#this is my first time writing such a long essay

[slavicdolls4mangione]

luigi supporting you making content on tiktok hc 💌:

shoutout to the anon who got my vision, this one’s for you! <33 as you can probably tell, i went HAM on this one 😭

- luigi hates tiktok. he finds it overwhelming, chaotic, and way too fast-paced for his taste. he’s more of a ‘read a book in silence’ kind of guy, so the idea of endless scrolling and loud trends just doesn’t appeal to him.

- that said, when you tell him you’ve started a tiktok account to talk about your favorite things—books, philosophy, movies, debates on different topics, and even your hot takes on agriculture and politics? he’s immediately intrigued.

- he loves how passionate and articulate you are, and he can’t help but admire the way your mind works.

- despite his dislike for the app, he downloads it just to follow you. he tells himself it’s to “support you,” but deep down, he’s genuinely curious about what you’ll share.

- your videos are nothing like the content he expected. you’re not doing dances or trends, you’re just yapping lol. you talk about your favorite substack articles, analyze the themes of your latest read, rant about why tea is superior to coffee (or vice versa), and even dive into deep topics like religion and politics. safe to say, luigi is hooked.

- he becomes your biggest hype man. every time you post he’s there in the comments, leaving thoughtful responses. if you talk about a book he’s read, he’ll add his own analysis. if you delve into a philosophical concept, he’ll write paragraphs agreeing with you or gently challenging your perspective. his comments are often longer than your videos, and it becomes a running joke between the two of you.

- sometimes, you catch him in the background of your vlogs, quietly sipping tea or reading a book. he’s always smiling softly as you rant about whatever’s on your mind, completely enamored by your passion and intellect.

- one day, while filming a tiktok about your favorite philosophy book, lu chimes in from the background. you’re mid-sentence, explaining why you love the author’s take on existentialism, when he casually interjects:
“but don’t you think their view on free will is a little too optimistic?”
you pause, turn to him, and immediately launch into a spirited debate. the camera keeps rolling, and your followers lose it over the unexpected cameo.

- after that, it becomes a recurring thing. your followers start noticing that the same soft-spoken voice in the background that’s always adding thoughtful commentary or playfully challenging your takes, is the same person leaving those long comments under every video.

- comments start flooding in like:
“wait, is the guy in the background the same guy who writes essays in the comments???”
“luigi_from_fiji in the comments vs. luigi in the background is the best character arc of 2024.”
“the way he just casually drops the most profound takes while she’s filming… i can’t. they’re adorable.”

- one of your most popular tiktoks is a video where you’re talking about your favorite coffee shops, and ofc luigi interjects in the background:
“but tea is clearly superior. it’s more versatile, and you can’t deny the cultural history behind it.”
you stop mid-sentence, turn to him, and say, “oh, we’re doing this again?” before launching into a full-blown debate about coffee vs. tea. the video ends with both of you laughing, and your followers absolutely melt.

- one day, you decide to make a video about one of your favorite authors, fyodor dostoyevsky (self indulgent sorry). you’re gushing about how crime and punishment explores the psychology of guilt and redemption but halfway through your analysis, lu, who’s been quietly listening in the background, can’t help but chime in:
“but baby don’t you think raskolnikov’s redemption arc feels a little rushed? i mean, after everything he did, the ending almost feels… too neat.”
you turn to him, eyes lighting up, and say, “okay, first of all nicholas, how dare you,” before diving into a passionate defense of dostoyevsky’s writing. the two of you end up in a full-blown literary debate, with lu arguing that notes from underground is the better psychological study, while you insist that crime and punishment is the masterpiece.

- your followers go wild for the video with comments pouring in like: “luigi coming in with the hot takes on dostoyevsky?? i’m obsessed.”
“the way she said ‘how dare you’ and then immediately launched into a 10-minute rant… mood.”
“luigi’s face when she starts defending raskolnikov is priceless. he’s so whipped.”

- another time, you’re talking about white nights and how the dreamer’s idealism and loneliness resonate with you. lu, who’s been quietly reading in the corner, looks up and says softly:
“i think the dreamer’s problem is that he’s too afraid to live in the real world. he’d rather stay in his fantasies than risk getting hurt.”
you’d pause, tilt your head, and reply, “but isn’t that what makes him so human? he’s flawed, but he’s real.”

- lu smiles at you, his eyes soft, and says, “i guess i can’t argue with that.”

-the moment is so tender that your followers immediately start spamming the comments with:
“THE WAY HE LOOKS AT HER??? I’M CRYING.”
“luigi’s a simp for intellectual debates and i’m here for it.”
“this is the most romantic thing i’ve ever seen.”

- luigi secretly starts to enjoy tiktok but only because of you. he’d do anything to support you, even if it means spending hours on an app he claims to dislike.

[winter-spark]

I don't really have an anniversary that I celebrate but I have only been here for almost two years.

(but I overexplain my getting into a3! timeline as I'm kinda long winded and always trying to fact check myself so...)

I found out about A3! In the February of 2023, via the anime. My sister and I finished the anime by March(one of my earliest a3! posts(still in my draft posts) is dated March 5th where I was basically like "just finished the anime! Here's ideas as to how they could continue the anime" lol) and started looking more into A3! finding out it was a game that had an English version but was shut down. But we were still trying to read the stories.

I'm pretty sure it was around then that I dived into read Citron stories. Like I remember starting Act 5 but I had a bit summary of Act 5 & Act 8 already to an extent because my sister had read about Hisoka's backstory and Citron getting kidnapped. And so reading Act 5 I was like but Citron in Act 8. So I read that instead and then went back to read Act 5, and the rest of year two and it is a bit of a blur and I know I was trying to read at least some of all the troupes' stuff I had a couple of faves in each troupe but I remember scrolling through yaycupcake looking for specifically for events with Citron or Guy on the cover. I wanted to have all the info that I could get.

By late March & April I was headcanoning, writing fanfic and starting essays. By April 8th I was trying to make a playlists. April 13th I started my first Citron pov fic and by June I had a document keeping track of which events were Citron and/or Guy focused and details in about them. And I was rereading Citron events and speculating about his brothers/family life. (I was rereading Citron events before I had even read everything that was available) Then I started a whole a3! Notes document.

Also by June a post had appeared being like "you know it’s super easy to get Japanese games right?" with instructions on how. It was very strange but felt a bit like a sign. I tried to get my sister to get it because she was the one found the fact that it was a game and unavailable for us but she said I should get it(probably because I was reading way more translations of the stories than her and also phone storage space lol). So I did. It was June 13 2023 when I opened the app for the first time (I only know this because I screenshotted a lot lol).

But uh yea. I don't have any celebrations/anniversaries but there's a bit about me getting into A3! and the game and Citron. I guess 2 years isn't new new but I still feel very new.

Mankai March 2025 question 1!

Welcome to Mankai March’s second year running, and the official first anniversary of the event! We have an (almost)entirely new set of 31 questions to ask y’all every day, so let’s kick things off! We’ll start with something pretty simple, since it’s been a whole year and all: Do you do anything to celebrate your own A3!versary(or oshiversary)? When is it, and how many have you celebrated? And if you’re pretty new to the game and fanbase, how long have you been a fan?

[gotstabbedbyapen]

Epic the Circe Saga - Reviewed and analyzed by a passerby on the Internet

The Pen overflowed with ink at 11 p.m. last night. So, the next day, she has to write her thoughts about the Circe Saga into words, or else she will explode.

You just need to know three things before continuing:

I have little to no knowledge about writing songs and composing music. My opinions come from my taste and prior knowledge about the saga's behind-the-scenes.

This is ONE review by a fellow stranger on Tumblr. You can agree and disagree with my takes, but please keep it civil when discussing with others.

Despite being a bit harsh on the flaws in this saga, I still love it, the whole Epic the Musical, and Mister Jalapeño.

We good?

Good.

Circe is another lesson about ruthlessness.

Let's start with my two cents on why Jay changed the encounter between Odysseus and Circe.

In The Odyssey, Odysseus was coerced by Circe into intimating with her in exchange for his and his men's safety (Hermes even warned, "Do what she said if you want to live")

But in ETM, Circe only tempted Odysseus in the first half of "There Are Other Ways" to get him closer to the stabbing range (I'll talk about it later). But when Odysseus declined her advances and begged her to spare him because he had a wife at home, Circe took pity on him and let him go.

Now, let me refresh everyone's memory with a short video explaining the differences between The Odyssey and ETM.

Here, Jay said the changes he made from the source material are to serve the theme of Ruthlessness. The two ends of the spectrum are Polites' "Open Arms" and Poseidon's "Ruthlessness Is Mercy" ideologies, as shown in the previous sagas. Every other encounter ETM Odysseus faces will also lie somewhere on the spectrum and teach him something about it.

Circe is an interesting case because she is more flexible on the spectrum.

When we first meet her, Circe turns Odysseus' men into pigs, challenges Odysseus in a monster fight, and "seduces" Odysseus to stab him. Later, when Circe is cornered by Odysseus, we learn that Circe did all that to protect her nymphs, making her an example of "embracing ruthlessness to protect yourself and your loved ones."

After hearing out Odysseus' plight (he wants to go home to his wife, but Poseidon is after his ass), Circe decides to spare him and his men. She is now showing her "open arms" side, "letting her guard down" at these sailors because she pities them or no longer sees them as an immense threat.

In ETM, the encounter with Circe is another lesson for Odysseus about ruthlessness: Going full open-arm or ruthless isn't always the best solution. It's good to proceed with caution, but understand that not everyone is trying to harm you. Know when to go hard and go soft on your opponents.

The relationship between Circe and her nymphs isn't well-developed.

Circe is ruthless toward Odysseus' crew to keep her nymphs safe from the possible danger from the strangers. We can tell because Circe constantly references her nymphs and how she will protect them.

"No one will find / Their way between / My nymphs and I / Their loving queen." - "Puppeteer"

"I've got people to protect / Nymphs I can't nеglect." - "Done For"

"My nymphs are like my daughters / I protect them at all costs / The last time we let strangers live / We faced a heavy loss." - "Done For"

However, at least for me, it's hard to visualize the nymphs are in the island with Circe despite her singing about them every time.

When Odysseus' men enter Circe's palace, we hear their little "Aye" and know they are there. But we don't even get a lick of sound from any of Circe's nymphs, so it's hard to visualize their presence despite Circe singing about them every time.

Circe's protectiveness of her nymphs will be more emphasized if we see her interacting with them. Jay can extend "There Are Other Ways" a bit and let Circe discuss with her nymphs what to do with Odysseus and let them convince her to choose mercy on the men. There, we get more insight into Circe's relationship with her nymphs and how much she loves and cares for them.

Or, at the very least, Jay can give the nymphs a background chorus when Circe is singing or just some female voices behind Circe.

Look at the Ocean Saga: after Aeolus tells Odysseus his fleet is heading to the Land of the Giants, we hear the Laestrygonians chanting right at the beginning of "Ruthlessness" and immediately know that the giants are there.

And I know this is harsh to say, but in the Cyclops Saga, when Odysseus entered Polyphemus' (the Cyclops he fought) cave, I could tell there were sheeps around him from their bleating in the opening.

But the lack of the nymph's presentness isn't the only issue.

More sound effects could have made the battle scene better.

In my first brief review, I said the Circe Saga is mellow compared to the previous ones. The stakes and boss battle weren't as thrilling and electrifying or, at least, not as easy to visualize (same problem with the "presence" of Circe's nymphs, as said before)

Remember the scene where Circe entranced Odysseus so he would come closer to her stabbing range? We only know that from the choreography snippet. If you listen to "There Are Other Ways" without that snippet, you can't "see" Circe's attempt to steal Odysseus' dagger and stab him and will think she's seducing her way out when cornered by him.

At least, we know Odysseus is having his dagger at Circe's throat by the "shing" sound when he draws it, but it's hard to tell when Circe takes Odysseus' weapon because their close-up duet is mostly just singing. Jay could have given another subtle metallic sound when Circe is stealing from Odysseus.

As you can tell by now, the lack of background sound effects reduces the visualization. ETM already has a disadvantage when its audience has to rely on narration and sound effects to tell what is happening. The Circe Saga is more heavy on the former and not enough of the latter like the previous three.

To prove my point, you can pause here and listen to "Survive" and "Done For" on Spotify or whichever music platform you use. While listening, compare the intensity you feel in the battle of Odysseus' men & Polyphemus and of Odysseus' Cyclops & Circe's Chimera.

Oh, you're back?

Now you get why I say the monster battle between Circe's Chimera and Odysseus' Cyclops feels underwhelmed in my first review. The boss battle didn't pay back for the building-up hype.

Although I love to see how Odysseus confronts Circe, I also anticipate the monster battle! The theme "Done For" is used in the saga's first introduction. The Chimera is seen on the album cover. Jay is excited because he is inspired by Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh!

I thought the Cyclops vs Chimera battle would be more intense! But then, what little we have were the roaring and clashing of the monsters drowning under the rap battle of their masters. Meanwhile, don't tell me Polyphemus' roaring and smashing his club didn't give you the chill.

Likewise, "Ruthlessness" has loud water-smashing sounds along with the soldiers screaming for their captain when Poseidon and the Laestrygonians destroy Odysseus' crew. They enhance the terror and devastation of the scene, showing how much destruction is done.

See (or hear) it for yourself!

Here is what will make the battle more enthralling: Add more growling for the Cyclops and the Chimera and increase their howling volume - not too earthshaking but with enough intimidation so we can feel the grand scale of the battle. There can be more punching sounds and a loud "thud" when the Cyclops gets rammed back by the Chimera (like Circe's stabbing attempt, we only know how the monster battle was carried out through an animatic)

Maybe Jay wants to focus more on Circe's charming and disarming tactic so he doesn't give it all for the monster battle. But it's still an under-used potential!

Final words!

That is my review and analysis of the Epic the Circe Saga. I may sound like a grumbling nitpick who over-scrutinizes the little details, but it comes from my love and expectations after being blown away by the first three sagas. Jay has proven he can do many wonders in ETM, and I hope he will continue pushing past his creativity limit.

Overall, I still love ETM, Jay, and the Circe Saga. This saga just needs to be polished more. I won't mind waiting until next year's Valentine if Jay will have more time to improve the songs.

But that is all I have to say.

[siggiedraws]

Sonic is fundamentally unrelatable and unrealistic - and that's a good thing

I want to address a common sentiment in the fandom that I've seen countless times over the years - the idea that Sonic should be more humanlike. Specifically, the idea that Sonic should have more human traits, such as anxiety or insecurities, that make him emotionally vulnerable in some way.

I have always felt that this sentiment strips away what I love about Sonic so much—that it goes against his character as someone who is meant to be inspirational rather than relatable. From the bottom of my heart, I truly believe that making Sonic more relatable ruins his appeal and misses the entire point of what role he is meant to fulfill. Sonic being the way he is, an inhuman being that is extremely strong and unyielding mentally and emotionally, makes him an inspirational character that is appealing outside of the realm of relatability.

Please note that I am discussing Game Sonic for this essay, not any versions of Sonic from spinoff media.

(Special thanks to @blurredblu for helping me write this essay!)

Relatability =/= likeability

First, it is important to define "relatability" for the rest of the essay, as what is seen as relatable can vary across countless different cultures and lifestyles.

In this case, we are discussing facets of the human psyche. Traits such as emotional vulnerability, insecurity, or trauma are traits seen as humanlike because they imitate the depth of the human mind. They come across more realistic, and thus relatable to people in real life who have generally gone through emotional hardships.

Relatability is also considered with the implied audience in mind, according to Craft in the Real World by Matthew Salesses.

If relatability were somehow a goal of craft, then the question should be: How can a writer go about trying to make a piece of fiction relatable? If we mean “relatable” as sharing a reader’s experience, the first place to go is audience. We must always ask: Relatable to whom? Which brings us back to the elephant in the room—to call a manuscript “relatable” is really to make a claim about who the audience is or should be.

When writing relatability in fiction, what is important to recognize is who the target audience is. Sonic is a character that was initially created to appeal to a wide target audience, not only meant for young boys but for girls, women, and an older age range in general. When it comes to marketability however, Sonic is almost always advertised towards children, and this demographic is the most pertinent when we look at versions of Sonic written with relatability as a goal. With this idea of the target audience in mind, a character who is portrayed as young and having a childish temperament would be more relatable. The Paramount Sonic movies are a great example of a version of Sonic explicitly written to be relatable to the target demographic on a broad level, heavily influenced by the culture that the movies derive from: specifically a middle-class, suburban, small-town vision of American life. Sonic is portrayed as dependent, inexperienced, and abiding by a nuclear family structure who idolises many elements of American popular culture, such as Keanu Reeves or Marvel/DC superhero comics. Compare this to the games, where Sonic is shown to be self-supporting, wise, and living life as an unfettered vagabond, all without a trace of any pop culture utterances.

In other words, Sonic was created to be the height of unrelatability to his target audience.

It is not lost on me that the prevalent desire for Sonic to behave realistically ties into the idea that the goal of crafting a good character is to emulate realistic human characteristics. A character's relatability is what allows audiences to connect with the character, which is considered unequivocally a good thing.

What is forgotten in this rudimentary line of thinking is that characters in media need to fulfill a role. Characters are not people like you or me, but fictional creations made to serve a particular purpose. There needs to be thought put into what narrative role the character fulfills and why they are portrayed a certain way to the audience. Hence, there must be a reason for the relatability, instead of employing it haphazardly.

To quote Craft in the Real World once more:

"readers’ expectations for fiction are created by their previous experiences with fiction—in other words, by culture."

The desire for Sonic to be relatable can be attributed to people recognizing pervasive tropes present in their previous experiences with fiction, internalizing these commonalities as the correct way to write good stories, and assigning these to Sonic as a result. While I can understand the logic behind this thinking, it is crucial we don't limit our appraisal of media by saying a protagonist ought to abide by a certain limitation, when it's the breaking of rules, however rigid they are, that allow for different methods of storytelling. Sonic breaks the so-called rule that a protagonist must be relatable, and it's this unrelatability that enhances and strengthens the narrative in many Sonic games. In other words, writing Sonic in a relatable way can be a way to write him; that does not mean it is the only or correct way to do so.

We should bear in mind that there are usually financial incentives to cast characters as mentally or emotionally relatable to audiences. To create a protagonist that appeals to all audiences to maximize revenue, the solution is typically to make them broadly relatable. While this can be a successful formula, it is important to not apply it to media indiscriminately. If a myriad of works all prioritise having characters be relatable over what makes them unique, you may end up sacrificing creative integrity for the sake of following a trend. In Sonic's case, you would lose the inimitable appeal that makes him stand out. While relatability can be valuable in certain contexts, it should not dominate all other considerations of writing a character, especially when it is done for the purposes of profitability as opposed to earnestly conveying a character to, ultimately, tell a story.

What makes Sonic stand out

What, then, makes Sonic stand out as a character? His inhuman mental fortitude. In a wide and varied cast of characters such as the Sonic cast, each with their own unique emotional struggles, Sonic stands out as the sole character with no struggle. He has no weak point, no Achilles' heel. Though he is weak to water, that is only a physical weakness. Mentally, he is too strong for anything to affect him long-term.

As stated before, characters are designed to serve specific creative purposes. In Sonic's case, his striking mental resilience is to highlight other messages and characters in the story. This is because Sonic usually plays the guiding or support role in his stories. He is not the sole focus. There is always at least a second character that the story focuses on to highlight that character's problems and struggles, and how that character ends up overcoming that conflict, often with Sonic's help.

With all this in mind, would Sonic stories be improved if Sonic was, instead, a human-like character with human flaws and insecurities? Or would this muddy his core concept and require all Sonic stories to be changed unrecognizably to fit this new, different character?

Sonic has no backstory - and that's a good thing

Understand that this section is not an attack on backstories in general. For the most part, backstories provide insight into a character's motivations and personality. They are effective in accomplishing what they were meant to do - creating characters that are meant to be realistic.

Sonic is not meant to be realistic.

Yuji Naka once stated the reason behind Sonic's lack of a backstory in an interview: if you uncover all the mysteries, then the character will become uninteresting.

Very little information of Sonic's backstory has been revealed. We know that he is from Christmas Island (same interview link as above) and it is implied in the Sonic 1 manual that he and Eggman already know each other and have been regularly tussling before the events of the first game. These are vague and unspecific details that are not brought up in Sonic games at all, and for good reason.

Distance is required to portray a character who you are meant to be separate from rather than analogous to. Maintaining a certain level of mystery around Sonic creates intrigue, as a question is begged but never answered or even brought up in Sonic stories. This is because Sonic's backstory has no relevance on the narrative and delving into it is not necessary.

Sonic's motivations are simple and straightforward. He likes to run and go on adventures because it's fun. He likes to help people not out of some heroic obligation but because he wants to do what he feels is right. There is no need for a backstory to explain Sonic's motivations when they are plainly presented to you in such an uncomplicated manner, and what's on the face of it is just wholly what it is.

Sonic is also a character that remains static rather than having a major character arc. While he can grow when it comes to things that don't affect his overall character, such as Sonic learning and overcoming Shadow's Chaos Control technique in Sonic Adventure 2, he has no emotional conflict to overcome. He has been a fully realized character since the beginning of the franchise.

Compare this to a character like Tails, whose character arc is about him being bullied for his two tails in the past and being inspired by Sonic to be more confident in himself, as communicated in the Sonic 2 manual and his Sonic Adventure campaign. Divulging Tails' backstory is necessary for the improvement of Tails' circumstances and confidence levels to be effectively communicated in the story.

Fictional characters are narrative devices created to tell a story. They are not real. Again, there must be narrative reasons for them to be the way they are.

Providing Sonic's backstory would serve no narrative purpose—none that would serve the themes his stories and character are meant to serve, at any rate.

Sonic has no trauma - and that's a good thing

Upon analyzing Sonic's character in the games for so long, it has become astoundingly clear to me that Sonic does not have an ounce of mental trauma from everything he has been through. This should not be seen as a bad thing, but rather a well-thought-out and deliberate decision that serves to reinforce the role his character serves.

In the face of situations that would be considered stressful or traumatic to the average person, Sonic remains unfazed and even excited. There are countless examples of this: Sonic jumping from a plane with nothing but shrapnel to use as a surfboard in Sonic Adventure 2; Sonic expressing excitement that he's near an active volcano spewing lava in '06; Sonic exuberantly grinding over pits of lava in Black Knight; Sonic burning up with excitement at the prospect of dangerous stakes in Team Sonic Racing while everyone else seems to be concerned.

For Sonic, danger and near-death experiences are not a source of emotional struggle, but rather a source of fulfilment and joy. He lives life on the edge; the excitement of diving off of a plane or nearly falling into lava only fuels his love for life.

Additionally, Sonic also enjoys the simpler pleasures of life. Exploring the world. Reading books. Going on relaxing vacations. Racing through open fields. Life is one big adventure and Sonic is having a blast living it.

The idea of Sonic having some kind of secret, hidden trauma that he hides under the guise of a fake smile can be a fun fanon trope, but, for the purposes of canon and official Sonic stories, there are clear reasons why they should stay as fanon. If Sonic had trauma, it would undermine his unrelatability and make no sense given his role in his stories. Tropes such as Hurt/Comfort and Angst are ubiquitous when it comes to fandom culture, and this could be a case of those tropes appearing in the Sonic fandom simply due to the nature of fandom itself. Enjoying fanon in and of itself is all well and good, but advocating for it in canon will homogenize it by stripping away what is unique about the media we love.

In the end, there is no reason to believe that Sonic pretends or does not behave genuinely when it comes to expressing his true emotions. Sonic simply has nothing dark inside of his heart to hide. This is confirmed in Unleashed, where Sonic's heart is strong enough to resist the negative emotional forces of Dark Gaia without him even realizing. The subconscious nature of the action combined with his humility even leads him to initially think it to be Chip's doing. His heart is so strong and so pure that it is incorruptible by negative forces. This shows how Sonic's resolve is effortless and practically baked into who he is.

Sonic's internal strength is completely unconscious on Sonic's part. He doesn't actively try to be the way he is. He just is.

Sonic doesn't cry - you get the idea

It has become a hot topic in the fanbase in recent years that Sega once provided a revision note for Sonic to not express excessive emotion such as outwardly crying or sobbing.

This idea has generally been met with hostility and aversion from fans. However, this negative reaction has always confused me, and I hope to offer a different perspective to the issue.

Why does Sonic need to cry?

Let's expand on this argument for fairness' sake. A common rebuttal grants that Sonic doesn't usually cry. But in extremely emotionally difficult situations, such as loss or mourning, Sonic should cry because it is only natural to cry in such a situation.

Again, I want to challenge this notion. We could approach it from the angle of human psychology and behaviour—it is far from the case that everyone cries in response to severe adversity, belatedly or otherwise—but instead I want to explore this with respect to the narrative angle we have covered so far. Specifically, with respect to the idea that characters, unlike you or me, are designed and portrayed with certain purposes in mind.

Why would it be natural for Sonic to cry?

To help understand Sonic's handling of loss, let's analyze four examples from the series of Sonic losing someone.

In Sonic Adventure 2, Sonic stays strong and composed right after Shadow's presumed death, paying respect to his fallen ally.

In Sonic Unleashed, after Chip leaves him, Sonic takes a deep breath before moving forward with a smile on his face.

In Sonic Battle, Sonic is desperate for Emerl to live and expresses this openly.

In Sonic '06, Sonic expresses a great amount of despair when Elise dies in an explosion aboard the Egg Carrier.

It is clear from the outset that Sonic is not an uncaring individual - he wouldn't do all the selfless things he does if not because he didn't care about people. He also still feels strong emotion at losing those close to him, but he handles those emotions with a great deal of fortitude. In Adventure 2 and Unleashed, his reaction is more subdued, while in Battle and '06, it's clear that Sonic is upset and isn't afraid to show it. The difference could be due to that in the prior examples, Sonic watched them die in front of his eyes, while in the latter examples, they were already gone by the time we see Sonic's reaction.

Nevertheless, Sonic feels emotion. It is only because he does not express himself in an adequately typical way that this idea is met with so much outrage and pushback. Because Sonic does not cry, and because an expected response in certain scenarios would be to cry, it is perceived as a writing mistake that must be fixed. Sonic is perceived as a bad character because he does not fit into a rigid box of socially acceptable expressiveness.

But why is Sonic acting outside the norm necessarily a bad thing? The fact that Sonic can go through such hard situations and remain positive is a testament to his strength. The fact he doesn't cry makes him come across as superhuman when it comes to mental fortitude. That is not a mistake of his character that needs "fixing." That is the entire point.

The animosity towards the idea of Sonic not crying, that he must express himself a specific way, a distinctly normal and humanlike way, is stirred from the irrational, yet sadly common, leap in logic that Sonic must behave and experience life like you or me.

There is an irony, too, to how localised this demand of realism is of Sonic. I've seen no outrage demanding that he spill blood or break bones like us. But, apparently, he must shed tears to be a good character. Sonic is superhumanly resilient while running, or fighting, or taking on the miraculous powers of the Chaos Emeralds. Chaos is power and power is enriched by the heart. Sonic's is shown to be one of the strongest and purest out there, one that moves ever on from and through the pain of loss, grief, and tragedy. Isn't it bizarre, then, that this is considered a defect to him?

The messaging of Sonic

Sonic's core concept as an inspirational character must be maintained because it is key to the emotional messaging of nearly every single Sonic game.

Right from the very first game, you play as a plucky little hedgehog, fighting against the tyranny of Eggman's industrialization threatening to destroy all life on the planet.

Sonic is small and unassuming. But he fights anyways, determined to stop Eggman. And he does.

This concept remains throughout the franchise. Sonic always remains steadfast in the face of great adversity. From Sonic CD's "You Can Do Anything" vocal theme telling the player to believe in themselves to simple yet motivational phrases—ones that Sonic himself has given to the likes of more normal characters such as Elise: "If you have time to worry, then run!"

There is even a quote on the Japanese box art of Sonic & Knuckles comparing Sonic to the Sun, the far and unreachable star in space that our entire galaxy revolves around.

We look up at the Sun like how we look up to Sonic.

As brought up earlier, Sonic is the antithesis of relatability to his target audience, children.

This is because he is meant to inspire children.

The fact that Sonic remains so popular and successful to this day is undeniable proof that relatability is far from a necessary ingredient for likeable characters. Given the fact that Sonic is such a strong-willed character, that he fights endlessly against adversity with a smile on his face, that he always gives positive words of encouragement, is it any wonder why he is so popular with children? Sonic is a wonderful role model that promotes living life to the fullest. Sonic is deceptively wise, seeming to know simple yet effective solutions to every problem. Sonic encourages you to chase your dreams, to stay strong through hard times, to enjoy life.

Sonic is a friend who is always there for you.

Not only does Sonic provide guidance to characters, he provides guidance in the real world as we navigate our lives and the trials and tribulations that come with them. Each character that presents a problem is the character we are meant to connect with, and Sonic is who we strive to be.

CONCLUSION

I do not hold any grudge against relatable characters. I love them, just as I love all kinds of different characters in all kinds of media.

I believe that coexistence is possible. I believe that you can praise a character for their relatability and realism, just as you can praise a character for being the antithesis of both of those things, and these do not have to be contradicting principles for one to have. It all depends on a character's narrative function and how their character traits – both relatable and unrelatable – serve the story that is being told.

Sonic the Hedgehog is a character whose role in the narrative is to inspire and guide other characters. From a Doylist perspective, he represents the prominent, all-embracing messaging about staying strong and positive despite all odds, inspiring and guiding his target audience.

Every decision put into Sonic's character traits serve his role perfectly. Of course this extraordinary character does not behave like you or I do. Why would he? That's simply not his nature; a gust of wind in the breeze, moving endlessly all throughout the world. A pure and positive heart who has achieved the innate desire of all humankind in a way that we will never truly understand, free from the burdens of human nature. Freedom.

Sonic is unrelatable and unrealistic. And he is an amazing character.

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

Screaming from the crypt (or how the past haunts the present on Midnights)

I know it's been discussed so much since Midnights came out but just.

I love how there is such a clear narrative throughout the album (and perhaps especially on the 3am/Vault tracks). About questioning and regret and choices and coming to terms with all of it. It is one long story about how we're all a mosaic of the choices we make, each one taking something from us and leaving something else in its place.

(And now a disclaimer: I'm looking at this mostly through a narrator/subject lens, and trying not to dive too deeply into real-life events or speculation except for in a general sense. For this purpose I like to look at the body of work as art, like literature, because I find it makes it easier to see the common threads in the different songs and cohesion in the narrative.)

In looking at the 3am+ tracks in particular, it's fascinating how some turns of phrases or themes repeat themselves in different songs, in different contexts. (I'm only focusing on the non-standard tracks because there are too many songs and I'd be here all day but I bet I could do a part two lol.) I know many people have pointed out the parallels throughout her discography already and I’m not saying anything groundbreaking by writing this, but I love how these parallels run through in the same album, because it makes it seem like it's one long story, or at least, one long rumination on many different stories that are coalescing into a single narrative.

Battle (let’s go)

For instance, the one that jumped out at me when I started writing this post the other week was, "Tore your banners down, took the battle underground," in The Great War and "If clarity's in death, then why won't this die? Years of tearing down our banners, you and I," in Would've, Could've Should've. It's a story about staying stuck in the same cycle of reliving trauma and coping mechanisms and bad habits over and over again and fantasizing about how taking the “antagonist” out and gaining the upper hand for good would bring closure (WCS), but the truth is that nothing ever will. All that cycle does, though, is repeat itself in other situations, and in this case pushes someone away the narrator cares for (TGW). The difference is that the imagined battle in WCS is a two-way street in her mind (that is ultimately unwinnable because it was never a fair fight), but in TGW it's one-sided -- she's the one fighting dirty, taking shots, the way she'd been doing in her imagination (or nightmares) all these years. But the person in front of her isn't fighting back the way the person in her mind in WCS would, because their intentions are honourable instead of exploitative.

And that's paralleled in another pair of lyrics from the two songs, "And maybe it's the past talking, screaming from the crypt, telling me to punish you for things you never did," (in TGW) and "The tomb won't close, I fight with you in my sleep," (in WCS). In both cases, the funeral imagery makes it seem like this past event should be dead and buried in WCS, but it keeps rising from the dead, haunting her no matter what she does and in TGW, another (or perhaps the same?) tomb that won't close keeps unleashing new ways to hurt her and in turn the new person in her life. In other words, the trauma from the past continues to bleed into the present.

(Again from a literary point of view, I'm not saying the events of the two songs are linked IRL, but they're fascinating textual parallels on the album as a string of chapters, which is why Dear Reader is so compelling, but that's a whole other essay.)

To keep the battle motif going, there’s yet another parallel, this time between TGW’s "[You were a] soldier down on that icy ground, looked up at me with honor and truth," and You’re Losing Me’s "All I did was bleed as I tried to be the bravest soldier, fighting in only your army.” In the former, the subject is laying down his armour in the war she’s projecting onto him, waving the white flag, and she realizes that she’s about to destroy something if she doesn’t put her sword down too. By the time we get to YLM, the roles are almost reversed; at the very least they’re supposed to be on the same team, but in this case she’s doing all the heavy lifting, fighting for their relationship in contrast to his apathy killing it. It’s also pretty interesting (if not outright intentional) that one of the 3am+ editions of the albums starts with The Great War, where they find themselves in conflict (even if it’s in her head) that ends in a truce, and ends with You’re Losing Me signalling the end of the relationship, evidence that the resolution in the first song wasn’t an ending but merely a ceasefire before the last battle.

Putting the rest under a cut because this is waaaaay too long now ⤵️

(There’s also another metaphor there in The Great War with its battle imagery: World War I, aka The Great War, was supposed to be the war to end all wars, because loss on its scale was never seen before and when it ended, most thought never again would the world embroil itself in such battle, the horrors and implications were so devastating. Two decades later, the world found itself in WWII, with an even larger scope and more horrific consequences, the intervening time between the two a period of festering conflicts and resentment leading to some of the worst acts the world would see. Bringing real life into it for a second, there’s something a little poetic, though sad, about The Great War the song being about a fight that could have ended the relationship that they ultimately resolved and was meant to be evidence of the strength of their love, but so too did it end up being a period of détente, the greater battle coming for them years later. But that is not the point of this post.)

If one thing had been different

Another major theme in these editions is pondering the "what ifs?" of life, but I think it takes on even more significance in the broader context of the album in the lyrics of "I'm never gonna meet what could've been, would've been, should've been you," in Bigger than the Whole Sky and the repetition of would've/could've in Would've, Could've, Should've (I would've looked away at the first glance, I would've stayed on my knees, I would've gone along with the righteous, I could've gone on as I was, would've could've should've if I'd only played it safe, etc.) In both songs, the narrator is mourning an alternate course their life could have taken* and questioning what they could have done differently, in the aftermath of trauma and loss, and the regret that comes with that loss, and with the loss of agency in the situation because ultimately it was never in their hands. In an album full of questions, wondering about the path not taken, or the forks in the road that have led to a different version of your life, it's digging deeper into the contrast of choice vs. fate, action vs. reaction, dwelling on the past vs. moving on. When you're supposed to let go of the past, what do you do when it is holding your future hostage?

(*I know there are different interpretations/speculation about BTTWS which I am not getting into on main. I'm just saying that whatever the song is about, it's grieving something that never came to be. The literal origin of the song is less important to the album than the sense of loss it portrays. Whatever the inspiration is, it's crafted to tell part of the story of Midnights of ruminating over how, to borrow from her previous work, if one thing had been different, would everything be different?)

(Also I was today years old when I realized that the words are inverted in the two songs. Apparently I've been hearing BTTWS wrong this whole time.)

There's also an interesting tangent in the role of faith in both songs: in WCS, the events of the story cause her to lose her faith (e.g. "All I used to do was pray," "you're a crisis of my faith,") and question all the things she felt had been unquestionable until that point in her life (e.g. "I could have gone along with the righteous"), whereas in BTTWS, she questions whether that very lack of faith is to blame for the loss in that song ("did some force take you because I didn't pray? [...] It's not meant to be, so I'll say words I don't believe"). It's like pinpointing the moment her life changed and upended her beliefs (WCS), but as a result then leaving her unmoored in times of crisis because ultimately there's no explanation or comfort to be taken from what she used to hold true before that (BTTWS). The words she once relied upon to guide her have long since lost their meaning, but in times of trouble it leaves her wondering if that faith she once held then lost could have prevented this pain.

(Shoutout to WCS for being Catholic guilt personified lol.)

To keep on with the vaguely faith-y notions, an obvious parallel is the line in Would’ve Could’ve Should’ve about, “I damn sure never would've danced with the devil at nineteen,” and, "When you aim at the devil, make sure you don't miss," in Dear Reader. All of WCS is about her fighting with an antagonist who haunts her, with whom she wholly regrets ever becoming involved. DR could be seen as a reflection on that fall from grace, warning the audience that if you choose to go after the person (or thing) haunting you, make sure you do so clearheaded enough to be decisive. Again, these “devils” may not be related in real life: the IRL devil in DR could be speaking about her naysayers, or Kim*ye, or Scott & Scooter B, etc., meaning not to cross your enemies until you know you can win. But taking real life out of it and looking at it textually, I am intrigued by the link between WCS and DR, so that’s what I’m going with here. And perhaps that’s even the point in a wider sense; there will be multiple “devils” in your life, or threats to your well-being. If you’re going to commit to taking them down — whether it’s an actual person, or the demons inside you that refuse to let you go — make sure you have the right ammo so that they can no longer hurt you. (Of course, one lesson from these experiences is that sometimes you can’t win, and you have to live with the fallout.)

(Sidebar: I know that “dancing with the devil” is a turn of phrase that means being led into temptation and engaging in risky behaviour, as opposed to describing the actual person. Given the religious metaphors in the song, that could very well be/is the intention, particularly when it’s preceded by, “I would have stayed on my knees” as in she would have continued to follow her faith — in whatever sense that means — had she never met this person, which could also be a more eloquent way of saying she would have continued to be live her life in a way that was righteous (even naive) and seen the world in black and white. Either way, it’s a force she wholly rejects. Like I said, multiple devils, same fight.)

Regret comes up too: in WCS, she says, "I regret you all the time," obviously directed at the person who manipulated her and led to her perceived downfall, citing him as the one impulse she wished she'd never followed, because it won't leave her no matter how hard she’s tried. In High Infidelity, she tells the person to, "put on your records and regret me," and on the surface, it’s like she’s turning the tables, painting herself as the one now causing the regret in someone else, the one inflicting the pain this time. Yet the verse preceding it and the lines following it in the chorus depict a partner who is also emotionally manipulative and vindictive like in WCS (“you said I was freeloading, I didn’t know you were keeping count,” “put on your headphones and burn my city,”). It’s not so much that she’s intentionally harming the person (the way the person in WCS does to her), but rather that the venom in the subject’s feelings towards her seeps through; she’s imagining the way he’s going to feel about her when she leaves, hating her just for by being who she is. (There could be another tangent about how in both songs she’s there to be a “token” in a game for both of the men, who play her for their own purposes.) The regret is dripping with disdain. It’s as though she’s picturing how the person is going to hate her for doing what she’s thinking of doing the way she hates the person who first hurt her.

Sadness, unsurprisingly, shows up in a few lyrics. In BTTWS, “Everything I touch becomes sick with sadness,” sets the scene of a person so overcome with grief that it permeates everything around them; they cannot see their way out of it and feel like the fog will never lift. In Hits Different, it’s, “My sadness is contagious,” the result of a breakup where the person’s grief again touches everything and everyone around them, pushing them further in their despair and loneliness. The reason behind the grief in either case may vary, but regardless of the source, the feeling is overpowering and isolating. They may be different chapters in the story, but the devastation is hauntingly familiar. (As is a recurring theme in Midnights as a whole: there are situations and feelings that present themselves at different points in her journey and colour in the lines in different ways along the road. Like revisiting an old vice and realizing the hit isn’t quite the same as it was in the past.)

Death by a thousand cuts

She also writes about wounds on this album, which isn't surprising I suppose given that the whole conceit is that these are things that have kept her up at night over the years. WCS is perhaps the driving narrative on this never ending hurt when she sings, “The wound won't close, I keep on waiting for a sign, I regret you all the time,” suggesting that no matter what she does, the pain of this experience has permeated everything she’s done afterwards. (Not unlike the overwhelming grief in BTTWS, for instance.) Elsewhere, in High Infidelity she sings, "Lock broken, slur spoken, wound open, game token," and in Hits Different, "Make it make some sense why the wound is still bleeding.” Again I'm not suggesting they're about the same events; the line in HI is about a situation where a partner crosses a boundary, hits below the belt, picks at an insecurity (or creates a new one) and treats the relationship like it's transactional, opening the floodgates in turn. In HD, the wound seems to be more self-inflicted, where she's pushed the person away. (Over a situation real or imagined she feels she needs distance from.) But again, something has picked at her like a raw nerve, and just like in the past, she's hurting, even in a different time and place and person. Almost like the wounds of the past break open over and over again to create new scars. If one were to extrapolate further, it wouldn’t be the biggest leap to wonder if the wound open in WCS, then torn apart in HI makes the one in HD hurt even more.

(I once wrote a post about how I think as time goes on, WCS is going to turn into one of those songs that will be found to drive so much of her work, because it’s just… kind of the unsaid thesis statement of so much of her songwriting.)

Another repeated theme is that of the empty home and loneliness. In High Infidelity, she sings, "At the house lonely, good money I'd pay if you just know me, seemed like the right thing at the time," painting a picture of someone who may have everything they'd want to the outside world, but in reality feels metaphorically trapped in their home (or at least alone amidst abundance), a symbol of a relationship gone sour and a failure to build connection. She just wants someone to understand her, want her for her, but as she's written earlier in the song, she's just a pawn in the game, a trophy from the hunt. Home, in this case, is lonely, isolated, an emblem of her fears. In Dear Reader, she continues this thread, then singing, "You wouldn't take my word for it if you knew who was talking, if you knew where I was walking, to a house not a home, all alone 'cause nobody's there, where I pace in my pen and my friends found friends who care, no one sees you lose when you're playing solitaire." It's the same idea, admitting to listeners that the gilded cage she lived in kept her distanced from her loved ones and real connection, keeping her struggles close to the vest but feeling desperately lonely amidst her crowning success. She's pushed people away and it may have felt like the right thing at the time, but in the end maybe felt like she was trapped. And when you push people away, eventually they take you at your word and stop pushing back; you’re a victim of your own success at isolating yourself. What starts out of self-preservation then further perpetuates the underlying problems.

(There's another interesting link about "home" also feeling unsafe with HI's "Your picket fence is sharp as knives," which further leads into the theme of marriage/domesticity feeling dangerous, which is a whole other thing I won't get into here because it's another discussion and may derail this already gargantuan word salad.)

In a slightly similar vein, we have the metaphor of bad weather for a rocky road or unstable relationship, in High Infidelity again with, "Storm coming, good husband, bad omen, dragged my feet right down the aisle" and You’re Losing Me’s "every morning I glared at you with storms in my eyes.” They aren’t speaking of the same situation or even same kind of breakdown, but it is pretty interesting how the idea of clouds/storms/floods/etc. play such a role in Taylor’s music to signal depression, apprehension, fear, uncertainty, etc. In HI, I think the “storm” coming is the looming threat of commitment to a partner who makes the narrator uneasy (if not fearful). In this case, the idea of making a life with this person is not one that incites joy or comfort, but instead makes the narrator feel that dark times are ahead if she continues down this path. Perhaps in some way, the “storms” in YLM have made good on the threat in HI in a different way; it’s a different home, a different relationship, but the clouds have settled in regardless, and some of her fears have come to fruition in ways she did not expect. The person she once trusted no longer sees her or her struggles (or worse, doesn’t care), and the resentment and pain build with each passing day.

Coming back to heartbreak, one of the obvious "full circle" moments is the beginning of a relationship in Paris, where she says that, "I'm so in love that I might stop breathing," clearly enthralled in a new love that allows her to shut the world out and grow in private, capturing the all-encompassing nature of the relationship. This infatuation has consumed her in the most wonderful way (in contrast to the sorrow of some of the previous songs), and it feels like a life-altering (or even life-sustaining?) force that is so strong she may forget what it’s like to breathe. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.) By the end of the album, though, in You're Losing Me, that heart-stopping love has become a threat: "my heart won't start anymore for you." In the former, her racing heart is full of excitement, but by the latter, her heart has given out completely under the weight of the pain she bears. (YLM is full of death/illness imagery which I already wrote about awhile ago so I won't hear, but needless to say that song deserves its own essay for so many reasons.) She's gone from the unbridled joy of the beginnings of a relationship to the unrelenting sorrow of its end, two sides of the same coin.

Love as death appears elsewhere in the music too, for instance, in High Infidelity’s, “You know there's many different ways that you can kill the one you love, the slowest way is never loving them enough" and You’re Losing Me’s “How can you say that you love someone you can't tell is dying? […] My face was gray, but you wouldn't admit that we were sick.” Though not completely analogous situations, they both tell the tale of one partner’s apathy (or at least denial) destroying the other. In the former, the partner’s actions (or inaction) are more insidious, if not sinister; in the latter, the lack of momentum (or admission of a problem) is passive. In both cases, the end result is the narrator’s demise; it’s a drawn out affair that chips away at her morale and her health and her sense of self. (Breaking my own rule about bringing in alleged actual events into the discussion, but the idea that the relationship in High Infidelity, which was obviously fraught with unease and even fear, ended in a similarly excruciatingly slow and hurtful death by a thousand cuts as the relationship in You’re Losing Me almost did at that time must have been so painful. It almost feels like YLM is wondering why what used to be a source of light in her life was mirroring a situation that caused her such pain in the past.)

From the same little breaks in your soul

I said early on that part of what is so compelling about Midnights is that it feels like an album about ruminating — on choices, on events, on people — and the two final “bonus” tracks of the album depict that as well. In Hits Different, she sings that, “they say if it’s right, you know,” an ode to the confusion of a breakup and struggling with the aftermath of calling it quits. It’s a line that has always intrigued me, because the typical use of the phrase is in the sense of, “you’ll know when you meet the one,” but here it seems to have a double meaning, a reassurance perhaps from the friends (who later on tell her that "love is a lie") that she’ll know if she’s made the right decision in calling it off, but could also be her wondering if the relationship is right, she’ll know, and want to reconcile. In the final bonus track, You’re Losing Me, she sings, “now I just sit in the dark and wonder if it’s time,” this time leaving no doubt about the dilemma she faces, though it’s no less fraught. She’s wondering, perhaps for the last time, if now is finally the moment to end the relationship for good. They say that if it’s right she’ll know, and now she’s wondering if that feeling inside her (that once told her her partner was the one, which is why it hit differently), is telling her that it’s time to go for good. Wait Alexa play “It’s Time To Go.” These are not only the things that keep her up at night, but the things that play over in her mind like a film reel in her waking hours.

Midnights as a whole is a deeply personal album, as is most of Taylor's work, but the 3am+ edition tracks seem to dig even deeper to a lot of the issues raised on the standard album. Almost like the standard tracks are the things she wonders about on sleepless nights, but the bonus tracks are the things that haunt her in the aftermath. The regret, anger, sadness, grief, relief, even joy— they’re the price she pays for the memories she keeps reliving. Midnights might be the most cohesive narrative of all her albums, and really does feel like we’re watching someone work through her journal over time, stopping short of outright naming those giant fears and intrusive thoughts (except for when she does) but making them plain as day when you connect the songs together, and perhaps never more clearly than in the expanded album. It’s incredible how the songs stand on their own to relay a specific moment in time, but that they are also self-referential to each other (whether thematically or overtly) to weave a larger web over the entire work. We’re so lucky as fans to have these stories and to keep peeling back these layers as time passes. (And my literature-analysis-loving ass loves her even more for it.)

This is obviously by no means an exhaustive list, and I know there are more parallels and probably even stronger links (particularly when you add the standard version into the mix), but these were the ones that particularly struck me and I’m just glad I’ve had a chance to sit with this and think it through. ❤️

[mimjandoodlesstuff]

(Click for better quality)

This project has been something I've wanted to do for a while but only now got around to actually making it.

The real painting's name is The Defense of the Sampo in English (by Akseli Gallen-Kallela, 1896). Yes, the Sampo is golden pizzas in this "AU", because obviously! And the pike jaw kantele is April's video camera.

[breadstickdeadstick]

i see no difference

[heartofthemachine]

i need to become a writer but im so ass at it. sigh

[supemaeve]

Why doesn't Vought want diversity? Wow. These are some real hardballs Maria Menounos. But check your facts. Let's take The Seven, for example. We've got A-Train, he's a black man. We got Black Noir he, uhm, well he doesn't identify with any race, really so, they're covered.

[discjude]

Yeah this is about right (as always my thoughts are in the tags so there's actually kei content there lmao)

[miodiodavinci]

good news!! i am 25% of the way done with the first draft of my portfolio!! (read: partway through like 50 pages of intensely jargon driven mini essays that are each evaluated by several arcane and strangely worded rubrics)

bad news!! the intense euphoria of nearly being at the point where i can Finally take a break and do what i want without the stress of deadlines hanging over me for the first time in nearly a year paired with the soul-crushing reality of needing to finish the remaining 75% of this project is giving me such intense waves of anxiety and nausea that it is actively preventing me from working on more of the project

[mbat]

i really wanted to try and write like, a thing explaining how i think steven universe future is one of the best portrayals (and my personal favorite) of mental illness in media, and how i think people misinterpreted it (me included at first, cause my experience over time has given me new perspectives) but i. AAA i literally dont even know if its necessary cause i dont know if people still think it was bad or a bad way to write steven (it wasnt!!) or like any of that, mostly cause. holy shit its just so obvious to me?

like i watch that show and i relate to him so much that i just understand it all and its so obvious to me and i dont know if other people find it. not obvious. like everything is right there in the text laid out i think

the main thing that i saw get misinterpreted when it aired was the second to last episode where steven turns into a fucking kaiju and everyone, again me included, thought that it felt rushed, but everytime i rewatch it i think... no it wasnt, actually. because we see it expecting a big fight or thinking it needs a whole lot to fix, but it doesnt. its not a fight, its someone having a mental breakdown and thinking theyre purely unlovable and evil, but being made to see that they are still lovable and arent evil even after all the bad theyve done, theyre loved unconditionally, and that other stuff mostly really doesnt matter (and hey, it can be fixed/dealt with later, its fine!)

its just my favorite show ever, specifically future! and i really wish other people would see what i see, but do i even need to try..? i didnt really write it very well anyway, but drafts exist for a reason. idk ive just been thinking about it a lot

TL;DR: i adore steven universe future and im wondering if anyone thinks its even necessary for it to be analyzed for people to maybe better understand it/do you think that there are enough people misunderstanding it that it needs a perspective to maybe help be more understood

[voltstone]

i'm so sick every time i go off of tumblr and there's people who can't wrap their head around the fact violet was brainwashed and was likely having a (bpd) episode on the boat.

all while ignoring the fact that??? she tried to apologize?? right there??? when the boat was still on fire???

anyway so here's the freakin essay i wrote solely because people keep doing this. i had the urge to write it again but. oh wait. i already did??

hm.

>:(

[rabbitindisguise]

Some innocent soul: oh you like [anime title]? :)

Me, trying to sound normal: haha yeah 👍

Also me: *kicking the thousands of reblogs on Tumblr of gifsets and handful of fics I wrote about two characters 69ing under my bed*

[orcelito]

Due to my perpetual follies, I have to write a 12 page paper in a day. Again.

[nyxypoo]

i need to stop myself