#they don't know how to interpret text

[infinitemilk]

I HATE when people say that kageyama hates kenma or atsumu, like BROTHER IN CHRIST close ao3 and open the MANGA!!! kageyama would never hate another setter, stop thinking that fanfic is canon,, geez bro stop with that shit

[shalom-iamcominghome]

Hey, same anon, the 'if you do believe in the religion' wasn't meant to be a dig, and I apologise sincerely that it came across as such.

I use with both converts, nonconverts, and non-jews as a sort of.... implicit cover? I guess, for semi in-depth theological or practical statements.

Because often online people positing questions or statements don't necessarly actually *believe* in Judaism, so I clarify that my answer is within the framework of one who does believe, but if they don't then the logic won't apply.

But I see that it would come off as dismissive to one in the process of converting, so I will be mindful of that in the future.

(I am also sorry for misinterpreting the initial post, I really need to stop pissing on the poor)

I'm definitely not angry, to be clear, and I want to make sure you know that. There aren't any ill feelings, I sometimes just talk about an issue without really directing it anywhere in particular, and I wanted to mention it just to expand on what exactly it is that I believe in the framework of conversion.

There are many, many interpretations of the ideas of permanent body modification, and even without having tattoos, I'm transitioning which is seen as body modification to others even if I don't agree fully with that categorization. It's a pretty sticky situation when things like permanent body modifications have genuinely saved my life, and that is the reason I generally think that body modification done out of respect for the body you're given is a much more reasonable position for myself personally. In that way, I might have to cut my losses and fulfill different obligations (because there are already many obligations in judaism I cannot fulfill, even if I want to, and I feel the best way to combat that reality is to accept as many obligations as I can and ones that I can do). I feel like explaining this might be helpful, and I didn't beforehand just because I didn't really know how to exactly address the issue.

[amethystina]

Hi! I was re-reading Gravitational Pull and a strange line of thought crossed my mind. And for some reason I feel the need to share it with you.

So, I don't know why, but at the part where Yohan says "I'll set you free" my mind made the connection of "free" = "bird" = "Gaon" (cus his tattoo, yeah I know it's a Fenix but still) and that made me go back to the scene where we're shown Yohan's past in the drama for the first time, when he killed the bird. By cutting it off. And now that scene took another meaning in my head, because somehow, probably totally subconsciously, Yohan had set free the bird, free from the chaos that had been caused in the classroom since its arrival. And I feel like that's what Yohan was trying to do, maybe not so subconsciously now, with Gaon in that part of the fic. Setting him free by fully cutting him off from Yohan's world, which is, at the lightest, totally dangerous and chaotic.

Anyway, this probably doesn't make much sense and I'm just reading too much into it (and making it a lot more dramatic lol). Also English isn't my native language and that might make my point a bit lost.

However, I still wanted to share it with you! Thanks for your amazing work and I hope you're doing better <3

Hi there! I'm happy to hear that you're enjoying your re-read! And that it can spark new ideas and thoughts! 😄

As for Yo Han's intentions with Ga On in that fic, I can say that yes, he was trying to set Ga On free — but not from himself. Yo Han was trying to set Ga On free from the restraints that have been put on him by Soo Hyun and Professor Min. That's not to say that Yo Han lied about allowing Ga On to leave if he wanted to. Yo Han would have kept his word and never mentioned the kiss again if that had been Ga On's choice. But more so out of pride than consideration for Ga On. Yo Han would have been too offended by the rejection to mention it again 😆

But Yo Han doesn't actually want to let Ga On go at this point and he's not expecting Ga On to leave. So when Yo Han says "I'll set you free" he does so mainly because he's convinced that Ga On won't actually take him up on the offer. Yo Han might make it sound like he's uncertain, resigned to the fact that Ga On will choose Soo Hyun again, but he's lying.

You have to remember that Yo Han is a manipulative bastard and he was just handed extra ammunition given how affected Ga On was by that kiss. It may seem like Yo Han is being considerate, but he's not. He's acting, carefully nudging Ga On in the direction he wants him to go. The emotions underneath are honest, though. He would let Ga On go if that's what he chose. Because Yo Han is telling the truth when he says that he only wants affection that is freely given. And it would make him sad if Ga On left. But does he expect Ga On to do so?

No, he doesn't.

So, as always with Yo Han, there's an additional layer to what he's saying and doing. He's saying "I'll set you free," but he doesn't specify from what. And there are two ways to interpret that sentence. If Ga On chooses to leave, he'll be set free from Yo Han's influence — that one is simple and straightforward. But if Ga On chooses to stay, he'll be set free from the constraints and expectations of Soo Hyun, Professor Min, and society. Not immediately, obviously — it's a little more symbolic at this initial moment but it can't be denied that choosing to stay with Yo Han is to rebel quite dramatically. In more ways than one.

Yo Han will make sure of that.

So yes, it's about setting Ga On free, but Yo Han has no intention of letting Ga On go. That's not what he wants to set Ga On free from.

Yo Han wants to change Ga On — wants him to become something new and better.

(according to Yo Han's standards — which aren't the same as everyone else's, I should point out 🤣 )

And that's why I think Ga On's tattoo is pretty apt, since the journey he goes through during the drama is very much a rebirth. The Ga On of the first episode is so different from the Ga On of the last episode that they're practically different people — and not only because he's had his beliefs challenged and his world turned upside-down. And, in some ways, that can probably be viewed as him being set free.

I bet Yo Han sees it that way.

Anyhow!

Maybe I should stop dropping bombs like these about Yo Han's characterisation x'D Mainly because a lot of things are supposed to be left for interpretation and my intentions — and how I imagine Yo Han's thought process — aren't supposed to override my readers' theories. I don't want anyone to feel like they're reading my fics wrong or that they're not getting the "right" version of the story.

I always have a plan when I write — especially for Yo Han because that fucker needs to be several steps ahead of everyone else at all times — but I'm well aware that my plan doesn't always come across in my writing. It's not supposed to. Because Yo Han is an unreliable, manipulative bastard and, because of that, his underlying thoughts should remain hidden — which is why I so rarely choose to write his POV. And I imagine that can sometimes be frustrating when I then go ahead and explain what he's actually doing and it wasn't obvious in the text.

So, uh, idk. Sorry for not making Yo Han easier to read? 😅 But he's not supposed to be?

But, long story short: You're not wrong! Yo Han definitely wants to set Ga On free! But rather than sending him off into the light, Yo Han wants to cut off the shackles anchoring Ga On to it and drag him down into the darkest, deepest depths instead.

Because the Abyss is selfish, ruthless, and hungry.

[pynkhues]

Hi sophie! I hate to be the person who brings bad vibes your way, but I keep seeing ppl twisting your arguments in the worst way possible and it’s honestly bumming me out. The latest vaguepost claims that saying Louis is traditionally masculine or a patriarch is antiblack (this is the post btw in case your curious: https://www.tumblr.com/nashvillethotchicken/770055675307065344/a-lot-of-people-in-the-iwtv-fandom-regurgitate?source=share). It made me wonder whether this pushback against Louis’ masculinity has something to do with a narrow concept of gender roles in general. Because there always seems to be this idea that being masculine equals being a hyperviolent abuser, while any gentle or submissive trait immediately gets interpreted as “feminine” (and overall I see a very strong correlation between femininity and victimhood -especially in the context of domestic abuse -which is understandable but not necessarily helpful when talking abt a gay couple). I agree a lot with your interpretation of Louis as a Byronic hero and the points you’ve made about his and Lestat’s gender presentation, so it sort of surprises me to see so many people believe that recognizing Louis’ masculinity somehow negates his sensibility and his capacity for tenderness (not to mention the assumption that we are trying to defend Lestat and make him into a victim, which is a wild leap and a very bad faith reading of the whole argument imo)

Hey, anon, and that's okay. I can appreciate feeling bummed about my words being twisted into a strawman argument - I do sometimes too - but at the end of the day, that's out of my control and I think says a lot more about the people who'd do it than it does about me.

It's actually kind of interesting to me, because I think with a lot of those sorts of posts, the person actually kind of knows they're strawmanning, because they'd address me directly if they actually thought any of what they wrote in that post was what I was saying, and they almost never do. They make these sorts of posts loudly and publicly to turn the argument into one that stokes outrage and becomes something they can adopt a moral highground to and win, and I think in a lot of ways, it becomes an exercise in control. If they can put words in my mouth and not actually engage with me, they can control the environment of the debate, and therefore they can attempt to control the discourse in the fandom i.e. dictate the way Louis is perceived and received as a character by others. They want it to look like they're arguing my points, but they're not.

They're arguing with the points they want me to be making, because if my points are that Louis' a mindless, hypermasculine 'brute' and a 'sexual deviant', they know they're right and they know how to argue against that, but if my argument is what it is - that Louis is pretty traditionally masculine, and in fact that he has almost all of the Byronic masculine traits which includes sensitivity, warmth, depression, egotism, a vengeful streak, and a complex relationship with religion, sexuality, and the self - it becomes a conversation that requires a more nuanced understanding of what masculinity is and has been throughout history and literature, which doesn't work with the TERFy talking points that are, frankly, endemic in fandom spaces broadly right now.

Which yeah, that goes to your second point about gender roles, because I think that you've hit the nail on the head. A lot of people in this fandom seem to view the concept of masculinity as inherently violent or abusive and femininity as - to borrow a phrase I loathe from TikTok, haha - demure and mindful - which is, again, literally TERF rhetoric. This desire to reinforce the gender binary and feel like you're not simply because you're applying reductive and stereotypical female characteristics to a male character is just sort of baffling to me, on so many levels.

And it appears in a lot of their arguments, like, gosh, even the post I was linked to yesterday about Eartha Kitt, David Bowie and Grace Jones being influences for Louis as indicative of his 'feminine divine', which to me - honestly - reads as a pretty homophobic and misogynistic take. Cisgender men can be (and are!) influenced personally, creatively and professionally by women, and the suggestion that to be so negates masculinity and is indicative of femininity feels like a pretty dangerous rhetoric to me.

The funny thing is, I don't actually have an issue with people liking femme!Louis at all. It's not how I see him, no, but I respect the fact that how we interpret characters is subjective, and people bring their own history and interests and yes, kinks to a show, and I actually think that's really cool! That's part of what makes engaging with stories and fandom fun! What I find exhausting is the recurring accusation that anyone who doesn't see Louis as a battered housewife entering his liberated woman era is a racist.

[arttsuka]

🫂

Thank you 🫂

Virtual hugs are always appreciated :)

[wonder-worker]

Margaret of Anjou’s visit to Coventry [in 1456], which was part of her dower and that of her son, Edward of Lancaster, was much more elaborate. It essentially reasserted Lancastrian power. The presence of Henry and the infant Edward was recognised in the pageantry. The ceremonial route between the Bablake gate and the commercial centre was short, skirting the area controlled by the cathedral priory, but it made up for its brevity with no fewer than fourteen pageants. Since Coventry had an established cycle of mystery plays, there were presumably enough local resources and experience to mount an impressive display; but one John Wetherby was summoned from Leicester to compose verses and stage the scenes. As at Margaret’s coronation the iconography was elaborate, though it built upon earlier developments.

Starting at Bablake gate, next to the Trinity Guild church of St. Michael, Bablake, the party was welcomed with a Tree of Jesse, set up on the gate itself, with the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah explaining the symbolism. Outside St. Michael’s church the party was greeted by Edward the Confessor and St. John the Evangelist; and proceeding to Smithford Street, they found on the conduit the four Cardinal Virtues—Righteousness (Justice?), Prudence, Temperance, and Fortitude. In Cross Cheaping wine flowed freely, as in London, and angels stood on the cross, censing Margaret as she passed. Beyond the cross was pitched a series of pageants, each displaying one of the Nine Worthies, who offered to serve Margaret. Finally, the queen was shown a pageant of her patron saint, Margaret, slaying the dragon [which 'turned out to be strictly an intercessor on the queen's behalf', as Helen Maurer points out].

The meanings here are complex and have been variously interpreted. An initial reading of the programme found a message of messianic kingship: the Jesse tree equating royal genealogy with that of Christ had been used at the welcome for Henry VI on his return from Paris in 1432. A more recent, feminist view is that the symbolism is essentially Marian, and to be associated with Margaret both as queen and mother of the heir rather than Henry himself. The theme is shared sovereignty, with Margaret equal to her husband and son. Ideal kingship was symbolised by the presence of Edward the Confessor, but Margaret was the person to whom the speeches were specifically addressed and she, not Henry, was seen as the saviour of the house of Lancaster. This reading tips the balance too far the other way: the tableau of Edward the Confessor and St. John was a direct reference to the legend of the Ring and the Pilgrim, one of Henry III’s favourite stories, which was illustrated in Westminster Abbey, several of his houses, and in manuscript. It symbolised royal largesse, and its message at Coventry would certainly have encompassed the reigning king. Again, the presence of allegorical figures, first used for Henry, seems to acknowledge his presence. Yet, while the message of the Coventry pageants was directed at contemporary events it emphasised Margaret’s motherhood and duties as queen; and it was expressed as a traditional spiritual journey from the Old Testament, via the incarnation represented by the cross, to the final triumph over evil, with the help of the Virgin, allegory, and the Worthies. The only true thematic innovation was the commentary by the prophets.

[...] The messages of the pageants firmly reminded the royal women of their place as mothers and mediators, honoured but subordinate. Yet, if passive, these young women were not without significance. It is clear from the pageantry of 1392 and 1426 in London and 1456 in Coventry that when a crisis needed to be resolved, the queen (or regent’s wife) was accorded extra recognition. Her duty as mediator—or the good aspect of a misdirected man—suddenly became more than a pious wish. At Coventry, Margaret of Anjou was even presented as the rock upon which the monarchy rested. [However,] a crisis had to be sensed in order to provoke such emphasis [...]."

-Nicola Coldstream, "Roles of Women in Late Medieval Civic Pageantry", Reassessing the Roles of Women as 'Makers' of Medieval Art and Culture

[cumbiazevran]

I know I’m batting at the hornet nest, and please know that if you like this character, it’s nothing personal bc we interpret things as they make more sense to us that being said, I cannot stand the Solas gang who paint him as nothing BUT someone who has the interest of elves at heart and was their liberator, who is just kind and thoughtful and does his best to help people. I do not have a problem with people who like Solas bc this isn’t a morality competition about who has the most correct opinions, nor I care about people who do that, but did we play the same game?

Destroying the world is not the revolutionary move of liberation you think it is. I think we have seen enough movies that deal with that ecofascist narrative (bc even if the character isn’t, the narrative is). People still live in the world, and anyone who would genuinely suggest this would be destroyed in an argument by people who do actual mutual aid and left-based activism. What is or isn’t revolutionary doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and the devs being terminally Canadian/USAmerican don’t get to redefine things that exist beyond and over them

Solas isn’t a particularly helpful person. Not even to elves. Thinking pitifully of city elves and as the Dalish as savages, without any will to recognise the culture that flourished among them is also not the solidarity move you think it is

Solas isn’t particularly kind. Being soft spoken isn’t the same as being kind

For a fandom that usually has a lot of issues with other characters being used as BioWare mouth pieces (which is honestly understandable and I’m not jabbing at bc me too bestie), a lot of people in this fandom seem to be okay with Solas being one of the most blatant mouth-pieces there is

A person who laments hurting you, and saying he doesn’t want to hurt you, and how he wish he wasn’t hurting you, and who has the space to STOP and DOESN’T is you know. not someone who’s particularly interested in listening to other people

This is the guy who killed his best friend because he had the audacity to believe that a city elf could actually better the conditions of elves who are currently alive. Which is the revolutionary thing to do

The Elvhenan being destroyed is literally Solas’ doing. Organise unions and commit regicide like a normal person if it bothers you so much

“But they were enslavers” gee listen, I’m not saying the ancient elvhen empire should be pristine and perfect and a happy utopia, but you’ve never stopped to think how it’s at least a little racist that they modelled a people after several indigenous cultures and cultures of colour and then decided that the guy who wanted to fix them was a white looking king and fallen god who thinks people who are lesser than him are underdeveloped and savage? Not only that but that BioWare decided that that very culture was going to be based on slavery like a wildly inaccurate, racist, methodologically questionable global north high school text talking about Mesoamerican cultures? That they took the ancient practice of face tattoos and decided they were slave markings? How white are you???

Once again he constantly distances himself from modern elves, and the only one he speaks kindly of is a high approval Dalish Inquisitor.

He is one of the biggest “all faith in anything at all is subjugation if you disagree with me you are committing an attack on the very concept of freedom" characters in the franchise. I fully see going that route when you’re playing with Andrastianism, because of the narrative around it in the game and the influences it has. But with other minority religions and Otherised cultures in the game? It is straight up racist to me, and sounds too close to white atheism for my comfort. This isn’t just a Solas thing, but a Bioware thing in general. Even if Andrastianism is criticised or portrayed as genuinely damaging, every single person who isn’t a human andrastian is portrayed as being Oppressed Without Knowing It. every single dialogue and investigation option is framed like this.

Also foreign liberators don’t really tend to be liberators. People who seek to free other people because they know better should be met with resistance. It is with the people or not at all, and Solas actually fits in this category. He sees himself as the granter of Freedom. Where I come from, we call these people gringos or conquistadores, so you choose.

I’m not saying you can’t find entertainment, enjoyment, pathos or whatever else in this particular character. On the contrary, as different narratives and different narrative devices satisfy different things. That, however, doesn’t mean the narrative they use is extremely skewed and can be interpreted as extremely infective in terms of what people pretend it is aka a story about Liberation.

In my personal opinion, Bioware doesn’t have stories about liberation because it does not have the range for it in Dragon Age, which leaves us with a lot of half assed attempts, but I digress. My point is I’m not claiming to know what you see in this character just because I don’t enjoy him, or that you can’t at all. I’m not the boss of you. I am, however, proposing that perhaps people should stop ignoring Solas’ negative traits and the actual text material to pretend he’s some benevolent, lost, elvhen King Arthur come to fix things while being willing to kill everyone else in the process. Again.

[obvslybatgrl]

Y'know what I've just remembered though is these kids where in school virtually for like 2 years... bro no wonder they don't know what subtext is 😭

[watery-melon-baller]

once again i am frustrated because i cannot understand this when it is not at all that difficult I wanna understand it so bad please please please

[leatherbookmark]

pretend to be shocked if you wish but i don’t even see mxy’s incestuous harassment of jgy as something like... Bad™, twisted or something that proves how Wrong In The Head he was. it’s just sad. chances are jgy was his first and last love, because -- how incredibly easy it would have been. i don’t think mxy was, hmm, mentally equipped to process “half-brother! off-limits!” -- he’s never seen this man before in his life, that’s a stranger! but what a stranger. he’s kind, respectful, capable and brilliant, hardworking despite the way he’s treated in jinlintai -- and mxy probably isn’t well-liked either, so even if jgy wasn’t also handsome, he would’ve gravitated towards this cool older dude who Understands. and hormones do the rest! and it didn’t even have to be immediate, or particularly sexual in nature, because i assume teens often don’t realize their crush is Obviously Showing. i’m just thinking about mxy who likes jgy so, so much and wants to be around him all the time, asks him about things, looks at him, catches a whiff of the incense on jgy’s robes as he walks past, blushes at the way jgy looks at a particular angle... just this sweet, innocent young love that’s so similar to the way jgy’s wife loved him before she was his wife So Fucking Doomed and mxy can’t even process it because he’s not even aware. :(

[summerstrash]

there's something buried deep in the connections between Alex, Maddie, Cable, Kwannon, Mystique, Destiny, Kurt, Forge and Greycrow (and a little bit Betsy & Rachel, too) in the Krakoan Era, and I think it's going to take a lot to unpack but for the moment, suffice to say:

it's somewhere in the idea of women bearing messiah-children they will never raise, women losing their children, the spectre of catholicism juxtaposed with ghosts and devils in the machines, women lost in the desert, the destruction of the body as the creation of the weapon, blood and destruction and undying love and mirror images and queer women and the men who love them —

it's all here and I wish I had better words for the web of connections I see in my head, but I don't, it's not a thing I can express in an essay form yet but it's so vibrantly present and I'm expecting it'll take me five more years to unpack it all.

[thedreadvampy]

I try not to be a hater and I recognise that a lot of them are literally kids but the people who send specifically Neil Gaiman asks on this website are the stupidest motherfuckers alive and it's endlessly hilarious to me.

[inkykeiji]

No fr, I saw Hazbin fans on TT who ACTUALLY THOUGHT Alastor's last name was "Altruist". Like. They didn't comprehend it was a word he was mockingly attaching to his name after his performance in the finale.

oh my good god. once again i say, the media literacy (and possibly literacy, period) is buried beneath the ground like...that’s actually concerning. unless they were young teenagers who just didn’t know what the word meant,, tho idk if young teenagers should necessarily be watching hazbin but that’s a different conversation for a different time.

[jacksintention]

I say I ship Jack and Lacie, but tbh I don't think I do in the sense fandom understands it. For me it's kind of like saying I ship Heathc.liff and Cathy or Fe.rmín and Ana. Do I ship them? Yes? No? The answer is closer to "I like W.uthering Heigh.ts and La R.egenta"

[the-punforgiven]

New art challenge for queer artists: Draw what you thought was your Ideal Hot Person from when you first realized you were queer vs what your Ideal Hot Person would be now

[musical-chick-13]

I'm the LAST person to suggest that you have to preface every single comment you make about a character/fictional relationship/etc. you like with a reminder that you Know™ it's pRoBLeMaTiC, but I DO question what the point of acting genuinely for real like there were no problems is.