, I imagine all these theories will end up in the graveyard of E/riel theories along with Bread and Roses meaning that E/riel are living together and pregnant in CC3.

[soratsuart]

QSMP Day 47 Lore Summary

Wooo been a while since I've done one of these!! Before I start, fair warning! This time I haven't been able to watch any streams so some of the information might not be in order, but I actually got a fair idea of what happened yesterday, so it should be good enough.

We start the day with the theorist club which at this point is made up of half the island, and we get some interesting developments. Particularly, Cellbit has come up with a plan to get more information; breaking a rule to attract Cucurucho's attention so they can question them about the island and the Federation. Spoiler alert: this will go horribly wrong.

Cucurucho did indeed appear before Cellbit when he was making an illegal iron farm, however they were not very happy with this and they ended up teleporting Cellbit to a strange hallway and started hunting him down with a chainsaw until killing him. After this, however, Cucurucho did take Cellbit to some kind of lab and allowed him to make them a few questions, the most relevant one being whether the island is real or not since Cellbit theorises it to be a simulation. Cucurucho said the island is real. Cellbit also noticed the lamp in the lab was blinking in Morse code, which I'm pretty sure has already been decodified by Twitter's theorists.

Speaking of theories by the way, the Tazercraft duo suspect there might be a mole among them all, a theory Bad shares as well. He, along with Foolish, also discuss Quackity's state of mind, with Foolish believing that Quackity might still be in denial over Tilín's death.

Ironically enough, while they had this conversation, Quackity went to Tilín's grave to finally move on. He has broken Tilín's bed and now has their bow around his arm. He would later tell Maxo about this when he interrogated him, admitting that he doesn't like the way he has become vengeful and resentful after losing Tilín. Quackity also asks him to cease the case Maxo had against him over his plan to kill all the eggs since he doesn't want to carry out that plan anymore. Everyone else was spying on this conversation too, and after it Quackity and Bad had an argument about the vandalism to Tallulah's house, with Quackity admitting he did that to get Wilbur's attention (he still believes Tallulah to be his daughter btw).

Cellbit also interrogated Quackity about the Federation and Cucurucho, with Quackity telling him some information he wasn't aware of (how they met Cucurucho the first day and the weird questions they asked everyone), as well as told him that he was invited to the island like everyone else.

After that, everyone, including Quackity, tried to summon the binary code entity to get more information. However, they only got a thunder in response to their attempts. After this, everyone started theorising some more and Bad ended up asking Cellbit wether Cucurucho was rainbowed when they hunted down Cellbit to which he answered no. This makes Bad theorize there might be more than one Cucurucho since he had rainbowed them the previous day. We know this to be correct since we've already witnessed as many as three Cucuruchos at once in Roier's house a long while ago.

For now this is all regarding the theorist club as they all are trying to find out what is going on with the island and the Federation. As a side note I can tell you at the end of Quackity's stream he put a code which translates to 'X'. Do with that what you will.

As for any other relevant stuff? Foolish and Bad had a bit of an argument in chat while talking to Roier with whom they have scheduled a therapy session for today, which promises to be hilarious.

And I believe that's all! Hope this helped a bit with everything going on. Share this post so more people can catch up with the lore, please! :)

[bookishphysicsgirl]

Hello, I have a genuine question, especially for trans people since you are the most affected, regarding Harry Potter fan fiction.

I'll try to tag this appropriately so that anyone who doesn't wish to see any content regarding to this doesn't, but if it accidentally slipped through I'm sorry, just tell me what else to tag it as so it will be better blocked and I will.

Obviously Joanne is a delusional b**** and I will never be touching anything she writes or sells ever again, since it would be giving her funds to actively harm trans lives.

The only question I have is regarding fanfiction because I've been seeing many arguments about this and still can't quite make my mind up about what side is right, but the thing is none of the people I saw making statements about this were trans, so I would very much appreciate your opinion since I believe that your thoughts are the most valid in this situation.

The first argument is that HP fanfiction while not directly supporting J.K. and oftentimes going directly against her beliefs is still giving visibility to her work and ultimately attracting people to the world of HP that normally wouldn't have exactly because of the effort put in to fix the mistakes of the original text.

I think the way they put it was that she is "profiting off the free labor of the folk she despises".

I actually see how this can be true and it makes a lot of sense to me since, for example, when All The Young Dudes blew up on tik tok a lot of people who might otherwise not have done so started buying HP merch and getting it farther up in the trends, even though ATYD by itself is a very queer-positive work.

The second argument is that fanfiction is not directly supporting her and it is incredibly healing and supporting for many people struggling. Not only that it can be a platform to expose her wrongdoings and stop the fandom from becoming a home ground for hate groups.

The argument went somewhere along the lines of if a child receives the HP books from a relative unaware of all the issues and likes it and then goes looking for more content, if the fan content made by the queer community isn't there to receive them all they will be met with is people who reaffirm Joanne's toxic opinions and it could be extremely harmful to those children, especially if they are queer themselves and aren't aware yet.

I myself have gone to HP fanfiction when I was questioning my sexuality and when I was depressed and it helped me immensely to understand what was happening to me and that it was ok and normal.

Trans protagonists in HP fanfiction also helped me understand gender theory better and what might be going on in trans lives and how to be more respectful (disclaimer: I am a cis woman so I cannot speak for trans people, I am merely stating that it helped me understand).

Both of these arguments make a lot of sense to me, and I can't see which one would be more correct. On the one hand I think that stopping everyone from even interacting with fandom might be a bit extreme, on the other I can't help but worry whether that is just me creating an excuse to keep enjoying things I like.

I don't feel like I enjoy HP fanfiction for nostalgia, especially since I openly recognize that both the books and the movies were actually a bit boring and not that well written and haven't been able to re-read them since I was 12. I think it has a lot more to do with the healing factor of being able to disassociate to another world and see stories that reflect mine and see people feeling the same things I do. But I am more than willing to stop if it is in fact causing more harm than good, especially since the last thing I want is for Joanne to receive clout she does not deserve.

Either way, I just wanted to know your opinions in all of this, since as I mentioned before I've only ever seen cis people arguing about it (mostly on tik tok).

Thank you so much for reading all of this and thank you if you reply.

(note: I will not be tagging this with trans tags because I know that a lot of people can feel unsafe when met with content regarding Harry Potter)

[wibble-wobbegong]

The end of the year is near! Give a shoutout to your favorite blogs and tag them to spread positivity before the year ends! (from: a secret anon)

FUCK YEAH!!!!

okay my favorite theory/analysis blogs

@aemiron-main - actually i hate him. im lying. all he does is cause me unimaginable pain and suffering. no but genuinely a genius theorist and has eyes like a hawk!! he does a fantastic job at thoroughly combing the show and finding the littlest details that don’t make sense in order to build a bigger picture and i eat it up every time! love him even though i think he’s goading me to kill myself whenever he reblogs one of my posts and the tags start with “wibble what if i told you”

@bugsbenefit - my absolute favorite blog to read about narrative analysis from!!! they do an amazing job explaining oddities from a narrative position as well as identifying ways certain theories are either supported by or don’t work with the way the narrative needs to flow in S5. she’s also super skilled at keeping my attention throughout a post with the way she writes

@bylerschmyler - love this guy because they’re not afraid to point out the flaws of something and create counter arguments but they also aren’t doing that stuff to discredit a theory but rather challenge its strength!! like they won’t press on if the original theory can go against the counter points they make. PLUS they create incredible theories of their own!!! the mike is the 4th victim stuff is really good

@finalgirlbyers - idc if they consider themself an analysis blog or not because I do. they regularly have fantastic takes and explain things in a quick and easy to understand way. she genuinely has a great grasp on the show but she’s also very open minded which is always so nice to see!! like if you’re looking for short, sweet, banger posts that hit the nail on the head i am pointing at their blog

@heroesbyler - ok. stav is the only person whose analysis i have legitimately cried over. the approach she takes to covering the very serious and dark topics of stranger things is something i really appreciate because she doesn’t curve the pure horror of some of the stuff going on. if you really wanna feel just how horrific the gay horror show is i’d recommend reading some of stav’s analysis because she NAILS it and does not mask just how fucked up it can get.

@laozuspo - james always has some incredibly niche but great insight to the show!! theory wise, i’m always amazed by how intricate his research for a theory will get so when you read his posts it’s just evidence on top of evidence and it’s always really engaging and VERY interesting. radiationgate had me hooked for days because there was just SO much to explore regarding that topic and there were so many little details that just make so much sense!!!

@mlchaelwheeler - MY SISTER IN MICHAEL DEFENSE!!! one of the original mike defenders and someone who i trust to accurately talk about mike’s character, which is saying a lot because i’m Me. ALSO she kick started so many great conversations!! iirc, she was the one who made the original theory about henry having been the one who kidnapped will, not the demogorgon way back in like. June. she’s been on it longer than any of us

favorite authors :)

@andiwriteordie - ok SO i have to tell you guys that this shit??? my life hasn’t been the same since i first read this. i know it’s an older one but it’s in my top three fics of all time i legitimately adore it!! pure jet fuel for that last week before V2 dropped and honestly part of me still really wants that final scene to happen in S5 ngl. like it kills me every time i read it but it’s just so GOOD

@astrobei - oh suni, how i her love writing. always a GREAT time when you’re reading an astrobei fic, and i think my favorite is still this one!! it’s just got such a fun vibe and the characterization is immaculate and the plot is really intriguing! it’s one of those fics where you can’t stop reading even though it’s like half the length of an entire novel. sometimes sleep is worth the sacrifice and this fic is one of them

@blueeandyellowmakesgreen - top ten reasons to kill myself; this ficlet. jade i absolutely love you but this??? fuck you for making me go through that not once but TWICE. i felt that shit in my SOUL and it HURT. it hurt SO BAD. writing so good it makes you immobile for 6.5 hours because you can’t stop replaying the image in your head 🖕🖕 (<3)

@/byeler - ok not actually @-ing this person because we’ve never interacted and i’m not about to make a fool of myself by being a little fanboy loser BUT. absolutely incredible writing. reading this had me so fucking sucked in dude, like i was reading and reading and i couldn’t believe time had passed at all. pure romance can be hard for me to steam roll through sometimes but i genuinely forgot that I was a Person while reading that

@elekinetic - ummmmmm hello??? script writer of all time? you’re not just reading it, you’re not just watching it, you’re being transported inside the show with the way she writes. every single character is on point and she maintains the atmosphere of the show itself BEAUTIFULLY!!! my favorite script thus far is probably the one where eddie gets shot, though it doesn’t seem like it’s up anymore. the ending has me gasping out loud because i saw it happening in real time in front of my eyes

@smoosnoom - MOON!!!! OHHHHH MY GOD i can’t even recommend one specific thing because every fic is just soooooo giggles twirls my hair. i am the number one smoosnoom fanboy. i fucking eat that shit up!!! like, whenever it’s time to read a smoosnoom fic I don’t just open the fic i KNOW i’m not moving till i’m done so i get some snacks and get really comfy and then i dive in and don’t move till i’m finished. every fic absolutely slays i cannot recommend every single fic enough

favorite editors!!!

@strangersynth - do i really have to say anything?? it’s time. like no shit he’s one of the best editors around and i think everyone knows that at this point. THE editor!! absolutely obsessed with every video. i really like the way she takes clips that aren’t really character clips but just stuff you wouldn’t even really think of or remember to build the tone of the video and it always comes together so well!!! like it’s the small details that he nails and that make the videos so incredibly delicious

@/thatgaymood - ok they just made a lot of funny edits + they’re really good at adjusting audio/visuals to make the character say and do shit that definitely didn’t happen but it’s really really well done so it’s just. I don’t know how to explain it. i was gonna find one of the more popular audios but i was scrolling their blog and found this and it made me kick my feet a little cause like. idk watch it and you’ll understand

favorite artists

@blueeandyellowmakesgreen - and she’s back! art that is so scrumptious and delicious and like. It’s like spaghetti kinda ! anyway here’s my favorite piece from jade and i will never shut up about it ever because everything about it is just sooooooo chomping biting chewing slurping devouring

@bujomoss - Hsbebbdbva bc d bujomoss is fucking!!!!! i love the way they draw mike like i love it so bad it’s not even funny. everything they make is so so good and my current favorite is this piece they did but it changes like twice a day bc bujo never does anything that isn’t one of the best things I’ve ever seen with my own two eyeballs

@gmaybe666 - BARKING BITING OH MY GOD. ok just so everybody is aware i am the biggest gmaybe fan around. legitimately i am such a fan i could gush about every single piece they do for days on end. it’s just SO good and it’s an art style i cannot get enough of. i have to scroll through their art regularly or i’ll start combusting it’s like air to me!! if i could link every drawing i simply Would but for now go give this piece some love please please please

@new-ronantics - OHHHHH MY DEAREST EEVIE!!! <33 art that is just so pleasing to look at. like it’s like biting into the most satisfying meal you’ve ever had!! amazing texture but not in the art way like if i bit into it i think it would have the texture of something i cannot even imagine but i know it would be the greatest of all time. incredibly bitable art i wish it were real food so bad. top ten bitable images

@nnilkyway - BITES HIM. ummmm ok so im definitely totally 100% normal about his art! yeah no it’s not like i turn into a wild rabid beast whenever a new nnilkyway piece is finished no definitely not bc i’m just So Normal about it. this means a normal amount to me because i am So-

@/taeiris go to her fucking blog. not elaborating. fucking do it before I Find You.

and the non-st blog boys 💪

@ed89 - edward my funny silly guy 👊😼 it’s been a minute but he’s hilarious and his time in the st fandom will never be forgotten. also if he sees this hi ed guess who hit his first bong two days ago :)

@ronaldreaganoffical - me and ronald reagan have a bromance i don’t expect any of you to understand. they’re from way before i even joined the st fandom when i was hardly even a blog, so actually they’re one of my most treasured mutuals even though we’re no longer in the same fandoms. love you bro <3

[princeescaluswords]

Re: the unreliable narrator theory in your post about Scott/Allison, I hadn’t come across it before in this fandom, so I did a little digging and wow! Curious what you think about fandom fights borne out of writing devices (Scott/Derek framing you mentioned), cliches/tropes (Scott/Stiles’ many communication mishaps), and errors (timeline mistakes, the infamous 6x20 line). Wild how much energy is wasted arguing about things that are more about the writing process than the characters themselves.

Not to be too contrary, but I don't think the energy is wasted at all. I think these particular arguments are well worth having as many times as necessary. To me, the only logical and functional response when being confronted by toxic culture is to take a stand against it. I'm not trying to imply that everyone should do what I'm doing. Far from it, but I have the background, I have the interest, I have the time, and I have something to say. There's no reason for me not to argue against these particular fandom behaviors.

And, let me be perfectly clear, there are few clearer examples of toxic fandom culture than the "Scott McCall is an Unreliable Narrator" meta. In the great sweep of the United States cultural experience, it's not particularly significant, but it is real. It embodies the privilege, shallowness and dissipation of an all-devouring consumerism.

That sounds pretty grandiose, so I owe an explanation. Art, music, and literature, which contains and is contained by media, is about the experience of change. Even the simplest Tin-Pan Alley song had the purpose of eliciting a shift in its listener's emotional state. It made the audience happy or it made the audience sad. From this we get phrases like "it moved me," which requires us to be the subject. In contrast, consumerism rests all power in the audience; the audience is entitled pick apart media for only what they desire, avoid art that makes them feel uncomfortable, or narrow their music to one or two particular artists or genres. They control the act of experiencing media to the point where it no longer changes them; they are empowered to change it.

The problem, of course, is that this can lead to exploitation. It can lead to a numbing self-focus that prevents a member of the audience from a reaction they weren't already expecting. For example, how many times have you witnessed the audience's reaction to a new show or movie with "which two white guys can I imagine kissing each other?" Anything else that the media might want to express is ignored, or more damagingly, discarded.

And that brings us back to the meta. When the audience heard the line from The Wolves of War (6x20), "I'm gonna tell you a story. Maybe it'll sound familiar," they didn't feel the need to try to make it fit with everything else was they had watched on the screen. Instead, led by a corrupt and vapid BNF, they used it to support the same position that they had held since 2011 -- one that has never wavered -- that the show could not possibly have a Latino as a protagonist. It didn't matter that the line actually fits much more comfortably into the production's constant use of recursion (from the symbols for revenge, the pack symbols, the way that Derek was "a lot like Scott" and that Liam is also "a lot like Scott", that the Nogitsune's attack was "all this had happened before" that the Doctors "how many people died the first time they came here", etc., etc., etc.) because that would force them to look at the story in a way they weren't interested in. Instead, they twisted it into evidence for the conclusion they wanted in the first place.

Ever notice that so many people say that they love Eternal Sterek and they much prefer their fabricated fandom alternative than the actual show. "Eternal" is a good word, because it's the same thing again and again and again and again, violent white men being the ultimate focus of the story, in a bland repetition of the last ten television series they've watched. And because of consumer privilege, they never have to confront the flaws in their "Scott is an Unreliable Narrator" meta. And, oh boy, does it have flaws.

There's no payoff. If we're supposed to view the show through the lens that Scott's telling us these stories to make himself look better, where's the reveal? Where's our "Rosebud is a sled!" moment? There isn't any. Not in the series; not in the movie. It's not like the show got canceled out of the blue. It is only logical, only sane, that if the whole idea of the show was an unreliable narration, there would be a moment where the truth is confirmed. Unless you actually think that the production, the actors, the studio would spend millions of dollars and SEVEN YEARS and never ever pull the curtain aside. What an elaborate, expensive, and fundamentally unfunny practical joke that would be.

It destroys the themes of the show. As a bildungsroman, Teen Wolf tackled ideas about not allowing trauma to control your actions, the importance of knowledge, and the responsibility you have to your family and friends. It should be obvious to the casual observer because Scott's embodiment of compassion, resilience, and resistance to the corruption of others serve as the signifiers of these themes. If it was all unreliable narration, than nothing that happens really matters in terms of what growing up is like. It would be all delusion.

It's f*cking racist (and sexist). Have you ever noticed that the application of Unreliable Narrator Scott only works in certain specific directions? In these interpretations, Scott is always worse than what the narrative shows, but so is Deaton, Melissa, Rafael, Braeden, the Yukimuras, and Allison. Scott's twisted perception tends to make characters of color and female characters better than they truly are (according to the fandom). Conversely, the interpretation of Unreliable Narration always seems to say that the white male characters are better than what the production actually showed. Even though Narrator Scott has hope for Peter, he is always more noble and justified when freed from Scott's lens. Even though Narrator Scott tries to protect Derek, in the interpretations Scott denies Derek his true position by usurping him. Even though Narrator Scott loves the Stilinskis, Stiles is always capable of far more, and the deluded protagonist misses it. And yet, no matter how much hope, faith, and love the Unreliable Narrator Scott had for these white male character, there is never an interpretation where that hope, faith and love is misplaced. It's always, instead, inadequate.

The Unreliable Narrator Meta, no matter how you look it, is Invalid. It is inconsistently applied, illogical in its consequences, and completely in servitude to a gargantuan confirmation bias. And yet, fandom culture loves it, because it reinforces the consumerism that has hollowed out United States cultural practice.

[04dissection]

I've been a bit too drained to work on any of my actual theories or detail catching(there's a yuno draft I keep staring at) so with that said, I may or may not have been listening to the entire Mili discography and couldn't help but assign MORE songs. I've previously assigned Yuno(Camelia), Mahiru(Rubber Human), and Mikoto(Sleep Talk Metropolis) songs. So they don't get any. Yeah.

Haruka: Extension of You

There is me, and there is you Who knew everything, teach me how to sing Teach me how to sing, teach me how to sing

I learned the good and the evil Learned your boundaries, learned your mortality You're out of service, out of service

There are still many things that I want to know Stories left untold Does it feel good to love? To hand out your own? To hand out your own? Does it feel good to hate? To shelter one's self? To shelter one's self?

Note: Vibes.

Fuuta: Painful Death For The Lactose Intolerant

Cleanse up your body, cleanse up your soul

Perfect life for you and I People who's trying to get by Painful death for the lactose intolerant For you there is no lament

Begin the revolution!

Note: Technically is the one that gave me the idea to actually make this list, though I came up with Kazui's WEEKS ago, and Amane's I gave to her basically as soon as it was released- which was a few days ago. Either way, Fuuta fits the allegory of this song for me- the disdain for people who 'can't change' in his view. I think his views of change are... changing now, so this is definitely for before he was injured. Yeah.

Muu: GIVE ME RICE

Honey This is all, this is everything All the things you want All you'll ever need

The entire 'give me' section that I am NOT pasting. It makes more sense listened to.

Note: I'm not entirely sure how to explain this song. While the song is mostly of just wanting things, there's elements of the singer knowing that this isn't what they need. It feels like a song of just not knowing how to end a cycle that is actively hurting you, even if you want to, and ending up perpetuating it as you give up. Maybe my explanation of why doesn't entirely make sense as to why I'd give it to Muu. I think with Muu, she didn't really want to break the cycle in the first place- when she was on top, of course- and that she simply fell into her role when she was no longer in that previous position. Muu is fairly passive, and I feel as though this song is better for the Muu shown in It's Not My Fault.

Shidou: Nine Point Eight -special edit-

Please don't leave me behind, leave me behind So you held me tight And said I will be just fine

Take me to where your soul may live in peace Final destination Touch of your skin sympathetically brushed against The shoulders you used to embrace

Note: I don't really have anything particular to say. I don't think it fits well per se, but I think the softness of the special edit over the original better fits Shidou. There's also a lot of flower imagery, so.

Kazui: From A Place of Love

There's just so much work Too much work to be done Committing to commitments Hiding my indulgence The freedom we sacrifice for love

You're a nice girl I'm just not ready now But then mommy said It ain't family biz Get over it Toughen up Just like the man we expected

I know that I agreed to this myself (Myself, myself) I wish it was their fault

Note: I was so tempted to paste all of the song lyrics. I also hope that all Library of Ruina fans that see this post take sanity damage from seeing THIS song here. I don't think any arguments can be made here. There's so much about getting into a relationship that ends disasterously because of being pressured into it, and then the blame that the singer puts on themself, that just works so perfectly for Kazui's story. The version specifically posted here is the battle version, not the Key Ingredient version, because that version leans more into some of the other elements of what this song was made for, elements that just don't fit. Either way. Kazui song. Don't read the comments.

Amane: Duetting Solo

(Holy land, with Her we stand) The love we teach, violence we preach (Knives in hand, we're innocent lambs)

My hands are red, my heart is black

I cried I screamed I slept I woke up mad

Note: Duetting Solo is a song of revenge, one that just so happens to have a heavy layer of religion on it. I know nothing of the source material, it is just kind of there. But yeah, to me, at least, this song feels very similar to Purge March in tone to me. Amane doesn't completely respect the beliefs she's been born into, even if she uses them to justify herself.

Kotoko: Rosetta

For everyone everywhere everything Will betray your innocent heart All of them

Vile, vile Shield yourself Mind my words Don't let yourself corrupt

Come back to me Rosetta No-one nowhere nothing will take anything anything anything from me

Note: There's a certain... anger to Rosetta that I can't really explain. It's just one of those things you feel, you know? Anyways, this one is a Kotoko and Lucky one. The song is so concerned with Rosetta remaining 'pure' and 'uncorrupted.' It's so distinctly paranoid that she will be hurt in some way. I have more reasoning but I began writing it and quickly realized 'oh! I should save this for my very complicated thoughts on what Kotoko and Lucky's relationship was, WHICH I WANT TO HOLD OFF ON BECAUSE LUCKY IS DEFINITELY BEING ASKED ABOUT.' The not-really summary on that though is that the singer of Rosetta, in my personal analysis, seems to be an overprotective/helicoptor guardian of sorts, paranoid of what the world could do to their child, and so paranoid that they end up being left behind by Rosetta anyways. The last lines of the song to me indicate that the singer saw Rosetta less as human, and more of something the singer 'had' in some way- just like how Kotoko seemed to treat Lucky like something she needed to protect and not much else, regardless of her genuine thoughts on her. Please do not make of that what you will I have a lot of thoughts and it's VERY hard to elaborate what I mean. Just. Rosetta. Kotoko and Lucky song.

[redwineconversation]

but it looked good to charlene in john deere green

There's been a quite a bit of backlash regarding Mark Skinner's comments in the postgame presser following Manchester United's loss to Paris Saint-Germain.

On the one hand Mark Skinner came across as an incredibly sore loser.

On the other hand, it perfectly embodies the problem with the WSL.

The reality is the WSL bought into its own hype. WSL fans convinced themselves they were the best league with the best teams and the best teams.

The reality is a game is won by the 11 players on the field, no how many tickets were sold.

An Arsenal fan tweeted - and I have to confess, I really did contemplate posting the screenshot with their names blurred out, but it wouldn't have been that hard to find it and I don't want to encourage mob mentality even towards that morally reprehensible fanbase - anyway. The fan said something along the lines that Arsenal deserved a spot in the group stages because of attendance.

And if that doesn't embody the fact that in the eyes of Arsenal fans, football is merely a popularity contest, I honestly don't know what does.

And I'm curious, too, how far that argument goes, if only because of how flawed it is. I would be genuinely shocked the current rankings stand at the end of the season, but let's say, per the screenshot below, it does.

Manchester United and Arsenal are both outside the top 5. Not even top 3, top 5. I don't have the numbers in front of me but let's say Arsenal leads in attendance. By that fan's theory, Arsenal should make it directly to the group stages despite being out of the Top 5 because "If Arsenal are in it, you're increasing the number of viewers significantly, that in turn increases advertising revenues, which increases prize money and the quality of training / players overall."

I thought Graham Hansen and Barcelona fans saw themselves at the savior of women's football but somehow Arsenal fans made them look humble in comparison, a feat I honestly did not think was possible.

And like, I'm not even convinced Arsenal fans truly understand how delusion they sound, I'm really not. Because a lot of the argument they make fall apart if you just push back even a little.

One of their rhetorics for having been dumped out by Paris FC is the turnaround after the World Cup. Most of Arsenal players had been at the World Cup, see, and they didn't have a lot of time to train as a team, and that's why Paris FC advanced and not them,

Okay, fair, and in theory I not only buy it but also support it. Arsenal did have a very short turnaround post World Cup, a lot of their players were gone, etc etc. Valid arguments I can 100 percent get behind.

But if that was really all it came down to then both Real Madrid and Levante would be sitting at home right now - but it's not, it's just Levante. So how does that work, exactly? Real Madrid had equally the amount of players but did fine in their preseason game - that they had to fly to Mexico for no less! - but Arsenal couldn't get it together against a team every WSL fan and their mother had to google the roster of?

Like, can we just be honest with each other for a sec? Arsenal treated the Paris FC game as a preseason game because that's exactly what they saw it as. They saw the French league as a walkover, because they had walked over a severely crippled Lyon, and if you don't want the D1 Arkema, then you probably don't even know Paris FC's original name. Anyway, Arsenal sauntered over with all the confidence in the world because they're Arsenal and everyone loves them.

Except.

Except Paris FC has been a very good team for the past two seasons, and if you actually watched a team, you'd know that. You'd know they'd had a real go at Lyon and Paris Saint-Germain and you'd know they were considered a threat by those teams. You'd know about their goalkeeper and you'd know about their increased confidence and maybe, just maybe, you'd know that their coach had been talking about the team's structure and ambitions.

There were warning signs, I'm just saying, all you had to do was read them.

But then Arsenal got their ass handed to them and we were promptly subjected to the claims of scheduling (Lyon only got a majority of their players back August 28 before playing the Coupe de France on September 10, so curious about the time warp on that one). There should be an expansion, people argued, which again I find perplexing because when Manchester City got knocked out two consecutive years by Real Madrid there was nay a peep then.

So explain that to me. City gets their ass handed to them, it's fine, qualifiers work the way they're supposed to. Arsenal get their ass handed to them and UEFA needs to bend over backwards to accommodate them? Am I understanding things correctly?

But anyway if Arsenal and their morally reprehensible fans had done even the littlest bit of research we wouldn't be sitting here right now having this discussion.

But as much as I'd like to rip on Arsenal, because lord knows that fanbase deserves it, I think we can all agree that Skinner's comments deserve the most attention in this case.

Beyond the sheer arrogance of it. it's also like - who exactly are you calling average, and why?

Now, to be fair, I'd put Mary Earps on roughly the same level as Real Madrid's Misa - make of that what you will - but we need to go more into depth about that comment.

Like, Manchester United's pedigree is ... what, exactly? Like come on now. What have they done? Sit me down, make me a Pumpkin Spice Latte, and tell me - yeah, actually, so I know PSG made it to the UWCL finals twice, made it repeatedly to the quarters and semis, but look, Man Utd just deserve it more. Hear me out, bro. Manchester United sells tickets.

I'm being mean - Skinner didn't bring that last talking point up - but still. He made it seem like Manchester United deserve to be there more than others, and I just don't understand the logic behind it.

Like, convince me that Manchester United deserves a spot more than AS Roma, more than Hacken, more than Real Madrid. They earned their spots by beating the teams in front of them. AS Roma earned it by actually winning their league. So explain to me why Manchester United actually deserves a spot more than them.

I really like - I mean, okay. Can you imagine if, after Lyon had one point after two UWCL games, Bompastor had sat down in a press conference and said, "you know what, Lyon won eight Champions League, we should have an automatic bye to the quarters."

Can you just imagine if Lyon had made that argument? They would have been posibistely crucified, and for really good cause. Your history, no matter how prestigious it is, doesn't mean anything until you rewrite the page. Lyon knows better than anyone you need to earn your pedigree.

And your pedigree, the one that matters - it's not the stadiums you sell out, it's not the Instagram followers, it's the number of trophies in the cabinet.

Lyon has never, not once, demanded that the UWCL be catered to their preferences. Because they know you win the trophies only and I mean only by beating the teams in front of you.

It's the Champions League for a reason. Want to avoid qualifiers and go right into the group stage? Try actually winning a game. And if that's too much. maybe at least have the decency to ask yourself why your ass is getting handed to you by a team who hates TikTok as much as I do.

[lololohshit]

i FINALLY finished whole cake island arc (and revelry) and i just have so many questions and thoughts and NO ONE TO TALK TO because all my friends are LOSERS who dont watch one piece. anyway im gonna put them here. in case this doesnt get lost in the void THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION TO GIVE ME SPOILERS

at this point from wano spoilers i have been unable to avoid and where i am in the story I see a few main groups that luffy has to fight before the story is complete and its making me question how this will be carried out but i have theories

1. Emperors: While not all of these fights NEED to happen I think if they dont it will leave a lot of questions as to the characters themselves and their background (such as shanks) or miss out on an opportunity to create a good story (Buggy). I also think all these fights are 1v1 against luffy.

a. Blackbeard: obviously with his history with both Luffy and Ace, Luffy will have to fight him. this is one of two characters I am 100% sure will have to be fought.

b. Shanks: when Shanks met with the 5 elders i found it VERY suspicious. while it was left open ended which pirate he was talking about, it made me immediately not trust him. not to mention that i do not think he is the type of person to just LET Luffy find the One Piece. i think he would fight Luffy for it so i think its pretty likely they fight before the story is over. I think it would also be a symbolic overcoming your mentor type of thing.

c. Buggy: does this NEED to happen? no. SHOULD IT? ABSOLUTELY. i think there is something so symbolic about buggy being one of the firsts characters luffy fights and the last. i can also totally see buggy becoming king of the pirates before luffy for a brief period. obviously having this be a lighthearted and joyful story is very important to oda and there is no better way to close out the story than a battle with buggy. tbh if this doesnt happen i will be heartbroken.

2. World Goverment: All these people need to be defeated, but not necessarily by luffy himself. i think it could be a group effort

a. imu: i know like literally nothing about them other than they are the secret leader of the world government but i think its an obvious set up for whatever secrets are revealed by the last poneglyphs. and obviously to dismantle the world government this guys gotta go

b. 5 elders: same as above i think its a dismantling of the system though i could these these guys being fought by the crew

c. sakazuki: i think this fight has to be vs. luffy. sakazuki obviously has an agenda against him and with the history with Ace its gotta be 1v1 here 😭🍩🫶

d. marine admirals: again i think this could be a group effort by the crew.

e. Koby: thought koby isnt really a part of the system of the world government he does support it. i dont think this fight is necessary but his story has to be closed out somehow. even if its capturing luffy many years in the future in a flashforward or something.

f. celestial dragons: ill leave these weaklings to luffy’s supporters (like bartholomew)

so to recap here are the 1v1 fights i think luffy still has to go before the series is through based on likelyhood

1. blackbeard

2. buggy (yes i think its more likely than imu bc i think there is an argument that imu is only has power in the metaphysical sense rather than being an actual fighting opponent)

3. imu

4. sakazuki

5. shanks

6. Koby

so there are 4 people luffy has to fight which doesnt sound like a lot but like these need arcs dedicated to them. how will this work? ODA EXPLAIN.

WHY WONT MY FRIENDS WATCH SO I HAVE SOMEONE TO TALK TO ABOUT THIS

[the-way-astray]

Because I'm intrigued

What is your evidence to Gethen being Sophie's bio father

my favorite sophie's bio dad theory is actually fintan, but gethen's second so why not:

blonde, straight hair

fantastic telepath. just. absolute levels beyond what other non-sophie telepaths in the series have been shown to be capable of. he can shatter memories, hide his consciousness completely away, wash alvar's mind so thoroughly clean it's impossible to get his memories back without the exact trigger he wants, and he could also potentially trap sophie in his mind and drag her down somehow (though that one's speculation)

sophie's bio parents aren't related to each other in any way: check

sophie's bio parents' identities could "shake the very foundation of our world": check. sophie having a terrorist as a biological father would be disastrous and would likely turn public opinion against her very quickly. which would be bad, as that's what the neverseen could be counting on to take over. this one works better with fintan, though, because i doubt many people are that aware of who gethen beyond the fact that he's some neverseen guy

sophie's bio parents had to have reason to donate dna to the black swan to create her: check. gethen clearly has some reason to hate the council and has motive to create a wake-up call. the theory would be that he used to be a black swan member before switching to the neverseen because he got tired of the way the black swan don't actually do anything except sit around and wait. i do admit this one is less strong, since the black swan don't seem to have any good information on him, but he could've used a code name. this point honestly makes more sense with fintan than it does with gethen, hence why i think fintan is a better fit

sophie's bio parents likely don't have a family: check

sophie's bio parents likely do not share her abilities but they probably influenced them in some way: uh oh. the thing is, the justification for this was that sophie sharing her bio parents' abilities would make it super easy for her to nail them down. which is still a valid argument (and, once again, why fintan is still the superior theory). however. sophie (and keefe) had already ruled out everyone in the neverseen from the start. so in gethen's specific case it may not matter, since sophie would not have been suspecting him anyway. like i said, fintan fits this much, much better, because of the way sophie's healing abilities have consistently been described to have to do with warmth and fire and flames (though there is an argument to be made that all of that is just shannon's writing style)

the donors aren't supposed to know each other, but what if that's just what forkle thinks? it's not as if it's impossible to guess. gethen even saw oralie and sophie stand side-by-side when they visited him in lumenaria. he might've figured out that the other donor was oralie. and maybe that's the reason his attack on her seemed so personal and targeted in lodestar. taking his frustration with himself and regret that he helped the black swan create sophie out on the other donor. god he could be so nuanced . . .

he's also described to be exceedingly handsome, although it's unclear whether this is meant to be evidence of the fact that he's an elf, or evidence of the fact that he's hotter than the average elf. but anyway. ro also claims sophie's hotter than the average elf, and she's somewhat unbiased in that regard, seeing as she's not crushing on sophie like keefe or fitz. and yeah, sophie already got her good looks from oralie. whatever. another hot parent can't hurt

we don't know anything about gethen, and i doubt shannon's going to do the absolutely show-stopping genius gethen is koralie's secret kid theory, so this would be one of the best ways to give him some sort of backstory and stop the weird cartoon villain vibe he's currently got going. it would also send sophie spiraling and angsting and questioning and panicking because her bio dad's a terrorist, and we all know how much shannon loves angst and fluff. it would certainly work with kotlc's "your family doesn't define you" themes, and if keefe somehow finds out who sophie's bio dad is in unraveled, it would be a good reason for him to keep it a secret from sophie, seeing as how it's clear that keefe is hiding something. (i'm not precisely sure how much i like the theory that keefe will find out who sophie's bio dad is in unraveled in general, but it's something i've discussed before. idk it just feels weird to me that keefe would find out who sophie's bio dad is before sophie. but at the rate we're going, sophie isn't going to have any incentive to find out who it is at all. so. who even knows. but just in case, this is the theory)

there's also the fact that almost nobody else in the series works. seriously. there's not many people that fit all the criteria we know for a fact, which are a) the donors aren't supposed to know each other, b) their identities coming out could shake the foundation of the world, and c) they have to have a reason to donate their dna. fintan works, of course, but there are few others besides gethen and fintan that would fulfill all three of these criteria. add on the likely ones, which are d) they probably don't have a family and e) they probably don't share sophie's abilities but influenced them somehow, and you can narrow some shit down significantly

[winter-tospring]

that chapter 6 was so GOOD but I say that about all of them. but it's true. just keeps getting better. I do think we got to the core of the questions of the story with this one, though. I have so many thoughts.

a plague that decimates the world population but doesn't create systemic change :))) "There were no songbirds anymore, either"

Last paragraph, I've seen quoted here, it's probably the big one of the book, one of, anyway. Immediately reminds me of Janet's speech about the universe not being a machine (in The Good Place), and makes me think I should make one of those masterposts where different sources talk about the same idea. It already kind of has a tag of its own on my blog. Anyway. THOUGHTS while reading this:

Everybody kinda wants to change the world, and she asks the question of "What if you could change anything you wanted, easily, but the way to do it meant rewriting history every single time, erasing people, places, memories? What if it meant using someone's body and psyche in a sort of dream torture, to achieve what you think would make the world better? " (which kinda ties in with her short story" the ones who walk away from omelas")

This is more of a general comment than about this book, it's just making me think: There's probably a white western perspective to account for when we think of peace as almost impossible? Ask them to stop wars and the killing of poc, and the answer will be "actually, its not that simple, it can't just stop, or it wouldn't be the world, it wouldn't be humans." is that right? Are we sure of ourselves or are we trying to justify our actions with an alleged nature that people have, to enslave? Is world peace really unattainable? Why is it so hard to imagine peace without having to talk about its flaws, and not emphasizing just how many people would live, and be treated decently, and not go hungry? Why must peace be a utopia? I wonder how other cultures think of it.

Then Orr dreams, and he dreams the world has united to form a front against alien attack.

So it takes a new enemy to unite old enemies? It takes a new war to end an old one? That is not peace. Is it? Can peace have boundaries, and if it's limited to a group, and if that group wages war outside of itself, is it still in peace? Might the people inside the group take out their anger on outsiders instead of people they've now united with?

Now we encounter a valid argument : the theories around how things would change given a prompt by someone with good intentions to someone with the power to change things: can the person with this power imagine, subconsciously, what they consciously would want? There is a lack of control and precision at work that makes the changes unpredictable, despite how well intentioned the prompts are. Different people's subconsciouses would create different dreams and different worlds, even with the same prompt.

It's not only a matter of what we believe, but in this case of the story, how reliable the subconscious is. Very important variable that takes the author's opinion of the possibility of peace almost out of the equation. She's simply giving us an example of what one brain could come up with, and that in itself is also a great analogy for the fact that this book, this story, also only comes from one brain, hers. Peace cannot and should not be dreamt up by oneself. Just as it would never be made real by only one person. It speaks to the truth of how to build peace, really. It requires more than one person, a lot, a lot of people to CHOOSE, to be willing, to come together and figure out actions to take TOGETHER to change things.

The problem with snapping fingers and fixing things is that people haven't chosen to make peace, so they themselves haven't changed, and so patterns are doomed to repeat. I guess one would have to focus on that, to dream of people wanting to make things better. But again, that would remove actual free will and the process of coming to your own conclusion that change is necessary, and that you will take steps to contribute to that change.

And Orr's like "I followed instructions." which struck me so much. This character is quite fascinating in how it's described vs. how he responds/thinks. We keep being told by other characters that he's boring, flat, miserable, pathetic, helpless, yet he's the one who actually cares, so far, about the repercussions of his dreaming. He's the one who's rightfully terrified and wants to stop it, not use it. He's the one who seems most mentally sound, in that sense??? He's not getting carried away by his power, it's more a curse to him. Being the dreamer, he knows he can't decide how to change the world, but Haber thinks he can direct it enough to get his desired result. He's also not afraid because he doesn't suffer the physical and emotional toll of being the one to make those changes.

I find it interesting that we're "supposed" to look down on Orr, but the story does the opposite, because you feel bad for him, and understand his fears (at least I do, lol??). He actually is the most anchored in reality, since he chooses to face it, and to suffer it, suffer the consequences he brings about, and live with all the realities he knows in his head. He doesn't deny them.

YES, exactly!! "Your own ideas are sane and rational, but this is my unconscious you're trying to use, not my rational mind"!! Exactly exactly. "You're trying to reach progressive, humanitarian goals with a tool that isn't suited to the job. Who has humanitarian dreams?" a killer of a sentence.

We're also dealing with a person who's being forced to dream these ideals. It's doubtful a coerced person who's terrified of their dreams would have peaceful dreams that fit what the prompter intended anyway.

Yep, he's not in control and the subconscious is full of imaginary things.

Ursula is so good at placing herself in an observer's position, while taking a stand sometimes, in a subtle yet profound way, more through what she chooses to write about, and the questions she chooses to ask, than any answers she might give through the stories. It's such a delicate skill to have, so valuable for a writer of sci-fi.

I love Star Trek, and it makes so much sense that she inspired star trek writers throughout the years. This story's questions remind me of an Orville episode about a society closer to ours who could be given the tools to achieve world peace of some kind, but it's against the federation's code to provide these to civilizations not ready yet to use them. This is a thing in Star Trek federation too, I'm pretty sure. Like in their code. I haven't watched all of star trek, lol. I think I remember it in an episode of strange new worlds, too. The idea that you can't just give people peace, they have to walk the path towards it themselves, or they won't be able to sustain it/build it (if they're given tools that are supposed to lead to peace. I'm wondering if that's the prime directive and if it is im gonna go hide somewhere in shame because the prime directive is like the most important thing and yet as a new star trek fan I feel like it's not EXPLICITLY explained enough in new shows for me to remember 😭

Edit: okay yeah it's the prime directive 😂

Mm, so it guess to go back my second point, where I ask Why Must Peace be a Utopia?? WHY MY DUDES. I wonder if the utopia is to imagine people doing the right thing. People considering others' lives and safety, people being compassionate and respectful, and able to live side by side with people they disagree with, without hurting them. People not using others for their personal gain. People not listing for power. Is that a utopia? From that angle, I admit it does feel more like one, lol. But would it be possible anyway? I think that's up to every one of us to decide and act accordingly. If you think it's not possible, you're more likely to act like a shit head cause you feel justified by defeatism.

I sure am losing my mind and trust these past years over people not giving a shit about hurting others. And I don't know how to be fine with it without giving up on the idea that we can have a better world.

[inventors-fair]

Flavor Mode Commentary: Choices

We're talking about cards, right? We're talking about cards. We're talking about various choices in a card game and their possibilities thereafter.

But that's not usually how it works, is it. Modal spells are all about opportunity. There are the places where one mode will work better, and one where the mode works worse, and sometimes you can't even play one of the modes because the battlefield doesn't allow for it. There's sometimes a choice, but is there really? MTG is a goal-oriented game in the end. The goal is to win. Which choice is the right choice? Which choice gets you there faster? Which choices will be cut off?

It's so easy to imagine that the choices on our cards will always be available, but sometimes the choices get made for us. Perhaps the challenge this week was less about the specifics of the worlds and more about the notion that we have to believe in these choices being available at all. It's curious to think about, really, the distinction between what's reasonable and what would actually happen. There are no dice being rolled here. It's all up to you.

...I'm way too far behind for all of this. Anyway, Judge Picks here and there for the cards I wanna point out—there were way too many good cards this week and paring down was a nightmare. Read on.

@corporalotherbear — Alleyway Mugging (JUDGE PICK)

Your childhood memories or your life! Ha. Just kidding. Anyway, this card's absolutely nightmarish in limited but I don't mind it. Having an Eviscerate and Pilfer mode is pretty on-rate for common destruction spells these days. I have the feeling that quite a few cards end up getting relegated to Ravnica, but I don't want to jump to conclusions, so I do wanna know where you envisioned this card, if anywhere specific. What I like about this card is that in that old draft-quadrant-theory thing (sorry, no idea what it's called), this card's basically smack-dab in the middle and fulfills everything you want it to regardless of where you are positionally.

I think that the whole money-or-your-life trope is decently executed here, enough that I can give this a thumbs-up in the flavor department. Right now, I will say that it's somewhat bare-bones, but there's the question of whether or not my expectations are too high for this sort of thing. Still, compared to the specificity and polish that would potentially set it apart, I do want a little more past the base concept. OR, is this one of those things where the direct name and the common opening is designed to be more simplified to reach players on that level without spiraling into overdesigned and overwritten explanations? Hey, I dunno, don't ask me, I'm just an innocent mugger. I mean judge.

~

@helloijustreadyourpost — Stitcher's Judgement (JUDGE PICK)

Great options here, and I think that the flavor is simplified enough that the execution feels like it's doing just what it wants to—one single masterpiece or extra corpse fodder. I like the scientist's gist here, and the stitchers of Innistrad don't get as good a reputation as they deserve. She's calculating, her zombies aren't decaying, she knows the difference between showing off and being pragmatic. I like that a lot! I think that the flavor text itself is pretty good; the only thing that came into my head was replacing "corpse" with "body," and editing to get some kind of 'everybody'/'every body' pun in there. You could make the argument that the stitchers don't have quite the same kind of bourgeoisie art standards that the vampires might have in terms of mood, y'know?

Five-mana reanimation is pretty on-rate for these effects, too, and I'm down for where you're going with it. There should be one big thing that you'd want to get back for this to be worth it, but stealing your opponent's creatures could be more than worth it depending on board state. It's really hard to argue against also having six damage worth of evasive bodies on board, though, and that's a tough argument to make. At this point in the game (and assuming that there's some graveyard shenanigans at hand b/c, well, zombies and Innistrad), having three cards to exile might not be so hard to get. Board flexibility is all situational as always. I think that the vibe and mechanics are solid, though, and I'm a fan.

~

@horsecrash — Wrong Way

We're back to building a better Unsummon, heh—and that's not a dig, honest, it's just something that Magic's been doing on and off for a while. I think I'm down for the stretch of "last words" being associated with a disappearance instead of death, for the most part as well. Let's start with the mechanics, though, because I have the feeling that instant-speed unblockability might cause some small issues with inexperienced players attacking and then being surprised when their trick doesn't work after blocks. That said, I'd also love to see someone blow up an attacking creature just to get sniped by this card played in response on a different attacking creature before blocks have been declared. It's a really small issue with timing, though, and the flexibility saves it, IMO. It's not the strongest combat trick in the world but it's what Blue wants to do.

Part of that semi-weakness also makes it feel slightly less...specific in its flavor? Or at least, it's a card that meets the player on their level, and I've been looking at a lot of these modal cards recently and I can't help but want a little bit more and I'm not sure where or why. Maybe it's because the flavor text is something we've seen before from Boros/Dimir interactions. Maybe it's just the expectation doesn't have that same kind of tension between modes that makes the choice apparent? The divergence of a trap vs. an escape doesn't feel like there are any stakes to me, or at least that they're not super high, and that the weight of the choice itself is negligible compared to the gameplay where one or the other makes a strong difference. It's not a bad card by any means, and the flavor is right where it needs to be. For this contest, my brain's just looking for a different kind of heft, I think.

~

@i-am-the-one-who-wololoes — Urza's Choice

I wish I could remember everything that happened with Urza and Mishra as much as I remembered pretty much everything else that's happened in MTG canon. That said, I know there was the whole Sylex thing, and then there was Urza's Ruinous Blast, etc. I think that with that in mind, this card's flavor is essentially a one-or-the-other when canonically everything got blown up, I think? I just skimmed the wiki, honestly, so I couldn't tell you one way or another.

That said, I feel that this card gets precedent'd mechanically and flavorfully by Urza's Ruinous Blast—i.e. what's been done has been done before with specificity. Four-mana boardwipes might be okay on the one-sided front with kindred support, so I understand where you might be coming from there. This card also feels like it's almost in the Alara era in terms of power level overall though. I guess I wouldn't really know what more it could do. Maybe this particular moment for this particular contest could've been better applied elsewhere considering precedent.

~

@la-femme-de-stardust — Peacegranter

I'm going to get to the mechanical strength in a moment. I understand what the modes are trying to do here from a flavorful perspective: one is granting strength to vanquish a foe, and one is saving a creature from dying. I wish there was a little more context here, because there's that kinda-ironic twist of death being a mercy as seen by this war-cleric character, but that's a deep cut even for me. The flavor text is difficult to parse because of the passive voice, and digging out some interpretations is probably more difficult than it needs to be.

Still, in a Mardu-colored shell, I really liked the intended flavor of combat mechanics and how they flow into imagining how this character might be depicted. It doesn't have to be specifically the Mardo horde, and—oh man, what was the last tri-color nonsense that we had... Honestly, aside from Ikoria, the last one that I could reliably call to mind was Isshin from Kamigawa. I miss this archetype and I thoroughly enjoy it! Having white be the primary color makes both of these potential costs perfectly appropriate. Combat control ahoy. Marginally esoteric flavor skews awkward, but the card itself is pretty awesome.

~

@levelzeo — Beloved General

I really don't think that this card needed flavor text, mate. And I mean that as a compliment, because I absolutely get the notion that this general leaves behind a variety of interpretable legacies dependent on the needs of the world at the time. One story shows her losing her corporeal body but gaining an incorporeal one, one shows the dedication of her strength, and one displays the revenge of the troops. All of that totally makes sense! Maybe "beloved" is a little bit of an awkward adjective, but that might just be one of my random vocab preferences for this context? It's certainly serviceable.

The mechanics are pretty neat too. Early-game allows you to increase the odds of this card going more aggressive, of course, but there's a non-zero chance that allowing her to die creates a spot of removal when you might need it, allowing you to attack into potentially unfavorable boards. At the very least, if you don't have any creatures, you get a flying body back and some card advantage. What I really like about these mechanics is that they scale up in usability the more creatures you have, and that's pretty smart. I think the first mode could just say "Exile it" instead of the full "from your graveyard," and the last one should be worded like Case of the Gateway Express. Aside from that, I really like how you thought about this card. Just drop the extra two lines at the end when you have this much text.

~

@melancholia-ennui — Lovers' Tragedy (JUDGE PICK)

Long live Cataclysm effects. Or Divine Reckoning effects. Whichever works! I think that the setup to the modal choices is as important as the choices themselves for a lot of cards in this contest. The Romeo and Juliet backdrop would probably be most players' first point of entry to this card. Personally, that's a little strange to make two creatures "fall in love," but I don't think that gameplay and flavor need to match the board state to be good. Run Away Together is another kind of example, perhaps! Let's back up though, because I knew there was something I super loved with this card, and that's the choices' ultimate result.

Sacrificing those creatures might be the best option if you have something you're willing to throw away. When are the choices revealed? Probably at the same time, or maybe there needs to be a "then" there for showing that you're choosing first, I dunno. ANYWAY, the deciding factor of threats is definitely nail-biting. Sacrificing the chosen creatures incentivises your opponent to choose a small creature, but if they do, then you're probably gonna exile the rest instead. This card rigidly enforces parity, and I like that a lot. The lovers' death is tragic, but if they destroy everything to be alone, that itself is equally tragic. The fact that you as pseudo-storyteller are enforcing this choices hits on an emotion that I don't quite have the right words for. That's a good thing, a complex thing. Boardwipes, I feel, have a lot of flavor wiggle room, and you're delving into some interesting territory here. I'd clean up the first section to show how that timing would work best.

~

@nine-effing-hells — Lance the Boils

Ha, gross. I almost feel a Lorwyn vibe from this card because of that one with the teeth, and the pseudo-grossout thing that fantasy tropes do sometimes, but as a gold card, this one's a curiosity to me. In a good way! A little flavor text might've helped this one, though. Or maybe AD. As it stands, the interpretations are nice but I want more context for the story of it all. It's a gross story of a medical nature—maybe. That's generous, I know. We don't see as much of this kind of humor in MTG these days and probably for the better. Stabbing pustules going either horrifically right or horrifically wrong is as nasty as it can get.

I guess the mechanics of it flow well too, depending on the archetypes and world. I wonder if there would be some incentive for removing counters from an opponent's creature? But that's thinking too far ahead; healing up is the intent of the second ability, and I totally feel that it would be a fine draft uncommon. I can't see this card coming close to replacing Lightning Helix in the kinds of decks that would play it, and that is 100% fine. It's designed for a specific environment and I'm down to play it in the aggro sideboard. Again, I understand everything that you're going for on this card, which is a massive plus. I think following that there was an opportunity to get into the inner-flavor-nitty-gritty that we missed here.

~

@real-aspen-hours — Stroke of Inspiration (JUDGE PICK)

"Galvanatrix" is certainly a title. Or is that a name? I certainly don't see it referenced on any cards thus far; as either name or title, I'm struck. There's the possibility of this outcome working and I think that it's kinda funny, honestly. There are only two outcomes for this kind of experiment: death or half-ingenuity. I totally get it! There's a brutal physicality that's associated with the intended flavor and I like how that feeds into the gameplay. A manner of destruction happens either way, and at instant speed, too.

The gameplay of this card is both strong and simple. I think it was a good call that you can only play one of the cards exiled this way, to slightly mitigate the issue of power level. Otherwise, this card would be comparable to Light up the Stage but somehow even stronger. SERIOUSLY stronger. Wait, no, which one... Wrenn's Resolve, that's the other one, and the VOW one too. Those cards are competitively viable so changing the speed and adding removal.. I'm getting ahead of myself. The long and short is that I like this card a lot. I do wonder for poor Inna, what happened to the remainder of her nervous system...

~

@reaperfromtheabyss — Impassioned Guildseeker

How does one determine what a guildless human looks like? I'm visualizing this card and the intent, and I feel that there's some wiggle room where I want to caution you away from the image in question. Right now I get the sense that the AD and the name are trying too hard to put a story of this particular character into the forefront where the decision is an action-packed moment of clarity, where it really doesn't have to be to bring Ravnica to life. I'm imagining a small cycle of common creatures that do just what you're after—two abilities that reference the guilds—and it's less climax and more like a side-bildungsroman, e.g. this individual isn't named as a "guildseeker" but just as a vagrant or vagabond, and there's flavor text that talks about Gruul and Rakdos as homes for unchecked violence.

What that leads into with the mechanics is a really interesting potential for a common cycle that I can envision right away. This character is torn between Gruul and Rakdos, and so maybe there's a white character that's torn between the naturalization of the Selesnya or the steadiness of the Boros, represented by either an ETB Naturalize or an ETB untapping of a creature. Y'know? You've got a potential cycle here, or pseudo-cycle, that hearkens back to the guild structure way back in the RTR or even RNC days, and it feels great to me. I don't think that this is the absolute best execution yet, but it's good for inspiration.

~

@sparkyyoungupstart — Monstrous Intervention

This card could honestly have cost just WB and been fine, in my opinion. Temporary indestructible is fine but doesn't need more than one or two mana. Multicolored options are fine, too, and I don't hate the second ability, but you're getting rid of a creature for life and that's usually a terrible board prospect. Honestly, it's almost like a free Swords to Plowshares for your opponent even if you're in deep to the aristocrats archetype. As someone who loves the aristocrats archetype, it's usually not worth it. But that first mode is still something you wanna use more often than not, and I really like the potential.

Flavorfully as well the potential is awesome. My personal take is that an emdash would've served better than ellipses, but that's also pedantry. Vampire romance is quite the story beat here, and you know full well that this ain't an Innistrad story. I don't really know where it would take place, actually! I don't feel that MTG has fully embraced the sexy vampires as much as they should. Yeah, some of them are purportedly hot (if you're into that), but they don't seduce humans as much as they should. I'd be more sorry for this awkward commentary if the card didn't kinda introduce that trope! I really do like it the more I type about it. Mercy or love. Interesting how mercy can be its own kind of love, but not the other way around, not as much. Hm.

~

@tanknspank — Auspicious Harvest

What a bleak (or wonderful) outcome. Deep in the food archetype, we have these cards that rely on sacrifice, and that leads to a card that would be either first-pickable or one that would run around the table ten thousand times. Free food sacrifice is one possibility but that would mean two creatures dying...and you know what, I wonder: what does that actually represent? The cost to "eat" Food, I mean. Is that exertion? Competition? Or just gameplay trumping flavor? Probably the latter. Mechanically, I feel that you want a lot of Food either way, so while I understand from your comments how the Famine means less competition for food in general (i.e. easier to consume b/c fewer people), there's an inherent disconnect between the two.

I think the problem with this route is that the card both wants and expects you to have more Food, and the flavor of Famine doesn't work at all if there's any food whatsoever. Incongruity is the bane of flavor parsing, and gameplay incongruity is the most frustrating of all. The attempt is a great modal representation, but I don't feel that it's quite captured here. Maybe Famine could have you force-sacrificing foods, and if you can't then you have a Mulch-like effect, representing the search for fertile land? I just feel that there are options that could've played out with both gameplay and flavor that could've worked in a more cohesive manner.

~

@wildcardgamez — Rigged Game

I think that I like this card's flavor without the flavor text; it's perhaps too meta to Magic than it would be in-universe. But I would like to see what you might have in mind for how it would fit into a Magic plane because I like this card as a cute little draw/discard trap. The notion of a devious bargain going your way and your way only is pretty cool, and an interesting use of six-sided die. I don't have as much personal experience with the whole die-rolling mechanics, but having those be related to games still connects in a way that I feel doesn't have to be as precise as the flavor suggests. Again, this is long-winded and also positive. I'm down for how this card's mood and the in-game feelings work together! It may just be a bit heavy-handed.

The mechanics also work out in a way that I'm not quite convinced would work in any way other than situational ways. Like, if your opponent is hellbent, then the game's not really rigged, and if your life total is low enough that the crackback would be lethal, that's gonna hurt if you need the advantage still for whatever reason. When do you play this card? Hopefully, when either outcome is in your favor. And when would that be? This card feels like it would be better when you're already ahead, and you know what, that's fine sometimes. I'd have to see how it plays out, and I also have to admit that there's nothing inherently wrong with state-situational cards. Just gotta work out your devilish deals so that you don't get your legs caught in the rigging.

~

@xenobladexfan — Threat of Compleation

Maybe I'm just Phyrexian'd out at the moment, because the actual notion of compleation is pretty well-done for me. Transformative effects are great, of course, and I think that this week showed a lot of people's interest in creature-type-changing effects in a great way. Where would this card find a home, I wonder? Oil counters and toxicity suggest an environment like ONE, but what does this card do for that kind of situation?

Just for brevity's sake, the modes are understandable for the story but I don't feel that they're doing anything particularly new or nuanced for the presented choice. Compleation vs. resistance has been tried and true throughout. Without any sense of specificity, I find myself wanting this card to give a less macroscopic notion that it's just not giving right now. The choices are broadly represented, and that's fine if you're going for it, but the idea isn't gripping me as much as a specific difference in a character's experience might. The flavor text more or less reenforces that sense of broad strokes. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but I'm looking for more of a foothold.

~

@yourrightfulking — Gruul Diplomacy (JUDGE PICK)

Meat and eggs? We're eatin' well tonight. I think that with the modes, a three-mana Bite spell is probably marginal enough that everyone would be willing to play it. And everyone gets to eat, too! Within the Gruul clan, there's a sense of prosperity that not everyone gets to feel on the outside, and thank goodness for a feast to make that happen. I kinda like that, actually, even if that boar is probably going to be an attacker as well. While I'm not a fan of the specific phrasing "After all this time" in the FT, I like the notion that you're going for of nature's constancy.

Bold of you to assume that the Gruul would use utensils, but I digress—because as far as gold uncommons go, any Gruul player would be happy to have this card as a limited inclusion. Bite spells are always good, and tokens are most of the time pretty great, even if creatures have gotten a little better over time. Could this perhaps have been a trampling or vigilant Boar token? Maybe, but the life's flavorful enough (heh) that maybe you don't necessarily need much more. It's playable, it's easy to understand, and it's a callback that I think is worth the slight confusion for folks who don't know the cyclops in question. I like what folks have been doing with Ravnica for this contest. Makes me miss it.

That's one week out of the way. Thanks for everyone's patience. @abelzumi

[rw7771]

Philosophy lesson

The Problem of Evil has been stated in different ways:

The Logical Problem of Evil, considered by many to be one of the most formidable objections to the existence of God, was first identified in antiquity by Epicurus when he noted that there were four possibilities:

1) If God wishes to take away evils and is not able to, then he is feeble.

2) If God is able to take away evils but does not wish to, then he is malevolent.

3) If God neither wishes to nor is able to take away evils, then he is both malevolent and feeble and therefore not God at all.

4) If God wishes to take away evils and is able to, then why are there evils in the world, and why does he not remove them?

In response, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that it is not necessarily clear that the world would be more perfect in the absence of evil, and that worthy concepts such as justice, kindness, fairness and self-sacrifice would be meaningless if there were no evil to set against them. The so-called Unknown Purpose Defence argues that human limitations might not permit us to guess the motivations of God, especially if, as some argue, He cannot be known directly.

The Empirical Problem of Evil, initially formulated by David Hume, argues that if people did not have a prior commitment to believe the contrary (i. e. religious convictions), their experience of the world and its evils would lead them to Atheism and the conclusion that a God who is good and all-powerful cannot exist. A counter-argument to this might be that the apparent senselessness of some evil might in itself force a person to seek an explanation for it, which might be God.

The Probabilistic Argument from Evil argues that the very existence of evil is evidence that no God exists, although Alvin Plantinga notes that the meaning of this claim depends on the probabilistic theory we hold to.

Theodicy is the specific branch of theology and philosophy that attempts to reconcile the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God. Therefore it accepts that evil exists and that God is both good and able to remove evil, and then seeks to explain why he does not do so. One of the most famous formulations is that of Gottfried Leibniz in 1710, who made the optimistic claim that our world is optimal among all possible worlds, and that it must be the best possible and most balanced world, simply because it was created by a perfect God.

An example of this is the free-will defense, according to which it was not possible for God to create a world with good but no evil because his purpose for the universe required humans to have free will, and that good could not exist without freedom to choose evil (similar to Aquinas's argument above), although it can also be argued that there still seems to be a disproportionate amount of evil in the world.

Another example is the question of why He allows the suffering of animals (for whom free will is assumed not to apply). Some defenses suggest that the purpose of such suffering may be unknown, or that most of the suffering occurs when we remove animals from their natural surroundings, or just that we are given the free will to try to do something about it.

Recurring defenses in theodicy include: that what people consider evil or suffering is an illusion or unimportant; that events thought to be evil are not really so; that what we see as evil is really part of a divine design that is actually good, but our limitations prevent us from seeing the big picture; that God, if he exists, is so far superior to man that he cannot be judged by man, and that to even try is mere arrogance; that evil is the consequence of God giving people free will; that evil and suffering are intended as a test for humanity, to see if we are worthy of His grace; that evil is the consequence of people not observing God's revealed will, and not actually caused by God; that evil is propagated by the Devil in opposition to God; that God is a righteous judge and, if someone suffers, it is because they have committed a sin that merits such punishment; that neither good nor evil could exist without both existing simultaneously.

[yokune-ruko]

hey sorry but idk much abt the topic, could you elaborate on the wool and honey being touted as ethically flawless thing? good faith i swear :(

the general thing to internalize about any discussion surrounding this is that if a product can be produced cheaper using exploitation, it will, and this is especially true of animal products, as animals can't form unions, demand better conditions, etc.

what i'm talking about when i say that is posts like the one that's being responded to here https://vegspoblr.tumblr.com/post/712252398952906752/and-it-doesnt-shed-microplastics

note the insistence that vegans "need" to support a less, but ultimately still, cruel version of the thing they're against; not that there are concessions that have to be made, but that people who morally object to a practice are obligated to support it, because of the (often uninformed, surface-level) reasons they give, which exist in a world outside of profit motive, wherein farmers will indefinitely keep animals that don't produce any profit for them.

having issues with veganism isn't a new concept or even wholly unfair (as a vegan of five years myself, i've come across plenty of people that i feel are overzealous to the point of being ignorant), but this mindset often comes from people who feel that they need to be the one to defend animal agriculture, one of the most powerful and environmentally destructive industries on the planet, from the mean vegans who are saying that it's not really a good thing to treat animals as property, and that they're being the one to debunk veganism, when in reality they're rehashing arguments that have been had over and over, because many people want to also be the one, but have never actually... really spoken to a vegan. their concept of vegans comes from the hypothetical people being debunked, who don't know the first thing about animal agriculture, when in reality they're often parroting propaganda to people who have worked in, or at least seen the insides of, the industry.

as far as the example post itself, they provided some sources, but here's a more comprehensive page; it has a section specifically to address honey farming, as well as wool being under "animals as clothing" https://acti-veg.com/resources/sources/animal-welfare/

many of the ethical issues surrounding sheep farming can be mitigated with proper care, as well as transitioning to sheep that can survive on their own without regular shearing, but even in theory, that doesn't change that these sheep are universally killed well before the end of their natural life, and many of these idealistic changes simply cannot happen on any scale that's sustainable for our current consumption levels.

it's a similar situation with honey; i'm sure you could harvest honey in small quantities without hurting the bees in any way, but that idealism isn't the case, and it doesn't change some of the other issues with honeybee farming, such as out-competing native bees; honeybees are not the ones that need saving, they actually drive out solitary and native bees, who are not "useful" to humans.

and this isn't me saying "you have to give up wool and honey", although i would encourage it, if it's within your means. it's more, next time you see a post saying "hey vegans, listen up. x animal product is actually good", consider who is benefiting from hearing this - is it reinforcing something you already believe? have you thought about why you believe that? does it make sense that a specific product produced under capitalism would be ethical, and if not, why is this person defending it so strongly? does the post stereotype vegans? (in general, if it portrays agave or plastic as the only viable alternatives to honey or wool, respectively, the answer is yes) is this stereotype justified? (for example, have you ever met someone who believes that wool is bad but plastic is not? do you know anyone who uses agave instead of honey? i don't, and i know plenty of vegans) if the answer to any of these gives you the impression that something is not quite right (including on this post! i'm just some guy on the internet, i don't have all the answers), then it's a cue that maybe the person is responding to a guy that they made up - and if you have an idea of what you're arguing against, you don't have to make up guys.

this post got very long so i'm gonna leave it here. i hope that thoroughly answered your question lol