#this is also a generous interpretation of her.

[stxrslut]

I think the reason why so many people hate dark content is because they don’t understand it.

Incest for example has been a big topic on this side of tumblr as kinktober approaches and a few writers, including myself have mentioned it.

why is writing incest bad? It’s not, up front. the moment it becomes bad is when you romanticise it. the same goes for other dark topics, for example necrophilia or blatant rape.

acknowledging that these things exist is not a bad thing, and neither is acknowledging that there are certain people out there who do it. it is a horrible truth that nobody wants to exist, but it does.

using the infamous rafe cameron as an example, why would you want to read an incest piece about him?

rafe is a complicated character, and a very bad person. a lot of writers don’t like to take that into account. I’m sure we’ve all seen many works where rafe is portrayed as a sweetheart, a perfect husband who cares and would never do anything to harm you.

this portrayal of rafe has become the norm for many people on this platform. and so upon seeing dark content, they are trying to imagine it with this completely different character. the version of rafe that is romanticised.

when we write this content we don’t write it with that rafe in mind. we don’t want to be with this version of rafe that we’re writing, this is a bad character and we absolutely recognise it when writing him.

of course, as mentioned there are people who are imagining it with romanticised rafe, and also assume that was the rafe it was intended to be written with.

if that was the case then writing this content most definitely would be bad.

but why would we write dark content with a reader insert if we didn’t want this to happen to us? what is the point? that’s a valid question.

primarily, self insert or ‘x reader’ is just the format that we write in. even though we may be imagining our name and or face it’s not necessarily us. reader is just a character, let’s use puppy!reader for an example, she has her own characteristics specific to the reader or character. I don’t think I am puppy reader, but I love to use her character to write a reader.

self insert and second person writing is also a very good way to explore the thoughts, feelings and actions in a character in very great detail, which a lot of writers very much enjoy doing.

this is also another misconception that people make. because in some of the situations the reader goes along with / wants these things to happen, which is very easy to mistake for writer wanting it too.

so now we know that self insert does not mean desire. but even if we don’t desire this, why do we write it?

there are many reasons. one is character analysis. there are plenty of bad characters out there, and they would do that. we are simply acknowledging that.

we like to explore complexities and nuances of characters. this character would want to do that and so how would that play out? who would it be with and what would the feelings and emotions be? it’s interesting to explore darker parts of different characters.

another reason is trauma, to people without it that sounds ridiculous. but people with trauma in these kinds of situations may find comfort or control in reading about it in a safe environment.

I have a lot of childhood trauma, and there are certain pieces of writing centred around that kind of thing can really help me to think about it and help me to control the way I think about it.

now there are some aspects of dark content that we may say we “want”, but that is generally misunderstood.

let’s use a sentence I have said many a time, “I want rafe to fuck me with a gun”. no, I absolutely do not.

I am into humiliation and power play, I also enjoy a little bit of fear and pain in some circumstances. in a safe environment, for example, a fictional one, a gun would be a perfect way to do these things.

obviously in real life I wouldn’t let anyone come near me with a gun. it’s all about interpretation and understanding of safe environments.

when I’m reading a fic where gun play may be involved I read about the humiliation and power play and all sorts and think oh fuck that is sexy. because it is, in this very safe place where a gun is not going to harm me or anyone.

the same goes for lots of other forms of dark content. we might not necessarily want the exact action, but more the sensation or feeling that comes with the action.

but why would we write it when people are going to be triggered by it?

simply put, that is not our problem. I haven’t ever come across a piece of dark content that wasn’t correctly labelled and warned.

I’m not responsible for anyone else’s media consumption, if they choose to ignore my warnings it is entirely their fault.

also, free will exists, if someone decides they don’t like what they’re reading they can simply close the piece, stop reading.

in a nutshell, if someone who writes dark content is 1. not romanticising it and 2. labelling it correctly, you don’t have a reason to target them.

learning to distinguish between dark content and predatory content is so important so we’re not attacking the wrong people.

please stop targeting writers who write dark content when there are people out there who genuinely are horrible who we do need to be targeting. focus your attention on the real issues.

[youzicha]

Simulacra, Simulation, and Girls' Generation

That take that "anime girls don’t correspond to anything" reminded me of one of my own pet theories, which is that the same is true about Kpop groups.

Groups like Girls' Generation are like the opposite of American singer-songwriters. The singer-songwriter's core value is authenticity. Their songs are taken to be autobiographical, and to be valuable because they are a true description of the emotions that the songwriter felt. The singer-writer must be a single person so we can be sure that nobody has tampered with the depiction before it reaches us. This is Baudrillard's "first order" image, we in the audience should believe that the song is "the reflection of a profound reality".

With the kpop groups, what we enjoy is that the song does not represent any underlying reality. Each music video is the impersonal product of songwriters, producers, choreographers, stylists, video directors, etc. Rather than a spontaneous expression, you can see the moves being developed in the behind-the-scenes dance practice videos. The online discourse emphasizes the role of the entertainment agency (e.g. SM Entertainment): the group members themselves do not have "agency" so we can be confident that their own emotions didn't make it into the love songs they sing.

Let’s look at the music video for Oh! (2010) to see how this plays out. It's like a game of dress-up, showing off two different cheerleader uniforms. Argumate once wrote that Girls' Generation perform "a detailed sequence of dance moves that are very 'sexy', i.e. strongly coded as suggesting sexiness without necessarily being sexy-without-quotes", and I think we can say something similar about cheerleader outfits. They are not there to convey a message or story (and as if to stress the arbitrariness, the last few seconds of the video show the girls dressed in a completely different "strong woman" style, to tease the upcoming next look). Rather, the "sexy cheerleader" is itself a stylized, free-floating signifier to be quoted. "The whole system becomes weightless … an uninterrupted circuit without reference or circumference." (Although I believe it is still possible to overcome the ironic stance.)

So far everything is straightforward, but now consider the lyrics:

Oppa please see me, please look at me It's the first time I talk like this (ha!) I did my hair and I did my makeup too But why is it only you who doesn't know? […] Don't think of me just like a little sister You might regret that after a year

I claim that this also works in the opposite direction to the normal mode of storytelling. When creating a movie or play, the auteur-director starts with an idea or a story, and then casts actors to best represent his vision. Or, if that is not what it in fact took place, it is still the convention the viewer is supposed to apply to interpret the work. But with an idol music video, the starting point is the singer, who already has a fanbase. "Please see me, please look at me"—well, we already were. (This is not the only Girls' Generation song about looking at the idol, by the way, compare e.g. The Boys, which begins "I can tell you're looking at me / I know what you see".)

Given the opposite starting point, the representational function of the lyrics changes correspondingly. Rather than focusing on the new fictional person who emerges ex nihilo, the fan's attention is still on the singer, and the "little sister" character is yet another stock signifier for them to bring out and put on, much like the uniform. The function of the story is erasure: there was in fact a hairdresser and a makeup artist who styled Yuri, but instead we're invited to project a different fantasy over her. The effect is to further stress the unreality of all the symbols involved.

With this in mind, I think one Girls' Generation song has a really interesting concept for the lyrics. In Paparazzi (2012) the idol looks out across the crowds, spots a photographer who is trying to be discreet, and speaks directly to him: "shall I give you a better photo? let's be friendly, after all aren't we allies?"

It re-establishes the inauthenticity and unreality of the idol! As time goes by, pesky reality intrudes. People will follow the individual group members devotedly, and there are paparazzi images of them. Members will capitalize on their fame through individual brand endorsement deals. There is the perennial problem of girl group girls getting boyfriends, jarringly peeking out as an actual human being from behind the illusion. Or in the extreme case they can even use their new independent existence to leave the group.

In Paparazzi, those candid photos are re-imagined as performance. And furthermore, just like in Oh! we are invited to imagine a fictional character speaking directly to us. But in this case the character is superimposed not just over the image from the music video, but also over all the already existing photos. The actual person of the idol is crowded out by the fantasy…

[celticcrossanon]

BRF Reading - 21st of September, 2024

This is speculation only

Cards drawn on the 21st of September, 2024

Question: Were the birthday greetings to Harry a message (and if so who were they for and what was the message)?

Interpretation: It looks like it was a message to Meghan - how unexpected. The energy is not on point with respect to the question, so this could be a message from the universe that is overriding what I asked.

Card One: The Queen of Wands

This is a fire sign person, in particular and Aries but it can be any fire sign person. This is a person who is or sees herself as charismatic, generous, sexy/hot, in demand socially, confident, self assured, passionate and determined.

This card is giving off Meghan energy. So much Meghan energy. This is how she sees herself - sitting pretty, the Queen of all she surveys, the hot sexy confident charismatic woman that everyone wants to know and be with. Yes, she is delusional, but that is the energy from the card of how Meghan sees herself and how she is going to take this message from the BRF - as a queen receiving a message from another monarch (OK, maybe the wicked queen, but you get the idea).

The card tells me that there was a message, and the message was meant for Meghan. If it wasn't meant for her, she is taking it as meant for her anyway.

There is nothing else to this card - it is just Meghan-as-she-sees-herself energy.

Three points to note about the Queen of Wands before I leave this card:

A characteristic of the Queen of Wands person is an inability to stick to a budget and a tendency to overspend. This is confirmation that Meghan has money troubles.

The Queen of Wands can be very self centred, but I think most of us know that about Meghan. That self centred-ness is now to the fore, i.e. she is concerned about herself and no one else

This is a continuation of point 2: The Queen of Wands can be someone who accomplishes a lot of work in a short period of time. We all know that Meghan is allergic to real work, but this tells me that she is plotting something and it is something that has to be accomplished quickly.

Card Two: The Devil in Reverse

The Devil is another card that has come to signify Meghan in tarot readings. In the reverse, it is a symbol of her downfall.

The Devil in reverse as a card is good news. It means independence, freedom for addiction and co-dependency, eyes being opened, reclaiming power and control, release.

I drew a clarifier for this card and it was The Queen of Pentacles in reverse - the bad wife.

Both the Queen of Pentacles and The Devil represent Capricorn. I'm not getting the energy of The Princess of Wales (a sun sign Capricorn) here. Instead I am getting the energy of the shadow side of Capricorn - money hungry, status hungry, ambitious and ruthless with it, climb up the ladder and kick it out from under you etc. Capricorn is the natural ruler of the 10th house of the zodiac, the house of - usually it is career, but it is more accurately how you are perceived by the public, and it can also talk about being an adult, your parents, or you as a parent.

The message I am getting from this card is either 'we see you' or 'you have lost control', or both. I'm leaning towards both. It is a message that says we see you, we know what you did, we know how you did it and who helped you - we know. The other message says you have lost control, this person (possibly Harry, could be others like employees or surrogates) who was under your thumb is now free, you have lost control of them, they have found their power and they are using it against you, they have escaped - the idea of escaping and freedom is resonating quite strongly.

I don't think this reading relates to the birthday message sent by BP, but whatever has come through is very strong energy.

With respect to the birthday greetings, the energy I am getting is: This stops here, so far and no further, this is all you will be getting from us (bare minimum generic message to your spouse) which doesn't really tie in with the meaning of this card, but that is what I get for it.

The other energy is of exposure - the Devil, the Prince of Lies, is being exposed in a particular way that will open some people's eyes to their true nature in this area.

Card Three: The Seven of Swords

This is the thief card, the card of resourcefulness or strategy if you are being nice, and lies, deceit, trickery, being sly, and schemeing if you are not nice. The energy from this card is definitely in the not nice category.

Skullduggery. That s what I get from this card. Schemes that are afoot, things done in the shadows or on the sly, trickery and deceit. It is being done now and it is known. I don't know the aim of the plots in the shadows, but they are there and they are known.

Card Four: The King of Cups in Reverse

This is the card for a Scorpio person, and for me it is the card for the King as a father. This is who the plots and snares of the Seven of Swords are aimed at. The King as a person is in reverse, he is weak, he is suffering from Cancer, and there are plots to keep the card in the reverse - to take advantage of his current condition. These plots are known (The Devil card in reverse - we see you, we know) - maybe not all of them, but definitely some of them and most likely all of them. The King is aware of the threats against him.

Underlying Energy: Death

Death is the major arcana card for Scorpio, stringer than the King of Cups, and here it is in the upright. It is a card of change, of transformation, of moving from one state to another. of endings and letting go, and literally of death.

This is where I feel the energy of The King. He is behind this, the force pulling the strings. He is preparing the way for a change or transformation of some kind. This is the King in his power, not weakened by illness but strong and decisive. It could be as simple as the rumours of plans for his death being made and Harry not being included. It could be something else. This is The King in control of the situation, whatever it is, and pulling strings so that the changes that he wants will come about despite any plots to the contrary.

Note that Death is a necessary part of the cycle of life - birth and death, death and rebirth (like perennial plants). So there are echoes of birth energy in this change and transformation energy, as you change to a different state and birth a different version of yourself.

Conclusion: I have no idea. That was a completely unexpected set of cards that was not the answer to my question that I expected, and in fact I think it did not answer the question at all. The energy feels important though, and rather urgent, so I will let it stand as it is for whatever we can make of it.

There was definitely a message sent to Meghan. Someone/s have been freed from her control, she has been found out and will be exposed. There are plots against The King, especially him as a father, but they are seen and countered. Underneath it all is the transformative energy of death and birth, moving to a new state of being/ a new way of life.

I have no idea how any of this ties into the birthday greeting s from BP.

Ok, I will revisit this question the next time I do a reading. For now, I am leaving this here, as is. Make of this energy what you will.

[lillified]

haiiiii so I've been really curious about your thunderblast design, she has that long, flowy fabric which to me implies she doesn't need to transform often, which implies AGAIN that she has a high rank of sorts

There's also her more organic shapes and those rough hairs(?) on her arms and legs, which kind of makes me envision a crab lol. In fact I remember a lore post you made abput the quintessons doing some machine fuckery to the (at the time) organic cyb population, and that elita has an aquatic alt, but noticeably more inorganic shapes. (I have no idea if what I'm typing makes sense man I drank two vodka cruisers, but uhm) to me her design implies she's considerably older than the main cast.

Idk I think your character designs are really cool with how they make me think about the snippets of worldbuilding you've shared and how I'm able to make my own interpretation from the given information

(also sorry if I assumed thunderblast's pronouns)

this is a great observation!! honestly you’re pretty on the money with a lot of the stuff you noted :)

Thunderblast IS considerably older than the main cast and there is a reason her armor style is very different, though the specifics of why aren’t something you guys could have guessed (there are some secrets about Cybertronian extended lore that I can’t fully reveal yet without spoiling some fun reveals later on!)

exact reasons aside though, it makes me super happy to hear that you picked that up and are engaged w the stuff I share in general!! it’s super flattering and I get super giddy anytime it turns out that someone other than me pays attention to it!

[dootznbootz]

I don't think Ody is a cheater, but I've seen some posts calming he had sex slaves in the Iliad?? Keep in mind I haven't read the Odyssey haha, I'm only a general fan but still we need to fact check this with the expert

For the short answer: With Odysseus, it's literally so so fucking vague, to the point where one with evidence could say "No, he had no concubines" and others could also say "I assume he did."

So people can interpret it how they want technically. Basically, it's whether the reader WANTS him to have concubines or not imo.

For the Long answer:

I've answered in another ask with Text evidence :)

Either way, personally, I just really cannot see him with a concubine lol. Love and Lust only exist in Penelope for him in my opinion lol. (He's Penromantic/Pensexual lol (AKA Demisexual))

As wild as it is, I think it's more interesting/funnier that Odysseus has basically done every single warcrime EXCEPT the sexual types lol.

But people can interpret it how they'd like technically. He has no listed canonical concubines/slaves in the Iliad in general but...eh. People can do what they want.

I see people try to bring up Hecuba as to a reason WHY he has concubines but...No. She is an elderly af old woman who literally needs help walking. Odysseus is NOT having sex with her. (I'm sorry but she could not possibly be a concubine lol)

I think what's most important is: Regardless of what people interpret, it should always be known that Odysseus adores Penelope. That is what is most important

(And thank you! <3 I think it's super sweet that you see me as an expert BUT I'm technically just a very passionate goober :P I technically have no credentials other than really really loving these stories/myths (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧ )

[scorndotexe]

not that my relationship with my mother has ever been particularly good and simple but i do think it's going to get worse soon

[kelocitta]

In honor of the @rw-ship-showdown I wanted to write about Artihunter as someone who jokingly slapped them together pre-downpour and still thinks they are actually very compelling. Just not in the super soft love wins kinda way (Although I get why people like that more) And the only way I know how to do that is talking too much so heres a far too long slug essay-

Obviously the slugcats don't offer a ton of characterization but theres not nothing to work with. Their stories, whether by their roles in it or the overarching themes do provide a backbone to work with. Even gameplay itself can provide a bit. (for some more than others) Hunter, to me, is ultimately a story about selflessness. The goal is to revive Moon, which is very much an act of kindness from both Hunter and NSH. But the weight of that action is much more significant for Hunter- Hunter is deeply sick. They're on the clock, and for all their skill in combat none of that will ultimately help them to survive longer than their body can hold out. Moon is a close friend of NSH but that means little Hunter- Hunter really gets next to nothing out of helping them, and ultimately pays quiet a bit spending their limited time alive fighting to deliver that neuron so that someone else can live.

To spend ones limited days on helping another, in a game that very much stresses the unwavering cruelty of the world and nature- is pretty notable. (And you could even say that Hunter being the Hardmode of Rain World adds another layer to this)

And then we have Artificer. A storyline that very much stands out to people as more… villainous (so to speak) than the other slugcats. Artificer's story covers a lot of things. Trauma, violence, revenge, etc. Revenge is a bit of a selfish desire- That need to see someone hurt as they have hurt you. A punishment that ultimately does not fix whatever harm was done- but feels good to see because you were hurt and now those responsible share that pain.

Artificer's actions are founded in that need for revenge, their pups killed for overstepping boundaries they didn't know existed. Is it not fair for them to be angry at that, to punish the scavengers for their violence with their own? Why should the scavengers ever be forgiven when they and their pups were not? And that's how you get that loop- Harm for harm over and over.

The original action has been lost in a spiral of violence for violence. And here stands Artificer- their very spirit scarred. Not just because they sought revenge, but because they never ceased trying to scratch that itch for violence as an answer. Artificer only has two paths for their story- killing the scavenger king (Someone who, really, has little to do with the original 'crime' of the scavengers, but represents an important individual to them- as did the slugpups to Artificer), locking themselves as karma one for good and spending the rest of their life chasing creatures that no longer even fight back in a warped sense of closure- or to dissolve themselves in the acids of the void sea because they're too far gone to find any real peace.

They can't meaningfully recover from that state, not alone, twisting in on themselves. Even if they halt their actions, they've been using violence as a feeble defense against their own pain- violence that no longer has any real direction or basis. Artificer gets no real closure from killing the scavenger king. All they can do is continue the cycle, or try to scrub it away. No real peace in a prison of their own making. So you have a creature, who even with a strict timer on their life- a body that will crumble to disease, spends its last bit of time on saving another. And another who was so caught up in the pain of loss that were eaten alive by their own anger, poisoned their own soul on such a deep level even self-proclaimed gods have no solution for them. What peace can they offer each other? For Hunter, its only a fleeting moment of happiness- of selfish love, before their own body fails them. A bit of indulgence in something for themself. For Artificer, its a single, comforting thread to ground them again, something tangible to protect and care about again. But thats a thread that will ultimately be snapped under the cruel indifference of the world. Hunters timer will tick down regardless of if it takes another with it. Its a tragedy- its doomed to end badly. Whatever good it offers to either of them to find each other will only provide the fleeting comfort of a band-aid that will be ripped away too early. But all that can be worth indulging in anyway, if only for the moment. It doesn't change the ending, but the ending was never going to be happy. Its can so yuri

[oddthingsndaydreams]

Somedays the artblock wins. Somedays inspiration smashes you like a cadillac on a random dashboard recommend. @transformers-synergize your redesigns are so pretty ;^;

[themyscirah]

Complaining abt Suicide Squad yet again but the fact that they have Waller exposing the alien community to space racist attacks and talking abt how she got to her position through deceit and being a terrible person and stuff is just. Ahsfiwueh JUST SAY YOU DONT KNOW WALLER.

Anyways literally the 3rd mission of the Squad ever (and the first framed as smth Waller picked and not orders from above) was the Squad discrediting and stopping a rogue vigilante who was only arresting POC and funneling white people into white supremacy groups (of which he was the most prominent member) in SUICIDE SQUAD #4. and it's explicitly framed as this mission being personal for Waller that she's hiding from the government bc its illegal like. Guys. Please why are we having her incite (space bc comics) racist attacks now

Also the whole "Amanda got her position through deceit and being a terrible person" NO. she KEPT her position through being shitty and playing complicated political games!!! She wasn't always that way like there is a difference and it is IMPORTANT ppl PLEASEEEE. In Secret Origins #14 we learn Amanda's backstory and she used to be a normal, caring person! Like even after she entered into working in government and politics she wasn't automatically morally bankrupt like please people. She was originally given control of the Squad by Reagan (*sigh* 80s comics...) to distract and get rid of her because she was so successful at pushing progressive social policy in Congress. Acting like she's this static pillar of evil is such a waste of her character and so fucking uninteresting and disrespectful to her arc it drives me MAD.

Like I am NOT saying Waller is all sunshine and rainbows, she fucking SUCKS (said w love <3) but like there's a human being there. It's a progression, she has a character arc like please, DC, please!!! They've fucked up Waller so bad and made her so opaque and uninteresting she can't even be the protagonist of her own story for fucks sake!

Like I don't know how many times I have to scream it until DC hears me or remembers but WALLER IS THE MAIN CHARACTER OF SUICIDE SQUAD. ITS HER BOOK. yet right now she's a cutout to be used as the villain wherever the writers please. Even in her book we get none of her perspective really displayed, no exploration of her thoughts with any kind of understanding of the role she traditionally has played and was made to play in the story.

[transmascutena]

okay well i dont know how to feel about literally any of what i just read but it was all worth it for this ending

[river-of-wine]

If it’s meant to be, then it will be

[wonder-worker]

"[Elizabeth Woodville] was the only member of [Crown Prince Edward of Westminster's] original 1471 council not already on the king’s council and her name headed the list of those appointed as administrators in Wales during Edward’s minority. [She remained on the council after it was expanded in 1473 and granted significant new governing and judicial powers]."

"In 1478 Prince Richard [of Shrewsbury] married the Mowbray heiress. Like his elder brother he had a chancellor, seal, household and council to manage his estates. His council, like that of Prince Edward, comprised the queen [Elizabeth Woodville] and a group of magnates and bishops, few of whom were Woodville supporters [...] It was Elizabeth who mattered, for Richard resided with her and Rivers treated his affairs as their own."

-J.L. Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503 / Michael Hicks, Richard III and his Rivals: Magnates and their Motives in the Wars of the Roses

[aq2003]

omfg . radio play version of much ado with david as benedick from 2001

[variousqueerthings]

VERY RAMBLY BUT I think rose and martha are like the inverse of one another in terms of narrative, in that they both meet a doctor who is deeply deeply hurt, but the doctor interacts with them about it so differently, because of where they're at with that hurt, and the doctor is like "hey, I'm suave and vulnerable beneath the surface, which is quite attractive, want to travel in space and time in my whimsical timeship?" and they both go "oh heck yes!" and then it's like splintered glass from that point on, like martha lives in a funhouse mirror of rose's story -- up until she makes it her own of course and she does call the doctor out on it relatively early on, although rose continues to have that haunting effect

so rose has this bubble created around her that is perfect and unchangeable almost, in which nothing bad can ever happen (except for all the times it does but huuush, we'll be together forever forrealsies don't look at that big ol hurricane hurtling our way), which then inevitably bursts, but is always there-as-memory, because rose becomes something of an impossible ideal to some extent

and martha isn't protected at all, and has all the badness spilling out on her because the doctor is unable to contain any of it (and maybe is relieved to finally give up on being strong), and subsequently all of the promise of wonder has an air of sourness to it, and the doctor will always feel incredibly guilty about how it all ended

but crucially there's a lot they have in common, that is quite different to, say, donna (who is woven in in her own, interesting, way) -- they both become attracted to this powerful, interesting, and suuuper traumatised being, they're both taken along on a journey of promised wonders, they're both incredibly reliable to the point that the narrative is retroactively fitted around how much the doctor's belief-systems revolve around belief in their companions, with many others from the past given their dues (starting with sarah-jane), and they both do see wonders beyond their comprehension (and so does donna, but again, there's something a bit different there to poke at in another post...),

except where for rose this wonder helps her break out of the path that was set down for her and become who she always had the potential to be in a way that is mostly framed as a positive (although with some -- I think -- under-analysed caveats...) and she will be forever thankful for the doctor arriving in her life, martha's is more like an awe that the universe is so hostile and so lonely and so heartbreaking, and so she needs to become more resilient and more ready to make choices that are terrible (from travelling the broken world for a year to the osterhagen key....), and so there's another story about someone who becomes strong and tough (just like rose) but it's because the doctor wasn't really able to be there for her, and while I don't think the show (from memory) ever has her totally regretting the doctor dropping into her life, there for sure is some solemnity to how her story ends, a bit of a dampener in comparison (even tbh in comparison to donna, who yeah, gets her memory taken, but is suggested -- now confirmed perhaps? -- to get more of her life in order/feel more self-confident, also partially because of that subliminal influence of her time with the doctor)

and this isn't to say that it's all-bad for martha! her working for UNIT and Torchwood has a lot of very interesting facets to it, and she is fulfilling her potential to be this impressive, capable person, but the ways all of this was built up to is so heartrending

rose coming in and "saving" the doctor, except it was a bit of a lie, because the second she wasn't there they crashed even harder than before, and martha coming in with the idea that she could save the doctor and walking away when realising what it was doing to her life, and both rose and martha irrevocably changed to the point that the person pre-doctor is barely recognisable in them anymore, both take on the doctor's self-sacrificial traits...

and also the idea that rose gets the fantasy, but it's the fantasy a-bit-to-the-left (funhouse again) because there's always something a bit disconcerting about the lengths the doctor goes to to maintain the bubble, to the point of offering up the alternate-him/tentoo so that she can still have it, even though the actual physical doctor that shared it with her isn't actually there! and martha gets the glimpse of the fantasy, and then has to come to terms with the fact that she's not the person it's "for" and reassess her relationship to the idea of a fantasy in the first place (it helps that martha is an incredibly practical, pragmatic person, but it's still so... ouch)

I don't think it was intentional, but this also fascinating from the perspective of rose as a white woman and martha as a black woman -- who is the fantasy for, to the extent that strange and universe-breaking events go into maintaining it, and who has to be practical and pragmatic and self-reliant?

and also, it's got more tragedy in both cases -- rose as a spectre/haunter of the narrative is always a little bit intangible when she's looked back on (even though in the story she's in she's incredibly real and well-rounded, every time I go back to s1 I am struck by how grounded she is in reality), and I think that's something interesting in terms of her mother's warning in s2, how if she travels with the doctor "forever" she'll become something else, something not her

and martha's mother warns her as well, although she's not completely sure of what, and in contrast to rose this warning comes into very painful fruition, harming her entire family (except, maybe her brother? I wonder if there's anything written about that), but where rose is so omnipresent, martha tries several times to take herself out

(also something about both of their mothers being their anchor-points)

there's something there that's at the centre of both rose's and martha's arcs:

is the change they're going through because of the doctor... good? good for them? good for their families? good as in they're becoming better people than before? good for the world they inhabit? is it good for the person they used to be? did they become better than that person? can they ever truly deal with or even begin to comprehend how these events made them who they are? can they even connect who they are now to who they were then? was this good?

they both become these larger-than-life people, somewhat without noticing on both parts (but the narrative does notice), one of them a ghost, and the other a soldier -- one of them an increasingly intangible, ever-present idea, and the other someone who has to fight every step of the way

it's just a bunch of things I've had going through my head that I can't quite formulate in coherent essay-like sentences, but for sure it's there

opposite sides of the coin, rose tyler and martha jones

I do wish they'd had space in the story for them to talk

[butchladymaria]

Immortality, Motherhood, and Pain: A Closer Look at Annalise and the Doll

Finally revisiting this from ages ago, because the parallels between these two are just SO fascinating. Content warnings for discussions of misogyny, genocide, abuse, and pregnancy/childbirth.

This analysis will cover the parallels between Miss Doll and Queen Annalise through the lenses of the misery of immortality, the trauma of marginalization, and the liberation they find in motherhood. Both the Doll and Annalise are undying, both coded as mother figures, both marked by death, and both very, very alone.

Miss doll and Annalise are the only characters in the whole game who are undying. You can kill them, but not meaningfully - not in any way that matters - and they seem to know it. Neither will try to stop you, nor will they fight back, should you choose to attack them. They will come back, and your violent betrayal will have seemingly meant nothing to them. They both are very aware they will outlast whatever violence you may inflict upon them. It's evidenced in their dialogue:

If you attack, Annalise says:

“Enough. If only Our life was so easily forfeit… Grieve not, for Us.” “How sad this is. If only Our life was so easily forfeit…”

If you attack Miss Doll, she used to say:

“I must have displeased you. Go on, shut me down… Even so, this vessel will remain in your service… So have no fear."

I think this point of comparison highlights just how deeply they've both been desensitized to violence and abuse. They do not beg for mercy, they do not put up a struggle - they only remark on it with distant chagrin. They both seem keenly aware that their flesh need not be in one piece to fulfill its purpose.

But where Miss Doll was made to embody the Victorian patriarchal ideal of womanhood, Annalise wields womanhood as her last weapon against the dehumanization of the church’s genocide through her queendom. Upon being resurrected the next time you return to the dream, Miss Doll will act as though nothing had happened at all. However, if you bring her flesh to the Altar of Despair, Annalise will call you an arrant fool, and remind you that “Vileblood or no, forget not; We are thy Queen”. Miss Doll kneels to serve the hunter, while the hunter must kneel to serve Annalise. Miss Doll has been conditioned to passively accept dehumanization and submission, yet Annalise demands respect through your submission even in her dehumanized state. Miss Doll is subjugated by the trappings of womanhood, while Annalise is lifted from subjugation by her womanhood, in some ways.

I find this fascinating, however, because while Miss Doll appears in every way as a pure, demure Victorian woman was meant to, they are also dehumanized through the denial of gender. To Gerhman, their creator, they are nothing more than another tool of the workshop. An object. Even the Doll themself uses neutral "I" pronouns to refer to themself in the original translation. I think it is pertinent to note that the only canonical reference to Miss Doll as a "woman" comes from Eileen. In the original Japanese text, she refers to the Doll with a term of endearment reserved for young girls. Miss Doll's appearance is the historical ideal of the subjugated woman - yet when Eileen confers upon her the status of "woman", she does so in an endearing and humanizing way. Therefore, for both Miss Doll and Queen Annalise, the status of womanhood is a rebuttal of their own dehumanizing subjugation: Annalise as "queen", and Miss Doll as "daughter".

Both characters are arguably seeking/find liberation through motherhood. Miss Doll gets "Childhood's Beginning": their creator and animator have both been put down, the hunt is finally over and they are no longer bound to serve its participants, nor must they watch their beheadings. They cradle the newly ascended hunter. It is a highly atypical “motherhood”. It exists in the performance of the role rather than the biology of childbirth. In the same way, the Doll possesses a highly atypical “womanhood” which exists in performance alone, rather than in biology or even identity — but nonetheless, it is real, and it is hers. I, perhaps too optimistically, choose read it as humanizing for them; because unlike their “womanhood”, Miss Doll is allowed to choose this for themself rather than having it imposed upon them.

In the same vein, Annalise seeks to birth a child of blood for a similar but perhaps more somber reason. She wants a child because she wants an heir — which is to say, because it is the only way she may once again have kin. Because it is the only way she may fulfill her duty as Queen. She witnessed everyone she ever knew or loved — surely her own family included — slaughtered before her eyes. Annalise seems to seek motherhood in order to be a homemaker - in the most literal sense possible. She wants to rebuild the community, the home, which was so brutally torn away from her. She wishes to restore honor to Cainhurst. For Annalise, having a child is an open act of rebellion against the genocidal eugenics-frenzied bloodthirst of the Church. I can't help but wonder if part of the reason Alfred is so hellbet on destroying her, why the Executioners imprisoned her the way they did, was to strip her of bodily autonomy so she couldn’t “reproduce”. Her desire for a child is her way of seeking liberation for her and her people.

In this sense, taking up the role of a mother, of "women's work", is what confers the agency upon both Annalise and Miss Doll which had been otherwise stripped from them. Annalise's by the genocidal eugenics of the Church, and Miss Doll by the pact of servitude she was seemingly born into.

[musical-chick-13]

So I guess ultimately my question is why are we assuming that Nayuta specifically meant “Denji belongs to me definitively, and you are trying to take his attention away from me?”

Aside from the fact that narrative misdirection is a thing and that I think it would completely contradict all the themes of the story thus far to just have her be Makima 2.0 and inherently evil...

We don’t actually know if she and Yoru recognize each other or not? Even on a subconscious level. If she does recognize Yoru (and, reasonably, knows how her powers work) calling Yoru a thief could have meant that “You are trying to steal Denji’s spinal cord to make a weapon” or even “You have stolen this random girl’s body to use for yourself.” (Even if she doesn’t know specifically that Yoru is sharing Asa’s body, she might still be able to tell that something weird is going on?)

She’s still a child, she might have just impulsively said the smallest amount of words that would sort-of convey what she was feeling.

I’m not worried yet.

Yet.