#this is not necessarily important context but I should note that that’s how the commenter felt about momo

[owlf45]

Sometimes I think about that delulu commenter who purposefully left a dick comment on my Mei/Momo fic about how Mei is satan and the evilest character of the series and how she ruined everyone’s chances of being a credible hero at the Sports Festival and how Momo had no chance to succeed because she “only got 87 hero internship offers, which is clearly lacking”, and this commenter is so notorious for their bad opinions that several readers of mine instantly recognized their bad rhetoric

Anyway. I wonder just how delulu that guy is these days,,,

[socialjust-ish]

I reblogged this post, and @butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway responded. I think it's an interesting topic worth discussing, but butts has asked that we not fill up the OP's notes with giant discourse posts. I agree.

Here is a link to butt's response. Below the "read more" is my reply, because it is long and I am not going to ruin your dashboards.

Under what other fundraising circumstances have you asked people to perform their vetting in public for your approval (as opposed to the more traditionally accepted practice in community organizing of providing outlines that describe some but not all of your vetting procedures outside of the context of any specific call for funds)?

I generally work off the assumption that a fundraising post on Tumblr is a scam. Tumblr's search feature is not the best and I am even worse at tagging posts, so I don't have an easy way to search my blog.

But, on July 9th, I reblogged this post, about someone asking for help with a gofundme. I was, full dislcosure, in a sentimental mood and real sad. And the story got to me. So I reblogged it uncritically.

But here are the tags I made:

Maybe not the clearest indicator of "buyer beware" but the intent was for me to say "I believe these people, but you should do your own homework and be warned my belief is because I'm a sucker for a mom post."

Even with that context though, and with fully believing the post, I thought the responsible thing to do was warn anyone who saw the post that my reblog was unverified.

Because what you’re describing as “vetting” is, in fact, what I learned in my organizing work as “modeling vetting procedure for educational reasons” and includes getting the explicit consent of all involved to perform (in part due to the violative and invasive nature of most vetting techniques and approaches) the process in full via case study. This, notably, is not something that can ethically be done for anonymized public consumption, because literally no one would consent to their entire case study being made publicly available forever on the internet, and therefore cannot be ethically performed. Which is WHY the other, traditionally accepted, practice exists. To offer broad spectrum reassurances to an anonymized audience about the fact that vetting of fund calls is being performed, without unethically dumping a person’s entire life online during one of the most traumatic moments of their life.

So, first off, my wording may have been a bit poor, here.

I wrote that vetting is:

"Vetting is reviewing their information and disclosing what was reviewed and how it was validated."

What I should have said, for precision, was

"Vetting is when someone reviews the post's information. That person then discloses what type of material was reviewed (e.g., they spoke to them in person, they met over video chat, they have only spoken by text) but not necessarily the specific details of said material, and how it was validated (e.g., I met in person, I demonstrated it was a live feed, they had one witness with them, the photo includes a newspaper of today's date)."

So that's totally my bad. I shouldn't post on my phone.

My example of vetting was just that, an example. I wasn't suggesting that needed to be done for every case. I also probably shouldn't have added the last line about "here is the video for you to see."

But it's important to remember the context of these fundraisers: These people are already sharing their names, family members health conditions, and photographs of themselves online. It is not any more onerous or invasive for them to post a ~5 second video saying "Hey, it's me." These are non anonymized sources.

They're also, again, asking for five-figure sums of money. Some level of skepticism should be allowed and encouraged.

So I will ask again, being extremely clear about what I am asking and why.

First off, this is a snakry comment on my part, but this is not a clear question. It is 173 words long (113 if you end it at the first question mark), contains a few parenthetical tangents, and so many double negatives that I genuinely got a little bit lost. So, I'm going to break it down and answer as much of it as I can, but if you think me breaking it up loses context, feel free to advise.

In what other circumstances have you demanded the unethical revelation of private (and in mamy cases protected) information in order for you to personally verify the vetting process done by the person performing it,

Couple of points here.

As set out above, I believe my clarified definition of what "vetting" constitutes does not require the revelation of private information. It requires an authority figure stating "I have vetted this post, here's how."

If someone is posting a Gofundme online, and it is being "vetted" by a random blogger, the academic standards of ethics and protected information don't apply. You don't get to play the game of "This example of 'vetting' only works in an academic setting as an example" and simultaneously expect regulations and ethical standards used in the context of academia to apply. There is no "protected information" in the context of these fundraisers. These are anonymous people publicly asking for money from strangers. People considering providing funds can ask whatever questions they want to satisfy their respective level of skepticism.

I haven't ever demanded this information - even in my post above (because I gave an example of one method that vetting could include that disclosure =/= that's the only way to vet something) - because I don't typically donate to gofundme pages. But generally speaking, I demand this information for anything I do donate to. I once got scolded by a fundraising person on the street because I asked what portion of my donation would go directly to the charity, and what portion was a commission their contracting company received.

vs accepting their public conversations about tactic and technique (whatever else may be debateable about 90-ghost, it is NOT debateable that he has openly and publicly discussed his vetting process, even if he declines to publicize specific case studies, per ethical aid guidelines) as confirmation of process that you are within your rights to trust or not trust, but NOT within your rights to claim aren’t actually being done just because they are not being done for public consumption?

I did start my post by writing:

The entirety of the rest of them are just reblogs from 90-ghost. Of those reblogs, I think only two have 90-ghost saying anything, and all they say is "this is legit".

I'm not suggesting 90-ghost needs to publicly disclose the information of each family they supposedly vet. I was suggesting they need to do something other than tacitly reblog it.

I don't know who 90-ghost is. If you go to their page, their pinned post is a request for help for their personal fundraiser.

Their sidebar has two links, one to their twitter, one to their instagram. His Instagram post has two photos on it, one from 11 weeks ago, and one from 2014. His twitter appears to be more personal - sharing and reposting news about the war. A lot of it is not in English, and I'm a loser monoglot, so I don't know what is or isn't being said there.

But to the point: You cannot figure out how 90-ghost vets their posts easily. Despite your claim that it's "not debatable he has openly and publicly discussed his vetting process." It's actually pretty difficult to find. In fact, I can't actually find any posts of his explaining it. It might be easy if you follow him or are actively engaged with this community, but I'm not commenting on this because I follow him, or even OP. I'm commenting because I saw it on my dash.

Here's what I was trying to suggest was needed instead of these blank reblogs.

"Hi, I am 90-ghost. I have vetted this fundraiser. To learn what my vetting process constitutes, see this post [link to a post.]"

The silent reblog and the assumption it's vetted is what I take issue with, here.

If thus is NOT an ask you have made in other circumstances, can you explain to me what *specifically* about this set of circumstances means that the traditionally accepted public-facing vetting procedure discussion is inadequate,

Because charity scams, specifically charity scams related to Gaza, have exploded since October 7th. This is true of every natural disaster, according to Forbes.

and how this has NOT been present in other times when you have interacted with or spoken on the process and procedure of redistributing funds?

Two points here.

I don't typically interact or speak with the process of redistributing funds. I interact with what comes up on my blog. And so I click a link, and see that it's suspicious, and then look into it.

It wasn't until I started seeing posts about the Gaza fundraisers that I became aware of this issue with scam fundraisers. Don't worry, next time a hurricane hits, I'll be just as skeptical about those posts.

Additionally, and this is anecdotal, but you're asking what's different here, so this is the answer.

I reblogged this post on August 2nd. Within one hour of posting it, I had four asks in my inbox from "gazan Gofundmes". Prior to that ask, I had received a grand total of 0 gofundme posts in my inbox. That means one of two things:

Multiple people are watching every single reblog of their posts like a hawk, and critical or not, if a reblog was made, they then go and manually send an ask.

It's a bot network sending asks based on reblogs, like every other bot network on this site.

I deletedthose asks and so they're gone from my inbox, and I can't compare them to the verified list, but I reblogged one post and got four asks for others almost instantly. I assume it's pretty similar for everyone else who reblogs these fundraisers.

Even if they were legitimate, using a botnet to garner attention is... scam-like behaviour, if nothing else.

You have given zero evidence that any of these fundraisers are raising flags of illigitmacy, and are so far merely offering the possibility of illegitimacy and the protection of recipient private info fully in keeping with standard aid procedure ethical guidelines as enough to assume fraudulance.

Again, I'm criticizing the "vetting" done here, and people's apparent willingness to just trust a reblog as an endorsement of vetting. It is exceptionally easy to make hyperlinks on Tumblr. It is easy for 90-ghost or the spreadsheet to simply add a hyperlink saying "Vetting process is here."

The spreadsheet just says "this was researched by us."

What does that mean?

I understand that in the world of mutual-aid communities, you might have shorthand. But you need to understand that if you are trying to send a message to people who don't live in that world (like me) you need to provide some basic definitions and explanations of process.

All I've said (or at least, all I meant to say) in my post is "these "vetting posts" do not clearly explain how the post was vetted. That needs to be done, and people should think critically about why it isn't being done."

If you can, with a straight face, say "hey, silently reblogging a post and having to dig through that person's blog for pages and pages to find the post discussing how they vet things is a good system" then you and I live in different worlds.

That is….a wild speculation on your part that, by your demands, you are ill-equipped to actually validate or support on your own, which tells me you have (heaven forbid) decided to TRUST people in your sphere who tell you that you have cause to doubt these fundraisers,

I clicked a post uncritically reblogging a fundraiser, and went "Oh, these are vetted." I then followed the link to the supposed vetting, that they include, to find that it is a silent reblog from one person.

This was me, following the links on the post, to see how they vetted the post. And I was lead to that every time.

The post said "vetted here." The link it takes me to is not a vetting. It's a silent reblog. Even if we accept your standards for vetting (which I don't think are actually that far off what I consider vetting, I just worded it poorly) these posts don't do that. As I said in my first reblog - literally only two say ANYTHING, and it just says "this is legit."

That's barely any information at all. These people are asking for upwards of $50,000. If 90-ghost is trying to advocate for them, the least he can do is put in the 30 seconds of work to make the posts not look like scams. It's bad advocacy, if nothing else.

even though you yourself visibly lack the understanding of how that doubt should or even WOULD in aid work be put to rest.

Just to be clear, I fully accept the premise that if someone trusts 90-ghost, and 90 ghost says "I have vetted this post." then that's enough to justify donating.

What I'm saying is that a wordless reblog or "it's legit" is not proof of any of that happening. And if people from inside the community think that's convincing to the outside community, they are either naive, intentionally hoping people don't click the links to check, or some third reason.

If 90 ghost had a link at the top of the blog saying "Hey! Here is how I vet a post. If I reblog a post, it is a direct endorsement of this vetting procedure." I would be satisfied.

It's that they're operating on, apparently, an unorganized chain of faith that makes the "vetted HERE" links completely misleading. To figure out how 90-ghost vets posts, you have to dig through hundreds of their posts. To consider a quick hyperlink to a wordless reblog a valid source of vetting is unreasonable, in my view.

So my follow up question, once you’ve answered the earlier ones, is how are the conspiratorial accusations you are leveling here any different from the blind trust you are accusing others of having in things they don’t understand enough themselves?

I'm not entirely sure what the "conspiratorial accusations" here are, but I'm assuming it's my two bullet points re: What 90-ghost could be doing - this part:

There's no reason to trust 90-ghost just because they reblogged the post. How do you know 90-ghost isn't

A) In on the scam;

B) So (rightly) upset that this is happening that they don't care if some of these are scams on the off chance that even 1 is legit, and so are using their goodwill to "vet" posts.

If 90-ghost is doing a thorough vetting, that should be shared

If this is wrong and you're referring to something else, let me know

Again, this may come to me being imprecise in my language, so I apologize.

How I perhaps should have phrased this, is:

"A reblog alone is not enough to confirm a post is vetted. How do I know, from a silent reblog alone, that this post was vetted? If 90-ghost is vetting the posts, he should be sharing that by stating he has done so, and providing information on how he vets posts (again, not the specifics of the vetting for each individual, just a "here are the steps I take" post that is immediately visible and linked in any post he claims to have "vetted").

I don't think that's conspiratorial or unreasonable. I do think that, without that, it is reasonable to make those two assumptions. I don't know 90-ghost, because I don't follow this world closely. These posts are meant to be a "signal boost", so they're meant to go outside the usual circle of followers, right? So you have to assume those people won't know who 90-ghost or anyone else is. So if you want them to trust the process, that process should be explained clearly, consistently, and on each post or fundraiser. An empty reblog does not do this. And the fact that an empty reblog is used as the "vetting" post for every single post except two shows a pattern which is unusual and justifies skepticism.

How is your decision to trust the people undermining the credibility of online fundraisers without understanding enough about EITHER side’s points to convey them yourself with any actual evidentiary support (have you perhaps never actually SEEN the evidentiary support your trusted people claim is responsible for their perspective?) in any way different from the choice of people (knowing the risks) to donate to fundraisers that are being circulated by the Palestinian community and their allies?

Again, you are jumping to assumptions about what made me reblog this, or who I'm trusting. I saw the post, from someone I follow and respect, and saw that it had a bunch of links saying "vetted here." I followed the links, and there was no vetting, and no confirmation of vetting. That frustrated me, because when I read "vetted here" and "please give me money" I expect to be able to... verify the vetting before I consider giving money.

Perhaps they have reasons you have not seen (looked for?) to trust and make their own judgements.

Sure, but words have meaning. And a link that says "vetted here" implies that if you follow that link, you will be given information confirming a post is vetted. To come to the conclusion that "90-ghost reblogging a post = vetted" requires significant time and investment into the mutual aid community that is absolutely not apparent from the link. And so when all you link to are wordless reblogs that, justifiably, raises questions about how skeptical people should or shouldn't be.

Perhaps your condescension goes beyond questioning the capability of Palestinians to know how to organize aid calls and ensure effective distribution, and even extends into believing your fellow non-Palestinians are just too easily duped? Would be just as skeptical of you if they realized how much trust they were putting in another person?

Again, you are making a lot of assumptions from what I think is a pretty simple ask: Provide a clear and easily accessible link to how the vetting process occurs, and specific confirmation that a post was, in fact vetted. A silent reblog does neither of these.

Weird how YOU haven’t seemed to question your trust in the people who started this uptick in shaming of donation posts even though you clearly reference seeing posts that call that trust’s validity into question.

I saw one post, it's been linked above.

I don't actually think I reference any posts that call that trust's validity into question, here. The only thing I do reference is people "blindly" reblogging."

But that was based on the personal observation of someone I follow blindly reblogging the post.

Maybe the problem isn’t that people don’t know they’re choosing to trust someone, but that they have intentionally chosen to trust someone that you have chosen not to, and you cannot tolerate that someone might do that while thinking it was the right choice, because what does that say about YOUR choice if they think that?

Nope! Trust is fine and good.

I take issue with the misrepresentation that the links that say "vetted here" do not, in fact, vet the post.

That's my issue.

I understand donating to any individual fundraiser requires a network of trust, and don't particularly care what degree of trust anyone chooses to use or not use.

But uncritically reblogging a post with a dozen "vetted here" links, of which none actually provide any information on the vetting, is bad and silly.

I suppose saying it's suspicious is probably unfair. I try to follow the "never assume malice when stupidity would suffice" rule. But like... it's either malicious or stupid to think that's an adequate "vetting" - ESPECIALLY when trying to convince outsiders to the community to donate.

Again, imagine you are me: Someone not involved in this community. You have sympathy for Palestinians wanting to flee the country. A post comes across your dash which says "these fundraisers have been verified." You click the "vetted here" button. You are taken to a silent reblog of a post. You go, "okay, maybe this 90-ghost person is some sort of authority." You click to get to their home page. It has no links discussing how, why, or what criteria they use to vet posts. It also doesn't make it clear if a reblog is a "vetting" or just an endorsement. There are two posts in the list where 90-ghost says "this is legit." Why didn't he say that on the other ones? Are the other ones not legit? Has he only vetted the ones he explicitly says "These are legit"? If so, why do only two of these meet the criteria? What does 90-ghost do to vet these posts?

Do you see why that's an issue?

Or maybe you really do just think your fellow non-palestinians are too stupid to know that vetting processes are literally always about deciding who it is worth it to you to trust and making the most of a situation that can literally never be made asshole-proof?

Again, I understand this about vetting processes. My gripe is that a wordless reblog provides ZERO information to suggest anything has been done.

Feel free to just say that next time. It’ll be faster, and you’ll irritate fewer people in the process.

I think I've said it a few times, but just for total clarity:

If someone says they are vetting a fundraiser, they should set out:

Their methodology for doing so (again, not revealing the actual information they received, just what type of information they do receive);

A quick statement that confirms that specific post has been vetted so you can tell which posts are vetted, and which are sympathetic; and

Make access to the vetting process easily discoverable (e.g., a pinned post, a link in the reblog, etc.)

Failure to do these warrants skepticism, especially when the call for aid is meant to be broadcast outside of the community that already knows this information.

[the-valiant-valkyrie]

Beginner's Guide to Portraying Wigfrid

In 6k words or less

It's also got a Google Doc version if you don't want it formatted like ass

Dialect and Verbiage

Though appearing rather daunting from the outside looking in, Wigfrid’s dialect isn’t too hard to understand or imitate once you break it down into its basic elements. Though, really, more importantly than mimicking the unique modifiers to her voice and language, one must first understand what her voice even is.

Wigfrid has a very interesting manner of speaking that can be summarized as ‘formal, yet blunt’. She makes great use of verbal prose, and will often complicate the subject matter with the help of her large and outdated vocabulary, but if one were to condense her words down to their bare essentials, she often says exactly what she means. She rarely employs sarcasm, or disguises her feelings or intentions.

It is also important to note that stage terminology may occasionally be interspersed within her dialogue as well. In fact, it only seems that it becomes more and more common as the years go on, as is evident when comparing its frequency post Return of Them with its uses in Don’t Starve solo (DLCs included). However, though WIgfrid has been shown to be able to ‘break character’, and has proved that she remembers her past life to at least some capacity, she has never been canonically established to express these truths with those around her.

Quotes that refer back to her prior life do not address survivors directly, and she will only bring them up in the contexts of speaking to herself (and even then has been shown to occasionally stifle these remarks, despite seemingly no one being able to overhear). With this in mind, it’s highly likely that her stage life is a more personal ordeal, and comments about or referring to such should be used sparingly around others, if at all. 

As is obvious to anyone who has heard her speak, Wigfrid frequently employs a lot of Shakespearean language in her dialogue. For personal reference, below is a chart of her most commonly used words that fit this trend.

As well as these examples, Wigfrid also has a habit of adding the suffix -eth to the end of words for occasional flavor (ex. requireth, taketh, hangeth, climbeth). There seems to be nothing that determines when she chooses to employ this specific rule, but seeing as how it is a semi-rare occurrence for her to choose to do so, I would also advise to use it sparingly.

It should also be noted that Wigfrid will never directly translate everything she says into Shakespearean English. She will frequently leave some words alone, while translating others in the same sentence. It isn’t an exact science. Really, the best course of action is just to write what feels natural, and don’t worry about trying too hard to make it ‘perfectly Shakespearean’. Wigfrid’s dialogue is a lot like poetry, in the sense that the way it sounds ebbing and flowing can oftentimes be more important than the usage of the words themselves. 

Though speaking of words and their uses, Wigfrid will often refer to herself with very specific terms. The three she uses most frequently are ‘warrior’, ‘Viking’, and ‘Valkyrie’. While there’s little to say about the first one that could not be gleaned from its direct meaning alone, the latter two is where the most interest lies.

When referring to Wigfrid directly, all survivors- including Wigfrid herself- will capitalize the V in ‘Viking’. While Viking does not necessarily have to be a proper noun, the use of a non-capitalized ‘viking’ is usually used to refer to something generally pirate-like in nature. By capitalizing Viking, one is directly referring to Norse seafarers, instead of its more generalized and modern definition. Though all survivors default to using its proper noun equivalent, there is little harm in using it as a common noun in writing.

The same, however, can not be said about the term ‘Valkyrie’. To not get too deep into definitions of Nordic culture, Valkyries are spiritual, almost angelic entities who specialize in ferrying worthy souls to Valhalla. Being rather important figures within Norse mythos, and originally being used as a proper noun, it’s important to keep it punctuated when addressing Wigfrid by it, or in instances where she self addresses (which are quite frequent, mind you).

Combat and its Ethics

It isn’t very difficult to garner the fact that Wigfrid is quite fond of combat. Not only does fighting feed directly back into her health and sanity, but the mere concept of a fight promotes excitement out of her. Battle hardly often leaves her mind. Though, since it is such a cornerstone of her lifestyle, it is important to know the sorts of things she prioritizes about it. A quality of Wigfrid that often goes overlooked is that she has a strict set of rules and standards for combat that she seems highly uninclined to break.

Killing Conditions

When it comes to particular conditions about what it is she’ll kill, Wigfrid- much like other survivors- doesn’t seem to have much of an issue attacking the more NPC-like monsters of The Constant. However, she isn’t naturally opposed to being amicable with them, and shares good relations with them even despite her carnivorous nature, as displayed through her standard pig quote (“Will you fight alongside me, pig?”), pig ally quote (“We ride to battle!”), and even her dead pig quote (“He died with honor.”), which will always trigger, whether previously allied or not.

While she proves to be far less amicable with entities such as bunnymen (“I will eat you.” You can’t exactly get much blunter than that), her quote for fishermerms, Shipwreck’s exclusive merm variant, sheds some insight to her thought process in regards to speaking beasts (“I quarrel not with fisherfolk, so long as they do not take up arms.”). The implication here is that Wigfrid is more willing to be amicable with those who are less likely to strike first. Considering bunnymen and their intolerance to carnivores, it can be easily understood why she is so swift to abandon the pleasantries displayed to other, neutral beasts.

In regards to other survivors, Wigfrid will only threaten the life of another after they’ve proven to be dangerous to the group, through either attacking or murder. However, when it comes to such matters, she is far less likely to threaten the life of a child than she would an adult. Compare, for instance, her murderer Wanda quote (“Thou shall answer for this betrayal, [player]! Meet my spear!”) and her murderer Wurt quote (“I will not be defeated so easily, beastie!”). Though ultimately serving a similar purpose, her threats towards children are far less direct, and tends to stray from the implication of murder that she directs towards the rest of the adult cast.

Fighting with Honor

When it comes to combat with anyone- be it man, giant, or beast- Wigfrid puts heavy emphasis on keeping the fight honorable in nature. While this is a relatively ambiguous desire in a vacuum, luckily, she is incredibly vocal on what is considered honorable vs dishonorable in combat. According to her, an honorable fight does NOT include…

Ranged weaponry, as shown by her electric blowdart and eyeshot quotes, among others (“A-face-to-face fight would be more honorable.”, “A coward’s weapon, dropped by a pitiful, sneaking creature.”)

The use of poison, or toxins that function similarly to it, as shown by her quotes for poison mosquitos, firenettles, and the stupefying lure, among others (“Poison! The work of a coward!”, “Accursed plant with your fiery barbs! Fight me properly!”, “It doth feel a bit like cheating…”)

Ambushing, or attacking while your enemy is blinded, as shown by her general flup quote and attacker Charlie quote (“You cowardly mudlurker!”, “Coward!”)

Retreating or hiding away from battle, as shown by her quotes for a retreating Eye of Terror, suspicious moonrock werepigs, and Battlemaster Pugna, among others (“You would flee this fight? Asgard does not honor cowards!”, “Do not cower behind your carapace of rock! Fight!”, “Tis a coward who watches the fight.”)

Striking while the enemy is asleep, as shown through various quotes for sleeping mobs (“It is cowardly to attack a sleeping enemy.”, “I will allow it a fair fight and wait til it awakes.”)

It can be inferred that Wigfrid not only expects these standards to be met by her enemies, but holds herself to the same standards as well. We will go into further confirmation of this later.

One final thing important to note about these rules and standards Wigfrid holds for herself is that the quickest way to gain her ire is by breaking them. This can be very easily identified through Wigfrid’s relations with snakes. Being cunning, sneaking beasts by nature- most of them venomous from birth- they really can’t help but break multiple of her thoroughly upheld rules.

It is very easy to see the effect that has on her perception of them, as shown by her general snake and poison snake quotes, as well as her commentary on their den (“Never trust those who slither.”, “Keep your foul fangs from my hide!”, “You skulking wretch!”). Not even depictions of snakes, such as the toy cobra trinket aren’t safe from her wrath (“Tis no foe worthy of I.”), and her quote for snakeskin flooring (“My enemy’s hide feels good beneath my feet!”) reveals how easily she would consider such a ‘dishonorable’ foe to be an enemy of her, a term previously only used to refer to Maxwell (and even then, only in Don’t Starve solo). 

Religion 

Though Wigfrid frequently will make mentions and references to Norse mythology, this section is meant to focus more on Wigfrid’s own personal connection to religion. Fascinatingly enough, though the nature of her acting might imply otherwise, the connection she holds to her gods seems remarkably genuine.

Being an actress by trade, it may not come as a surprise to hear that Wigfrid seems to highly prioritize other people’s praise and approval. Though what is interesting is that this motivation also seems to extend to the gods she worships. The concept of ‘worthiness’ tends to creep up in a lot of her dialogue that revolves around religion, and it isn’t uncommon for her to consider positive or negative circumstances as proof of her worthiness (or lack thereof) in the eyes of her gods.

Consider her quotes for the ancient chest (known within the code as the “sacred_chest”), and her reaction to answering the puzzle incorrectly vs her reaction to solving it (“Alas! I am unworthy!”, “I have gained the gods’ favor!”). In a similar vein, consider her reaction to receiving an electric attack buff from Warly’s Volt Goat Chaud-Froid, and her subsequent quote for losing it (“I’ve been granted the power of Thor!”, “I… suppose I was unworthy.”). Not only is there a similar verbal motif, but there is also a trend of fault and blame placed upon herself, even in situations devoid of any blame.

It also is quite clear of Wigfrid’s loyalty towards her gods, or what she believes them to manifest as. As a more pertinent example, she has a very interesting relation with the Celestial Altar and their individual components, believing them to be fragments through which she and her god of moon can commune with (“Make thy will known to me, idol!”, “The gods commune to me through thee.”). This bond she has falsely created is only further emphasized through the Celestial Sanctum pieces (“It calls out to me, I must take heed.”, “It has chosen me to safeguard its passage home.”), where again this metric of worth is highlighted through use of the word ‘chosen’.

Of course, the gestalts and all associated with them have been proven to manipulate the desires and loyalties of survivors to convince them to do their will, so it isn’t exactly a surprise that Wigfrid would obey them under such circumstances. As a result, her actions themselves are not as important as her willingness to actually obey them. This seemingly unquestioning desire to conform to the desire of her gods, even to an unscrupulous or dangerous seeming end, says a lot about how far the limits of her loyalties will stretch.

Another interesting thing to note in regards to religion is Wigfrid’s reaction to gods that have nothing to do with her own. Though not a factor of how she perceives her own religion, it is still interesting to study how she behaves around the religions of others. The easiest example of this comes from the Gnaw in the Gorge, which Wigfrid (perhaps aptly) labels as a god of that domain. Despite not belonging to her own religion, she treats the beast with a respect not unlike that which her own gods receive. Offerings to the Gnaw are relevant in nature (“Accept my offering, oh mighty gods.”), and when examining pebble crab meat she will muse about the sacrifice of the creature’s flesh (“T’would be an honor to be fed to the sky god, beast.”). Though she may not extend her loyalties to gods beyond her own, she seems to hold a unanimous respect for deities of all origins, even despite their potential lethality.

Entry to Valhalla

Perhaps one of the most notable parts of Wigfrid’s religious-based commentary is her interest in Valhalla, an afterlife for the greatest warriors, and where Valkyries such as herself must ferry noble souls after being slain in battle. Wigfrid seems quite adamant that this is the location she’ll arrive in after her death, despite the fact that death within the borders of The Constant seems completely impossible. Not only does this instill a brazen lack of death within her- as shown by her war saddle and lifejacket quotes, among many others (“I ride to victory or death!”, “Adventure offers no true safety!”)- but it also gives more insight into how she perceives battles.

A very telling comparison of quotes is the difference between her sharkitten and Tigershark quotes. The former are pacifistic infants, incapable of harming the player even if engaged in combat. When it comes to fighting, Wigfrid holds little interest in causing any harm to them (“It is your momma I want…”). What it is she ‘wants’ could be easily assumed to be nothing more than an enthralling fight. Though, if one were to check her quotes for the Tigershark in question, she couldn’t spell out her true intent any clearer (“Take me to Valhalla, devil of the sea!”).

There is a unique allure that comes with honorable fights, because with them brings the chance (perhaps even the faintest sliver, as far as she’s concerned) of reward. Of heavenly rapture. And this ties back not only to her efforts to appear worthy in the eyes of her deities, but also to the moral standards she maintains in combat. It all intertwines together for exactly one cause: Valhalla, and acceptance beyond its gates. Not only does dishonorable combat ruin the gods’ perceptions of her, but it also drastically affects her chances of acquiring heavenly peace. To the point where upon breaking any of her rules- as explored in her poison blowdart quote (“To weaken from a distance. Oden forgive me…”)- she will feel a shame drastic enough to seek divine forgiveness.

Much like her interaction with the Tigershark, Wigfrid will seek out many of The Constant’s beasts in search of battles worthy of a warrior’s death. In fact, ‘worthy’ is the term she uses to refer to these beasts, as is plainly shown in her Deerclops approach and second phase Celestial Guardian quotes (“A worthy foe approaches.”, “It seems you are a worthy foe indeed…”). Seeing as how she still thinks highly of these creatures despite her willingness to fight them, as confirmed by the description of her Hallowed Nights headpiece (“Wigfrid chose to be one of her favorite foes to battle for Hallowed Nights.”), it can be assumed that ‘worthy’ in this context is a complement. And seemingly, quite a high one. 

Virtues and Vices

Most of Wigfrid’s virtues have already been touched upon throughout this entire guide so far; just to recap, though, her most notable positive traits are her honor and loyalty, both in regards to her social life with her friends, as well as the spiritual life she shares with herself and her religion. However, as all of the best characters are, Wigfrid is not a flawless individual.

Pride is a recurring theme within the grander story of Don’t Starve. Much like many other characters, she too suffers from a surplus of it. Though not as bad or obvious as Maxwell, or even Wilson, Wigfrid’s own conceit is notable enough to be an important element to her character.

One of the main ways this manifests itself is through what some would call Main Character/Protagonist Syndrome. Though, to give her some credit, when she is embodying the mind of a main character- turning her life into a performance, making the world her stage- something such as this was bound to be inevitable.

Though many quotes can help suggest this point, one of the more prominent ones is her quote for Maxwell’s statues back in Don’t Starve solo (“Arrg! Is that the antagonist to my saga?!”). Though this quote has since been replaced in Don’t Starve Together, it says most anything one would need to know about the thought process Wigfrid spent most of her time in The Constant withholding. Maxwell as her antagonist. The Constant being nothing more than a set piece for her adventure, and hers alone. After who knows how many years of such an idea floating around in her head, to claim it wouldn’t have an effect on her perception of the world now- even with new allies at her back- seems a bit of a stretch. 

Even beyond this protagonistic complex, Wigfrid’s pride still frequently gets the better of her. She’ll frequently overstate and overestimate the extent of her abilities in combat, as shown by her reactions to the Antlion’s sand spikes, or the Celestial Guardian’s traps (“The earth itself dares to fight me!”, “You think I’m trapped here with you? Ha! It is you who are trapped with me!”), but such self bolstering will persist even to the most benign of tasks, as shown with her bark for failing any generic action (“If I can’t do it, it can’t be done!”). And, of course, there’s the more harmless example of pride in one's appearance, as seen from a self examination (“Who is that incredible warrior in the mirror?”).

Though pride is the more obvious example of one of Wigfrid’s vices, a lesser obvious- yet still notable one- is her semi-frequent impatience. While there are some matters she can bring herself to wait for, such as rowing her own ship, or waiting for her friends to finish their own tasks (“Patience is a warrior’s friend.”, “True warriors wait their turn.”), there are certain situations she will not display the same grace towards… More specifically, fishing and gardening, activities she does not favor. In her occasional barks she makes this abundantly clear (“I tire of waiting!”, “I’m tempted to simply wade in with my spear…”, “It’s not befitting of a warrior to just stand about waiting!”). It seems as a general rule of thumb, the less Wigfrid enjoys the task (or individual the task revolves around), the less willing she is to display patience to begin with. 

Relationships

When it comes to other survivors, Wigfrid is very vocal about her opinions on them- the majority of said opinions being positive. Wigfrid delights in being a part of the fold, using both ‘allies’ and ‘friends’ interchangeably as terms of endearment. As can be easily seen in her feasting bark and gift wrapping quotes (“My friends, let us celebrate this great bounty!”, “I must show my allies how much they are valued!”), she places heavy emphasis on their bond, and makes an effort to show them as much.

Furthermore, something else Wigfrid places emphasis on is the safety and fighting powesse of her allies. As is easily discoverable through her ball and cup, coat hanger, and notorious backscratcher commentary (“ No time for games! I must train my new allies!”, “This weak, flimsy wire reminds me… I must toughen Maxwell up!”, “Finally, a safe weapon with which to spar with my new allies.”), Wigfrid seems to consider it her personal responsibility to ensure the others know how to battle with the same competence and strength as she. Yet even so, she seems to keep mindful of her interactions with them, and does not wish for them to come to any legitimate harm by her own hands.

Due to the surplus of survivors within The Constant, to go over each one of them in detail would be an arduous feat. Instead, the following chart provides a general overview of Wigfrid’s connections to each of her allies.

It is important to note that a ‘neutral’ relationship doesn’t inherently mean Wigfrid does not find herself friends with that survivor. In this context, it is used to refer to a perfectly acceptable friendship. ‘Positive’ friendships are relationships that go a bit beyond what is typical for Wigfrid’s usual friendships. Beyond the material of this chart, a few examples of notable exchanges between characters are as follows:

Though Wigfrid can not be confirmed to have any ire towards any of the survivors, the closest she gets to such is through her dialogue with Wortox. More specifically, her response to him attacking another survivor (“Back! Back beast!”). Though the use of the word ‘beast’ isn’t as notable as one might think, the most interesting part of this interaction is her lack of a proper threat. As previously discussed, Wigfrid isn’t opposed to attacking survivors should the matter come down to it… But she seems to have little to say to Wortox, other than barking commands that vaguely resemble something close to fear. It can be assumed that this may be due to Wortox’s diet as a soul eater, souls (and the preservation of them) being very important to Valkyries. Seeing as how Valkyries are also oft referred to as ‘spirits’, the imp’s appetite may have a darker meaning to her specifically, depending on whether she perceives herself spiritual in nature. 

Maxwell is the only survivor Wigfrid will actively refer to as an ally, as seen in her generic greeting line (“Greetings, [player], my ally!”). Though never directly confirmed or contextualized, it can be assumed that this is in an effort to either throw him a bone (where other survivors usually wouldn’t), or simply to remind him that he is welcomed among the group. At the very least, welcome among herself.

In multiple quotes- her generic greeting quote, for instance- Wigfrid will refer to Wurt as a ‘beastie’ (“Hail, [player], small beastie of the marshlands!”). While this means nothing in a vacuum, ‘beastie’ is a term Wigfrid uses as endearment to refer to animals she shares a connection with, like a tamed beefalo (“Rise, beastie! We ride!”), or the lovable kitcoons (“A wee beastie that’s particularly excellent at hiding.”). It can thus be concluded that Wigfrid may find Wurt to be loveable or cute.

Acting and The Actress

One of the most interesting parts of Wigfrid’s character is the fact that Wigfrid truly is a character… A persona that she dons, and a mask she wears. And while there are occasional slips out of character, the person underneath (who we will refer to here as The Actress) is a true anomaly, as interesting as they are anonymous. However, there are still a lot of interesting notes we can glean from what little we know of her character… And the ways the past self has affected the present are equally as curious to see.

Wigfrid’s section of the compendium is very notable in comparison to the others’, seeing as how it touches on the person she was before Wigfrid. While the passages use her name, they speak of someone she no longer claims to be, and no longer desires to associate with. The compendium claims that “Wigfrid always knew she was meant for the stage”, and that “her debut performance was an instant sensation”. It’s been canonically established that the persona of the Valkyrie is the role that granted Wigfrid her first tastes of stardom and success. However, as the paragraph continues, the retelling of her past begins to take a darker turn. 

“Fans delighted in her portrayal of a noble and fearsome Valkyrie warrior, and she in turn took great pains to fully embody the role. She was perfect for it… perhaps too perfect. Every part she played afterward seemed to fall flat”. This statement alone has major implications for The Actress and her thought process: 

The use of the phrase ‘in turn’ when used to describe the way The Actress fully threw herself into her role implies that her doing so wasn’t entirely out of self fulfillment. Rather, it was something about the audience- a desire to further capture their approval, or repayment for their generosity, or perhaps something else all together- that encouraged her to continue delving deeper into the persona.

The way the compendium describes this act is ‘great pains’. Though it does not specify what these pains happen to be, it is clear that the road to becoming Wigfrid was not only arduous, but seemingly adverse for her health (though whether more physically or mentally remains canonically unclear).

Perhaps the most important thing to take away from this statement is the fact that The Actress took up other acts- seemingly of her own volition. She did not stay in the body of Wigfrid indefinitely, but rather it seemed she was denied the right by her audience to play any role after ‘Wigfrid’ had been truly perfected.

Where we have no direct confirmation of what roles The Actress attempted, nor how well or poorly she portrayed them on stage, the description of her Victorian headpiece skin is the closest thing we have as a hint for what a potential act may have been (“This actress fought tooth and nail for this prestigious Shakesperean role.”). If we assume this quote to be genuine in the information it presents, it becomes rather obvious that the persona of the Valkyrie wasn’t always The Actress’ only love, but rather just the role she was most practiced in.

The Actress’ behaviors and body language in Wigfrid’s refresh short, The Curtain Calls, make it expressly obvious her own pride gets in the way of properly handling criticism. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, this is a trait that she and Wigfrid share. While it is rather rare for the concept of criticism to become relevant in The Constant, the presence of Charlie’s mockingbirds will sour Wigfrid’s mood even before they’ve said anything hostile (“Begone, critics!”).

However, something unique to note about critics within the refresh short, within The Actress’ fantasy, their printed words mutate, and take the form of a towering beast. A towering snake, a motif we’ve discussed once before, as well as Wigfrid’s detest of them. Whether this is meant to imply that Wigfrid’s hatred of snakes comes from her hatred of critics, or if it’s the other way around (or, perhaps, that both are true) is unknown. However, this pattern seems incredibly intentional, and it's highly likely that Wigfrid’s sour attitude towards serpents gives an equal (or roughly equal) insight into the ire she holds for judgment towards her.

Though not every instance of The Actress slipping out is an inherently negative one. As aforementioned, Wigfrid will occasionally bring up her old stage life, or terminology that revolves around it. While some of them are nothing more than passive slips of the tongue, many of them carry with them a sense of what appears to be nostalgia. This can be seen in a variety of places, including examining a Year of the Beefalo stage, Charlie’s stage, and Winona’s spotlight (“Preparing for the stage is nearly as exhilarating as preparing for battle!”, “The stage beckons!”, “It can’t get enough of me!”). Though perhaps determined to stick with one persona (for presumably forever), it seems clear that Wigfrid still enjoys and misses the act of performing and acting. ‘Playing’ Wigfrid- where it once may have satisfied her- nowadays seems to leave something missing that only a genuine performance could provide. Though, really, that much is spelled out in just the name of her refresh short alone. The curtain calls. 

Assorted Curiosities

Like many other great characters, not all elements of Wigfrid can be neatly sorted into perfectly categorized boxes. Here are a couple more small, but interesting parts of her character that didn’t exactly fit into the categories above. 

Connections with Fauna

Being carnivorous by (what is essentially) choice, many people incorrectly assume that Wigfrid’s relationships with animals are naturally cold or selfish, when in fact that couldn’t be further from the truth. Despite the fact she must live off of animals to survive, Wigfrid tends to hold little ire for the animals around her, whether or not they’re passive in nature. There’s many instances where she can have a tame and ‘casual’ interaction with an animal, her quotes for interacting with Woby, no eyed deer, and sleeping caged birds being only a few examples (“Wouldst thou like a skritch behind thine ears?”, “The beauty of Freya dwells in all creatures!”, “Sweet dreams, raven friend.”).

However, even outside of animals Wigfrid doesn’t consider prey, she keeps a respectful- if not very unusual- connection with them. One of the more pertinent examples of such being catcoons, and a glance at her quote for an inhabited catcoon den can easily show you why (“Cute meat lives there.”). While Wigfrid does not refer to every animal as meat, it is admittedly a habit she’ll do for multiple creatures she comes across. However, she does not say this to display superiority, or even to threaten animals that she comes across. This is made apparent by her examinings of an empty catcoon den, as well as the cat cap, to keep with the catcoon theme (“She fought bravely. Alas, she is gone.”, “A furry cap! Blessings to you, cute meat.”).

She values the presence of the creature, and remarks about its absence with slight sorrow. Even despite considering it a source of food, she blesses and respects the life it gave to provide her with the resources she now has. In fact, respecting the resources of dead creatures is a motif she carries with her throughout multiple animal-based products, from the moggles, to the piggyback, to even the magic seal (“It’s best to use every part of the animal.”, “The pig died with honor, then gave to me this pack.”, “I shall wield this with proper respect for the mighty warrior wizard that left it.”).

Connections with Flora

Ironically enough, though most people do not consider Wigfrid’s relationship with plants, in actuality it is very similar to what others falsely assume her connection to animals is. Though Wigfrid can appreciate the natural beauty of some flora, such as common flowers, roses, or the Forge’s healing flowers (“A flower from Freya.”, “Were that I smelled half as sweet.”, “A blessing from Freya is contained within.”), flowers are just about where her compliments towards plants end. Her barks when talking to budding farms are nothing but aggravated (“Perhaps someone more weak and feeble might talk to the plants, while I hunt.”, “I care naught for these plants or the veggies they produce.”, “Grow, or do not.”), and her reaction to garnering more research about gardening isn’t any better (“My head hath been filled with useless knowledge about non-meat!”).

Though truly, one of the best examples of her blatant displeasure around plants stems from some of her dialogue from the Year of the Rat races. Though she can hold her temper well enough through the entirety of the carrat training process, a poorly trained carrat on the race track will bring out just about the worst of her (“Foolish vegetable, the race is that way!”, “Thou cannot trust a vegetable to do anything right.”, “Quicken thine step, rodent!” “By Oden, wake up!”). While her reactions to typical plants and farms could be explained somewhat by her own pride (not wanting to be seen as ‘weak’ by doing something that would conflict with her persona), there is little that could explain the carrats other than a fury that stems from the concept of vegetables themselves. 

Sense of Style

While The Constant doesn’t truly grant survivors the freedom to explore their own clothing styles and preferences, skinsets allow a slightly deeper look at their preferences than their classic clothing would otherwise allow. While Wigfrid doesn’t seem to mind revealing her arms, only 6 out of her 16 skins are stylized in this way. While many are indecisive on whether or not Wigfrid’s original set of clothing features either shorts or a skirt, factoring that skin out of the equation leaves only 6 out of 15 clothing sets that feature a dress, skirt, or skirt-like features; and even then, half of them include pants, or some sort of pants-equivalent that covers the remainder of her legs.

In regards to material, Wigfrid is canonically fond of fur, and mentions it multiple times, including her announcement to the cold, examination of slurper pelts, and her wardrobe quote (“Brrr! Where are my furs!”, “I do love furs.”, “That’s where I keep my furs and cloaks.”).

Verbal Contradictions

Since Wigfrid is written not by one individual, but (presumably) by rotating members of the Klei team, occasionally some of her quotes will override established parts of her character, leading to contradictory sentences. While most are harmless enough, here are some examples of some quotes that may prove confusing to anyone attempting to grasp a deeper understanding of Wigfrid’s character.

Poop, “If only I could use it as camouflage from predators.”, Torch, “Perfect for a nighttime assault.”

As was already explained in regards to Wigfrid’s morals and combat, hiding from enemies and ambushing in the dark are fighting strategies that Wigfrid has explicitly considered cowardly. It would be unusual for her to stoop to such levels on a whim.

Dripple pipes, “I have no rhythm…”

A completely unfounded statement. Wigfrid was an overnight success, a talented and beloved actress, a ‘spellbinding’ singer (as proclaimed by news articles written about her), and canonically has perfect pitch. Nothing about her career, talents, or hobbies would imply she has no sense of rhythm. In fact, quite the opposite! A good singer can not have bad rhythm!

Cut reeds, “I cleaned all the bugs out! Then I ate them.”

While not in classic Don’t Starve solo or Don’t Starve Together, the Hamlet DLC introduced a unique food group referred to as ‘bugs’. To this day, it only contains four items, two raw bugs, and two cooked bugs. However, Wigfrid will refuse to eat either. While technically she does eat bugs if you consider the fact she’ll eat the meat of spiders, not only are those spiders larger than common bugs- dropping a lot more meat than a regular spider- she also hunts spiders with her own hands, as opposed to turning over a rock and eating what lies underneath. Despite the cut reeds quote coming first, Wigfrid has been shown to canonically refuse eating smaller bugs, thus making this quote contradictory

[elderflowergin]

SBS Hyena, episode 1 rewatch (part 2)

I realise I haven't tagged/warned for spoilers, but this will be full of spoilers. I'm sorry.

So the first we see of her… is Kim Hee-sun. Gorgeous hair, beautiful no makeup-makeup face, and...near-bare feet. (This is entirely from Hee-jae's perspective, so his observation of her feet is probably intentional. It’s also not the last time he’ll do it.)

(I assume Hee-jae's writing paeans to her cute turquoise toenails in his note-book.)

I love Hee-sun's oversized white shirt. It’s  interesting that she should wear that, because in the scene just before this, Yoon Hee-jae sheds his shirt in his office and throws it in a bin. And here she is, in a lovely bit of continuity, looking like she might have just picked it off his floor and worn it, along with that cool preppy sweater. 15/10 for style, infinity/10 because she's Kim Hye-soo, and in this house she's everything.

Moving back to daytime —

This is the first time we've heard any reference to Hee-jae being related to a judge, and it's in this unnaturally coy fashion. 

We’re meant to see Hee-jae as a legal force to be reckoned with. He’d have to be, given what we’ve seen so far. Here, he's assuring a result to a client because of who he'll have on his team. He's coasting on Atty Ma's team's work (whether he admits it or not), his own big guns and lots of unearned confidence like any other corporate blowhard. 

I say his confidence is unearned, but he’s probably never had the reason to believe otherwise. He’s a big boy working for one of the big boys - things have never not fallen the way he’s wanted them to, because that’s the way their world functions. Money talks, and they have so goddamn much of it that there is never a real contest. This is the status quo of Yoon Hee-jae’s life, and it’s about to be undone in the most wildly spectacular way possible. 

Yoon Hee-jae has never had to pay his dues or prove his worth - that’s always been for other people to do. Whether he wants to pay his dues or prove his worth…is a different, and more interesting question. He does prove to be smart, thoughtful and deeply strategic as a lawyer later in the show, but we’re not going to see that side of him for a few episodes. 

And then, we find out his grandfather was the former Chief Justice. 

Yoon Hee-jae doesn’t bring this up until Ha Chan-ho brings it up first. It’s not really mentioned up till now, although it gives important context to his success and confidence. He's very comfortable talking about his pull, but he doesn’t talk about the source of the pull, if that makes any sense. I think there are two reasons for this. 

This speaks to a spectacular kind of privilege - this sort of disclosure usually opens doors, but when you’re in that stratosphere of class and breeding, it’s probably declasse to say it out loud, and more than that, it’s unnecessary. People know it and so the doors are always open, 24/7. It’s like the difference between having to tell the maitre’d at The Fat Duck that oh, by the way, you’re Meryl Streep, and you’d really like a reservation, please, and having the table by the window set aside for you every Friday night. 

I also think he wants to be seen as a good, successful lawyer, and not necessarily just Daddy’s boy. That is vital to Hee-jae in a way that seems, again, almost overtly privileged. In a society that is largely only concerned about Getting It, thinking about How You Got It either comes from having the moral backbone of a Hwang Si-mok or the extreme privilege of a Yoon Hee-jae. Those are the two warring forces in Hee-jae - wanting to be known for being a good lawyer, and yet resting on the laurels earned by those before him.

An all-black suit, for a douchey comment about hooking up with one's client's younger sister. That is cackle-worthy in light of what said younger sister does a few episodes down the road. 0/10 for the sister comment, Hee-jae. 

Next up: the prettiest girl ever. 

BOO HYEON A, BEST GIRL, BEST OF ALL. APART FROM JIEUN. 

@thefeastandthefast once said her hair probably smells of raspberries, and that is entirely correct. She is the loveliest and her belted jacket is so chic. (10/10. I dock no points from Ms Boo.)

She, too, is in all-black, like Hee-jae, which positions them similarly against all the other lawyerbots. This dovetails with things we will learn later about both characters. Both are second kids; both come from incredible privilege, and both are the softest marshmallows who will come to love and adore Jung Geum-ja.

I'm constantly amazed by Yoon Hee-jae's total and utter lack of chemistry with anyone other than Women Who Can Step On His Neck. Park Se-jin and Ju Ji-hoon have such a friendly vibe for two very good-looking people. 

Unlike, say.....

THEM. THEM. 

Yet again, this entire encounter feels surreal, in the way the best romances often do. For starters these two aren’t knocking elbows with five other grumpy people looking to do laundry. Yoon Hee-jae doesn’t dress like this, ordinarily. (As an aside, his soft old man cardigan made me giggle. I had at least two bosses who wore cardigans like this, so at least this is somewhat accidentally accurate to me.) I mean, when Ga Gi-hyeok visits him late in the series, he’s wearing a cool bush shirt (thank you @rain-hat) that looks like something Dries van Noten might have put out. (I think it was Gucci, though, I stand to be corrected). All his soft lil sweaters are reserved for the woman he loves.

(He stares at her feet up. Just sayin'.)

(Next up: we're upping the ante, the stakes, and most importantly, the hotness. A violet dress makes its appearance. A man's dignity makes its disappearance. IYKYK)

[whiskey-bumblebee]

tips to make your fanfic more accessible (1/?)

When it comes to writing reader insert characters, or even original characters that are meant to be broadly relevant to your audience, it's important to write in a way that doesn't exclude people with marginalized identities from reading and connecting with your work. Everyone deserves to feel loved and represented! Since fanfic is an escape for so many of us, it's so crucial that the language we use is accessible and embraces the variety of people who might be reading your fic.

Disclaimer! I am a white, cis, plus size woman, and I would hate to misrepresent something, or leave things out, so I would LOVE to hear from some Black, BIPOC, trans, and/or minority readers about things that make you uncomfy/take you out of the story. I can add them to this post w/ credit, or you can comment below :)

Physical appearance:

-A big one here is hair. Not everyone has a hair texture or style that someone can lovingly comb their fingers through. Some readers (for extremely valid reasons, including the fact that in some contexts it can be rooted in racism) might not like the idea of a fictional character putting their hands in the reader's hair!

-The fix: think about what you're trying to convey with the action of hair-touching. Is it affection? Closeness? Foreplay? Could the character stroke the reader's hair instead of running their fingers through it? Could they trace the reader's ears?

-Another big one! Body ody ody! There's so much to say here, but I'll start with shape and size. Not everyone will be able to fit into their favourite fictional character's clothes. And for some plus size folks, it is just not realistic for a character to pick them up and throw them around. I love my body, and I don't know a single fictional character who would be able to lift me! This isn't embarrassing or asking for compliments, it's just my bodily reality.

-The fix: what terms do you use to describe the reader's body? Are they exclusive or implicitly biased? Is your reader lithe, with long legs and "a handful" of breast tissue? Is someone throwing your reader around like a sack of potatoes, or pinning them up against a wall, with no additional support?

Ability:

-This is a self call-out as well, but I've noticed that there aren't a lot of multi-chapter fanfics which include characters with disabilities. This is tricky, as I think a lot of writers might not necessarily have lived experience with needing mobility aids, or things like blindness and deafness, etc. I don't necessarily think that able-bodied writers should be attempting this, but it's something to think about.

-The fix: Could your character achieve their movements with a prosthetic limb? How might they experience things differently if they're overstimulated? Uplift fic writers with disabilities and diverse lived experiences! Reblog their work!

Sex and gender:

-This one is also a bit complex because writers might not know exactly where to start when it comes to writing someone with a different gender identity, or mode of presentation. Especially when you're writing explicit sex scenes, I think it's okay to write things with a specific anatomy in mind, as long as you're clear about who you're writing for from the outset (e.g. character x fem!reader in the chapter notes or A/N).

-Not everyone who likes being called "good girl" has breasts and a vagina. Some men don't have penises. Trans and intersex people exist and are incredibly LOVED and CHERISHED on this blog. <3

-The fix: If you're writing a fic where anatomy is less important, go for gender neutral terms of endearment, and gender neutral pronouns. Maybe switch things up and try writing a reader character with a different gender identity to your own!

_________________________________________________

TL;DR- 1) Uplift fanfic by underrepresented communities (this can vary by fandom, but queer/LGBTQ+, BIPOC, disabled, and neurodivergent authors are a great place to start!)

2) Do an accessibility proofread- does your reader have any characteristics that aren't broadly applicable to readers? Are these characteristics essential to the plot?

3) If you're part of a minority community, embrace the things that make you unique! Let writers know if they're excluding you. Or as a writer, write yourself down. Produce some of the representation that you can't find elsewhere (if you feel up to it).

4) Write from a place of love. We love what we write about, whether it's characters, story worlds, or one bed tropes. Extend that love to all of your readers :) <3

[cadyrocks]

Some discourse passed my dashboard today, and I want to comment on it.

It's a little weird to see people talking about "what Scott Siskind (of Slatestarcodex and Astral Codex Ten fame) believes" based on his writing. Like, sure, you can glean certain things from it (like his obsession with IQ tests), but... well...

Have we forgotten about this email?

Like, not to put too fine a point on it, but here's a pull quote:

1. HBD* is probably partially correct or at least very non-provably not-correct. [Links to blog posts by racists] This then spreads into a vast variety of interesting but less-well-supported HBD-type hypotheses which should probably be more strongly investigated if we accept some of the bigger ones are correct. See eg [another link to a blog post by racists] (I will appreciate if you NEVER TELL ANYONE I SAID THIS, not even in confidence. And by "appreciate", I mean that if you ever do, I'll probably either leave the Internet forever or seek some sort of horrible revenge.)

*note: "HBD" or "Human biodiversity", as used by these folks, was just the latest euphemism for "scientific racism"; an attempt to back up hereditary racism and eugenics with a patina of (bad) science.

I think this is probably the most important thing to know about Scott Siskind (other than maybe his disgusting but entirely expected and typical response to Kathy Forth's sexual abuse and suicide). He was knowingly lying about how racist he was, and he likely still is.

Once you admit to "hiding your power level" on your beliefs in the scientific validity of racism, anything you write will necessarily need to be filtered through that lens. Things that might seem innocuous if written by most people might come off very differently given this context. The consistent tolerance of racist bigots (including very famous racist bigots like Steve Sailer!) in his comments sections starts to feel less like a genuine principled defense of free speech and more like he's just generally fine with platforming racist bigots. Things that might vaguely sound a little bit "eugenics-y" start to sound really fucking bad when the person saying them has been shown to have racist sympathies that he knows would get him in trouble and was hiding on purpose. Racist sympathies he supports by linking to a famous white supremacist.

So what does Scott Siskind believe about dysgenics? Why should anyone care? He's a racist who believes in hereditary explanations for gaps in racial performance (as opposed to, y'know, the long and ongoing history of systemic racism, colonialism, and exploitation). Whatever his beliefs on eugenics or dysgenics are, odds are good that he's not being cogent about how he really feels, and that his beliefs based on those arguments would be interpreted differently (and more correctly!) by people who know that this dude drank the scientific racism kool-aid.

The degree to which this man is still considered a public intellectual after the leak of those emails is a good sign of how tolerant we are of lying, cowardly racists pretending to be Very Serious People.

[elistodragonwings]

Content warning: discussion on protecting children from adult content involving underage characters, particularly in fandom spaces.

If you care about inappropriate sexual content and children (which I would point out, most people do, so if you think you're unique in that, stop and assess if that's true), then you should care about the actual harm that comes from it, not just assert the "correct" moral judgement and move on. I expect certain religious/political authoritarians to not make that distinction, but it seems the rise of fandom puritans don't quite get that either.

I'm in an all-ages fandom group, and a while ago, a troll thought it would be "funny" to post porn of the characters. Of course, that was against the rules and taken down fairly quickly and the troll was banned, but the people who flagged it also seemed to miss the point of why it was bad. A bunch responded that it was terrible because the characters are underage (teens), but that's not the biggest problem here. When I pointed out that the more serious issue is that potentially underage real group members might have seen it, no one replied or commented, they just kept talking about the character ages.

Worrying about the ages of cartoon characters only matters in the context of what actual harm it might be doing. I shouldn't have to say that! The characters themselves are not real! What matters are the real humans who saw it!

I've never liked adult content made from children's cartoons, so I get it. But what makes it actually bad is context. Because this apparently needs to be spelled out, some examples:

Children (or adults!) seeing content they're not emotionally ready for or able to process in a healthy way (note: this sometimes is obvious, but sometimes requires some nuance to distinguish actually harmful from just being outside a comfort zone).

Real people involved in the creation who may be harmed or exploited (note: this is the one context where I think blanket judgements are completely acceptable).

Red flags it might raise about the creator or consumer (note: might. For example, I had a suspicion that this troll was himself a teenager testing boundaries. It's not weird for teenagers to explore sexuality and sexual themes through characters their own age. That's not necessarily dangerous. Overstepping what's OK and how to share it responsibly is where things go badly. So is accusing them of harming minors when they're just exploring themselves.)

Unhealthy or oppressive themes the content might perpetuate or reflect (note: again, might. See above about self-exploration. This one requires some good-faith analysis to determine, and you may not ever actually know for sure. You can't just apply it as a blanket value judgement.)

Notice that all of these require thinking about what you're seeing. The gut emotional reaction most people feel to seeing something potentially harmful to minors is a very important protective instinct. At the same time, that doesn't mean that instinct is always correctly assessing where or what the harm is. Please think before reacting so that you can mitigate the real harms to real people and not be distracted by the pseudo-harm to fictional characters.

[chaosnightmare]

heyyyy i had a post gain some traction a while ago where i listed some good advice for newbies on tumblr, but some of the information in that post is now either outdated or no longer helpful. here's a better, more accurate version.

advice for tumblr newbies (2.0)

so as i said before, deleting your post will not stop it from getting reblogs. tumblr reblogs work by saving a new version, a "snapshot" of your post, frozen in time, immune to any changes to its content you may make. as such, so long as a reblog of your post exists out there, simply deleting it will not solve the issue if you want people to stop reblogging. HOWEVER, since my last post there was a monumental new feature added to tumblr that allows you to disable reblogs universally across all existing versions of your post. this setting is called "Reblog Control", and can be changed even after a post has already been made. this is now no longer an issue.

deleting your blog or posts may cause oddities to occur on existing reblogs, such as empty OP, empty notes, and so on. if you notice these in the wild, that's what happened.

tumblr does have an algorithm, but its barely functional. you'll mostly have to curate your experience on here by yourself. follow blogs you want to see, block people you dislike, reblog posts you enjoy, and you'll find a community you like in no time.

reblogs are really the only way to boost attention for work somebody else has done. if you're not recieving any more attention on a post even though it has tons of likes, it's because you'd need reblogs for that. there is a new feature, called Blaze, where you can pay money to have your post shown to a certain amount of random users. this is never a good idea and nobody ever likes it

that last part is because tumblr is actually broken up into smaller subcommunities, who, due to the nature of the site, can stay extremely isolated from eachother. blazing a post will force people from outside your circle to see it, which can lead anywhere from confusion to hostility. on the other hand, this means that you'll rarely have to interact with people outside of your bubble.

posts don't generally become too old to reblog. if you see a post and hear it's from a long time ago, it's probably still okay to interact with. where this becomes iffy is when you start going though one specific person's old posts repeatedly, which isn't always appreciated. if you aren't sure, check the date.

tags are a very important tool for blog organization. they often work better than the content search function, and can help your original posts gain traction. if you aren't sure how to use tags on a post, take a look at other people's blogs and take note of how they use them for ideas. they do however serve another purpose, and that's to avoid adding a reblog comment.

reblog comments are where you add directly on to a post with something extra. generally, you should only do this if you're really certain that you're adding something of value to a post, or if the original post is one of your own. doing this if you don't have anything important to say is considered rude in most contexts. the workaround for this is simple: say whatever you wanted to say in the tags. character limits on tags are actually quite large, so you can add most anything you want to say. this ensures that what you want to say about the post shows up on YOUR blog, but won't necessarily transfer over to other reblogs, and it isn't considered an inept thing to do.

change your icon/pfp. change it. this website has lots of spam bot users (again, poor moderation) and while some of them do have icons, not changing yours is the easiest way to be mistaken for a bot. just change it to anything you want, but otherwise you run the risk of being reported for spam or blocked. if you're feeling up to it, tumblr gives you plenty of other blog customization options as well, such as headers and fonts and color schemes. if you're on desktop, you can even completely alter how the website looks when somebody visits your blog, but thats better to do when you already know your way around a bit.

xkit is your best friend if you're on desktop

[mithrilhearts]

I chose semi-hard ones so sorry about that. 😆

💎🎀🥏

(The last one is the blue disc thing. My emojis looked different…)

You do like picking the more difficult ones 😂

💎why is writing important to you?

Writing is my creative outlet. I've been writing for so long even before posting fic that I don't really know what I'd do without it? It's a very fun hobby for me that makes me genuinely happy. I think I would be miserable without it. Not to mention, it's helped me make some really great friendships along the way.

🎀give yourself a compliment about your own writing

I have grown as a writer, and continue to grow. I can see it when I look back and read earlier chapters/fics, and I'm thoroughly impressed with my progress when it comes to storytelling, dynamics, trying some new things, etc. I am always progressing, never regressing.

🧿what steps do you take to not take things personally if a fic doesn't do well, or if your writing/posting/sharing experience isn't going how you'd like it to?

I think it depends on the context of this question. If a fic doesn't get as many notes/stats as I would like it to, I move on. I may make a side comment or two about how I wish it had done better, but it is what it is, you know? I enjoyed writing it, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. Besides! Stats don't dictate what is a good or bad fic. Some of the best fics I've ever read had minimal notes, and vice versa. I don't know if there are necessarily "steps" to take though, just...keep writing, keep doing what I love, and enjoy the story I wrote - I should be my biggest fan, after all 😂 Now, if someone comes at me and comments nasty things like my work is trash (this hasn't happened yet so please let's keep it that way), would be a different story lol.

[magickedteacup]

I guess my little blogging style note on current events: I’ll continue what I’m doing around here. Or maybe not! Since life always moves and changes. Tumblr is actually fraction of what I get up to in my life. And also IRL I’ve had people comment that when I open up about different parts of my life, it’s like they’re seeing a whole new side of me. But if I’m around here, I want to maintain—a positive attitude that is all about doing, as in my religious practices, my dharma which is the correct thing, in the correct way, at the correct time, and of course which changes based on so many factors or context.

Being able to conduct dharma appropriately is also about being open, receptive, and accepting of reality as it exists right now, because it literally exists the way it does for reasons that make sense even if they don’t align with what you want. While simultaneously, making the resolve to doing correct/responsible/uplifting/etc. actions for the sake of doing those actions. Because you love doing it! Or even if you don’t love it right away, letting yourself develop strength, perseverance, and tenacity through doing those actions.

In my personal and professional life I encounter a lot of examples of: you can’t save people. Ultimately, you can’t even save yourself (for example: any day now, unexpectedly, you could be crossing the road and be hit by a truck…) Everyone’s burdens is everyone’s burdens and they ultimately have to make that journey with resolve in their own heart… but as the spiritual teachings I follow have generally described it, if it is the karma of some people to deal with certain burdens, it can be your karma to help relieve suffering when you can, with commitment to the action, and without attachment to reward or result.

Anyway, if I’m still around here posting art, or writing, or whatever, I might have ups and downs about about it, but ultimately it’ll likely be because I have the feeling that it is something I should be doing. I’m developing the skills to express what is in my heart with utmost sincerity. And it’s not even necessarily specifically about animation or Kingdom Hearts or anything like that. It’s about understanding your true self, when everything that you thought makes up your true self starts getting stripped down, from memories, to attachments, to beliefs that may not be true at all. I was just making a comment on a fic the other day, and I started writing something that made me stop and look at it again. And it was the idea that all of the suffering of these characters, in the fic and in the events of canon, were because they acted on beliefs that simply weren’t true. It wasn’t true that someone was beyond saving. It wasn’t true that they didn’t deserve a chance at a life of dignity. It wasn’t true that their worth was based on a sense of abandonment. And once they transcended these beliefs, then they were open to the positive and transformative events that could happen in their lives. And I wonder how often is that the case: being held down by beliefs that aren’t true.

I wanted to make this blog post because I thought it was important that I didn’t convey the atmosphere that I don’t care about what’s going on in real life or haven’t reflected on it. The header of my blog is “I Love Everyone in this Bubble Tea Bar.” It’s been the same header since the inception of this blog, over a decade ago, and I was really a different person in those days… but I really wanted to try! So still I try! Conveying that sentiment of love and care, in the correct way, at the correct time, in the ways that matter, to the best of my ability…

[fallingsunflower]

https://at.tumblr.com/sunflowerdiscussion/sunny/37fxy8e6y4eo

I'm talking about this. I don't know if what he said is bad because I'm not American.

It wasn't necessarily bad and it's important to remember that there are always extremist point-of-views. Imo, as an American, it was just tone-deaf. As Harry's fan, I understand he was talking about class most likely his general story, but to say that without context at a historically white-washed, and misogynistic, event wasn't the best idea and I understand why people were upset with it. The Grammys are known for having non-white artists win the smaller categories with them being severely underrepresented in the big 4. Non-white artists have also been excluded from Pop fields and cast into Urban Contemporary categories, which black artists have spoken out against. Idk how many people know that. And that's theorized to partially be because Pop is considered a "lighter/fun" theme whereas Urban Contemporary might draw on themes of racism, politics, social issues etc.

Harry had a great album numerically. It topped the charts. His fans loved it. As It Was was the most streamed song of 2022 on Spotify. No one is doubting his success. But it wasn't as culturally impactful as other albums, specifically nodding to Renaissance since that's the hot topic. Renaissance pushed what was once an underground LGBTQ sound into the mainstream agenda with themes of black pride, in a way that could not be overlooked. It was culturally impactful. And of course, people will overlook it just because it wasn't impactful to themselves. You could argue this for other albums as well, such as Lizzo's who screams black and big girl pride.

I could talk about it for hours but that's generally why the comment was upsetting. However, it should also be noted that there's a fine line between a proper win and a win that's handed over. I don't think a black artist should be awarded AOTY just because they're black. I think a lot of people border on this mindset which I totally don't agree with. I just personally wish there was less bias in the industry, but also generally everywhere else. It's a really really big issue in America, which I can talk about further because a lot of international people don't get it (in regards to it in America - not in their own countries. I cannot speak on that).

I hope that answered it.

[emily-smx]

Lies of Omission

I know that this scene has been discussed hundreds of times already, and there are probably posts out there that are very similar to this one. However, I saw this being brought up again on Instagram, and I feel the need to say my bit about it.

The question brought up over and over again is “Why did Scott believe Theo over Stiles?”.

He didn’t.

In the entire scene, there’s never once the question of whose story he should believe – as far as the boys are concerned, there is only one story. That’s what causes the miscommunication.

I also noticed something else while watching the scene: nothing that Stiles said actually contradicted Theo’s story.

To go into more depth, I’m going to go through each bit of the dialogue and explain what’s basically being said from each character’s point of view.

[Scott holds out the bloody wrench]

Stiles: Where did you get that?

Scott: This is yours? Why didn't you tell me?

Stiles: I was going to...

Scott: No, but why didn't you tell me when it happened?

Stiles: I couldn't.

So far, it’s pretty straightforward.

Scott shows Stiles the wrench, who immediately reacts in a guilty manner. It’s important to note that Scott’s “This is yours?” holds quite a bit of surprise in it, so he clearly hadn’t already made up his mind about what happened.

Stiles takes the wrench and looks at it, while Scott asks him “Why didn’t you tell me?”

I know that, to some people, his question implies that he’s already leapt to a conclusion about what happened, but this isn’t necessarily the case. He hasn’t specified what it is he believes Stiles has done; all this shows is that he knows something big has happened.

Stiles’ response sounds incredibly guilty, and he struggles to look Scott in the eye. It’s clear at this point that he’s done something bad.

Scott: You killed him? You killed Donovan?

Stiles: Well, he was going to kill my dad. Huh? Was I supposed to just let him?

Scott: You weren't supposed to do this. None of us are.

This is where it starts to get more confusing.

Scott asks whether Stiles killed Donovan, and again the surprise and disbelief in his voice shows that he hadn’t already made up his mind prior to this conversation.

Stiles responds by telling him “he was going to kill my dad [...] was I supposed to just let him?” (i.e. “I killed Donovan because he was going to kill my dad”).

The worst thing about this is that it essentially confirms what Theo was saying. Theo said “maybe it was because he threatened to kill his dad”.

It also implies to Scott that this was not self-defense, because Stiles’ dad wasn’t there. Instead, it tells Scott that Stiles chose to kill Donovan because he couldn’t risk Donovan hurting his father.

Also, Stiles is asking Scott “Was I supposed to just let him [kill my father]?” (i.e. “was I supposed to let him go free and risk him killing my father?”)

If Stiles had explained how much he regretted it, Scott (despite still not knowing the whole story) would likely have reacted differently. Instead, it sounds to Scott as though Stiles has done something terrible and is now defending it.

Hence, he replies by essentially saying that no, his response was not justified. “You weren't supposed to do this.”

Stiles: You think I had a choice?

Scott: There's always a choice.

This is where it’s important to look at the different viewpoints. Scott is still under the impression that Stiles killed Donovan to protect his father. So, from his point of view, Stiles did have a choice.

Stiles: Yeah, well, I can't do what you can, Scott. I know you wouldn't have done it. You probably would have just figured something out, right?

Scott: I'd try.

Stiles: Yeah, because you're Scott McCall! You're the True Alpha! Guess what? All of us can't be True Alphas! Some of us have to make mistakes. Some of us have to get our hands a little bloody sometimes. Some of us are human!

Once again, it’s clear that they’re talking about completely different things.

Stiles is talking about what he can do physically. He’s saying that he couldn’t easily fight off Donovan the way that Scott could have. He’s saying that Scott could have found a solution that didn’t end in one of them dying.

But Scott still doesn’t know that. He still thinks that Stiles killed Donovan by using disproportionate force, because he was scared that if Donovan survived then he’d harm his father. From his point of view, Stiles is saying that murder was the only option, and he couldn’t figure something else out.

So he responds by essentially saying that yes, he would try and figure out another solution to protect his father and also not kill Donovan.

It’s an entirely reasonable response, but obviously from Stiles’ point of view, Scott is being very unfair here. This, along with the fact that he’s being crushed under guilt and stress and anger, causes him to lash out.

Scott: So you had to kill him?

Stiles: Scott, he was going to kill my dad!

Scott: But the way that it happened... There's a point when it's... It's not self-defense anymore!

Stiles: What are you even talking about? I didn't have a choice, Scott!

Scott, to his credit, doesn’t get angry, and instead gets back to the main point. He’s clearly very desperate at this point, desperate for there to be something he’s missed.

So he asks whether Stiles had to kill him – note that this isn’t simply if Stiles killed Donovan, it’s more about whether it was the only choice. Keep in mind, that Scott cares a lot about Stiles. He doesn’t want to fall out with him.

Unfortunately, Stiles’ response only emphasised what he’d previously claimed, making it sound like that was his only reason.

This is where both characters should have paid more attention to each other’s words. Scott’s comment about “the way that it happened” should have driven Stiles to questioning what he thought had happened; and Stiles’ confusion should have again made Scott question whether he had the story right.

However, they’re both upset and stressed, and so it’s understandable that at this point they aren’t thinking clearly and rationally.

Stiles: You don't even believe me, do you?

Scott: I want to.

Stiles: Okay. All right, so... So, believe me, then. Scott, say you believe me. Say it. Say you believe me.

[Stiles steps forward brandishing the wrench and Scott flinches]

Scott: Stiles, we can't kill people that we're trying to save.

Stiles: Say you believe me!

Scott: We can't kill people. Do you believe that?

This is where everybody hates Scott, but again it’s taking everything out of context.

When Stiles says “believe me”, he means “believe me that there was no choice, I was about die and it was an accident”, but Scott hears “believe me that my only choice was to kill Donovan to protect my dad”.

Scott wants to believe that Stiles’ actions were necessary, but he knows that killing somebody to prevent the possibility of something else from happening in the future is not justified (especially when there are other ways they could have protected his dad).

Also, Theo was cunning and he told Scott “maybe Stiles thought he had to keep going to defend himself” – which feeds into Scott’s belief that Stiles might have thought it was his only choice, despite this not being the case.

I also want to point out that Scott flinching is likely due to the trauma of Void Stiles. In Letharia Vulpina (3x19), by the animal clinic in the pouring rain, Void Stiles tortured Scott. The similarities of the situation likely caused him to flinch (and then there’s obviously the fact that flinching when somebody steps forward with a weapon is a completely natural response, even without all the trauma).

Stiles: Well, what do I do about this? What do you want me to do? Okay, just be... Scott, just tell me how to fix this, all right? Please, just tell me-- what do you want me to do?

Scott: Don't worry about Malia or Lydia. We'll find them. Maybe... Maybe you should talk to your dad.

This is when Stiles essentially gives up. From his point of view, he’s tried defending himself, but Scott is still condemning him; he’s being blamed for something that was in no way his fault.

Instead of lashing out again, he accepts that he was at fault (although he wasn’t – it was his guilt that was persuading him that he was in the wrong), and begs Scott to tell him how he can fix his mistake.

Scott, who is also very overwhelmed, suggests he talk to his dad, who will be able to fix it and sort everything out.

I know some people equate this to Scott kicking Stiles out of the pack, but I really don’t think it is.

Scott saying “Don't worry about Malia or Lydia” is not him forbidding Stiles from speaking to them. It’s simply a callback to the beginning of the conversation, when Stiles informed Scott that he’d been unable to get in touch with Malia or Lydia.

And yes, he dismisses Stiles, but that’s because so many other things are going on. Hayden is directly behind them, dying in the animal clinic. Scott needs to go and help her, and Stiles being there will probably just increase the tension and make things more difficult.

In Conclusion:

It was a miscommunication. Scott and Stiles both thought they were talking about the same thing, which led to them not understanding what the other was trying to say.

Scott did not come into the argument already believing Stiles was guilty. His reaction to Theo’s story was, literally, “that’s not possible”. It was Stiles’ accidental confirmation of Theo’s story that led Scott to believe it was true.

“believe me” does not mean “believe my story”, because to their knowledge there was only one story.

Scott did not kick Stiles out of the pack.

I firmly believe that the only mistake either character made (beyond hiding the whole secret in the first place) is not pushing further to make sure they were both talking about the same thing. Scott should have asked for Stiles’ full story of the events, and Stiles should have explained what happened when he had the chance. It can, however, be put down to their mindsets at the time: Theo chose a good time to tell Scott, when both of them were already overwhelmed with all the events going on.

[starblaster]

I’m not trying to undermine the original sentiment of your post in saying this but this focuses on a mostly inconsequential line—which, you could argue, plays into the Turing Test thought experiment given the extent to which it has provoked your imagination and sense of compassion and a sympathetic response to this hypothetical robot... but...

The excerpt above comes from part 7. Learning Machines, in which Turing asks, “What, ontologically, is a human mind? What makes a mind human, and how can it be replicated?”

The point he’s making with this passage is that, because the end goal in engineering this hypothetical robot is that it will be indistinguishable from a human being, "it must be given some tuition," further saying that, “we need not be too concerned about the legs, eyes, etc.” because there are plenty of humans missing limbs, plenty of humans who are blind or missing eyes who are still humans without those things, and so it makes sense that a machine wouldn’t necessarily need to have those things to think in a humanlike way. However, he’s saying, even those humans born without limbs or certain senses have childhoods full of learning. He also very intentionally uses Helen Keller as an example, who notoriously had a very close teacher helping explain the world to her.

As Turing postulates in his conclusion:

“Many people think that a very abstract activity, like the playing of chess, would be best. It can also be maintained that it is best to provide the machine with the best sense organs that money can buy, and then teach it to understand and speak [...] This process could follow the normal teaching of a child. Things would be pointed out and named, etc. Again I do not know what the right answer is, but I think both approaches should be tried.”

The context that precedes the above excerpt (italicized text for emphasis, my own comments added in brackets):

“In the process of trying to imitate an adult human mind, we are bound to think a good deal about the process which has brought it to the state that it is in. We may notice three components,

a. The initial state of the mind, say at birth, b. The education to which it has been subjected, [and] c. Other experience, not to be described as education, to which it has been subjected.

Instead of trying to produce a programme to simulate the adult mind, why not rather try to produce one which simulates the child's? If [the machine] were then subjected to an appropriate course of education, one would obtain the adult brain. Presumably the child-brain is something like a note-book as one buys it from the stationers. Rather little mechanism, and lots of blank sheets. (Mechanism and writing are from our point of view almost synonymous.) Our hope is that there is so little mechanism in the child-brain that something like it can be easily programmed. The amount of work in the education we can assume, as a first approximation, to be much the same as for the human child.

After which Turing then discusses how to teach this hypothetical blank-slate machine ‘child’ and talks in-depth about how punishment and reward might factor into learning. To your credit, the line about other children is important in its role of commenting on the ordeal of learning about social nuance from experience but the line about “children making excessive fun” is less an expressed concern about this hypothetical machine being bullied and more of a logical assumption about how it would be perceived by human children at the same learning level. It completes the mental image of a robot being in school, a machine that is literally learning stuff the same way a human does.

The emotional core of this paper is (again, arguably) not really contained in the window-dressing “one could not send the creature to school without the other children making excessive fun of it” line. The emotional core is, instead, found in the conclusion which is anchored in the context surrounding it; if you create a machine that is designed to learn from experience like a child does, at what point does it matter that it is a machine? The fact that it is an artificial creation? Are children not also ‘planned’ and ‘created’ by their parents and teachers? The distinction becomes more difficult to make. Just like that, Turing has conjured into being the idea of a machine that we might struggle to distinguish from a human.

You are right, he isn’t scared or unsettled or spooked by the prospect. But it’s deeper than just this mental image of a robot being made fun of by schoolkids and how it would be sad... it’s why it would be sad.

Picture, instead: a machine being nurtured by its teachers and encouraged to grow.

jaggedwolf said: can’t say this and not link/say which one it is

the original “turing test” paper is so beautiful.  more beautiful, i imagine, than most expect going in—he’s got this underlying warm humanism and gentle humor throughout.  (it’s present even in his more technical papers, but it shines here)

and the section that slays me each time is this:

“It will not be possible to apply exactly the same teaching process to the machine as to a normal child. It will not, for instance, be provided with legs, so that it could not be asked to go out and fill the coal scuttle. Possibly it might not have eyes. But however well these deficiencies might be overcome by clever engineering, one could not send the creature to school without the other children making excessive fun of it [. . .]”

like.  this is the original “turing test” paper.  this is the first dude to formally conceptualize the whole “~*~what if computers learn to think, how could we tell~*~” thing.  which, in subsequent SF invocations, is used mostly in spooky or paranoid contexts: the Voigt-Kampff test of Blade Runner, the preemptive rushes to constrain that budding will in I, Robot and others, and in modern worries over AGI.  and i like those stories!  they’re interesting and cool and eerie!

but

but

the original guy was not scared or unsettled or spooked by the prospect of new minds.  this dude’s primary concern, when facing the dawn of artificial intelligence, was instead: “what if we teach computers to think and then the other kids on the playground bully the computer, that would be so mean :(((”

i love that, so much.  i love people so much, sighs into hands

[percabeth4life]

Nico and Percy

Okay so I’ve received a lot of asks about Nico and Percy and how Percy treated Nico and someone else sent me a link to a post that had more stuff.

90% of the stuff I’ve seen is either inaccurate or taken out of context.

Lets start with the choking scene.

This scene happened right after Nico lied to Percy to trick him into coming to see Hades so that Nico could learn more about his mom. They were meant to go to the Styx in order to give Percy the Achilles Curse so they had a chance at winning the war. This resulted in Percy being locked up by Hades.

Nico did not intend for this to happen, but he did knowingly lie to Percy. Percy understandably did not trust Nico after that.

The mountain of darkness loomed above me. A foot the size of Yankee Stadium was about to smash me when a voice hissed: ‘Percy!’

I lunged out blindly. Before I was fully awake, I had Nico pinned to the floor of the cell with the edge of my sword at his throat.

‘Want – to – rescue,’ he choked.

Anger woke me up fast. ‘Oh, yeah? And why should I trust you?’

‘No – choice?’ he gagged.

I wished he hadn’t said something logical like that. I let him go. (The Last Olympian page 60).

As you can see, the initial action was taken before Percy was even awake. After he was awake, and got through his initial anger at the betrayal with Nico’s comment, he released Nico and they escaped.

He acknowledged silently later that he didn’t trust Nico anymore and Nico was aware that his actions meant he wasn’t trusted.

So the choking scene: not Percy being unreasonably cruel to Nico.

Threats is another common thing I see people bring up and... I’m genuinely baffled by that one. The closest I can think of is the scene I quoted above? But that doesn’t seem to fit? Anyone want to quote some threats Percy made to Nico? Because I don’t know any.

Next up! The claims that Percy said they should leave Nico to suffocate. Funnily enough he actually says the opposite, multiple times.

Percy stared at his jelly donut. He had a rocky history with Nico di Angelo. The guy had once tricked him into visiting Hades’s palace, and Percy had ended up in a cell. But most of the time, Nico sided with the good guys. He certainly didn’t deserve slow suffocation in a bronze jar, and Percy couldn’t stand seeing Hazel in pain.

“We’ll rescue him,” he promised her. “We have to. The prophecy says he holds the key to endless death.”

Is this first time kind? Not necessarily. But it’s certainly not saying to leave Nico. For multiple reasons, he didn’t deserve, Percy didn’t want Hazel to hurt, and (what he says outloud) Nico is an important figure in the war.

Percy also makes a comment later when they feared they’d be too late

The vision zoomed in again. Inside the jar, Nico di Angelo was curled in a ball, no longer moving, all the pomegranate seeds eaten.

“We’re too late,” Jason said.

“No,” Percy said. “No, I can’t believe that. Maybe he’s gone into a deeper trance to buy time. We have to hurry.”

Funny, this doesn’t sound like someone advocating to leave Nico to die. In fact it sounds like someone almost desperate to save him, or at least hoping strongly that they’ll succeed.

Interestingly there were comments about leaving Nico, but not from Percy. They came from Jason and Leo.

“Uh…” Leo shifted in his chair. “One thing. The giants are expecting us to do this, right? So we’re walking into a trap?”

Hazel looked at Leo like he’d made a rude gesture. “We have no choice!”

“Don’t get me wrong, Hazel. It’s just that your brother, Nico… he knew about bothcamps, right?”

“Well, yes,” Hazel said.

“He’s been going back and forth,” Leo said, “and he didn’t tell either side.” Jason sat forward, his expression grim. “You’re wondering if we can trust the guy. So am I.”

Hazel shot to her feet. “I don’t believe this. He’s my brother. He brought me back from the Underworld, and you don’t want to help him?”

Frank put his hand on her shoulder. “Nobody’s saying that.” He glared at Leo. “Nobody had better be saying that.”

Leo blinked. “Look, guys. All I mean is—”

“Hazel,” Jason said. “Leo is raising a fair point. I remember Nico from Camp Jupiter. Now I find out he also visited Camp Half-Blood. That does strike me as… well, a little shady. Do we really know where his loyalties lie? We just have to be careful.” (Mark of Athena page 125)

How interesting that they’re the ones making comments about leaving Nico...

Next of course I’ve heard the wonder bread brought up? And I had to key word search wonder bread in the books to figure out what that was about and it appears to be a single thought Percy had while they were trying to rescue Nico.

Nico started to crawl away, groaning. Percy wanted him to move faster and to groan less. He considered throwing his Wonder bread at him. (Mark of Athena page 357)

Percy did not actually throw the bread for anyone wondering, and I hardly see how the panicking thought of trying to get them all out of there and keep Nico from being noticed by the people he was escaping from is even something for you to hold against him.

Finally the thing I hear the most, Percy calling Nico creepy and spreading rumors.

Creepy is used in MoA 5 times, in HoH 2 times, and BoO 8 times.

In MoA it’s used by Percy once, and that time is describing Persephone’s garden, not Nico. This comment is also only made in his thoughts, not outloud.

Funnily enough Leo does mentally refer to Nico as creepy in MoA

Nico and Hazel shared a look, maybe comparing notes on their Hades/Pluto death radar. Leo shivered. Hazel had never seemed like a child of the Underworld to him, but Nico di Angelo—that guy was creepy. (Mark of Athena page 396)

In HoH it is used once by Jason in regards to Nico, not at all by Percy.

Nico gave him a thin, creepy smile. ‘Ah … that legend.’ (House of Hades page 164)

In BoO it’s actually used by Nico about himself.

By now, Will Solace realized just how creepy and revolting Nico di Angelo was. Of course, Nico didn’t care what he thought. But still …  (Blood of Olympus page 317)

And once by Reyna about Nico

Reyna had stitched up the gashes on his biceps, which gave Nico a slightly creepy Frankenstein look, but the cuts were still swollen and red. (Blood of Olympus page 140)

So uh, no Percy did not call Nico creepy. And I have found no evidence of Percy spreading rumors so like with the threats, feel free to find me quotes proving that claim.

Concluding all of this I will point out that prior to book 5 (TLO) Percy was doing everything in his power to find Nico and protect him. After book 5 Percy only had one physical altercation with him (when he was half asleep and right after the betrayal occurred) and otherwise did not hold it against him beyond having his trust broken. As time went on we know from Percy’s thoughts that he doesn’t trust Nico, but he makes no comments saying such and agrees to help rescue him and does everything he can to do so.

Their conflicts are understandable due to their history. Percy’s feelings on Nico are complicated but understandable and he has not let it interfere with their jobs, if anything it interfered in a negative way making them risk the quest to save Nico (though Nico was a key figure needed to succeed in the end).

Overall I don’t know where these claims come from beyond people wanting to find issues with Percy (to the point they make stuff up).

[lesbianmarrow]

First and foremost: I hope you are saving all of your posts, especially your odd comments and speculations. Almost all of these are HILARIOUS in a way that only context can show. I think you'll get a kick out of reading them all when you are done catching up. Seriously.

Re: Gary - yes, his behavior in season 3 is a odd and creepy. This being said, they DO address it later. I'd love to have a conversation after you watch the first bit of season 6 about it.

Also, Ray in episode 16 was great - there were so many clone jokes. He tried to do the jedi mind trick on the Avas, which I thought was hilarious. There was even an Orphan Black reference. Also, I think he had one of the lines of the night - when he was reading that they were supposed to be the perfect woman, he said as an aside, "Looks kind of pale, if you ask me". That side comment was so needed and a nod to the fact that 'blond hair, white' is not and should not be everyone's ideal.

And yes, Sara definitely had her 'oh my god, I'm so turned on face' after Ava drop kicked the clone leader. I really enjoyed how this episode in a way put Sara and Ava on the same terms, but in COMPLETELY opposite ways. Sara is a wreck and doesn't think she can be in a relationship because her past has weighed her down. Ava is a wreck because she has no past. It's a beautiful mirror and some damn good writing - especially considering Jes Macallan is still a guest star at this point.

I do like how we are shown how Sara copes by taking time to herself. In an odd way, she's always been an introvert, and I appreciate the character consistency.

The theme of the episode was definitely the importance of connecting to family, and I think the writers did a superb job of using it as a thread throughout the episode.

A Story: Any connection Ava had between her family was severed. She now knows all her memories of family are fake, and Rip, her work 'father figure' in an odd way, has done this thing to her that she doesn't quite understand. Because Gary was in this, there WAS a line he threw out about his dad as well - I think that was the first we learned of his past.

B Story: First off, the B team went to protect Mari, who was family to Amaya, who was injured because of a lack of totem. We see her family in the waiting room, but then Kuasa shows up and does literally everything in her power - at first setting Nate up, but then literally giving her own life - to protect family. This culminated in the ending scene of Amaya throwing away everything it means to be a superhero - literally risking all of time - in order to help Kuasa and her family. Even Damien was shown to be pained Damien watching Nora slip away from him as Mallus grew stronger (side note: wow, Nora is strong - she just dropped Wally like he was nothing. I kind of love how this show has NO respect for speedsters).

C Story: Zari's connection with her family, even though they are dead, is palpable. Episode 16 must be praised for showing Zari observing Ramadan. It's so cool to see that done and talked about in a respectful, meaningful way. I don't think I've seen TV just drop casual representation in this manner before.

ok wow this is a long message but you know what i think that's great :D i will try to respond point by point.

good to know gary's creep behavior is addressed later. that's one thing i like about this show, it's not afraid to allow its characters to be complex and grow.

ray trying to jedi mind trick clone ava was so silly. he felt like kind of a weird choice for this particular mission but i enjoyed his pop culture references. and how he was being very sympathetic and reassuring to sara.

i didn't realize ray's comment about ava being pale was meant to criticize the notion of a white woman as the ideal woman. i gotta be honest, i was not happy with the concept of ava having been designed as the ideal woman physically. i get that the show isn't necessarily endorsing her as such, it's just saying that this corporation advertises her that way, but the episode doesn't do enough to challenge that assertion. i think it's not helped by the fact that sara, ray, and gary are all white.

yessss i love how sara & ava's conflicts are mirrored as you said....sara has a much easier time accepting the truth about ava, and i wonder if sara isn't a little envious of ava's blank slate past, since it means ava isn't weighed down by regrets and past wrongdoings the way sara is. of course, ava wouldn't see it that way - sara may have done horrible things in the past, but at least she has a past, at least she has an identity.

and yeah the theme of family was executed really well in this episode. the sublot with amaya and kuasa just has not been working for me for some reason i can't quite identify, but the progression of that plotline in this episode underscores the importance of family as well. zari explaining the importance of family and tradition makes us feel for ava even more, as we see her cope with the realization that she has no family or past. and i also liked how this episode showed zari observing ramadan, it felt very normal and not othering or exotifying. and it didn't necessarily feel like a "teaching moment" either - the focus isn't on explaining to the audience what ramadan is, but rather showing what the observation of ramadan means to zari.

[likehandlingroses]

“Realistic” Tom/Thomas Relationship Timeline

The S3/S4 Tom/Thomas affair is a theory that has been making its way around lately, and it is centered around the contrast in the interactions between Thomas and Tom during the Season 3 Christmas Special and their interactions in the Season 4 Christmas Special. 

This means that usually the start of the relationship is viewed as coinciding with the immediate aftermath of Matthew’s death, which occurs in the Christmas Special of Season 3 (September 1921). Due to the interactions between Tom and Thomas in the Christmas Special of Season 4, the relationship can almost certainly be considered over by that time (May-ish of 1923). But what happened in between, and how long were they actually together? There’s one view that the affair occurs in between Seasons 3 and 4, which means that at the very longest they lasted just under six months (generally I think this view cuts it even shorter than that)...but this leaves some unanswered questions and some peculiarities, so I took another look at the canon to determine when, in fact, Thomas and Tom broke up.

(Note: I definitely know that Julian Fellowes did not intend for them to be having an affair, but also Julian if I’m right just DM me)

Let’s start with what we know about September 1921 and May 1923—the definite before and after points—for reference:

Christmas Special Season 3—September, 1921

In this Christmas special, we see Tom left behind while the rest of the family goes to Duneagle, and we see Thomas still dealing with the Jimmy situation a year after its apparent resolution. On its face, this episode features Tom being challenged in his new role in the house—and being encouraged to step up and face that role—and Thomas finding a way to resolve things with Jimmy.

Except there’s a whole lot of other stuff going on in the periphery of those stories: Tom knows that Jimmy is bothering Thomas and appears to want to intervene at the fair, but he is stopped by Edna, who at one point uses Thomas’s injuries as an excuse to visit Tom and assure him that Thomas is “feeling much better.” And—of course—there’s the fact that Tom and Thomas hug at the fair (and lest you think this was a RJC/Allen Leech moment not caught by editing, it was in multiple takes! Someone—multiple someones actually—included it on purpose). They are friendly, aware of each other, and to be honest it isn’t impossible to argue that maybe the relationship predates Matthew’s death! I’m going to argue otherwise, however, based on how Tom breaks down when Edna kisses him—I think Edna is the first time he’s even really thought of himself in romantic terms for a long time! But Thomas is right there in the wings, and he just finally made some progress on the emotional problem that’s been plaguing him for over a year!

It’s a big difference from what we see in the next Christmas special, big enough to start the theory of the affair in the first place...

Season 4 Christmas Special—Summer 1923

Once again, Tom is left alone at Downton while the rest of the family goes to London...and the difference in how Thomas responds is striking. He’s furious at having to wait on Tom, for reasons both we and the characters cannot quite understand. The excuses don’t add up—at this point, Tom has been living at Downton for three YEARS, and this has never been a problem before. Now all of a sudden Thomas is slamming trays and clenching his fists and provoking Tom into admitting that he sees himself as Above sitting next to him...what?

Then there’s Sarah Bunting, a Miss Sarah Bunting...whose presence infuriates Thomas while also making him eager to use her as a way to embarrass Tom. And Tom knows it, immediately. He’s embarrassed, he’s uncomfortable, but still he’s quick to pull rank with Thomas when challenged. Something has fundamentally altered the way they interact with and perceive each other while sharing the same space.

All of this speaks to a breakup, and a messy one at that...so with the knowledge we have, WHAT exactly happened between September of 1921 and May of 1923? Let’s look at what Season 4 has to say:

4.1/4.2–February, 1922

“That’s right: it’s Valentine’s Day.” 

This is an important piece of the puzzle, because Thomas—Nanny West drama aside—is in a pretty good mood for the Valentine’s Day episode! He engages with Daisy and Jimmy’s Valentine’s card drama with good humor and even some genuine interest...something I do not believe he’d do if he’d only recently been broken up with, and by someone who lived in the house! The big one here, though, is the dialogue Thomas has with Nanny West in which she calls him “Thomas” and he says, “that’s Mr. Barrow to you...”

Now, where did Nanny West hear him referred to as Thomas? The episode makes a point of the fact that nannies do not as a rule spend much time with the downstairs staff—and even if they did, not many of the downstairs crew call Thomas “Thomas” on a regular basis. Nor do the upstairs folks...with one notable exception. Tom, who has to be reminded by Thomas in 4.3 to address him as “Barrow” (more on that later), routinely messes up names and titles.

To me, this suggests that Tom and Thomas are still talking, and it’s pretty clear from Thomas’s attentions to Sybbie in the episode that it would have been easy for Nanny West to overhear it in that context. Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re still seeing each romantically, but the “Mr. Barrow TO YOU” element implies that the correction was NOT made to whoever Nanny West heard using the name (we presume it’s Tom)...and the distinction is that Nanny West does not *get* to call him that! It definitely seems like whoever she grabbed the name from has been granted permission to do that, and she Has Not. And if it’s Tom...well.

So does that mean that Thomas and Tom were done by 4.3, when Thomas DOES correct Tom on his title? Not exactly...

4.3/4.4–The House Party (pre July 1922)

(tw on this section for discussions involving sexual assault)

The party features Edna’s schemes and assault on Tom in order to extract a promise of marriage from him. It also features a Tom who is incredibly vulnerable and entirely out of his element with the introduction of the Crawley’s friends. This is somewhat of a contrast from the Tom of the first two episodes, who stands up to Robert several times to intervene on Mary’s behalf, and even ropes Carson into the mission. It feels, for a moment, that despite Matthew’s death Tom has taken up the challenge presented to him at the end of Season 3 and begun seeing himself as a valuable, contributing member of the household and family.

But here, Tom speaks of himself as a fool, as walking a tightrope, and of not being understood. He relies on alcohol to get through the event, which Edna takes advantage of—and which gives us a Tom/Thomas interaction that speaks to, in my opinion, a continuing relationship (although perhaps an altering one):

Now, if I had to guess, I would say that Tom might be less *keen* than usual, given his overall demeanor and the new scrutiny placed on him by Edna coming back to the house (not to mention the house party itself). It’s very possible there’s been a lull between the two of them as of late. I do not believe, however, that there is evidence of a clear break between Tom and Thomas as of the house party.

For one, Tom doesn’t just say the wrong thing when addressing Thomas in the drawing room—he says, “Thomas, would you get me a drink for God’s sake?” That is Not how he talks to him in the Christmas Special, where he is stilted and uncomfortable and concerned about how the words will be taken. He isn’t worried about any of that, and while Thomas corrects him, he doesn’t seem all that bothered by it. Tom’s look of irritation at the correction isn’t overdone either.

“It’s Barrow now,” also has flexible meanings. Of course it literally is what Tom is supposed to call him now...but “now” seems like a weird word to use when it’s been what Thomas is meant to be called for several years. It could be a post-breakup smackdown, but we’ve seen what those look like in the Christmas Special, and this doesn’t feel like that! I believe, rather, that Thomas is making reference to the fact that it is incorrect at that moment, something Tom should know and has been discussed!!!

The house party has both of them overworked and tense (this is also the time where Thomas has to fill in for Jimmy because Jimmy hurt his hand...which is SO ridiculous if you think about it for more than two seconds), but Edna’s transgression still draws Thomas’s attention

And that’s important! Thomas had been friends with Edna until this point, largely for convenience it seems—she is a new lady’s maid, and she can feed him information. Thomas even worked with her to mess with Anna, who had earlier made a comment to Edna about his intentions in befriending her. There’s a bond forming there, and while I don’t believe Thomas would genuinely support the literal details of Edna’s plot, I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that he would be Opposed to Edna taking advantage of what she would frame as an indiscretion on Tom’s part. Not if he disliked Tom or was predisposed to believe Tom was at fault (ie: someone who expects to be “waited on Hand and Foot while he decides what Might Please Him Next”).

But right away, Thomas is suspicious the morning after. We see Thomas spying on Edna as she corners Tom, and he specifically brings it up to her later to catch her out. Already his tone is soured where she’s concerned. He’s sensed she’s up to something and he can probably guess the vague idea if not the particulars...and it turns him against her almost instinctively.

So what’s that about? Could it just be jealousy? The thing is, we know what Thomas would do if he believed that Edna and Tom were simply having an affair—we see what happens in the S4 Christmas Special with Sarah Bunting. This isn’t like that at all. 

Thomas immediately blames Edna for what’s happened, calling her a manipulative little witch and declaring that he’s delighted her plans didn’t work. There’s no question of Thomas’s loyalties, even though Edna assumes he’ll want to “keep in with” her. Not for one second does he appear to consider this, and that seems to distinguish this incident from later ones.

4.5/4.6–What Are These Episodes (pre-July 1922)

There isn’t a lot to remember about these episodes for Tom or Thomas, and so what people may not remember is that these are the episodes Tom starts floating the idea of leaving for America—a full season before he tries starting that conversation again, and over two years before he actually DOES temporarily move to Boston. Now, that kind of decision takes time, but it’s kind of...strange that he begins making it here in the spring of 1922 and will not seriously consider it again until well into 1924!

Whether this has anything at all to do with Thomas can’t be determined, but I do enjoy hearing Tom say it will be impossible for him to marry anyone at Downton because an upper class woman won’t have him, and would an “nice Irish working class girl” make everyone “comfy?”...and Thomas is standing Right There! What does it mean...

Thomas is also getting more paranoid, he’s got Baxter in the house feeding him information...and he’s generally giving off a different vibe than he has all season. 

Here is where I think the connection is starting to see some serious cracks—Tom is realizing he doesn’t belong and is making moves to change that. Meanwhile, Thomas is making moves to ensure Nothing Ever changes without him knowing about it ahead of time! Tension abounds, though we don’t see any evidence of it being directed at each other just yet...

4.7/4.8–Interesting and Modern (July 1922)

Thomas goes to America and Tom meets Miss Bunting...weird how that just happened like that!

Thomas is excited to go to New York, and it seems...pretty clear he fucked while he was there. I think if you’re gay and you go to New York in the 1920s and you come back and all you can tell your coworkers is that it was “interesting and modern” you definitely were not doing anything you can actually talk about

Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that he and Tom are Done (they may not have ever been exclusive on paper), but the overall feeling from Tom is a dejected man in limbo...he can’t even say he’s a Socialist anymore. It’s not going well. So my inclination is to say that Tom hit pause (maybe not for the first time), and Thomas is dealing with it by getting some in New York (great!) and bullying his coworkers (bad!) So why do I think they weren’t totally done at that time? Because these episodes happen in the summer of 1922...the Christmas Special for S4 takes place in May of 1923. That’s a long time to have passed! A long time for Tom to keep Miss Bunting at arm’s length, a long time for Thomas to be fuming over something...I believe that in the Christmas Special what we are seeing is the last stand of two people who are grappling with finally cutting a fraying thread.

Another Look At The S4 Christmas Special

These scenes are truly some of the most incomprehensible things Downton Abbey ever presented to us with virtually no explanation.  So let’s take another look at what’s happening here.  

First of all, we have the scene with Tom and Thomas entering the house after sending Edith off and leaving Tom offically on his own--they don’t appear openly hostile, though there’s some tense looking when the other person isn’t and looking back down again when they are energy...but nothing egregious. 

Not until we see Thomas slam down a tray, that is. In fact, this whole thing seems to be coming from Thomas’s anger, while Tom appears eager to just smooth it over by not causing trouble and following the rules set forth by the household norms. This seems in line with Tom’s general dispositon--with both Edna and Miss Bunting he tries to ease out rather than break things off. 

 But Thomas interprets this as dismissive, and while he says to Ivy it’s about their positions in the house...as discussed above this really doesn’t logically check out. I do think it irritates him that Tom is essentially avoiding Thomas because it’s what “pleases him,” but it runs deeper than “he used to be the chauffeur.” Because that was always the case. 

And then Tom brings Miss Bunting back without telling anyone, and he takes her upstairs. And this makes Thomas INSANE, and Tom knows IMMEDIATELY that it will! And Tom is eager to assure “Mr. Barrow” that nothing happened (actually, what he’s really eager to do is have Thomas not stand there while he eats, but Thomas is not budging). 

Thomas is furious. He’s said to Ivy that he is SICK of this man, he’s tired of dealing with him...and then he tries to get Tom to sit next to him the car? 

Thomas stole a dog one time, and I still think this might be his wildest attempt at controlling a situation we see on the show. What is going on? If Tom HAD let him sit in the back, would Thomas have still gone to Lord Grantham about Miss Bunting? If Thomas hadn’t been such a jerk about Miss Bunting, would Tom have LET him? What is poor Ivy even processing this as? Am I the only one hearing Taylor Swift’s Better Than Revenge playing? 

Thomas acts immediately on coming to London, dropping the line of “Mr. Branson is stil a young man, and he can’t be expected to stay single forever”...he’s Angry Angry!! If they were on a break before, I don’t think it had fully set in for Thomas that it might be Permanent until now. And I think Tom’s newly avoidant personality we see in other scenarios gave him the wrong impression in this respect.

In Summary

I think that the relationship was relatively “on” from the period of September 1921 through whenever the house party took place. The house party caused some huge issues, mostly for Tom (understandably)—he may have unfairly blamed himself for what happened and drew wrongful parallels to what’s happening with Thomas. I think that after that it was very “off,” but I believe that neither Thomas nor Tom really committed to ending it either...and when we see them in 1923 they are in the peak stages of finally facing the end of things.

So what caused the final shift? Perhaps Thomas came back from New York with expectations, expectations Tom found himself intimidated by. Perhaps Thomas’s increasing paranoia and Tom’s growing agnosticism towards his own beliefs and identity are related and fed off of each other until they both just did not like the person they were seeing! Maybe it’s just that Downton Abbey is a really bad place for both of them, and even though they started off trying to protect each other from that, they got sucked in and turned on each other!

In any case, by Season 5 the romantic relationship appears over for good, though there is some evidence in later episodes that Tom and Thomas settled down a bit over time (Thomas defending Tom in S5 at Brancaster, and Tom saying he hates goodbyes in reference to Thomas). 

We will just have to see what happens when they realize they both are dating someone new, and they work together too :)