#this is not a one to one allegory nor is it meant to be - I am specifically focusing in on the loss of bodily autonomy that occurs when

[radioiaci]

That Lucifer pegs him as a masochist is probably not entirely inaccurate, but he will not give credence to the theory at the moment, too intrigued by the lesson or tale that the other sees fit to regale him with as he listens. He is not the sort of individual to interrupt a musical performance of any kind, really - so long as it is inoffensive and done with appropriate taste - and so he is silent, ears primed as he takes in the details that are shared with him throughout.

But the details of the story - the revelation of hellborn being the illegitimate manifestation of coupling between Goetia and Sinners - are not at the forefront of his mind, even if he does find the history and lore to be rather fascinating. That is not the prevailing theory, he imagines, given the more prominent belief that it is Lucifer who is responsible, and yet to Alastor, neither truly matter in the moment, his eyes not enraptured by the architecture of the room nor even the visualization of the characters - of Astraea and her unidentified lover - but instead at the way that Lucifer's fingers trail across the strings of the violin in his grasp.

The radio demon, a slave to his passion and love for music and storytelling both, is transfixed by the grace with which the Devil brings forth the tale in the spoken word and the notes which the violin emits with pointed expertise. As Lucifer continues, it is less that Alastor is wrapped up in the universe he is crafting, but in the fallen angel himself, effectively silenced by the emotion and stark seriousness with which he has committed himself to do justice to the subject matter. To the point where, by the time the tale has concluded and Lucifer caps the finality of its ending with his much less showy prattle, that Alastor is entirely speechless.

His chest rises and falls with a breathlessness he is not sure the source of, eyes locked between the violin in Lucifer's hold and the Devil's casual candor in the face of what Alastor deems to be no less than a display of musical beauty that he is not sure he is even worthy to have witnessed.

But he finds his voice before it becomes obvious that he is doing much more staring than listening, shaking himself back into his usual temperament (or struggling to) before he responds.

"...That is- quite the story," he says, fumbling slightly over his words as he tries to pluck out the details of what he has been told to hopefully convince Lucifer that he was listening. (He wasn't.)

"It seems even Hell's royalty is not entirely immune to falling in with the worst of us."

It is not meant to be an allegory in pointed observation of current company, but...

"You said you would be open to a request, didn't you? I think I may have one in mind. Are you familiar with Tchaikovsky's Valse Sentimentale?"

It is a more popular piece, he will admit, but - Alastor is antsy to hear it performed right in front of him. It is not every day one gets the opportunity. And where his earlier demeanor may have been slightly nonchalant and disconnected in his gaze as he often is, those red eyes of his are now bright with interest, sitting properly upright in his seat as he keeps them on Lucifer. Unwavering.

Perhaps a bit hopeful?

“…Yeah. A waste, that’s for certain.” It sounds reductive, phrased like that, as if he hadn’t been greatly affected, or his efforts to try and revive the Hell That Used To Be being reduced to ruins and viscera didn’t crush him for a final time. No more exceptions made after, to avoid the targets it would simply paint on the sinner’s hide. It isn’t the time, and Alastor made for good company to keep him from sinking back into old pensive thoughts he could not change in any way meaningful.

He laughed, habitually plucking the strings to check their tuning, “Ah, but you’ve always struck me as a sort of masochist, at least I might give you some forewarning for what’s to come!” Funnily enough, knowing that a request would come his way after, and perhaps another after that, excites him. Perhaps his violin could sing for once instead of merely scream and wail. “Well, my dear student, let us start at the beginning.”

The first few notes carry between them, the music room itself now presenting in real time why the ceiling had been built high and arches in the ceiling proving to not be merely decorative. There were some similarities, initially, that might have hinted at this piece being inspired by Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake, dreamy and longing for something just out of reach. Lucifer’s voice is soft, lilting, though he is not expressly singing, even as his words take the place of the antagonist where her aria was missing between the instumental of his violin.

“The Goetia were once minor angels that lived in Heaven, created for the duty of divination and spell crafting. They could not sing like the other angels, voice not carrying the same power or weilding magic. Instead, their eyes were blessed beyond measure, gazing ever starward and picking out the secrets tucked away in there, recording enchantments and prophecy unseen to any other but them and the One that created them for that purpose. And after certain social changes were made in Heaven, they willingly fell down with six young seraphs, to join me in Hell. And, over time, they became like nobility over the sinners.”

The tone of the music shifts, then, something dark and weighty slithering into the strings, coloring the atmosphere after the gentle swell was cut short and brief pause given, like an intake of breath. “Hellborn, contrary to popular belief, were not created by me; though there are plenty that may like to claim that the story of how had been lost… This opera is a heavily romanticized retelling of the how, but in not so many explicit words.”

Red eyes remain focused on the strings, the voice of Goetia playing in his mind and lyrics readily coming forth, slipping into his playing. “When it takes place, it references a Hell entirely unlike what you see now, a Hell where there were no other rings, no separation between the sinners and all that Hell could offer. And then, they had been seen as a novelty, something…. dangerous. Thrilling. Other.”

Like someone he knew, perhaps?

Lucifer sighed, resisting the urge to shake his head, instead picking up the pace of his playing, creating the feeling of someone falling or being swept up in a wind. “Astraea, in this particular piece, is a Goetia that had fallen for a sinner that remains unnamed, and is consumed by grief to find him with another, seeing it as a betrayal to be spurned, after she had sacrificed station and reputation for someone so lowly. For someone that would discard her as soon as have her. That all she could offer him, without the power of her station and gifts, would not be enough to keep him near... not that he ever asked for such things.” He goes quiet, letting the song speak for him, swelling and crescendoing, warbling as if on the verge of tears and spiralling downdowndown —

But Astraea’s song is not finished yet, the Lament never meant to end in a whimper.

His violin plays, as if it might be one half of an arguement, one half of a conversation, terse and hot and not screaming but accusing, cursing, his words returnng once more, hardened, “And her grief fuels into her rage, swearing it to not be in vain, and to take something precious from the pair, like her blessed sight had been striped from her along with her station, irrecoverable. She swears then to ruin them, both, for if she could not have what she wanted… neither of them could either or she would die trying. As while this was ‘a love that could not live, it was also one that could never—’”

The song ends, abrupt and cut off, leaving the devil standing there, breath steady, as he lowered his bow, “‘— die’. Which, spoilers, she indeed does. Rather fruitlessly at the end. It was a bit controversal when it first came out, but I found it poetic that it was an illegitimate Goetia that played the part. LuLu World’s one of the few places that still plays it, and it’s a favorite, if one’s into these sorts of things. Otherwise, some of Shakespeare’s hellish hits make up the rest. Point is, Hellborn are simply descents of some rebelious Goetia and sinners from the early days. Very scandalous.”

Wiggling his violin and bow with a chuckle, Lucifer’s tail brings up the glass so he can polish off the remenants of his drink and clear his throat. “I do have a vinyl recording the first showing somewhere, if you want to listen to it all in its entirety at a later time. Though, live showings are the best if you get splashzone seats. The fight scenes are particularly spirited. And bloodthirsty.”

[bumblingbabooshka]

When the only person who might understand what happened- understand. Not sympathize or empathize or comfort you but understand what happened, isn't there anymore. Or: 'A Man Made Me Do Something I Didn't Want To', for when you can't talk about it or look it in the eye [Patreon | Commissions]

[nias-nook]

Bill Cipher and The Unicorn in Captivity

Soooo, I haven't been looking at Bill related posts much since the book dropped as I have mixed feelings on what TBOB and the subsequent site have revealed about him, his motives, his backstory etc., but (and maybe someone beat me to this) one thing I haven't seen anyone talk about yet is this,

So maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but this is The Unicorn Rests in a Garden, also known as The Unicorn in Captivity. This piece was a part of The Unicorn Tapestries. Its origins are shrouded in mystery and super interesting but I'm not really gonna touch on that here.

Now there is something to be said about how this one piece, and the rest of the tapestries tie to Bill. I'll briefly go over what the tapestry meant when it was made then dive into what contemporary interpretations of the piece say about Bill and his fundamental inability to redeem himself.

Also just want to establish before we get into this that I am...Not a scholar when it comes to this stuff. I just happened to recognise this tapestry and its symbolism when it dropped on the website and had to put my thoughts somewhere. I might add more later if I've forgotten anything, which I probably have.

Given this was a piece made in Europe in the Middle Ages, it's perhaps unsurprising that a lot of interpretations of it are biblical, but we can (mostly) safely assume Hirsch isn't going for a Christ allegory here. Then again, maybe he's going for nothing and all of this is pointless.

What is a little interesting in the wake of TBOB is its ties to marriage.

These tapestries are heavily theorised to have been made to celebrate a wedding, and their comparisons of love and marriage to a hunt that inevitably leads to the imprisonment and taming of your lover. Of course, Bill quite literally suggests this method in the book with The Love Cage that he uses in Weirdmageddon, but there's a million 'Billford is canon' posts (though I think that's reductive at BEST) out there so let's table that as it's pretty self-explanatory. Bill and Ford have been hunting each other for decades and Bill imprisons him in a so-called 'Love Cage' to try and convince Ford to be his 'partner' (be it platonic or romantic). This is what a victory in a relationship is to him.

What I'd like to focus on is the modern interpretation of The Unicorn in Captivity as a self-imposed prison.

"Look at that little unicorn! The beatific smile. He's happy now. He gets to live in a beautiful garden."

"Yeah, in a cage."

"A protective barrier. No one's hunting him anymore. Nor can he hurt anyone with that horn of his."

This summary of the piece is taken from the aptly titled Unicorn in Captivity from another animated series, The Venture Bros. (which, by the way, if you're looking for another show that's a whimsical and fun riff on 80s pop culture with a big mystery element, highly recommend), but this of course isn't the first piece of media to portray it this way. the most notable being The Unicorn in Captivity poem by Anne Morrow Lindbergh.

The unicorn is, on the surface, a prisoner. The Theraprism that Bill is now trapped in is a place he longs to escape, but that's the thing, isn't it?

He could escape any time he wanted to.

Bill, like the unicorn, is trapping himself more than the Theraprism is trapping him, but his situation isn't to be pitied, it's karmic justice. What's so satisfying about Bill's eventual comeuppance is that he's the one making himself suffer. The only thing Bill needs to do to escape is to admit he was wrong, to stop revelling in the suffering of others, but...Well, he chooses not to.

He could slip his head

From the jewelled noose

So lightly tied -

If he tried,

As a maid could loose

The belt from her side;

He could slip the bond

So lightly tied -

If he tried.

For all of his guilt about his parents and his so-called 'dark and troubled past', Bill has never regretted a single person he's hurt since. He didn't regret taking over the world, he regretted being caught. He didn't regret hurting Ford, he regretted losing him. Bill will probably be doomed to wallow in the Theraprism for all eternity, cursing his situation and blaming everyone else for his inevitable downfall. An overgrown child who once had too much power and lost it all throwing a tantrum for the ages.

But now he can't hurt anyone with that horn of his.

[annabelle--cane]

I guess the thing that makes me not so fond of Jon's addiction allegory is that it's only coherent to a certain extent? Like I think people sometimes forget that he's actively violating these people

anon, through no fault of your own you have accidentally hit upon my sleeper agent trigger phrase. I have layers of answers to this.

so first off, yeah, it's not a 1:1 direct metaphor, it's a soupy dream logic fantasy plot device with flavors of a lot of different things. there's quite a lot of addiction in there, there's some abuse of power, there's some cyclical nature of trauma, there's a dash of disability, there's a few notes of gendered violence, there's a good bit of just. violence violence and being kind of a motherfucker because goddammit it feels good to be an active agent about something in your life, even if it's just choosing to be a worse version of yourself than you strictly need to be. a lot of tma's worldbuilding is very allegorical, but apart from aspects of individual statements nothing really matches up quite 1:1 with a real world counterpart, and if more things did then it probably wouldn't be a fantasy show anymore.

secondly. okay to contextualize this answer a little bit I have a kind of hypothetical video essay project about vampirism and addiction that I like to spend a few hours thinking about every so often but am almost certainly never going to make because the full research burden required is a lot higher than I actually have the time to properly do. but because of that I've spent a lot of time sorting through why framing vampires as addicts really works for me in a way that it doesn't seem to for everyone, and I think a lot of my thoughts on that also apply to jon. there's going to be a bit of a detour here before we get back to talking about tma, but we'll get there, I prommy.

I've seen a lot of people take issue with various paranormal addiction allegories because, a lot of the time, the act that is meant to metaphorically represent the act of use itself is something that is directly and inherently harmful to others, e.g. drinking human blood, handing over power to your hedonistic Evil alter ego, holding the cursed amulet and going crazy going stupid, slurping trauma out of the head of some guy you ran into on a boat to norway, etc., and yeah, I do get that. substance use is not inherently harmful like that to anyone except sometimes the user themself, and addicts are not inherently fucked up and destructive people; those are dangerous stereotypes that often lead to the demonizing of a whole group of sick people.

here's the thing for me, though: those are definitely truths I want explored and represented when it comes to portrayals of non-allegorical actual addicts, but fantasy fiction isn't for showing the world as it is, it's for showing a subjective fun house mirror version of reality where certain aspects are minimized and magnified depending on how it feels to live through it. and yes, absolutely in real life drug use is not an inherently evil act and it does not make you an inherently evil person, but... doesn't it kind of feel like that? sort of? absolutely no one is living their best life nor on their best behavior while experiencing any kind of major mental illness episode, and when it comes to addiction you've got a very clear tangible symbol of when The Episode is happening that it feels like you have much more control over than when it comes to other illnesses. it's also a thing where people are a lot more likely to be openly angry and distrustful of you if they find out it's happening. so you mix together the ideas of "I know I get worse as a result of doing this one specific thing" + "I act less like myself when I'm using, it rearranges my priorities and I care less about hurting people because that's what happens when you're experiencing The Horrors" + "society at large/people directly around me are pretty quick to say that doing this is evil," and you get the subjective emotional result of "I hurt people by using and it makes me monstrous." I tend to respond to those kinds of paranormal allegories like they're just cutting out the middle man of those subjective fears. "using makes me monstrous" -> "using is monstrous."

anyway. jon archivist.

don't get me wrong, I totally understand if this aspect of metaphor doesn't gel for some people and they only like taking it exactly as far as the text explicitly makes them, but I really get a lot out of reading jon's connection to the fears as addiction precisely because he does genuinely awful things to people as a result of it. he's a person in a very bad physical and mental place with little to no support who is constantly being told by both allies and enemies that he's already a monster just by being alive, and he copes with that by secretly falling further and further into an compulsive act of consumption that skews his priorities and makes him care less about hurting people because at least sometimes getting to be the cause of pain makes him feel a little bit less powerless when he has to be the subject of pain the rest of the time. then he's found out and is made to stop, and he has to grapple not just with the physical toll of withdrawal but with knowing there is a not insignificant part of him that will excuse any act of malice if he knows he'll feel better afterwards.

the end of tma is very explicit in the fact that the rules of its world are shaped by the subjective worst fears of those who live in it, it's "an exercise in unreliably reality" as jonny sims put it once, and I think that principle extends backwards in some ways to apply to the rest of the show. I don't think the fact that there are only entities of fear and not hope or love is meant to be a full commentary on the total nature of the real world, it's a reflection of what fear and suffering can make the world feel like. eric and melanie both go to really harsh extremes to extricate themselves from the fears and live peaceful lives, and in both cases something happens that foils their plans (getting murdered + the apocalypse, respectively), but I don't think the intended message is to say that is definitively how real life works, they are metaphors for the limits of individual agency in larger systems and represent two types of worst-case-scenarios. similarly, I don't think reading jon as an addict implies that addiction inherently involves violence or that the reactions of those around him were completely unjustified, it's just a subjective exploration of the kinds of fears that can come with addiction dialed up to 100.

[hephanna]

On the Cat King, Edwin & Charles. [And David the Demon + Crystal, and Jenny + Maxine & Niko].

Not to unnecessarily pipe in my two cents when it hasn't been asked for, BUT I just wanted to mention some of my thoughts on The Cat King, Edwin, Charles (and Crystal + David the Demon) sometimes fantasy shows use supernatural elements as allegories for real life situations (this is seen with Buffy, Supernatural, and yes Dead Boy Detectives) and therefore just because it's supernatural/fantasy, it cannot immediately be dismissed as 'not needing to follow real life moral rules' For example in Dead Boy Detectives, David the Demon, despite being a demon, is clearly an allegory for an abusive ex-boyfriend - Jenny even points this out on-screen. David is in Crystals' head, harassing her and tearing down her self-confidence (telling her she isn't worth anything) the way an abusive ex-boyfriend may linger in their victim's mind even after breaking up. He takes away her memories (and therefore her identity) the same way an abusive boyfriend takes away the identity of the woman he is abusing, her sense of self, her connections. And Crystal must take her sense of self, her memory, her confidence back by defeating David. Although David is a demon, he is still meant to reflect a real-life abusive ex-boyfriend, even a human one. The same thing is true with the Cat King - not saying he's an abusive ex-boyfriend - but his behaviour cannot be justified by the fact that he's a supernatural creature. The audience is still meant to reflect, to make connections via the supernatural on real-life situations. Now, I'm not saying the Cat King was wrong for trying to shoot his shot with Edwin, or that Edwin wasn't attracted to the Cat King, HOWEVER, Edwin's attraction doesn't mean the Cat King is entitled to his time or affection - nor does it mean the Cat King has a right to disregard Edwin's boundaries. Disregarding their introductory meeting, and discussions about whether or not it was morally correct of the Cat King to ask Edwin to have sex with him after putting a magical bracelet on his wrist, several incidents after that also demonstrate the Cat King taking away Edwin's choice from him (such as using a truth spell on him to force Edwin into confessing why he's a detective in hopes of not being sent back to Hell) - regardless of the Cat King's response "I like your secret parts" you shouldn't force someone into being vulnerable for you before they are ready - the same way it would be wrong to read someone's private journal, or get someone drunk with the purpose of asking them invasive questions you know they wouldn't answer sober. The Cat King views himself as entitled to the 'real' Edwin, regardless of whether Edwin feels comfortable sharing that with the Cat King. This is also seen when the Cat King saves Edwin from Monty, and then gets upset when that doesn't get him what he wants (a kiss, sex, whatever) and Edwin gets frustrated with the Cat King, reminding him he's a person, not a toy. The audience is meant to emphasize with Edwin, and understand the situation he's in and how it parallels real life situations. (i.e., someone thinking you owe them sex because they bought you a drink at a bar) Edwin forgives the Cat King at the end, because a part of Edwin's character journey, along with self-discovery, is also forgiveness. He understands the Cat King is also struggling, in the same way he understood Simon was struggling, but there struggles do not mean the way they treated Edwin was acceptable. That doesn't mean the Cat King can't grow from this, and learn to respect Edwin and his boundaries. That also doesn't mean you can't still ship the Cat King/Edwin and enjoy an unhealthy power dynamic, boundary pushing, etc., this is still fiction after all, and I'd be a huge hypocrite to say that all my ships are morally good and acceptable. But I just also think "it's a fantasy show! it doesn't need to follow our morals!" is a flimsy understanding of the text - just acknowledge that something doesn't have to be morally correct for you to enjoy it, but don't remove the morals altogether.

There is a reason, after all, as Edwin accepts his sexuality, he realizes he is in love and wants Charles, not the King Cat. There is a reason (I think, at least) that the show creates obvious parallels between Charles & the Cat King - and shows Charles very obviously not liking the Cat King. Also, just another little thought, this is also demonstrated with Jenny & Maxine. Maxine seems 'innocent' because she's a sweet, blonde librarian who is writing Jenny Love Notes - and the Love Notes are even acknowledged, as creepy from the get-go, but then it's like "oh, but it's just a sweet, innocent woman who's writing them, it's actually super romantic!" And then the twist is, no, actually, it still is creepy. Maxine was literally stalking Jenny for possibly months, watching her through her window, and as we saw: not accepting Jenny's boundaries when it became clear Jenny was uncomfortable. Like the Cat King got upset and mad with Edwin, saying he wasn't going to 'play nice' anymore, Maxine got upset with Jenny and then tried to kill her, yelling 'why won't you let me love you.' Again, just because you like someone, and even if that person was initially or still is attracted to you - like Jenny was initially attracted to Maxine - that does not mean you are entitled to their love, their privacy, or their body. Everyone still have free choice. There is a reason Jenny did not immediately forgive Niko for pushing her to go on a date with Maxine, and why Niko felt so guilty - it wasn't Niko's fault, at all, because Maxine made her own choices, but Jenny had been uncomfortable with the situation from the get-go, and she was proven right - and put into extreme danger because of it. This isn't to say the Cat King is terrible - again, I enjoyed the Cat King character. I liked his interactions with Edwin, his sarcasm and tricks. But his behaviour towards Edwin went beyond flirtation and wanting to be with Edwin, and at times was coercive, manipulative, and toxic. Which is okay! As we learned during the end, Crystal was also toxic during her life and then wanted to change and become a better person. The Cat King can also be toxic, and then learn and want to change and better himself. I just personally think that's an important aspect to acknowledge of the Cat King's journey - instead of sweeping it under the rug, or telling other fans they're "reading too deeply into it" and "just don't understand what demonstrating sexual interest in someone is." Or "it's fantasy." Because there's demonstrating sexual interest in someone, and then there's routinely and purposefully bull-dozing over someone's boundaries, which we see the Cat King to do Edwin. Anyway, apologies for my huge ramble, I am not trying to be mean to anyone or say anyone cannot ship the Cat King/Edwin (and I am admittedly biased - Edwin/Charles holds my heart) but I enjoy show analysis, healthy debate, etc,. and just really wanted to share my thoughts and engage with the community. All my love, Hephie.

[mdhwrites]

The Point of Asking How Bad a Parent Odalia is

My last blog was asking this question. However, with many of the responses I got, I feel like I failed to articulate the why for that question. The importance of it and I answered and then deleted an ask that gave me a chance to answer that because it ended up muddying the point by being a response. So, here it is:

If you cannot understand cultural perspective in fiction, how do you ever write a convincing world that is anything other than our own?

Most of Odalia's actions are deplorable... By our standards and sensibilities. When taken out of context. The problem is that unless a work is ENTIRELY allegorical, and incredibly smart with those allegories, that approach never works. In fact, the most effective speculative fiction takes the context of the world they've made and uses it to AMPLIFY the point they're making. To further reinforce the concepts they're going for. As such, questioning if someone who is framed as evil within a text whether they would be actually evil by the merits of their society is kind of important because that contrast can say a lot.

In TOH's case, this never coalesces into anything. Odalia being a good parent from the perspective of not wanting her child to be a criminal and so not wanting her to interact with rulebreakers or literal criminals... It doesn't say anything. After all, it's not like the rules dictate you must let someone else die or must be cruel. No, the rules they're breaking are things like "You need to be registered with the state," and "Don't skip class." I'm sorry but that isn't extreme in any way? Not unless we're supposed to just coddle people who don't want to participate in society and ignore them ignoring their social obligations? Like the coven system is the Isle's ONE real law and the covens aren't even jobs. You are beholden to no one getting a coven sigil because you still have to go get a job. It's like saying requiring citizenship in ANY country is bad because it holds you accountable to anyone. Because someone is placing any sort of restriction on you. That... That's a pretty shitty theme.

And it IS a theme. It's why the show essentially claims Camila to be a bad parent until For the Future. She renounces her ONE time that she ever held Luz back from being full force her and the audience, and Luz, are meant to cheer for this. That this is taking away some cardinal sin when, and this is in our context because it's supposedly Earth, the reason Luz was sent to Summer Camp, to make friends, was:

She brought a BOMB to school in the form of fireworks, which is against the rules, if not law, in any school, especially without advance permission.

She assaulted people with wild animals she could not control which is a crime literally anywhere.

She brought live, WILD. ANIMALS. into a school without permission, nor without a way to control them and keep others safe which is again, in most circumstances, a crime. And she does this one TWICE. Explicitly.

She is not sent to Juvy, or military camp or ANY sort of real correctional facility. She is sent to a life skills camp instead. Not a conversion camp of any sort, just one meant to teach her basic necessities of being an adult someday, something a lot of people actually argue should be a regular part of school curriculum for good reason. And this, THIS, was her going too far as a parent.

All Odalia being the worst parent ever is further reinforcement of a theme that claims being a parent is a bad thing. Flatly. If you are doing more than strictly keeping your child alive, you are a bad parent. I'm sorry but that feels really bad and like a pretty shitty theme if you ask me. It honest to god, more so proponents that neglect is good. Give them a room, give them access to food, then fuck off. That's... That's not what 99% of kids want from a parent. They want an actual parent. I mean, it even understands this with Reaching Out but even then, the final agreement is "I won't tell you what to do ever and when you want me, I will be available." Parents are more than just toys for their kids. I'm sorry to anyone who's finding this out now somehow. They are meant to teach you morals, how to interact with society, to prepare you for your future, etc. like that. They are also there to take care of you but they are not strictly your friends because they're there to help you improve to be a better person, much like how a therapist isn't your friend. This is a LARGE part of why parenting is so difficult.

To simplify it in the way so many lazy analysts do by going "X person was mean so they're abusive," is... Dumb. And bad. And helps no one. It also breaks your fantasy worlds so maybe try a little harder? Or just keep using buzzwords. It is the easier way to do it.

See you next tale.

======+++++======

The ask that brought this about mentioned Mother Gothel like Odalia and Gothel are even comparable in their writing which... No. Mother Gothel is praised for good reason because she 1000%, in universe and out, is abusive. Period. In every possible way, including Rapunzel's reactions about her.

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

[eirianerisdar]

Eirian, if I may be honest in your ask box, I’m having a hard time not being angry at Charles right now even though I know he didn’t have much, if any, control over the situation. In lieu of getting any irl comfort, I’m wondering - assuming Icarus-verse doesn’t get to 2024 - how would Charlos have dealt with this there? I just feel Carlos is in desperate need of flock right now.

Anon, I'm having a very hard time understanding why you would be angry with Charles. Carlos losing a seat has nothing to do with him. Really, it has very little to do with anything other than what team wouldn't want a seven-time F1 champion to drive for them?

Charles has every right to say he is excited to be teammates with Lewis in the future. He doesn't need to say anything publicly about Carlos, nor does he owe us that. He and Carlos' friendship has plainly not been one that they feel needs to be put out there for cross-examination. Their friendship is such that they still play chess in 2024 in the private setting of chess.com. They go to dinner together in Maranello during winter testing. We would know about none of these things if it weren't for fans noticing. Charlos don't feel the need to post these things and we shouldn't ask them to because their friendship is theirs.

Charles doesn't need to prove that he spoke with Carlos about the seat situation by posting about it. Of course they spoke about it. You think they'd go around having dinner together two weeks ago, well after they found out, if they didn't?

The point here is that F1 drivers are people. Their friendships do not need to be public, nor do expressions of compassion or affection. Carlos has said that he thinks he will be even better friends with Charles once they aren't teammates. Both of them have said they knew it would happen eventually.

Another thing I want to point out is that Icarus is a fanfic about F1 drivers with wings. Yes, it is a thinly veiled allegory for unsafe practices in sport. Yes, it draws heavily on real life circumstances in F1. But the characters in Icarus are just that - characters. Nobody under any circumstances should think real life people should act anything like what is described in RPF just because the RPF uses them in a story. We are borrowing characters. We are not saying our writing reflects real, living people.

Charlos are not as codependent in real life as they are in Icarus because in real life they do not have wings. Yes, we can see some parallels in how they fight to survive in Ferrari together but we don't know them. I don't know them. Carlos IRL is not "in desperate need of flock". He has his own management team and a teammate with whom he is very good friends with. He is confident and he is a sought-after asset in the driver market and I have no doubt he'll land on his feet.

In the context of Icarus, yes, I will write about it. I'll put it in the latter section of the extra Charlos chapters at the end of the fic, the ones which cover the 2022 French GP and onwards. There'll be plenty of hurt-comfort there. But the point of growth in Icarus!charlos is that they eventually grow out of their codependency. They are flock, but eventually realise what it is to be flock without needing to cling to each other to survive. It's a good thing.

So, Anon, I know you meant well, but you are not entitled to have Charles make declarations about how Ferarri effed over his friend, or even declarations about how Carlos is his friend.

They're friends. That isn't performative. It's visible. We do not have the right to demand that they show their friendship to us, because that would be ridiculous, like extrapolating driver relationships with a wingfic would be.

Enjoy reading RPF because it's fun. Not because you think it happens in real life.

[melonteee]

This might be odd to ask, but what do you think Chopper's and Robin bond. I personally adore their friendship and I am so happy that it is going more showcase on Egghead (Robin giving Chopper Cotton Candy to cheer him up due to his bounty always melts my heart.) I want to mention this too, but both their backstories share a common element of ostracization; what do you think?

I think Robin felt an immediate fondness towards Chopper, and we do know Robin finds Chopper very cute but I feel it's much more than that. After all, Robin was an outcast due to who she was - labelled a demon and a monster with no one treating her kindly nor seeing her as human. Chopper, of course, had a similar life. While Chopper did indeed find someone who cared for him, Chopper still never had a home, never had a peer group he could connect to, nor a crowd he could blend in with. Robin and Chopper were both pushed out, aggressively, from society as a whole.

So in saying that, seeing a little creature who is not animal nor man, seeing someone who would never be accepted in the common crowd unless he hid or changed himself - of course Robin would connect to that. In many ways, I'm sure Robin sees a lot of her younger self in Chopper, and it feels Robin wants nothing more than to give Chopper the love she never received at that age. They of course also both have the monster allegory, both being able to open up and be themselves due to Luffy accepting them, and Chopper being alongside Sanji to beg for Robin to come back in Water 7 was certainly a purposeful choice. The two unloved outcasts of either the world or their families chasing after the third - and on a side note now SANJI has a monster allegory attached to him as well.

Anyways, revealing monster point in Ennies Lobby was a genius decision - because everyone was telling the Strawhats Robin was a monster. Yet, to get Robin BACK, Chopper turns into his OWN monster that he feared to reveal - and I'm sure that would've meant a lot to Robin. I think their connection is incredibly touching and incredibly wholesome.

[autistic-ben-tennyson]

Christian Themes in Ben 10

Before people light the torches and grab their pitchforks, this is not me making Ben 10 into evangelical republican propaganda, nor am I some moralistic Bible thumper like that person who called Steven Universe “anti god”. As someone who was raised Christian in a Christian culture, these were just things I picked up on while watching the series. This is an examination of the Christian motifs and themes present in the story, whether intentional by the writers or not. These elements are most prominent in UAF, particularly the Highbreed and Dagon story arcs and the episode “The Ultimate Sacrifice”. Ben 10 isn’t unique for having Christian themes or imagery but it’s seldom talked about, possibly due to being viewed as just a campy kids show meant to sell toys.

I think Ben 10 appeals to me because it’s fairly vague on pushing any religious ideas compared to SW and allows for different interpretations. The characters aren’t explicitly religious, allowing people to form their own headcanons, and aliens are shown to be behind the existence of the universe like with the Forge of Creation or Sir George getting Ascalon from Azmuth as opposed to God. That said, a story can create an atheistic universe while also containing allegories and references to real life religious stories.

Christian imagery and allegories can be found in many stories. Other cartoons and animes I enjoy like Neon Genesis Evangelion, Puella Magi Madoka Magica, Princess Tutu and Steven Universe are often cited as examples of this. With Evangelion and SU, the creators have denied there to be intentional Christian metaphors but many viewers have interpreted them that way. Steven is sometimes viewed as a Christ figure, as are Ahiru, Shinji and Madoka, with Pink Diamond being compared to God, although Rebecca Sugar cited Hillel the Elder as an inspiration for Steven, not Jesus, and was raised Jewish. This makes me wonder, could some view Ben this way too?

Ben is not the first person people would point at as a Christ figure which, again, may be influenced by how people view the series and his character. He is far from flawless which goes against the biblical narrative of Jesus being a perfect being, but also makes him more human. Despite that, one can find some similarities between him and Jesus. While less so than Steven, Ahiru or Madoka, Ben is a very compassionate and altruistic person who even at his most selfish wanted to help people. The first time we saw him was him attempting to defend a bullied peer. He also showed compassion for the Kraken when most would have seen it as a monster. While handsome, Ben is fairly plain looking compared to the long haired, pretty boy Kevin like Jesus being described as having a lack of beauty in Isaiah’s prophecy and is fairly average as a human compared to Gwen or Kevin.

Alien Force is where more of the Christian symbolism comes in. Ben befriending Kevin and offering him another chance may be compared to the disciples Matthew and Judas. Matthew being a tax collector, similar to Kevin being a criminal but offered a chance to change despite what he’s done. Kevin did betray Ben in the OS and in Ben’s perception he did it again in UA when absorbing the Ultimatrix. Unlike Judas, it wasn’t out of greed but self sacrifice to stop Aggregor and the team was able to save him and was quickly forgiven by Ben.

The biblical parallels don’t stop there. Azmuth compared the Omnitrix to Noah’s ark and Ben to Noah during the Highbreed invasion. The Omnitrix being a tool meant to bring different beings together can also be seen as very Christian in nature. There’s also Ben healing Reinrassig and the entire Highbreed race despite everything they did. Most would see them as unworthy of redemption or help but Ben still chose to save them. A lot of people, including those who claim to believe in restorative justice, forget that redemption isn’t meant to be for those who “earn” it and even those who’ve done bad things can be capable of change. Also, while a coincidence, like Greg and Blue Diamond from SU, I do see some similar imagery between Big Chill and the Virgin Mary, especially in “Save the Last Dance”.

Moving on to Ultimate Alien, the Dagon arc is filled with references to Christianity. The name Dagon comes from the god the Philistines worshiped in the Old Testament and was also a short story by HP Lovecraft. The writers had wanted to do a Lovecraftian story for AF s3 before CN interfered but got their chance with UA. The story of St George and the Dragon is retold by Driscoll with the in universe Sir George and Dagon being the inspirations for it. The Flamekeepers’ Circle is also meant to be a commentary on real world cults like Scientology and Mormonism especially with their charity outreach in impoverished nations and preying on people with good intentions like Julie.

I think “The Ultimate Sacrifice” is the most obvious biblical allegory in the series. Ben quips after waking up in the Ultimatrix that if he’s dead, “the place with the fiery red light” is not where he wants to go, a clear reference to Hell and eternal damnation. Then there’s the sacrifice itself. Ben accepts having to die to set the Ultimates free from suffering and forgives them for attacking him while giving an emotional goodbye to Gwen. For his selfless act, he is given another chance at life by the Ultimatrix. All of which people can compare to the resurrection story.

The themes of Ultimate Alien with Ben’s arc about power are very Christian as well. Ben accepts that he can’t be in control all the time and can’t determine people’s fates. “Duped”, while poorly executed, had a good message about how trying to please everyone pleases no one. He chooses not to kill Kevin after spending the whole arc angry over his failure to save the andromeda aliens and stop Aggregor, plus the aforementioned sacrifice of him giving his life for the Ultimates. Then there’s the final test that proves him worthy of the completed Omnitrix. He’s tempted to wipe out all evil which can seem appealing but realizes that he’d be stripping away the free will of every being in the universe and gives up the power.

I know this seems appalling to a lot of people here on Tumblr with how “give up control” have been weaponized by conservatives and what Christianity has become in our society. But Ben 10, for all its flaws with the writing, presents an idealistic view of the world regarding second chances, accepting differences and letting everyone, even the villains, have free will. It, as well as the other shows I’ve mentioned, can be seen as an example of a show with religious themes that doesn’t preach or condescend to its viewers and can be enjoyed by a broad range of people with different backgrounds.

[ikarwawa]

Man, it's wild how badly people have misunderstood the Medusa myth. It drives me wild that people keep getting tattoos of her, and it's now synonymous with protecting SA victims despite the fact that TUMBLR MADE THAT SHIT UP.

Long winded Rant/Explanation below:

Basically, in the original myth—Medusa was always a monster. She always had snakes for hair and the power to turn people to stone.

(BTW, Medusa has wings. That's why Pegasus is a winged horse. I feel like not enough people acknowledge this—)

She was not cursed nor punished—she and the other Gordon sisters just... looked like that because they were the daughters of ocean deities.

She was pregnant at the time of her slaying, hence why Pegasus, her baby, pops out when she is killed.

Now—her pregnancy is never explained in the original myth. She just is, and this was fine because Medusa overall is actually closely meant to be symbolic of a figure of fertility. That's why her hair being a twisting mess of snakes and her accessories being snake themed is important. Tangled up snakes are a symbol of fertility (if you don't know why, it's cause that's how snakes mate).

Perseus killing her is very symbolic of and mirrors the fact that by successfully killing Medusa, he saved his mother from being SA'd by the king. This is also why her depiction shifts from being a monster to being a beautiful woman. It better emphasized that she is meant to be a symbol of fertility—and her beauty goes on to become a very intentional narrative.

Medusa being beautiful places her in a more sympathetic light and is meant to display how victimizing women hurts everyone. Medusa is killed in her sleep and Perseus is a coward who can not bring himself to hurt Medusa head on but has to in order to save his mother, and Medusa is a beautiful woman who is harmed by the King's Greed. No one really wins.

Of course—the sleeping version wasn't as popular because it makes Perseus seem not like a clever hero. Hence, most people are familiar with the versions where he kills her with the mirrored shield. I prefer the sleeping version because it's from a narrative meant to be more woman-sympathetic.

ANYWAY.

The popular modern notion of Medusa as a symbol of SA that was made up on tumblr acrually combines the misogynistic Roman version and the more woman-sympathetic Greek version.

See, there's actually NO version where Medusa was SA'd.

The closest we have was a version written by a roman man named Ovid—Ovid hated nothing more than women.

He (and much of the Romans tbh) HATED the notion of an unwed mother. So, in his version, he writes that Medusa was a beautiful woman who had consensual sex with Poseidon and is punished for defiling a temple. This version is meant to make her punishment justified. She's punished by being transformed into a monster—her hair is made into snakes, and she is no longer allowed to look at men, turning them to stone. A punishment for her promiscuousity (note: Medusa only turns men to stone, btw. This is a whole allegory about ~ dangerous whorish women ~ who bring men down). This is entirely meant to be a reasonable and justified punishment—and her death is also meant to be a justified and reasonable punishment.

The interpretation of her being SA'd comes from a mish-mash of the Greek and Roman versions—where Medusa is supposed to be a victim in the Greek version but a whore in the Roman one. So you end up with... a story where an SA victim is punished for being SA'd.

And that story, which is VERY modern and VERY recent—like it popped up during the 80s and 90s—is the one everyone keeps repeating.

I hate it.

[jkl-fff]

Centaurworld and Mental Illnesses

Has it struck anyone else that each member of the Herd could represent a major spectrum of mental illness? The notion has been buzzing around my brain since finishing the series last night. While normally I would take more time to organize my ideas, I figure it’s better to put them all down here and now before I can forget to share them.

(Please feel free to comment, by the way, if you’ve got any thoughts on the matter. A bit of input or dialogue could certainly help refine this little literary theory of mine, perhaps to more cogently articulate it later.)

Anyway, this isn’t to say each member of the Herd is meant to perfectly personify a specific diagnosis. To be clear, I’m not giving one, either, it’s more that I’m trying to identify some broad symptoms and maybe a broad spectrum of kind of of illness (since symptoms often overlap a lot with different specific diagnoses). Nor am I saying that the show is, overall, an allegory for dealing with mental illness. It’s more an observation about another way the show is deeper and more symbolic than it first appears (with its kids’ show antics and its overabundance of dumb fart jokes). Sorta how in a lot of other shows, main characters really typify one of the Seven Deadly Sins or a major philosophy or whatever.

First, there’s Horse.

Chronic Depression (McFreakin’ Episode 8, plus all her other frequent bouts of melancholy and self-doubt).

Second, Wammawink.

PTSD with bouts of Manic Activity (especially related to recreating the family she lost, to protecting and nurturing the family she’s found).

Next is Glendale.

Anxiety, no question. Even her kleptomania is frequently pointed out to be a coping mechanism for how anxious she is.

Then Zulius.

Who would be something having to do with Self-Absorption or even Narcissism.

Followed by Ched.

He has problems with Anger Management, most frequently directed at Horse.

And finally Durpleton.

Who, I freely admit, feels like the weakest link in this theory. But given how frequently he seems to not be paying attention or to not respond in a seemingly appropriate way emotionally, would by Disassociation.

[ben-the-hyena]

🏚

Elemental (I know it turned around and is now appreciated in the box office but it looks like Tumblr still doesn't like it and rub their own popular biased movies I shan't name in its face. Die mad, keep your own stuff I keep mine)

Nobody gave it a chance and dunked it just because it has bad advertising and because "urr durr bad allegory" whereas it is meant to be partly autobiographical (and I am SURE because "ugh straight ppl again"). Yet the animation and designs are GORGEOUS Pixar peak and I dare say the worldbuilding and buildings' designs is more original than Zootopia, the romance is my favorite Pixar romance so far for how beautiful and realistic it feels and you can just feel it bloom and the 2 are great characters on their own without the couple too so you just want them to be together, the alegory is wonderful and even though I am not in Ember's situation when it comes to bd 2nd generation immigrant nor a minority I still feel so much her pressure and outburtsts about disappointing her family anf being scared to follow her dreams but suffering from it because you know you do have talent and having a constant dilemma to the point of having recurring breakdowns so it touched me deeply, the humor is fun, the soundtrack is beautiful, the feels were feely especially between her and her father, I loved how nothing was black and white by having and addressing the fact Wade and his family are kind rich people but innoncently unsensitive because as much as they want to help they do not know what it is like to work hard so they do not realize things they say which is refreshing the fact they fo microaggressions without meaning it and it is refreshing too to depict them as wrong but well meaning instead of outright unsubtle racist pricks like most shows and movies Tumblr love because they love them not for the scenario but only for projection I bet- I love this movie, one of my favorite Pixars already

[guybitesatgames]

you know video games, and you know vampires, yeah? whats the best vampire in a video game in your opinion?

Pardon me while I take advantage of the fact that "best" is a nebulous adjective.

If we take "best" to mean "the most closely fit to an archetypal vampire"...

I gotta go with the obvious answer: Castlevania's Alucard.

Isn't he a dhampir? Shouldn't it be Dracula?

Paradoxically, Alucard's condition as a dhampir makes him closer to an archetypal vampire than Dracula. Vampires are often used as an allegory for liminal identities - an AB person who can neither fit into group A because of their B traits nor fit into group B because of their A traits. Being only part vampire doubles down on this trope, and we occasionally see Alucard grapple with this, whereas Dracula is far past the point where he's struggling with his separation from humanity.

Besides, can Dracula do this?

Further, it might just be because we're playing as him, but we get to see Alucard doing a lot more vampire-things than we see Dracula doing. He's got bat form, he's got wolf form, he's even got the oft-forgot mist form and he sleeps in a coffin. We can presume that he inherited those things from his father, but Dracula's more likely to take on a war form more commonly associated with werewolves than that of the humble bat.

/|\ ^._.^ /|\ .𖥔 ݁ ˖🦇 ݁˖ ݁𖥔 . /|\ ^._.^ /|\

If we take "best" to mean "doing the best at vampirism"...

that would have to be Sebastian LaCroix of Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines fame.

Everyone else on this list plays nice- LaCroix treats people as playthings. As a character you are not meant to sympathize with, he's allowed to embrace the cutthroat-but-genteel nature of a vampire that protagonists can't. He's afforded the luxury of being a monster and that is a luxury he will indulge. Even though we don't see him drinking blood or flouncing around in a cape, he goes so overboard being a manipulative little leech that he has to take the top spot.

He's also the only one here to do the most vampiric thing of all - being undone by one's thirst.

/|\ ^._.^ /|\ .𖥔 ݁ ˖🦇 ݁˖ ݁𖥔 . /|\ ^._.^ /|\

If we take "best" to mean "my favorite, vampiric metrics be damned"...

I'd be remiss not to mention Valvatorez, best (and only?) vampire in the Disgaea series.

As one might expect from the Disgaea IP, he's a bit of a trope inversion; he's sworn off blood and he's only interested in power if it can be used to help those under his rule, but that's what makes him so lovable! The only king I stan is one who properly understands noblesse oblige. Instead of being the usual "powerful friend with a tragic cost", he's unflaggingly the friend who wants to make YOU powerful with the only drawback of probably having sardine breath. On all thematic points, he fails to live up to vampiric standards, but that reflects poorly on the standards, not on him. In a just world, all vampires would use their age as a source of wisdom to be shared and their strength as a means of helping up friends in need.

/|\ ^._.^ /|\ .𖥔 ݁ ˖🦇 ݁˖ ݁𖥔 . /|\ ^._.^ /|\

Honorable mention: myotismon in many of the Digimon games. Usually, he's a perfectly stand-up guy who just happens to have An Aesthetic that gives everyone the wrong idea and gets him in trouble.

Poor lad

[dragon-snoots-a-boopin]

Alright, I've seen this video and response videos to it, several of them at this point. So, I am going to give my response on this person poorly made and not all researched video. While I am not like a major fan of Godzilla but, I know bullshit when I see it and this video is full of bullshit.

"Godzilla is the biggest media franchise in Japan" is a huge statement that isn't backed by any sort of evidence to this claim. Rather, he makes a joke about pretending that anime doesn't exist for 20 minutes. In fact, by doing a single Google search, I was able to find that Pokemon is the biggest Japanese media franchise. Not anime thrown into one single group, just Pokemon all on its own.

We then get the take that Godzilla as a franchise has become so big that people don't know it originated in Japan. Like, that is clearly a very wrong take. Like, there is no research required for this one. Pretty much everyone knows that Godzilla is a Japanese franchise and the fact that they even say this shows how little brain power this person has.

There's the take that Godzilla in public domain in America which is 100% false. Again, a simple Google search reveals that there is a photograph of Godzilla that is public domain in America and that's it. Toho owns everything Godzilla related and always will.

Makes a point early on is the person stating that they don't like Godzilla. I'm sorry, why are you making a 26 minute video on a topic that you hate? No wonder this video has so much bullshit.

They talk about a nuclear test that America did where they say that it killed EVERYONE on a boat called the Lucky Dragon. In fact, this is completely wrong. Only one person died and if they did their research then they would have found this out.

Now we get to the point of actually talking about Godzilla (2014). Now, the way he talks about it makes me think that they didn't actually watch the movie. They say that Godzilla becomes a symbol for American heroism which is so wrong. Godzilla doesn't give a crap about the humans and a lot of people, Americans included, die as a result of Godzilla's actions. This is followed up with saying that Godzilla is an ally to the American military in the movie and only shows the shot where some aircraft carriers are following Godzilla like that is evidence enough? Again, this is wildly incorrect because, again, Godzilla doesn't care about the humans present in the movie, not once. Godzilla's focus is on the MUTOs and that's it. We also get this really poor take that in the 2014 movie, Godzilla is a Superman figure which, guess what, is not correct at all. Godzilla doesn't try to mitigate how much damage is being caused, doesn't attempt to save anyone or just being a force for good in general. Godzilla, in the 2014 movie, is meant to be a neutral force of nature but, because it doesn't have the same allegory for nuclear testing is bad, like in the original 1954 movie, it just doesn't work.

Now, throughout this person talking about the 2014, he references the MUTOs specifically as Japanese threats. Again, did they actually watch this movie?? Only ONE of the MUTOs started out in Japan. One of them was, in fact, chilling in Nevada, in America, which is clearly stated in the movie. It's like this person is trying to indicate some level of racism in the movie that isn't actually there. Now, we get this take where they say that the U.S. just kind of realized we couldn't stop the MUTOs so we just let Godzilla handle it because hero. Again, if you watch the movie you see that the military had a plan to use nukes to stop the MUTOs and that went sideways so, the decision was to just let Godzilla fight it out. It was a last resort options, not something they chose to do because we want to idolize Godzilla in America. Neither Godzilla nor the MUTOs care about humans being there one point unless the humans are presenting a threat, as they did to the MUTOs on multiple occasions in the movie. They also call the MUTOs a Japanese threat another two times, possibly hinting that the person thinks there is some kind of subtext in the movie of having Godzilla, "the American hero" taking out the MUTOs, "the Japanese threat" which is an incredibly racist way to see this movie and is also completely wrong. One was in Nevada and two were in the Philippines and they made their way to a power plant in Japan.

Now, the person gives the absolute worst take on the 2014 movie by saying that the MUTOs never wanted to be woken up and basically just wanted to be left alone and have babies. DID YOU ACTUALLY WATCH THIS MOVIE??? Do you see the level of destruction that just two to three of these MUTOs cause throughout the movie? Okay, now imagine TENS OF THOUSANDS of these monsters running about the Earth if we had just left them alone to have babies. There would be no more humans left if something had not been done to stop the MUTOs like what the fuck kind of dumbass take is this?

We then get this really bad take about how American cities don't get the level of destruction in these movies. They cite a moment in Godzilla VS Kong where the two have a fight somewhere in China. But, what this person fails to realize is that Godzilla spends time in that movie tracking the remaining presence of Gidorah, which is in pieces of MechaGodzilla and one of those is in a town in Florida and so Godzilla goes there and intentionally causes major levels of destruction to said town in attempts to eliminate the pieces of MechaGodzilla. Again, if they had watched the movie, they would have known this.

"American Godzilla doesn't stand for anything" is some of the finest bullshit I've heard. Not to mention that they make this claim and back it with absolutely nothing at all. If you watch these movie, especially the 2014 one, Godzilla in these movies is supposed to represent the balance of nature. That is why, in the 2014, Godzilla's one goal is the eliminate the MUTOs and their eggs as that would throw the natural balance off. This is even said and shown in the movie that it really baffles me that they missed this point and didn't provide any evidence to their own point. There's even the message of humanity messing the balance of nature too. Using the oxygen destroyed in King of the Monsters harms and interferes with Godzilla restoring balance while it doesn't affect Gidorah one bit.

We also get this part where they tried to compare 2014 Godzilla to 1954 Godzilla, which I don't think works at they are two different movies with different messages and thus, can't be compared. Plus, after all of this, the person says that they see Godzilla as man vs nature and that the 2014 movie is the best American version of Godzilla. But, after that they go back to saying that American Godzilla is nothing more than a Superman figure, which is safe and boring, and goes against the origins of the character. Again, they don't provide any evidence for their claims at all. What do you mean by safe? What is so wrong with it going against the origins of the character? No, no evidence or explanation, just move on to the next point. Something else that this person seems to purposefully ignore is that Japan made Godzilla more of a hero figure before America did and they again say that the 2014 movie made Godzilla an Americanized hero without anything to support this claim, again.

Now, one part that I really don't like about this video is where they lead in with what is art and basically thing whole thing of art vs entertainment which is something that has always bothered me because people seem to think that these things have to be separate. That art can't be entertainment and vice versa and I think that's an incredibly limited way to think of things. Anyway, they talk about how the 1954 movie got stripped of its message and turned into Godzilla: King of the Monster over in America, which turned said original movie into more of a blockbuster. Here's the thing though. This person, again, fails to provide any evidence as to why they think this is bad, they just say that it happened and that's it. This leads into, again, them saying that the 2014 movie is a movie that doesn't have anything to say without providing any substantial evidence...AGAIN.

This leads into some more of the finest bullshit in the video. They go into this thing about how the US Military will throw money at movies and video games that portray the US Military in a good way and yes, this is true. Now, in this part they say that Godzilla 2014 had an AGREEMENT with the American military, who provided locations and vehicles etc. but that the movie doesn't provide any criticism on the American military. Let me ask you this, why does it NEED to do that? It does show them as ultimately powerless against these larger than life monsters, why does the movies have to have some kind of criticism on the American military? Plus, a character in the movie does provide what you could say is a criticism which is about the arrogance of man assuming they're in control of nature which it's the other way around. Yes, a character literally says this! Maybe it's not direct but it's there and is said directly.

"To be critical of the US Government requires you to be independent". What in the bullshit world of bullshit takes even is this sentence? This person is essentially trying to equate the lack of criticism towards the American military that would lead to the 2014 losing out on a majority of its funding as the overall reason as to why Godzilla doesn't work in America. Yes, you did read that right. Plus, again, they make this claim without any sort of evidence or anything to back it up. They also basically say a take about the 2014 movie being propaganda...yes! they also DID'T provide any evidence for that claim either! Just because they got locations, vehicles and personal from the US Military doesn't make it propaganda. They don't show the US in any way that is good or bad and they don't promote any political party either thus, not propaganda.

They also make a claim where they say that the 1966 King of the Monsters movie is a blockbuster with nothing to say, that it made more money than the original 1954 movie because of this and that, because of this, Japan also took to calling him Godzilla. This is 100% false as Japan still calls him Gojira to this very day and Godzilla is just a translation of that. You also have to consider the post war economy of the US and Japan and you will see why King Of The Monsters made more money.

"If there's anything I can hope to get across in this video, it's to research the things you watch". Let's consider for a moment that a lot of this video is this person make wild claims without any evidence to support them, which is what happens in the video, you can how absolutely fucking stupid this statement is to end on. They clearly did not do ANY research for this video.

Now, the last thing I want to touch on is the amount of irrelevant bullshit is in this video. They go on a tangent about taking a film class where the teacher just put on YouTube videos...like what does this have to do with anything. There's a tangent where they go into to some WWII history and a shortened version of the creation of Toho Studios which could have been even shorter to actual stay in line with their point. I also can't forget about the tangent about Disney doing everything they can to keep their properties from falling into public domain. I honestly don't think the "boat rat drives boat" thing is entirely accurate but that doesn't matter. This video is bloated with pointless bullshit that you could cut a lot from the video but, that still wouldn't save it. This person clearly knows nothing about Godzilla and shouldn't have made this bullshit video to begin with.

[richardsphere]

My conclusive overall review of RWBY Vol 9

Now that my feelings on the finale have had half a day to settle. I feel it is time to give my opinion on the season overall instead of just the finale on its own.

The new cast of characters is also somewhat wanting. While one-off characters Jinxy, Herb and the King fulfill their purposes perfectly well. some crucial characters important to the seasons overall narrative (Cat, Lewis, Alyx and Little) were with all either one-note (little), Hollow shells of plot serving to sell a future spin-off book(Lewis and Alyx). The cat was fine though, and fulfilled its purpose well.  For the first half,  Volume 9 suffers from a major disconnect as the plot relies on the characters familiarity with the fairytale. which makes it sort of unsatisfying to watch cause we have no idea how the fairytale even went. As a result we spend half the season wandering around, seemingly aimlessly, while neither characters nor audience have a clue what they are doing besides vaguely advertising an RT’s eventual spin-off book release.  Sort of like the early Sherlock Holmes books, where the plot is moved by sherlock but we only have Wattsons’ knowledge of events to guide us through. Its a clueless mystery with no fulfillment to it. Then moving into the later-half of the season, Where the show attempts to handle difficult topics and, in true RWBY style doesnt always handle it well. While the eventual handliing of ruby’s self-acceptance issues is in the finale is good . The decision to have Jaune’s problems of self-worth be solved by “yes you werent the hero, but would you like to be one now?” leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It feels like its trying to say “Ruby, your impostor syndrome was a bad thing, you should learn to accept yourself for who you are. You’re actually fine as is dont worry about it you are good enough”. meanwhile to Jaune the tree’s messaging is: “yes you’re right, you do suck major ass. and while we dont have any tips on how to improve yourself as a personi can put you in the right time and place to be usefull for just this once because your woodshell happens to be above the cat RN.” and now for  the origami-paperes elephant in the room. The race of little star-shaped Alexanders-the-Great, who commit mass ennui-motivated suicides because they ran out of acre to conquer and/or decorate, and are portrayed as right for taking the easy way out of their boredom. Now i’ve had someone respond to me on an earlier post about the stars, that they believed the stars were meant to be an allegory for people with terrible wasting diseases that leave them frail and in terminal misery, and the process of them making the difficult choice of euthenasia, as well as the difficult path of a family member to come to acceptance with that choice. Which is a heavy, nuanced and important topic that I do not want to make light of in the slightest. So please take no offense when i say that; While I could see the space in which people with those experiences could project themselves into Jaune’s struggle with Penny’s death. I cant actually see that as being the actual situation facing the paperstars themselves. Because the way the stars explain their problem to RWBY is verry much one of boredom and listlessness rather then any state of terminal misery of which only death could possibly grant relief. So the star-subplot either tried to tackle euthenasia and missed the mark by a mile due to framing issues (which is dangerous), or it just said “Remember suicide is an acceptable cure for boredom” which is actively evil. as messages go. Add onto that the fact that, in the long term their solution doesnt actually work, as they’ll redecorate the acre with gems instead of paper. Run out of acre to decorate again like they did the first time and have find a new way to kill themselves again and this subplot fails critically. And because the latter half of the plot is trying to tie 3-or more such heavy topics together in quick succession all together (Ruby’s attempted suicide, Jaune’s grief over Euthenising Penny, Ruby’s self-worth issues, Jaune’s sisiphean hell, Jaune’s self-worth over failing Alyx) the toxic messaging given by the stars subplot spreads across the adjacent plots like a malignant viral infection. Tainting all of them with a “pro-suicide” undertone that i can only hope was never RT’s intention. Top that all off with a the rather unsatisfying finale, focussed more on loredumping then tying together or resolving the seasons emotional beats and I can only say that, Despite its promise for the tone of the series going forward by presenting hope as an actual thing instead of a mere nebulous concept, This season was in my opinion nonetheless, the worst season of the series so far.

[kazarinn]

You said that the old Saint Tail translations got the story wrong and made the ending say the opposite of what it actually meant, what do you mean by that? If I rewatch the series with the new TL, what would be different about it?

I apologize for what's probably going to be a much longer and more rambly answer than you were hoping for, but I really do feel this needs to be covered thoroughly and carefully, so please bear with me! I can only say so much about what it would be like for someone who's known the series for a long time, but all of our QCers for the retranslation (all of whom had never been exposed to the series beforehand) had no problem understanding the story themes without needing an explanation and were mortified when they heard what the older translations had turned the series into, so there is definitely a huge difference.

The problem boils down to the premise of the series itself. From what I understand, most descriptions of the series in English (including official English summaries) frame the series as involving Asuka Jr. being in love with St. Tail while ignoring Meimi, or even if they do acknowledge that it's mutual, they'll frame it as an "ironic love triangle" where he's torn between the two as if he has to pick one. I imagine this was what the translators themselves thought it was about, since they translated it this way as well. Neither of these are true at any point in the series, and Asuka Jr. has his own independent character arc and story that constitutes a whole half of the series plot and themes, but previous translations had nullified all of that by not handling his dialogue carefully. (I'd say it's exemplified by the fact that the word associated with him to the point it's almost an in-universe meme, donkan, was translated as things like "clueless" or "dingbat" as if he's a shallow idiot who lets everything go over his head, when in actuality the problem is that he's "dense" in that he's insensitive and struggles to understand others' feelings.)

The main gist of it is that Saint Tail is a series about exploring what it means to love someone in the sense of "someone being precious to you", and the role of the phantom thief chase in the plot doubles as both an allegory for their relationship and their outlet for bypassing their respective insecurities they have at school. For Asuka Jr. in particular, there's no room for doubt that he likes Meimi, but the problem is that he has a short temper and tends to say the wrong thing on impulse, making him come off as hostile to her and leaving him hesitant to approach her again because he keeps ruining everything. (This is stated directly in the Japanese Blu-ray booklet, and in fact, no Japanese summary has ever contradicted this nor have they supported the "ironic love triangle" reading.) But previous translations phrased his dialogue as actively insulting and removed most of the nuance regarding his feelings towards Meimi and St. Tail, then mistranslated the one line where he gets closest to clearly stating his actual motive for being involved in the case, thus making it so that the only possible interpretation is that he's shallowly acting out of romantic infatuation.

As for the final arc and ending, I'll put it under a spoiler cut:

One key factor about Asuka Jr.'s dialogue is that even in the beginning of the series, almost everything he says has a legitimate point behind it, and it's just not coming out in the right way. This is especially so in the anime, where his early dialogue lines lashing out at people for "not knowing anything about St. Tail" become important later when he really does turn out to be the only one who's putting any effort into understanding St. Tail's motives and feelings. While Meimi interprets his initial statements as "only caring about St. Tail and not her," he's being completely serious when he complains that people don't respect St. Tail enough, and him demanding that Meimi show St. Tail more respect in episode 12 is, in a sense, him saying that Meimi needs to respect herself more. So when you get to the final arc, it turns out that he was right the whole time: Meimi is engaging in some serious self-neglect, and being loved in the way she wants means being loved as St. Tail is a required component that she can't ignore.

Since everything relevant to Asuka Jr.'s side of the story wasn't handled properly in prior translations, the problem becomes a chain reaction that makes the entire final arc into a series of nonsensical contradictions. If Asuka Jr. says that St. Tail is his dream girl like he's infatuated with her, then decides she "looks like" Meimi despite saying only one line later that he doesn't mean it in a physical sense, then his conclusion about how his feelings regarding St. Tail/Meimi changed after seeing her in Princess Rosa's mirror doesn't make sense either. If all of the references to him feeling frustrated about not knowing how to help Meimi are taken out, the meaning of "...that my hand can reach you" also becomes null (and the fact the Tokyopop manga translation interpreted it as "that I can touch you" really gets me to feel that the translation team didn't understand the story at all). If the parts about him already suspecting St. Tail's identity and wanting to "find" her in an intellectual sense are taken out, his reason for taking Meimi to Pandora (when he distrusts fortune-telling) and his resulting reaction to Maju's prophecy don't make sense either...and so on and so forth.

Naturally, this eventually leads to him "catching" her in the finale losing most of its meaning besides being an ironic play on him having formerly been charged with arresting her, especially because both translations still kept translating "tsukamaeru" as "capture" or "arrest" even when arresting her stopped being his motive. To make things worse, the old anime translation ends on the note of the adult Asuka "taking work from" the police as if he's carrying all the burdens on himself the same way St. Tail did in the past, the opposite of the actual implication that he's "taking credit from the police" by resolving all of the cases but still getting everyone to participate instead of letting someone suffer the same fate of becoming a figurehead. And for things like the reason the calling cards are called "love letters" or the meaning of the "everlasting promise" mentioned at the end, all of the English-language descriptions I'd seen floating around were making terribly strained reaches at what they were supposed to mean, but all of the QCers got it instantly with the new translation...meaning it should be straightforward and easy-to-understand, but wasn't because the old translations had removed everything that got it to make sense.