#those are examples of ethical influence

[frailsituation]

Tips for writing internal conflict

1. Define the Core Dilemma

• Internal conflict occurs when a character faces a choice or emotional struggle within themselves. This dilemma should challenge their values or identity.

• How? The struggle should feel deeply personal and tied to the character’s motivations.

• Example: A character who values independence but must rely on others in a life-or-death situation.

2. Make it tied to their core values

• The conflict should challenge what the character holds dear—whether it’s their morals, desires, or goals.

• How? The inner conflict should push the character to re-evaluate their beliefs and priorities.

• Example: A soldier torn between duty and personal ethics, forced to choose between following orders and doing what’s right.

3. Amplify with external consequences

• Link internal conflict to external consequences that impact the character and those around them. The choices they face should have significant repercussions.

• How? Show how the character’s internal conflict influences their decisions in the real world.

• Example: A character haunted by guilt must choose whether to admit their past mistakes, risking their career and relationships.

4. Show the pressure building over time

• Internal conflict intensifies when it’s compounded by time, increasing stakes, or mounting external pressure.

• How? Create scenes where the character feels the weight of their choices growing heavier with every passing moment.

• Example: A character whose addiction threatens to ruin their life, struggling to break free but tempted by old habits every day.

5. Conflict arises from competing desires

• Internal conflict often stems from having two equally strong desires that cannot coexist.

• How? Put your character in situations where they must choose between these desires, both of which seem vital.

• Example: A character torn between pursuing their dream job across the country or staying to care for a dying parent.

6. Explore their fears and insecurities

• Internal conflict can also be driven by the character’s deepest fears or insecurities, which affect their actions and decisions.

• How? Fear of failure, rejection, or loss can prevent them from acting, making every decision feel like a battle.

• Example: A character who has been hurt before refuses to let anyone in, even though they deeply crave connection.

7. The power of self-sabotage

• Let the character’s internal conflict lead to self-sabotage. They may avoid decisions or create obstacles to protect themselves from facing their own feelings.

• How? Show how the character's fear or internal resistance undermines their progress.

• Example: A character constantly pushes away someone they care about because they fear their own vulnerability.

8. Use internal dialogue to show the battle

• Let readers hear the character’s internal struggle through thoughts, doubts, or justifications. Internal dialogue can make the conflict feel more immediate and real.

• How? Keep the internal dialogue sharp, reflective, and in line with the character’s voice.

• Example: “I want to tell them the truth, but what if they leave? Can I really risk that?”

9. Drive change through resolution

• The internal conflict should lead to growth or change in the character. They should evolve, learn, or make peace with their internal struggle.

• How? The resolution should feel earned and reflect the character’s journey.

• Example: A character who fears commitment learns to trust and embrace vulnerability in the face of love.

10. Let it affect the bigger picture

• The resolution of internal conflict should impact the story’s larger arc, showing how the character’s inner change leads to progress or a new direction.

• How? The resolution should tie back to the theme and forward momentum of the plot.

• Example: A character who learns to forgive themselves is able to take the final step in reconciling with a loved one, mending broken relationships.

Follow for more!

[avelera]

Viktor and Jayce both need to take some non-STEM classes

I'm joking but also a little not-joking that this is in fact, a theme in the show.

In Season 1.08, Ambessa meets Jayce for the first time after he's become a councilor. One of the first questions she asks him is, "Do they teach military history at your Academy, Mr. Talis?"

Jayce takes this as a set up for an insult against him. He's rattled by the bathhouse and braced for a fight. He's so riled, in fact, that he completely misses what Ambessa is probing him for there.

Ambessa wasn't setting him up to make him feel small, like Jayce feared, she wanted to know if he had a military history background or even the beginnings of the skills needed as an engineer to understand or counter some of the political manipulations she's about to pull on him.

Jayce answers: I'm not sure.

Not only has Jayce never taken a military class, he as a scientist doesn't even know if his school offers it.

That made him easy pickings for Ambessa. She wouldn't even need to be subtle, she could use the most basic tricks in the book against a proud young man with only a scientific background and know he wouldn't even begin to have the tools to pick up let alone counter what she's doing to him.

And then we get to Viktor in S2. Now, I think "How much of Cult Leader Viktor is even Viktor?" is a fair question. But the whole Machine Herald ethos he seems to be working towards in his inner monologue in 2.06 is yet another example of "Won't someone PLEASE make these boys take some sort of liberal arts class? An ethics course? SOMETHING?"

Viktor is working his way (Hexcore influence or no) to the conclusion that many frustrated young activists have hit upon when their activism doesn't work.

He tried to help people. But people didn't want to be helped or didn't cooperate with the way he wanted to help them.

His conclusion? Clearly it's the people who are wrong. It's the people who need to be changed.

To quote Pratchett, "“People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn't that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people.”

And of course, once you start to see people as the problem, that people need to be fundamentally changed, added, or subtracted from, when you treat people as things, that is when the real evil begins.

You have to accept people as they are and work within those bounds, because otherwise you have to change people and that pretty much always leads to the sort of atrocities that the Machine Herald seems gearing up to do. Namely, add and subtract away the people, or the characteristics of people, that don't fit his vision for the world.

And all I can think is: won't Piltover Academy please for the love of god make your tech bros take some goddamn history and philosophy classes please??

[astra-ravana]

Combat Magick: The Art Of Mystical Warfare

Combat magick is the practice of using metaphysical and energetic techniques for defense, offense, and strategic advantage in spiritual or psychic conflicts. It blends elements of protection, attack, and counterattack, often drawing upon personal will, energy manipulation, and ritual magick to influence outcomes in battles—whether physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual.

Principles of Combat Magick

• Energetic Warfare – Combat magick works by manipulating energy to shield, attack, or neutralize threats. Practitioners learn to harness their own energy and direct external forces to achieve victory.

• Intent and Willpower – A strong will is essential in combat magick. The practitioner's intent determines whether their spells are defensive, retaliatory, or aggressive.

• Cleverness and Intellect - When it comes right down to it, your mind is the single best weapon in your arsenal. The practitioner should possess a some level of mental prowess before attempting combat magick.

• Ethical Considerations – While some use combat magick for self-defense, others employ it for baneful purposes. Some witches mayfollow guidelines such as the Threefold Law or personal codes of conduct that forbid the use of such workings.

Forms of Combat Magick

Defensive Magick (Shielding & Warding):

• Shielding: Creating energetic barriers around oneself or others to deflect attacks (psychic, emotional, spiritual).

• Warding: Placing protective symbols, sigils, or enchanted objects around spaces to prevent intrusion.

• Cleansing & Banishing: Removing negative influences through smoke cleansing, salt, sound, or sacred words.

Offensive Magick (Curses & Hexes):

• Curses & Hexes: Directing harmful energy toward an opponent to weaken, confuse, deter, or harm them.

• Energy Manipulation: Sending concentrated bursts of energy to disrupt an enemy’s balance.

• Elemental Combat: Calling upon fire, water, air, or earth to aid in magickal attacks.

Counterattacks & Reversal Magick:

• Mirror Spells (Return to Sender): Reflecting an attack back to it's source.

• Unbinding & Curse Breaking: Severing unwanted energetic ties or removing hostile spells.

• Reversal Magick: Redirecting negativity away from oneself and sending it elsewhere.

Tools & Techniques Used in Combat Magick

• Sigils & Symbols – Used for protection, strength, or attack. Examples include Algiz (protection), Mars glyphs (aggression).

• Herbs & Crystals – Protective plants like blackthorn, vervain, or dragon’s blood; stones like obsidian, hematite, or black tourmaline. Baneful components include herbs like datura, calamus, belladonna or Spanish moss and stones like opal, sardonyx, and garnet.

• Blood & Personal Energy – Some warriors of the craft may infuse spells with personal essence or their own blood to strengthen the magick.

• Chanting & Incantations – Words of power can amplify intent and activate spells more effectively.

• Astral Combat – Fighting in the spiritual realm through visualization, dream work, or projection. This can help you catch your target in a vulnerable position and quickly gain the upper hand.

Who Uses Combat Magick?

• Witches & Sorcerers – Those who practice both light and dark magick for protection or justice.

• Psychic Warriors & Energy Workers – Individuals who engage in spiritual defense against negative entities or forces.

• Shamans & Spirit Walkers – Practitioners who deal with hostile spirits or supernatural threats as well as those performing exorcisms.

• Chaos Magicians – Those who employ sigils, servitors, and energy constructs for their warfare.

Combat magick is not for the faint of heart—it requires discipline, mastery of energy work, and deep self-awareness. While it can be a powerful tool for protection and justice, it should always be wielded with wisdom and responsibility. Whether defending against psychic attacks or engaging in mystical battles, combat magick remains an essential part of the spiritual warrior’s arsenal.

[botanicalsword]

Astrological placement - Indicator for Entrepreneurs

In today’s landscape, personal branding, self-promotion, and networking have become significantly more accessible, thanks to the metaverse. 

We find ourselves interconnected in myriad ways; however, this connectivity often leads to a self-centered focus, where the aspiration to become influencers and promote our own products and services takes precedence.

Yet, we must not overlook the essence that establishing a successful business requires strong networks (11th House). This means delivering real value to those who engage with our services while simultaneously addressing their emotional, physical, and practical needs and desires.

Businesses are constantly seeking new ways to engage with their audience.

Some examples of digital business that related to the astrological placements:

Impressions (Venus, 1st House, Chart ruler)

Engagement (7th House, 11th House, Mercury)

Content creating (Mercury, 3rd House, 9th House)

Storytelling (Mercury, 3rd House, 4th House, 5th House, Neptune, Uranus)

Digital marketing strategy (Uranus, Jupiter, 9th House, 11th House)

Metrics eg. engagement, click-through rates, conversion (Saturn, 2nd House, 10th House)

Cultivating an entrepreneurial mindset is important for navigating this journey.  To thrive as an entrepreneur, one must be decisive and possess a holistic perspective. Without an open mind and a sharp, analytical approach, it becomes increasingly challenging to realize their vision and achieve lasting success.

✧

Indicator for Entrepreneurs

Certain astrological houses play a pivotal role:

1st house - the self and self-awareness - with prominent placement, they often resist being controlled by others, thriving instead on independence.

8th house  - resources and financing - the ability to leverage others' resources or collaborate in business endeavors.

10th house - career aspirations and the broader vision necessary for success. Entrepreneurs must possess a grand perspective to navigate their ventures effectively.

✧ Some key astrological indicators for aspiring entrepreneurs:

Strong10th House (Sun/ Moon in 10th House / 10th House Stellium) - strong drive for success and a deep desire to achieve - find entrepreneurship more appealing than traditional employment

10th House ruler in 1st House - a powerful ambition - Those with influential planets in their chart often strive for independence in their careers, leading to a respected and prestigious professional life - Leadership roles may also suit you well

1st House ruler in 10th House - highly ambitious, with dreams of fame and success. Your ideas or decision may frequently revolve around becoming a business owner and achieving personal recognition.

Saturn in the 1st House - face challenges in life but possess a strong sense of responsibility. Through relentless effort and determination, they strive to prove their worth to the world. With their unwavering willpower and diligent work ethic, achieving success is almost inevitable.

Strong 8th House (Sun, Moon, Venus, Jupiter / 8th House Stellium) - an ability to access resources easily - excel in securing funding and attracting investments, which can significantly enhance their chances of entrepreneurial success.

Strong 11th House / 11th House Stelium - strong social connections and a supportive network - with good relationships and abundant resources, you’ll find that others are eager to assist you in your endeavors.

>> Career • work a job or start a business? ✧ Natal Chart Observation >> Career • A Sudden Change - What Happens Next? ✧ Solar Return / Lunar Return >> Career • Indicators for your potential and talents (Part 1) >> Career • Indicators for your potential and talents (Part 2)

>> Back to Masterlist ✧ Explicit Content

Exclusive access : Patreon

[katblaze]

Ella focused post-canon long post ahead:

I like the idea of Tadius having to reign Ella in when she has a mean streak towards particular peasants who had perpetuated her abuse in the past. The peasants who verbally and physically taunted/abused her. The people who disregarded her pleas and distress, writing it off as madness, violently sending her back to her abusers just to get her out of their sight. Because her circumstance and uncleanliness was uncomfortable to be around. Maybe she can't stand to be cordial or impartial to the very same people who she watched drag her mother into the square. Or maybe, at her lowest, she says some unpleasant things about all peasantry, flippantly stereotypes them in a moment of temper. Let's her trauma blossom into rage, into a simmering desire (not necessarily action, mind you) for petty cruelty.

We see her deconstruct a lot of her (admittedly not crazy large) bias against peasant and servantry in the show; this being easier for her to accomplish because she was forced into servitude and squalor herself. For example, one of the first things she jabs at Tadius with is his rank as a servant. She establishes her status and her power over his well-being, potentially his life (and this is important for us to see for her character! this is the first time we see her so confident in her dialog in the show. she is finally reclaiming the autonomy, power, and safety she lacked for potential years, even if this isn't "perfect victim" or kind behavior). This threat could easily have been genuinely fear inducing for Tadius if he hadn't perceived her comment as banter/wit (or he, at the very least, thought she couldn't do anything to him as the prince's right hand servant because she's not from a reputable house). But later, we see her call Tadius "a good man" instead of "a good servant", signifying her growth. She acknowledges where she went wrong in the past and asserts Tadius's position as an equal. Textbook character development.

She also originally vows to the fairy godmother to take vengeance only on those who deserve it, who have taken everything from her and seek to destroy more. She makes clear that her blood lust is for specifically her step family (edit: if Justine and Lucy represent Ella's core values and dreams then Justine establishing kindness to those socially lower to them as an admirable trait makes a whole lotta sense for Ellas character going foward). Hell, she is said to be a good queen by the whole kingdom, implying the peasants favor her rule after she's gained it. She is known by all for her kindness and love which is carried out just as fiercely as her justice.

Does this mean she doesn't have low points? Does this mean that at her lowest Tadius doesn't need to council her and advice her against her (valid, but potentially unfair) anger? That she doesn't let her new found power make it so that, at times, she speaks down to those she deems morally lesser (and could that perception of who is lesser, by this measurement, be influenced by class bias/her past peasant inflicted abuse)? Ella's main character motivation is vengeance in the show, even if her morals are steadfast throughout, I think it would be an interesting conflict between Ella's own ethic values vs. her (again, valid) trauma-induced feelings/vitriol, and how that conflict influences her decisions not only as queen, but interpersonally.

This could also lead to some great tension between Ella and Tadius (who are at this point good friends, partners, or at the VERY least close coworkers). With some communication Tadius would be given better insight into Ella's past, interworkings, and decision making. It would also grant Ella an outlet to talk about all this awful shit that happened to her and how it comes back to affect and shape her presently.

Not to mention Tadius's own trauma regarding aristocrats who belittle their subjects. Maybe at her most cruel (aka in a very bad emotional state) Tadius becomes clinical and emotionally disconnected, just as he was with the prince? Unconsciously or not, sinks back into giving stony irritated advice and doesn't talk to Ella in their normal affable manner for the rest of the day, or longer. Maybe it takes them a while to get to the point of healthy communication because of both of their past isolation (ella is purposely isolated by her supposed "madness" and has no one to talk to, she is overjoyed to vent to a literal frog + no one recognized tadius's wit before ella, implying he is not close enough with anyone for them to know who he is personally) makes it difficult for them to talk in a productive manner at first.

(I do not mean to say this is the only interpretation of Ella's character or the headcanons you should adopt post-cc. Maybe Ella never let's these internal biases (that I've picked up on) influence how she treats her subjects/how she rules. Or, shes developed and grown entirely past them. Maybe Ella and Tadius never have this kind of conflict between them. This is also tackling a very specific negative trait I enjoy exploring, which I personally could see presenting itself in Ella post-canon. I love her. I don't doubt she is a great queen who rules with the working class's benefit, along with the rich's detriment, in mind (in fact, I definitely like to believe she does). I just really like characters having character flaws, even if they are a good person, even if they are the hero, and even past their happily ever after)

[oakheartedmuse]

The Rise of a Tyrant

A Literary Analysis of "The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes"

So, for those who don't know (no one knows), I graduated in Modern Languages and Literature, which makes me someone who loves analyzing texts!

And, in honor of me returning to the Hunger Games fandom (and also because I'm re-reading TBOSAS), it's only fair that I contribute my two cents to the analysis of this simply wonderful book (or maybe I just wanted an excuse to post Tom, who knows?).

Forgive any inconsistency and follow me under the cut!

Coriolanus Snow and his Deformative Formation

As a start, here's a concept: the Bildungsroman, also known as “Formative Novel” (is this right? the name is different in my native language. anyways, let’s call it like that). This is a literary genre that narrates the physical, moral, psychological, and social development of a protagonist from youth to maturity. It is characterized by a journey of self-discovery, confrontation with social norms, and eventual integration — or alienation — from society.

In The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, Suzanne subverts this traditional model by portraying the youth of Coriolanus Snow, offering a narrative of moral "deformation" instead of ethical formation.

(For some reason, this reminds me of The Picture of Dorian Gray, but we'll leave that for another day).

So, we get to know Coriolanus Snow, an eighteen-year-old student from a once influential but impoverished family, who reveals early on an obsession with appearance and social prestige. This need for affirmation arises not only as a reflection of his material circumstances but also as a manifestation of deep insecurity. His initial motivation is clear: to restore the Snow name and ensure a dignified future for himself, and his role as a mentor in the 10th Hunger Games appears as the ideal opportunity to achieve notoriety and ascension.

However, his relationship with Lucy Gray introduces a profound tension between two conflicting impulses: an apparent capacity for genuine affection and an insatiable drive for ambition. This relationship becomes a pivotal element in his journey, as it forces him to confront his emerging values and navigate a labyrinth of moral dilemmas. His bond with her initially appears as a vulnerability, a rare connection that contrasts with the cold, calculated demeanor he often displays. Yet, as the story unfolds, it becomes evident that even this personal connection is not immune to the corrosive effects of his growing thirst for power.

Good, Evil, and What Resides Between

At this point, it is interesting to analyze Snow's trajectory in the light of the theories of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, authors cited in the book's epigraph (Suzanne, you genius).

For Hobbes, human nature is essentially selfish and driven by fear and the desire for power. That is, man, left to his natural state, lives in a condition of war by all against all, requiring absolute authority to ensure order and avoid chaos. Rousseau, on the other hand, sees humans as originally good but corrupted by society and its institutions — social inequality being, for him, an artificial malaise.

Snow's evolution seems to increasingly embody a Hobbesian view of existence. Through contact with the harsh realities of the Games and the districts — especially during his time as a Peacekeeper in twelve — Snow concludes that chaos is always lurking, and absolute control is the only way to ensure stability.

Influenced by Dr. Gaul, a figure who embodies a cynical and authoritarian philosophy (the perfect representation of Hobbes' theory), Snow adopts the idea that humanity needs to be governed with an iron fist (an ideology elaborated exhaustively in Hobbes' "Leviathan"). Thus, every choice he makes points to a progressive rejection of any Rousseauian idealism.

However, it is possible to argue that Snow can also be read in the light of Rousseau's theory, as a tragic example of a young man who could have followed a virtuous path but was corrupted by the oppressive institutions and structures of Panem. His initial empathy for Lucy Gray, his discomfort with the cruelties of the Games, and his feeling of helplessness in the face of the social degradation of the districts reveal a moral potential that is gradually suffocated by the demands of survival and the influence of figures like Dr. Gaul. In this sense, Snow was not born evil — he was deformed by a system that rewards cynicism, manipulation, and blind obedience to authority. Such a reading brings him closer to Rousseau's ideal of a human being originally good but who, subjected to an unjust society, becomes corrupt.

The final episode with Lucy Gray, marked by paranoia and the impulse to eliminate potential threats to his future, symbolizes the final collapse of his empathy. His transformation is complete: upon returning to the Capitol, he is no longer a young man torn between love and ambition, between good and evil, but someone who has chosen power as the supreme value. This turn signals to the birth of the future President Snow and marks the apex of an inverted formative novel — a journey of moral degradation, in which the protagonist moves away from emotional authenticity and adheres to a logic of domination.

Don't Trust Him, Not Ever

Furthermore, the choice of an omniscient third-person narrator, focused on Coryo, is also an influencing feature that distinguishes the prequel from the original Hunger Games trilogy and from SOTR, narrated in the first person by Katniss and Haymitch. This formal difference is not merely stylistic but reflects distinct narrative intentions. While the first person promotes empathetic identification with the protagonist-victim, the third person allows for a more distanced analysis of the future antagonist and the political context of the formation of Panem's totalitarian regime.

Despite the omnipresence of the narrator, the focus on Coriolanus' thoughts and perceptions introduces a subtle degree of subjectivity. The narrative reveals his self-deceptions, rationalizations, and manipulations, allowing the reader to perceive the discrepancy between what Snow believes and what actually occurs. This narrative technique maintains a critical distance that prevents complete emotional adherence to the protagonist but at the same time provides enough access to his inner world to understand him as both a product — and agent — of a system in transformation (and degradation).

While Katniss and Haymitch, with their limited and biased perspectives, are seen as unreliable narrators, their legitimate suffering inspires empathy and solidarity. Coriolanus, on the other hand, despite the apparent objectivity of the narrator, reveals himself as a biased filter that deliberately distorts events. Suzanne, therefore, brilliantly manipulates the narrative voice to create a balance between proximity and criticism, reinforcing the complexity of the protagonist.

In Conclusion...

Snow’s trajectory offers a powerful subversion of the traditional novel, revealing not the moral ascent of a hero but the making of a tyrant. The tension between Hobbesian and Rousseauian views of human nature serves as a theoretical backdrop to understand the protagonist's choices. Contrary to Rousseau's ideal of a naturally virtuous human being corrupted by society, Snow embodies, as a result of his own mind manipulated by power structures above him, Hobbes' belief that absolute power is necessary to contain humanity's latent barbarism — a view that justifies authoritarianism as a means of preventing social collapse.

Still, an alternative Rousseauian reading should not be discarded: Snow could have been different, were it not for the pressures of a system that rewards opportunism and penalizes compassion. He had the option. He chose not to. His moral downfall is also a commentary on how institutions shape — and often destroy — human potential for good.

By articulating this degeneration through a carefully constructed third-person narrative, Suzanne not only enriches the dystopia we love so much but also casts a dark and critical eye on the mechanisms of power and the ways in which ambition can devour morality.

So, Coriolanus is not just a villain: he is a disturbing reflection of a system based on fear, control, and the deliberate loss of empathy.

Here I leave my biggest shout out to this marvelous, incredible and awestruck meta made by @hamliet, which inspired me to make mine. Kate, you nailed it! ♥︎

[rebeccathenaturalist]

Today I present to you not one but TWO examples of selfish people who keep treating wildlife like pets. The first shows the consequences of their actions; the second is a tragedy waiting to happen once that deer becomes aggressive and that poor kid ends up injured or worse, or the deer has to be euthanized.

The proliferation of "cute wildlife" pictures and videos showing people in very close contact with wildlife has led to the expectation on the part of many people that they, too, can get their Disney moment as a "wildlife whisperer". Unfortunately this leads to more people trying to force contact with wildlife on their own terms with no care for the impact on the animal or their own safety.

While habituated wild animals are generally more tolerant of human contact, they are absolutely NOT domesticated. Domestication is a long process that leads to significant physical and mental changes in a lineage of animals until they are a separate subspecies/species from their wild progenitors; a dog is not a wolf, a domesticated cat is not an African wildcat, a cow is not an aurochs, and so forth. A wild animal may be tamed to a certain extent, but it is still fundamentally wild and has wild instincts and behaviors.

They do not have a desire to be around humans bred into them the way domestic species do, and any habituation is at their own expense. Habituated animals often do not learn proper foraging or hunting skills, particularly if they were raised by habituated parents, they don't get to socialize with their own species and are less likely to successfully reproduce, which can affect the local population's gene pool, and they are more likely to be injured or killed when they come into conflict with humans due to their lack of fear of us.

The absolute selfishness that leads people to want to force wildlife to tolerate them for their own ego boost robs these animals of their autonomy and wild lives. And it is selfishness; we do this because WE want the animals to like us and entertain us, not because we care about their long-term well-being. Those who actually care about a wild animal's quality of life look at the negative impacts of feeding them improper food, habituating them to humans, and interrupting their life's progression in the name of our own agendas. This is why good, ethical wildlife rehabs are as hands-off with their patients as possible, so that they minimize the chances of habituation and maximize the animal's wild instincts and behaviors for a more successful return to the wild.

It's not enough to choose to not feed or pet wildlife; we also have to criticize "rehabs" and "zoos" that make their money on up-close-and-personal direct physical encounters with wild animals, rehabbers that take pictures and videos of them cuddling with animals in their care (or any other contact outside of immediate medical/feeding support), and influencers who get clicks, likes, and shares by getting footage of them too close to wildlife. We also need to call out those "Oh, how cute!" pictures, posts, and news articles showing how humans and wildlife can be "friends", and keep educating people on how habituation is dangerous both to the animals and humans alike.

[fellshish]

I have a question, and my name is Sal.

I grew up watching Coraline as a kid. It was my jam. I loved that movie, and I will forever say Henry Selick deserved more attention for making it.

I like the Dresden Dolls and Evelyn Evelyn (Amanda Palmer projects) I still have the songs stuck in my head. You know where this is going.

I know you said that fans of works should still enjoy the work even if the creator sucks. And I can do that with Kubrick and Aaron Fechter, but that’s because Kubrick is dead, and most of Aaron Fechter’s IP got ripped away from him and is gladly in the hands of the public (despite how much he likes to sue).

Gaiman (and Palmer) are still alive and/or profiting off their stuff. Not to mention, I want to bring attention to the situation and help bring justice to the victims. Yet everytime I post about it or reblog what someone else put into words what I think, I feel like I’m virtue signalling.

How do I handle it and is it bad that I keep thinking of the art that influenced me by them instead of what they did (in a way to soften the blow to how horribly they abused these women)?

(You can respond to this publicly, as I am sure people are thinking the same thing somewhere. I am sorry for dumping all this on you.)

hi sal!

sorry, this got long. your ask was so genuine and i was afraid of getting it wrong. 

i want to start this off by saying i am not the boss of anyone’s fandom experience. everyone gets to decide for themselves how they proceed after learning about the numerous women who have come forward against neil gaiman.

the things you mention are things i’ve struggled with too — last year when i first learned about it, when i listened to the podcasts and recently again reading even more detailed (and horrifying) news reporting.

these are also struggles shared by many fans in many fandoms of creators who were accused and/or controversial and/or convicted. for example many (trans) people i know have grown up loving harry potter, and have had to deal with their favourite writer waging a vendetta against trans lives. some still participate in the hp fandom without supporting her. they can’t help their hyperfixation and still find a lot of good and a lot of friends in the fandom. 

because yes, i do believe that someone can stay in such a fandom as ethically as possible. as in: i try the best that i can to make sure no further financial gains go to the creator. that means i avoid watching official streams, buying official merch, going to official cons, going to plays based on his work etc. i also amplify the women’s voices by spreading the article. 

the thing to keep in mind is: there is a difference and a distance between a creator and a fandom of what they created. a huge wall even. fandom is about community, friendships, creativity, … i am on a playground playing with the characters with my friends. sharing art and fics and gifs etc. and what those characters and stories mean to me are positive things. 

the core is this: if you have to live your life only consuming art by morally pure people (and who determines that?!) then you will have very little left to enjoy. 

and of course i understand the urge to want to help the victims, and the guilt/worry about virtue signaling. i’m going to break those down separately.

i think the idea of ‘helping bring justice to the victims’ is good but it also puts an unreasonable amount of responsibility on your young shoulders. here’s what’s already happened: the women’s voices have been heard, there is now more widespread media covering, he has lost his reputation, hasn’t been on his platforms since last summer, he’s losing (film) projects of his work, … what else consequences are yet to come, legally or otherwise, we’ll have to see. the responsibility for that lies not with you as one single fan but with lawyers etc. and you might find it important to keep vigilant that the story doesn’t get buried (again). in that case reblogging isn’t virtue signalling but useful.

but it’s also unreasonable to expect someone to continually do that for days and days. that’s a quick ticket to depression. ultimately tumblr is, to many, a fandom space. some people use it only for pleasant fandom activities. and what if they do? you can’t know a person’s whole life: maybe they are survivors who are too triggered to participate, maybe they’ve donated to causes that help survivors, maybe they have shared the story on other platforms etc

you asked “is it bad that I keep thinking of the art that influenced me by them instead of what they did”, and i found that the most heartbreaking part of your ask. it isn’t helpful to you or to anyone to keep torturing yourself with guilt. you’re aware of the allegations, and that’s good. but don’t burn yourself out trying to live up to the impossible standard of a morally pure activist that doesn’t exist. please stop being your own thought police. 

i think the fact you struggle so deeply, shows what a beautiful person you are.

now you’re going to be reading a lot of opinions. some very different from mine. am i right in continuing in fandom? i don’t know. this is my first time living life too. but i AM right that you’re a good person.

that said: protect your heart. block freely and curate a fandom space that makes you happy. avoid engaging in endless internet discourse that is bad for your mental health. step away for a while if that is what you need.

these are some intense days but i promise it gets better. the kid who loved coraline can still love coraline, but is just more informed now. 

the main rule of fandom is: does it spark joy? if yes, embrace it, because that’s a wonderful and rare thing to have.

[maybe-boys-do-love]

SOTUS S: The Secret Four-Act of Love Between Us

Five episodes into SOTUS S, I wanted to cry. Nothing tragic had happened. The major plot climaxes were nowhere near. If I'm honest, I had felt pretty indifferent to the sequel series up to that point. Its more expensive production elements, relaxed pace, comedic sound queues, broader characterizations, and blatant callbacks to the original series seemed more akin to  cash-grabbing commercial projects that followed in SOTUS's wake. Some were fun and some fell flat, but those series lacked the show's layered writing or direction. By the end of episode 5, however, something shifted. It continued to surprise my narrative expectations from there on out, offering new ways to appreciate many other BL series due to the clarity of its formal structure. This review is my attempt to understand how and why. 

SOTUS S doesn’t primarily operate by the most prominent Western storytelling rules—the three act or five act structures that build toward a culminating conflict for a climax before an exhaustive resolution. Nor does SOTUS S make as much of an attempt to blend its structure in with the Western storytelling rules as its predecessor did. Instead, it’s a striking example of the Four-Act structure (from hereon: 4Act) that developed in China and spread to Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia as noted by @kimyoonmiauthor. It’s prominently used in Japan by manga, anime, novelists, and game creators under its Japanese name Kishotenketsu. If you’ve heard about “the three episode rule” in which you have to watch the first three episodes of an anime before passing judgment, that’s often unknowingly related to the principles of the 4Act structure. 

Rather than refer to the Kishotenketsu model here, however, I’d like to use the four parts as defined by the original Chinese poetic form in Adeline Bindra’s explanation for the Savanna Post:

Qi– Bringing into Being

Cheng– Understanding

Zhuan– Changing

He– Drawing Together

I’ve found these definitions more helpful for understanding than the Japanese terms and their English translations, like “introduction,” “twist,” “development,” etc, which have meanings in the Western tradition that differ from they’re use in the Asian narratives. 

Some caveats:

1. I’m an American just trying to figure this out from my own experiences with Asian media and others’ writings about the structure and cultures that utilize it. There’s a ton of Orientalism in writing about the subject of the 4Act structure, and I try my best, but I can’t promise I won’t accidentally slip into some of that rhetoric.

2. No single culture’s a monolith, so not every writer in the cultures will use these structures the same or at all, and the different cultures referenced here—Thai, Japanese, Chinese, Korean—also differ dramatically between one another, and so do their approaches to the 4Act. 

3. Cultures have been interacting and changing forever. Shakespeare included a reference to a Christianized translation of the Buddha’s story in Merchant of Venice, for one example. Asian influences have been a part of Western writing for a long time and vice versa. Western media’s pervasive throughout the world. Inevitably, you’ll see shared aspects from intermingling as well as convergent development. My goal is not to essentialize any people, culture, or story, only to isolate in this instance the feature of the 4Act in SOTUS, which has well-documented Asian roots. 

4. This is a narrative structure not a moral guide on how one should live life at all times. Some writers claim ethical, political, and philosophical implications for its use. However, you get to be the judge of when and how to use it in your perspectives as an audience, creator, and a human being just making it through in the world. 

5. Thai culture has its own specific traditions around this structure and other plot structures that I’m not focusing on here simply for lack of info in English. I’d love to hear more about that from others more knowledgeable than me. Is it taught in schools or writing classes? Does it relate to other Thai dramatic structures? I don’t have the answer, but my mind is inquiring to anyone who does!

6. As with all my posts, feel free to message me about or correct me on mistakes or add more context where I falter.

Hopefully in isolating and differentiating the 4Act model as much as possible from the Western model here, I can demonstrate the latter’s importance to SOTUS S and many other BLs. From here, I’ll try to do a side-by-side comparison of the elements of that 4Act structure with SOTUS S. Spoilers abound for SOTUS S along with several other BLs.

Qi: Bringing into Being 

Premiering in 2018, SOTUS S offered audiences one of the first examples that I know of a BL live-action  about an unequivocally established couple. That fact necessitates a model distinct from the traditional romantic arc you’d find in guides like Romancing the Beat by Gwen Hayes and graphed below by Jenna Harte. 

With an established couple, the whole first act of this three act structure is useless. Our pair already met and they like each other. We already watched them fight through this whole mountainous arc to achieve their romantic HEA (happily ever after for those unaware).

Here’s where our 4Act comes in. Qi, our first act, rather than setting up the characters with some spark the protagonist will have to deal with later on, focuses more heavily on establishing the environment the characters exist within. It's less pressed about setting its conflict into motion. As Jay Six explains helpfully in his self-published book, A Practical Guide to: Kishotenketsu, “The story often starts by establishing a detailed, richly textured world. This focus on observation allows readers to immerse themselves in the environment and the characters, setting up a deep connection with the narrative.” In SOTUS S, that means we get domestic fluff with gentle implications about Kongthob and Art sleeping together. We wander the campus to see Kongpob’s friends in the engineering faculty, now in their third year and in the position of hazers (distinct from the American concept for anyone who’s unfamiliar) to a new set of freshmen. We greet Arthit’s friends at the bar. Then, we follow Art to the new setting of an engineering firm where he’s beginning employment after an internship. You will be taken aback if you, like me, expected all of these characters and settings to be relevant to the action throughout the series. 

I have a brain trained to expect the beginnings of a story to provide a clear impetus for a central problem, as if the story ought to have an on-switch that starts the gears of the narrative turning. My first instinct when it became apparent SOTUS S had not done that was to ascribe the emergences and dissipations of certain elements at the university as service to fans of the original series—let them get a taste of the characters, coupledom, and little university scenes they loved before moving onto the meat of the plot. 

That’s a natural expectation when you’re used to stories focusing exclusively on conflict and individual power. Each piece of the story should link to their effort toward their goal. Bindra describes the ‘dharmic structure’ of the Western narrative arc: “The character is pursuing a specific Dharma, a ‘path’ or ‘way,’ toward a tangible end goal.” Whether they succeed or fail matters greatly under this framework. 

In opposition is the ‘Karmic structure,’ where characters “simply go about their lives until they are forced to react to some bizarre, unforeseen circumstance.” All the elements matter in the Karmic structure but not as a set of stairs the protagonist climbs or a steady accumulation of coins to pay off in the end. The general environment has a larger role to play and the individual has less responsibility in the events that unfold, which impacts the opening. Anaea Lay’s description explains the emphasis on thematic development in the beginning over a Western plot ignition.

“You are much less likely to run into an “inciting incident” or similar in this introduction than you would in an X-Act structure. Instead, what you’ll find are the themes and images the work will be using. You aren’t here to find out what kind of wild ride you’re about to engage in; rather, this is setting you up for what argument or ideas you’re about to witness.” 

That’s why anime fans have a three-episode rule before deciding on their engagement with a series. Those first three episodes have no obligation under the 4Act to indicate the adventure that’s about to occur. 

In the first episode we see Arthit stumble through a disorganized orientation to his first day at work, joining the procurement department at an engineering firm, a stepping stone towards a role at the company more suited to his interests. During an early meal out with his new coworkers, he misses the opportunity to share his relationship with his coworkers. His nervousness is palpable in the moment, and Krist shines in portraying Arthit’s acute anxiety realistically throughout the show. The fear of homophobic reactions isn’t made explicit, but the subtext can’t be ignored with the dramatic music, forlorn expression, and greater context. 

Yet, the show is generous enough to present a moment of possibility, too, where Art seems about to share about his partner before getting interrupted. Bravery isn’t a singular character trait, the scene suggests, but a fleeting feeling dependent on circumstance and luck. It renders the ‘coming out’ narrative that emerges for Art a bit different—less individual and insurgent than the classic western coming-out narrative in, say, The Birdcage or Love, Simon. He has legitimate interests in the appropriate setting, occasion, and timing to maintain positive relationships. He didn’t lack courage as much as he missed the proper moment. 

I’m not of any kind of Asian descent, but these were major values in my personal family culture. I only came out to my family once I had a partner and a cousin’s new same-sex partner came up in conversation at the dinner table. My family simply didn’t discuss internal emotional states, straight or queer, my parents didn’t kiss in public or in front of me and my sister, so bringing up a sexual identity without any outward indicator of my own sexuality didn’t make sense. 

And before anyone jumps to the conclusion that this was some deeper issue of generational repression, know that plenty of research backs up this collectivist-oriented relational style as a broader Appalachian cultural norm (which my family exists within). While no culture exists totally on one part of the spectrum, it like most East and Southeast Asian cultures gets categorized as a high context culture, which prioritizes interpersonal relationships and draws on less direct verbal and nonverbal communication strategies to artfully maintain them when possible. Further research, much of it collected in the fascinating book, Between Us: How Cultures Create Emotions by Batja Mesquita, frames psychological well-being not in a single universal way of interacting, but in interactions and understandings that align beneficially with one’s surrounding culture. 

“I’m working [at the company] already,” Arthit in bed advises Kongpob, “but I still have to learn to adapt.” There’s the crux of Arthit’s story in SOTUS S: how can he find proper alignment of his own unique characteristics to integrate himself within his new work culture, in a department he had little desire or skills to master? Protagonists in a 4Act are responsive rather than goal-oriented. With the same acknowledgement that you can’t control the circumstances you’re born into, they don’t have control over the problematic circumstances they are thrust into by the karmic plot. 

Arthit makes a great 4Act protagonist in SOTUS S. He isn’t the strict senior disciplinarian from the opening of the original series, nor is he the warm, open character healed by that show’s happy ending. The senior is now the nervous junior at the firm, eager to please and conform—these latter traits providing continuity with his original characterization. The junior, Kongpob, is now the authority, the head hazer at the university. These role-reversal topics were already thematically relevant in the first series, but SOTUS S makes them more explicit, bringing us into new territory and depicting an alternative view to linear character growth. 

Kim Yoon Mi describes both Japan and Korea introducing a story’s main topic (not to be confused with main conflict) in the first act of this structure and then developing it more deeply in the second, which SOTUS S seems to do. Each character and story element, including the protagonist, is a trickling mountain stream feeding into a larger river of theme rather than plot. In line with that metaphor, some of those elements will evaporate or branch off before reaching the deep reflective pool where the story concludes. We’ll come to see as we reflect back how solidly the show in its first act laid down its thematic foundations: the dynamics between memories of the past (like university life) with the press of time, the blurry lines between private and public, the formation and maintenance of relationships, the privileges of status, and all of them weighted by pervasive queer anxieties that the writing elegantly restrains itself from stating outright. The next act of the show elaborates on all of this, but not in the direct sort of development Western stories prioritize.

Cheng: Understanding

If viewed from the perspective of a three-act hero’s journey, the second act of SOTUS S runs into some major problems. Here’s a graphic from author Patricia Morais (that I particularly like for its regrouping dip) explaining that structure:

Under this model, we could maybe think of Arthit’s failure to come out to his coworkers as the central inciting incident that must be resolved by the end of the story. If you’d like to be more generous, we might instead identify the incident in episode 2 to identify Art’s tag-along meeting with his overly-friendly coworker, John, and a representative from one of their materials’ providers. Then, our main plot focuses around the eventual plastic crisis for the company as the main conflict that will need resolution. However, the fact of dual plotlines that never merge hopefully encourages you to question the familiar expectations of a three-act structure or hero’s journey. Otherwise, you’ll come away from the show believing a lot of fat could’ve been trimmed off in the editing process.

In episodes 2 through 5, SOTUS S has some elements on which action can rise toward a major climax point. John shirks work off onto Arthit over and over again, for example, and another coworker, Earth—who for me so far in my BL viewing is the most grounded female character I’ve seen, not to mention my favorite—slowly reveals her kind heart behind her diligence. On the relationship front, Ai-Oon is running himself ragged trying to balance his work and relationship, losing his patience with Kong at one point when he shows up to the company with a food delivery. 

But many other points don’t add to the plot the way they ought to for a hero’s journey. We get introduced to a few freshman, like Khaofang, whose crush on Kongpob gets gently denied, and Day, resistant to Kongpob’s enlightened initiation rituals, thus igniting the persistence of class president Tew. Neither of those freshman will contribute to the main plots for Kongpob and Arthit. On the faculty beach trip, now paired with tree-planting to skirt the stricter regulations, M and May finally confess their feelings percolating since last season for one another. After these confessions in episode 4 and a discussion of internships at the start of episode 5, they will not reappear until the last episode of the series.

So why include them? I showed charts for the Romance Plot and  3 Act structure above, but let’s look at a visualization of the 4Act from writing coach Anaea Lay.

You’ll notice some key differences. The line isn’t really progressing upward, for one. It also changes width in sections and even color by the end? I’ll discuss our squiggly twist and color change later, but for now let’s focus on our second act for cheng, Understanding, or “development” as the above chart has it.. We have this bold line emerge because the point of the second act, as Lay explains, is to create density, flesh out the topic, enrich it. 

Instead of building up a structure or walking up a mountain path and overcoming obstacles along the way, the cheng stage kneads the narrative into interlocking thematic explorations like the structure of gluten in bread dough. Japanese writers refer to it as ma, a kind of slow infusion through time and spaciousness. You can develop a 4Act narrative with intensification, sure, and that will appear pretty similar to the three-act development stage—I personally think Hunter x Hunter arcs provide fantastic examples of second-act intensification strategies in a kishotenketsu model, and The Campfire team do a fantastic job of explaining how the series, Shogun, uses the 4 Act with escalating pressure in this stage. Yet other strategies also exist. 

SOTUS S chooses to spread out its thematic question during this phase: to different plots, different people, even different times. Tew and Day, for example, who interact the least with our protagonists’ struggles out of any characters, nevertheless reiterate the values of persistence and faith as people develop ties. Despite Day’s overt resistance to the SOTUS rituals, Tew returns to him again and again, tuned into unstated signs of the freshman’s painful past, like his status as a transfer student, and subtle acts of participation in the events, indicating a secret desire for belonging. Art’s new coworkers provide another example of how much we truly know about others’ inner workings just based on first impressions. 

Perhaps the most direct evocation of the main thematic tension occurs not with KongArt, but with M and May who only receive episode 4 for their story. As the freshman walk across their wrists to go receive their gear emblems, May finally demands clarity for feelings simmering since 2016. I’ve slightly shortened the exchange for brevity.

May: “You never bother to tell me your feelings directly.” M: “Do I have to say it out and tell you to make you understand?” May: “I don’t want to assume things.” M: “What I said on the stage…I meant you.” “You know…what it means, right?” May: “I don’t know, M. You could think of me as a close friend.” M: Well, I…like you. I like you more than a close friend. I want to be your boyfriend. I told you my feelings directly. Now it’s your turn to tell me your feelings. May: Are you crazy? There are so many people here. How can I say it?

It’s gorgeous naturalistic dialogue, stuttering and ambiguous, between two reserved characters! Reducing them to their role in the main plot, however, would render the characters and scene meaningless. M and May simply don’t contribute to the issues at Ocean Electric or KongArt’s relationship. They're an indirect illustration of the show's themes.

Indirect communication is central to SOTUS S. We see Kong and Art, open to their friends and on campus but conflicted in how open to be with their affection in public, bridge the gap through indirect displays: a conversation about liking the sea! shared taxi rides! an indirect kiss they share on an Oishi bottle! These coded romantic encounters can be downright erotic. The West doesn’t even have the concept of an indirect kiss, which is emblematic of the kinds of context that one can miss. 

The show layers on reason-upon-reason for keeping affections nebulous: personal temperaments, professionalism, financial precarity, collective belonging, cultural mores on PDA, and societal homophobia, too. The show lays these issues out indirectly. For example, Art’s coworkers Som-O, Durian, and Cherry (the kind of lovely overtly queer character SOTUS did so well, played by Gun Korawit) all skirt the line of appropriate workplace conversations and behavior as they gossip and fawn over new employees. The tension of their flirtations against our knowledge about the fears and hidden relationships at the office is thick, but no one will really confront them directly about how close their speech and actions how they stress those in the closet, nor how close they come to sexual harassment.

Instead, other occurrences will cause them to reflect on behaviors. Cherry, for example,  addresses his own behavior and his subordinates’ after news about Arthit and Kongpob becomes public. Cultures with high-context communication approaches utilize actions, behaviors, and symbols to convey messages rather than verbal specificity, so passive statements and unrelated events are seen as more effective in encouraging behavior change than direct communication about the issue. That’s why the 4Act structure and the indirect elaboration of ideas that occurs in the second-act align culturally. It doesn’t force its issue on the audience.

The most indirect formal element from my perspective occurred with the use of the ‘special scenes’ at the end of each episode, and they fully blew my mind by the time I realized how they were operating. I assumed these flashback scenes to KongArt moments were meant to give the fan-girlies the cute moments between the cute boys and their throwbacks to the og series. That’s how they often seem to work in other BLs. Stupid me, underestimating the series and fan-girlies, whose desires can be as multifaceted as any film critic or academic. The flashbacks at the end of each episode, in addition to their sweetness, emphasize moments of public affection between our main couple, but even more than that they intentionally throw us back in time, breaking up the linear story and a linear trajectory for Arthit’s comfort with public affection. 

The special scenes aren’t simply detached scenes, they’re narrative switchbacks, forcing us an audience to meander like a river in the story. Kim Yoon Mi describes a major element of the East Asian 4Act: “While time is going forwards, the character is returning to a previous point in their life, re-examining it–or forced to reexamine it.” I described the original series as propulsive and unrelenting in its tempo and plotting. SOTUS S, on the other hand, is nostalgic and reflective in both content and its structure. 

Arthit, tired from a day of work, rushes to his alma mater to catch the end of the flag ceremony. “When I get to see the atmosphere like this again,” he confides, “it’s like the fuel tank in me is filled. This can fill the feelings I have lost. My tiredness is gone. I have the strength to go back to work now.” For another example look at the contrast as episode 6 ends with Kongpob standing in an apartment hallway alone after an argument with his boyfriend. The show suddenly cuts to a past moment when Arthit let himself fall asleep on Kongpob’s shoulder in the back of a taxi. When we feel broken, worn-down, or lost, when we undergo big life changes, returning to our memories gives us an opportunity to repair ourselves and cherish the relationships we’ve made. 

Meandering is the shape of easing—mountain roads that reduce the gradient of a climb, water seeking the least resistance. SOTUS S and its narrative structure explore these shapes. In addition to the purpose of nostalgia for its characters, it uses its position as a sequel to address why returning us to an older work might be emotionally useful and why an indirect path through time and our journeys might be nourishing. After the steady fabrication of its attachment to the original series in the first and second acts, the third act shift is all the more potent.

Zhuan: Changing

In the sixth episode, Kongpob joins Ocean Electric as an intern with the encouragement of his father, the CEO of a manufacturing firm Arthit has met and impressed without realizing his relationship to his partner. Kong had left the required internship applications to the last minute, at ease with the connections his wealth and father’s position in his field of study offer him. And with Arthit’s packed work schedule (not to mention Kong’s impish romantic fantasies that only stress out his partner), our nong doesn’t disclose his decision. Art is shocked and appalled when his boyfriend walks into a meeting and gets introduced as the new intern.

The show also introduces new central characters to the cast in the fifth and sixth episode, which is far too late for introductions of main characters in a traditional Western narrative approach. Wad, whose privilege as the nephew of Ocean Electric’s head honcho mirror Kong’s background, joins the procurement department. Another intern, Nai, also joins the proceedings. These characters and their softly-treaded dalliances at Ocean Electric fill in the space left as the story mostly abandons the university and all but two supporting characters we met there.

I've read complaints about that split in SOTUS S, the university-centered plots in the first half overtaken by the corporate setting. Personally, the viewing experience gave me a sense of how ephemeral life is. Four months pass by in a flash and Arthit’s no longer the junior at the office. The university storylines fall away like cherry blossoms or autumn leaves. If that sounds too poetic for you, I'd recommend you stick to the first series and its fantastic linear storytelling (and you can ignore the poetic elements that elevate it, while still enjoying the show). SOTUS S puts its indirect storytelling strategies at the forefront. That’s why I find SOTUS S such a great example to look at the 4Act. The overt shift here makes it hard to square with the continuity of traditional Western dramatic structures.

In the third act of a 4Act structure, the audience comes to understand a new perspective on the proceedings that the first two acts offered them. The Japanese term for it “ten” gets directly translated to ‘twist,’ but that term is so heavily associated with some plot-oriented ‘gotcha!’ moment in the western canon: 

a new piece of evidence in a trial! 

the sheriff is in cahoots with the robber baron! 

Voldemort’s on the back of his head! 

There are many reasons to view two of the most celebrated Western film twists, Star Wars’ paternity reveal and dead Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense, as blendings with the Eastern third act’s Change. The overt declarations made by characters to render the twists apparent to audiences in those instances along with the instrumental role the change plays in the character’s journey is rooted in Western storytelling. However, the impact it has on how the audience interprets the story, both preceding events and the purpose of the story as a whole, is more akin to the kind of change that occurs in the Eastern model. The zhuan or Change here is less emphatically about a reveal of information and more about a change the audience experiences in their type of engagement with the story. 

Youtuber ‘Pause and Select’ relates the change in the 4Act structure to space. Discussing Attack on Titan, which has the exceptionally clear spatial limit of tightly packed city walls, he explains it as a ‘parallax view,’ a shift in perspective for the audience. Going further, he asserts that the third act shift is NOT meant to be a last-ditch event or realization that aids the story in reaching the conclusions we expected it to reach based on the first two acts. Elle Woods finding out her boss is a skeeve and then taking over to use her knowledge about perms in trial to prove her client’s innocence is a great western ‘twist’ and climax, which includes every feminist element Elle has come to stand for in her development at Harvard law school and brings about the expected conclusion of her success at overcoming all her obstacles to truly become a successful lawyer. However, it does nothing to change the audience’s perspectives about the story’s goals as a female empowerment legal comedy.

 “What matters,” Pause and Select argues about the 4Act change, “is that a breakdown, whether you are a reader or writer of [the 4Act structure], ultimately demands coming to a conclusion as to what you think the structure is trying to do.” The emphasis there is mine. A well-constructed 4Act aims to dislodge expectations about the very nature of the narrative it's telling in its third act. At its most obvious, this could be a genre shift—a romcom becomes a tragedy—but it might also be a change in whose perspective the story takes (Peaceful Property), which character is masterminding the events (a favorite of writer/director Park Chan-wook, like in The Handmaiden), or an expansion of who the audience is meant to feel empathy for (a fav strategy of Miyazaki, like in Laputa, Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke). A common romantic Kdrama trope of this kind, I hear, is the revelation that the characters previously knew each other. No matter the shift, thematic motifs will remain (a good reason to pay attention to indirect elements!), but the plot-type possibilities and full extent of the theme’s message can utterly transform. 

When viewers use Western frameworks to complain about the poor build-up or the introduction of unexpected elements into the second half of BL series, the complaint often comes from a place of ignorance. I’ve even heard unfounded conspiracy theories about studio interference regarding the sense of the unexpected in these sections! When viewed with the goals of the 4Act in mind—and here we ought to note the Korean 4Act model, the giseungjeongyeol, which splits its 4Acts more evenly than the Japanese kishotenketsu, as Kim Yoonmi points out—an audience’s experience of disruption that begins around episode 6 of a 12 ep series can be a sign of successful storytelling and a chance to reevaluate what you assumed the story was going to be.

No wonder I found myself getting weepy around episode 6. Time itself is the core focus of SOTUS S. By the end of the second act in episode 5, the hazing rituals we endured for fifteen episodes in the og had flashed by and completed. I began to fully appreciate the breadth of how SOTUS S intended to instill the experience of no longer being what you were before, the experience of merging into the realm of adulthood where the flowing expanse of life is no longer broken into semesters or organized into class years nor the safety of their forcibly forged friendships. It's an exceptional feat of storytelling to induce that subtle emotional experience for an audience.

With that shift, the problems and consequences shift as well. A third act often introduces an entirely new obstacle. The boss of Ocean Electric announces the yearly product design competition, and the shady dealings of certain employees suggestively simmering in the first half rise to the surface. In a Western telling, the series could’ve easily started right here. It brings the conflict, the battle between good (Earth and Arthit) and evil (John and Som-O), along with the slight moral grayness of Todd to keep it interesting. The pace and tempo of the scenes pick up, especially when the shit hits the fan/the cheap plastic hits the production line. It thrills with the same surge that ran through a majority of the original series. Is this conflict what the story’s about, though? 

Some people have described the 4Act as a conflictless plot structure. That’s baloney! You’ll see battle after battle after battle in shonen manga, like Naruto, Dragon Ball, One Piece, and Jujutsu Kaisen, all organized by the principles of The 4Act. SOTUS S shows off its ability to instill conflict with Ocean Electric’s design competition, too. The difference between the 4Act and the Three-Act or hero’s journey derives from the latter’s centralization of a single conflict compared to the former’s use of diffused conflicts—diffused in the sense of multiple conflicts spread out without a center, and, as I’ll explain for the last act, diffused in the sense of de-escalated. 

The issue of the competition is one conflict beside a number of other dating conflicts, with KongArt’s the most prominent, none of which directly impact each other in terms of plotting. In this section, Todd slowly falls for Earth, who gently turns him down (again, with writing and a performance by Proud Oranicha that solidify Earth as a uniquely naturalistic female character in a genre known for campy female caricatures). The other new intern Nai (Nammon) and head of Production, Yong (Guy Sivakorn) begin the most discrete of bromances, or maybe something more…, until Nai feeling slighted draws back. And KongArt have it out about Kongpob’s surprise internship decision before making up, allowing Ai-oon opportunities to show his growing comfort in his secret bf’s surreptitious seductions in public.

And let’s all appreciate that the boys continue to engage in versatile powerplay dynamics with their displays of affection! 

To properly center a single conflict for a Hollywood version of SOTUS S, all of these individual tensions would end up relating to one another—perhaps Todd and Nai become bitter about their rejection and join John’s plot to win the competition. Then, as a last ditch attempt to gain support for their own team’s entry, they discover and out KongArt’s secret relationship. Plenty of other options could take place, but the point is that they’re meant to be set up like that meme of ever-increasing dominos, building upon one another to create an even greater singular conflict. Instead, we see jealousies that come to nothing, slights that characters move on from without involving others. SOTUS S lets the different conflicts exist independently to separately emphasize the main theme: relationships take time, dedication, communication, and faithfulness to develop and maintain as people’s circumstances change.

The company beach outing provides the landscape for many of the relationship dramas to come to a head (and strikes a narrative beach episode beat with foundations exceeding the BL genre) before things go awry. If I’m honest, elements of Western Romance plotting seem to predominate this last portion of the third act: a false HEA (happily ever after) at the beach, disaster as the bad plastic goes on the line, and true crisis as office busybody, Durian, outs Kong and Art by sharing pics of them kissing from the beach trip. Then episode 12, as second-to-last episodes in romance series are wont to do, offers us a separation of sorts and a long dark night of the soul for Arthit before he arrives at his self-realization. It’s a beat integral to the 4Act and the Romance arc, but in the 4Act, despite its sometimes momentous occasion, the self-realization is secondary to the initial perspective-shift in terms of expected emotional and overall engagement from the viewer. Art announces he’s dating Kongpob in front of the entire office at the intern send-off. In the romance arc, the self-realization and confession change everything. The villains like Lady Catherine are dispelled; the curse on the beast breaks, Here, though; Love Wins! But here, we de-escalate.

He: Drawing Together

The 4Act sensibilities in SOTUS S resurface after the culmination. Arthit finally announces his relationship in front of the whole office, but no character stands-in for homophobia for him to confront. John was fired earlier for his fraud without a big to-do from the office. No one sings “Ding! Dong! The witch is dead!” In fact, a few of our office gossips get together to discuss John and Arthit but keep interrupting one another before landing on any consensus and finally move onto a point unrelated to our plot. The central issues for KongArt are simply not the center of everyone’s lives and neither love nor coming out were the battle Arthit and we as an audience expected them to be.

Where we might expect fireworks in other structures, the 4Act often brings a sense of pacification. No matter how significant a conflict might seem, the 4Act story structure is not built around a conflict’s upswell and subsequent victory. Patricia Thang explains for Book Riot, 

“Whether it is open-ended, whether our characters didn’t go through real development or growth, whether we realize nothing much actually happened at all, it doesn’t matter that much in kishōtenketsu (and is what, in my humble opinion, makes it great). What matters is that the various elements from the different acts of the story come together in a finale, as climactic or as muted as it may be.”

A 4Act story does not attempt to fix but to accept an uncontrollable universe. It's a diplomatic process when division otherwise threatens.

The Chinese character for the he fourth section, 結, apparently refers to the tying of a knot, which presents quite the opposite picture from the ‘reckoning’ expected in Western conclusions. The word ‘reckon’ in addition of its meaning 'to tell a story' etymologically refers to ordering items in a straight line. Instead of straightening out a tangled problem, the 4Act story aims to create an elegant tension between two dissimilar opposing parts by the end. 

We can look at a comic panel illustration of this structure from @stilleatingoranges to try and understand it further. Here are the first two acts:

In the first act, the qi, the ‘bringing into being,’ we see a character selecting a soda at a vending machine. The soda plops into the machine’s outlet. In the second act, the cheng, the Understanding, the character grabs the soda from the machine, continuing the story in an expected way without any hitch. There’s no clear obstacle or goal presented here. If we had to guess what will happen in the third act, we might say she’ll drink the soda. If we think the story needs a problem, she might have received the wrong soda. If we knew a twist was coming, we might guess she throws the can. Here’s the third act of this story:

We do not know this character. We don’t know this setting. This is a particularly demonstrative example of the third act, the zhuan, the Changing, because it shows how this act shifts the audience’s perception of the environment and point of this story. It’s not necessarily a twist in what the characters know and expect—we still have no idea about what they’re thinking and/or they’re relationship at all! It’s a twist for the viewer and what they assume they know and expect.

I’ve left out the final panel in my post so that, before you peek at the fourth act—the he, the Drawing Together—of these panels, you can take the place of a writer/creator and consider some ways these two disparate sections can come to coexist in the fourth panel. The girl might walk past this new isolated boy as she downs her soda. Maybe we see him watching as she opens the pop and it sprays all over her. Then, it brings out topics of impatience and embarrassment. You can probably think of more creative versions than me. The final panel the original artist chose to depict has the woman giving her soda to the newly introduced character. These are all acceptable conclusions to the 4Act as long as they reunite the world of the first two acts with the unexpected element of the third act. If you remember the blue color in the final section in the 4Act chart, it’s this combination of elements it represents. It might be helpful to think of the first two acts shaded yellow, with a suddenly blue third act, and a green fourth act.

For SOTUS S, Kongpob is back on campus in the final episode, reuniting us with the first and second act setting and characters from which the third act leapt away. He’s with his friends who’ve learned their own lessons and formed their own relationships during their internship semester. Arthit is back at his office sans intern-boyfriend with the offer of a new job in his preferred department. He turns down for the time being to support his own team instead. Durian goes to apologize to Arthit for leaking his photo, but he interrupts her before she can. It’s already forgiven. He tactfully offers her the opportunity to save face. 

I’ve seen these sorts of non-apologies across BL. They often ignite many audience member’s consternation who argue the characters didn’t deserve forgiveness for whatever harm they caused because they haven’t demonstrated a change in their behavior or fully acknowledged their wrong-doing. Unlike some other views of forgiveness, though, they often center around Eastern philosophical goals like the Indic-derived concepts of upekkha (translated as equanimity) and karuna (translated as compassion), for example. The latter is even considered a primary rasa, or aesthetic principle, in classical Indian theories of the arts that have persisted in importance into the cinematic era according to its wiki entry. Both are also part of the four heavenly abodes in Theravada Buddhism, the primary religion in Thailand. Rather than creating a world where those conditions don’t occur, these values focus on an individual’s ability to understand and remain balanced in the face of worldly conditions defined in the atthaloka dharma as “gain and loss, good-repute and ill-repute, praise and censure, pain and happiness.” Good and bad come and go, but one isn't meant to overly celebrate or grieve them. People and events are not meant to be ‘fixed’ in this view but understood.

Arthit’s forgiveness of Durian who continues her gossip demonstrates the understanding he gains in the story. As I said at the beginning, Arthit’s main goal is to adapt to his new environment. It’s a spiritual journey in which he achieves a new-found state of harmony within himself and with his group without directly engaging in conflict in the form of confrontation.  

The happy-ending version of the 4Act emphasizes reconnection in the relationships between members of a group, which is why the structure works especially well for a romance about an established couple. For each episode, the Japanese BL What Did You Eat Yesterday, about an older couple who live together, uses the 4Act effectively for its characters to grow in appreciation of each other. While Western stories have struggled to tell stories about established couples, the structure most Japanese iyashikei (slice-of-life genre) utilize works beautifully!

In Thailand, you can see the influence of SOTUS S in Aof Noppharnach’s two series about established couples, Still 2Gether and Dark Blue Kiss. He borrows the structure and even elaborates on subtle motifs in the series, like financial privilege, memories and public documentation through photographs, and invisibility of legally unrecognized and closeted relationships (conveyed in one of my favorite moments in all of the SOTUS series as KongArt transform into silhouettes inside a tunnel in a ‘special scene’). Then Aof blows these elements up into full foregrounded spectacles like Kao’s photographic birthday surprise for Pete or Tine’s walk down memory lane through saved vids and photos of Wat. Then, Aof can focus on subtext that’s more philosophical in his own series: “Love has no form,” Pete theorizes at the end of DBK. Lit Phadung and the rest of his writing team for SOTUS S were never so explicit as to put that theory into the script, but it’s all there in the details. KongArt might re-form their established relationship, bringing it ‘out’ into the view of the office, but it’s contrasted by all the ambiguous relationship endings running parallel to them. 

Those relationships don’t feel incomplete, at least to me. Open endings are a staple of the 4Act structure. It requires the acts to reconnect, but does not require problems to be resolved or questions to be answered. Instead the 4Act emphasizes structural and thematic unity and harmony, even for what we might call unhappy endings in romance. For a recent and clear BL example, The On1y One ends with its romantic leads separated in a similar vein to how they began the story while one of them literally re-ties the circle of a broken couple bracelet as he asks his beloved to return to him in a non-diegetic voiceover. Then the series cuts to a glass pitcher of lemon-water we’ve watched shatter over and over throughout the episodes, now whole and unbroken, as the other answers him. Our fourth act endings, done well, challenge a dualistic view. The two contrasting halves circle around to reconnect without one winning out over the other. Compared to a Western resolution, it might seem like these are unfinished loose ends, but they can be better understood as a satisfying tension or an equipoise. The On1y One ending refuses to accept that people are either together or apart, that time is either past or future. 

If separate narrative ends are looped together in elegant knots, what does this mean for the ‘coming out’ narrative with its journey that requires opposing forces and a protagonist to move from one side to another: in to out, private to public, even straight to queer? Well, in BL you often end up with a version of queerness that resists identitarian approaches. Art, in the most dramatically built-up moment in the series, makes a public statement about dating Kongpob…but he already did this coming out in the original series and he continues to rebuff his boyfriend’s flirtations afterwards. (It’s a part of their sexual foreplay as much as a part of Art’s shame.)

SOTUS S and much of BL depicts coming out as something done again and again cyclically as you enter into new environments or an act that’s not entirely manifesting (think Bad Buddy’s ending). And sexuality is not so simple as defining a gender one feels attracted toward, nor having pride or shame about those feelings. These are aspects of our relationships with ourselves and with others that even after making them public will still remain private, not fully knowable to others—both shared and secret. 

Drawing My Own Thoughts Together

Maybe I’m wrong. Throughout writing this, I nearly abandoned the project. I’m no expert in the history of Eastern media or storytelling, and especially not Thai—I’ve only dove into their BL. I can see how you could line up SOTUS S with a Western hero’s journey or romance plot. In fact, more so than other Asian national film traditions, at least according to the authors of Thai Cinema: The Complete Guide, the Thai media industry has a history and aesthetic interest in mashing genres and global influences into heterogeneous, palimpsestic concoctions. Multiple structures can and do coexist in these works.

I also became aware of how flat I and the resources had to render Western storytelling to illustrate the points about the 4Act. The differentiation between the two region’s approaches becomes much more murky when we bring in nuanced and celebrated works because they flesh out the bones more fully, relish ambiguities and ironies about their own nature, bring in broader influences, and take an interest in the unexpected. The structure’s often harder to pick apart. The goal, I’ve found while writing, is not to be wrong or right about the structure of the series here, but to educate myself and hopefully a few others about an influence of which we could learn more to fully appreciate what we’re watching. 

I was not surprised when after watching the series, I found an instagram post of the screenwriter and director Lit Phadung teaching different film structure approaches at a university. SOTUS S, in my view, simply can't be interpreted as a whole unless you are willing to see how its structure operates differently than the Western arc. It patiently weaves its medium and story about the office closet into an expansive pattern rather than mounting an epic battle between right and wrong.

Rather than take my words for right or wrong, I hope this gives others some threads to follow and thread in a web of info and interpretations. I know some tumblrinas I’ve connected with over BL and some with whom I’ve yet to connect have language skills, literary knowledge, and personal experiences to add on to what I’ve attempted to present here. Despite the prevalent mentions of kishotenketsu and the 4act as a structure used by Miyazaki, Kurosawa, and Bong Joon Ho, as well as a device in manga, anime, and Eastern literature traditions, there’s a dearth of well-sourced break-downs and explanations in English, scholarly or otherwise. This was simply my attempt to bring together information about the model in a BL context.

Throughout, I’ve highlighted specific Western blindspots I’ve noticed in criticism of BL shows: the perspective shift at the top of the third act, the slow development, the blanket forgiveness, among other things. A show can use these strategies and still be unsatisfying, don’t get me wrong. However, viewers miss the point when they frame the dissatisfaction using Western storytelling expectations. I’m insistent that we’ve gotta develop our language and perspectives to describe the intentions and breadth of what these shows aim for along with deepening our understanding of why.

It’s not limited to how we watch SOTUS S or Asian dramas. One of my favorite films, Junebug, which earned Amy Adams her first Oscar nomination, is a family drama set and filmed in the American South by a writing/directing team from the area, but inspired by the films of celebrated Japanese director Yasujiro Ozu because of how similar his style seemed culturally to the southerners they grew up with. Obviously, cultures beyond Asia emphasize these values and it behooves us to understand how to communicate with and within them, especially when a tendency exists to assume those communication values are inherently conservative. In fact, there are moments in all of our lives when we might need to emphasize social harmony, compassion, slow development, or karmic paths over dharmic ones, and the reasoning can be as progressive as any revolution. 

One of the moral values at the core of 4Act structures is appreciating our belonging to one another. “Strive at first to meditate upon the sameness of yourself and others,” reads Shantideva’s writing about the concept of karuna in The Way of the Bodhisattva. “In joy and sorrow all are equal; Thus be guardian of all, as of yourself.” Perceived cultural differences between values and plot structures need not be perceived as so separate. Queerness maybe doesn’t need to be ‘the other.’ Relationships and coming-out don’t need to be a battle. We can change and remain the same at once. SOTUS S and stories like it that use the 4Act demonstrate how art and events in our lives can come along to expand our perspectives without requiring we blame ourselves or others for not realizing it earlier. It holds wrong and right together, difference and unity, without flattening them into assimilation. Two distinct parts held together, which is, after all, the shape of a couple.

Tagging some other SOTUS fans who've kept the passion alive while i worked on this @thebroccolination @dropthedemiurge @doublel27 @moutheyes @ginnymoonbeam

[fanganfessions]

Something I find hilarious about Damon, is just how he's completely wrong about talents. His isn't better than everyone else's. Its probably on the same level as most of them.

Jean has to know first-aid, weather patterns, memorise multiple sea routes, keep group morale high and actually save people from drowning in order to qualify as an Ultimate. Diana has to have the skill to be able to instantly identify what kinds of makeup looks good on her client, probably transform people's faces into something entirely different, and make sure to never make a mistake as she'd have to redo everything. Her eye for detail isn't something you'd find everywhere. Heck, even Kai has to memorise algorithm trends, do partnerships and such, and according to his FTEs, he manufactured an entire zeitgeist from one account, when he was doing an online marketing job his coworkers were cheating off of (even Damon thinks this is impressive), and also influenced the marketing strategies of companies that try to seem more "friendly" and "casual" on social media accounts. Wolfgang's work changes the course of lives, helping innocent people who could've gotten live sentences live freely. Wenona's responsible for basically all the food in the country.

Not to say Damon's talent isn't also extremely impressive. He has to memorise the details of any kind of topic in order to have an expert's opinion in an incredibly short period of time, and weigh it's pros and cons in order to argue for or against it. He's pretty good at the thing too, judging by his Ultimate title. Him winning enough competitions that his parents don't have to work anymore, and supposedly paying for the welfare, groceries and overall living expenses for three (or more if he also pays for any siblings or uncles and aunts) people is pretty damn impressive. It's just that most of his actual arguments about talents are so far-fetched that it's impossible not to poke holes in them.

Yeah, sure buddy, you can argue about ethics and politics, but so can literally everyone. Has he ever went outside near his country's election day?? Or ever went to a family gathering?? And that's only talking about politics. Beause he's definitely not the only one to ever have an opinion. Yeah, his arguments are backed up by actual data and stuff, but he's not the only person to ever do that, and like 99% of those people probably work office jobs. Intelligence also doesn't make his talent superior cause you have to be intelligento for every talent. He also admits in Wenona's FTEs that he wipes his memory clean in order to prepare for his next debate, so he doesn't actually learn anything.

Some talents are obviously more useful to society, like entrepreneurship or law, but debate isn't one of them. In fact, it barely changes society as a whole. It's extremely important to Damon's life and his family's, but unless he goes straight into being a politician or something, odds are he's not changing anything. Damon is pretty impressive as a person, probably more intelligent than most of his classmates, but his talent simply isn't betters than their's. Like I mentioned above, all Ultimate talents are impressive, but comparing a cosmetologist to a entreprenur, an influencer to a historian, or a debater to a lawyer... doesn't make that much sense.

Personally, I think all the characters are extremely impressive in their personal talents (because they're ultimates, duh), but tons of characters like Damon and Eva (most obvious examples) definitely aren't defined by their talents in regards to how intelligent they are, even though their characters do revolve around their Ultimates.

⠀

[elumish]

I said I was done talking about this for the moment, but it turns out I have one more thing to say (I am happy to have more conversations about this, but probably not right now):

Here's what I mean when I talk about harm and about doing what you can to avoid harm in your writing.

I believe (and I think basically everyone believes) that there are some narratives and viewpoints that are harmful. We don't all agree on what those are, but I think virtually everyone has some set of things that they think are harmful viewpoints. These viewpoints and narratives lead to actions. These narratives and viewpoints are supported and reinforced by stories, among many other things.

For a fairly neutral example, there's a narrative that Paris is a romantic city. This is supported/reinforced by books/movies/TV shows/etc. showing Paris as a place to travel to with or find a romantic partner. As such, many people travel to Paris with a spouse to have a romantic getaway.

For a less neutral example, there is a narrative that torture is a successful way to get vital and accurate information from suspects, and that the ends of torture (that vital and accurate information) justify the means. This is supported/reinforced by books/movies/TV shows/etc., which has had real-world impacts. In 2007, Scalia cited 24 in his defense of torture (for example).

Obviously you can debate all day long to what degree impacts are based on viewer/readership, the method of publishing, etc. but the fact of the matter is that fiction does influence how people think about things.

So back to the idea of harm. Harm through writing, to me, is about what narratives or viewpoints your writing is supporting, reinforcing, or perpetuating and how it is doing so.

If you write a gay or trans character who is a pedophile, there's a good chance that your story is going to reinforce the narrative that gay or trans people are pedophiles. Can you write a story involving a gay or trans pedophile that doesn't perpetuate that narrative? Probably! But you have to know what you're writing and what you are or could be implying and then actively work to mitigate that risk.

If you write a story with a police protagonist, there's a good chance that you might reinforce some pro-police narratives, just by virtue of writing them as the protagonist. Can you avoid those narratives? Sure! But again, you have to know what you're saying and then do the work.

There are places that this obviously gets a lot more complicated, and there are places where the medium or genre that you are writing in make a huge difference in how the same thing is framed. For example, framing unethical (e.g., nonconsensual) implementations of BDSM as erotic in a romance novel is, in my opinion, different than it is in a story that is just intended as erotica. They have different genre expectations and norms, and so the implications are different.

And this is all where your own understanding of the narratives and of your own morals and ethics and standards are key. You are the writer! It is ultimately up to you to figure out and decide what you think is harmful and how to address that.

But doing all of that means knowing what you're writing, and it means putting thought into what is harmful.

[0alix0]

a depth of a single side quest (vs shallowness of an entire game)

you know replaying origins really puts a lot of things into perspective, and this one revelation i want to discuss here.

it's a minor side quest in lothering most of the players don't even remember. a young woman (Allison) asks you to make her some traps, explaining, that she heard old Berlin is setting traps around his land to protect himself from the darkspawn (and doesn't even want to leave) and so she wants to do the same for herself.

traps. against the horde of darkspawn.

i have to be honest i did not realized the depth of it all on my first, second, third, tenth playthrough even. only after full-scale russian invasion i actually was able to draw a real life parallel and how realistically it depicted several aspects of human psychology in times of war and stress:

authority of the elder (against common sense). tale as old as time, and a principle that at the beginning of humanity saved a lot of lives by transferring experience to younger generation. it can, however, backfire - there's an entire army of darkspawn approaching. a dozen of half assed traps won't save you from being killed (at best!) yet the girl keeps following example of the old Berlin, because of "how can an elderly person ever be wrong" mentality.

influence of settledness on one's life. A lot of people find it difficult to leave their homes, even when in a life or death situations. it happens due to emotional associations. person's home/memories/associations to those = their entire life / feeling of safety, and usually inherent to older people, though are not limited by them (authority of elder). and believe me when i say this there are plenty of people who were like this in 2014 and 2022 and still are to this day.

the simplified view on the world and issue-solving (the less educated person is, the more simplified their worldview is, and by extension, the less they know how to survive). "the darkspawn will just get in traps, they'll die/get stuck, and everything will be ok". for HoF, who recently just felt all the might and all the danger of the darkspawn Allison might seem... naïve. but Allison is not a soldier, not warden, nor a noblewoman who can read about tactics and ancient creatures from somewhere, so her grasp of the situation is (not unexpectedly) very limited.

question of ethics. you can make her traps, get your money and go, but would that be a kind decision? will your encouragement of her false belief indirectly kill her? will your refusal force her leave lothering for safety or will you just make her last days full of fear? will she stay regardless? game doesn't answer, but it makes you ask these questions

and now after ALL of that. ALLLLLL the hidden layers i just described, i wanna ask you. can you find anything even remotely close to this level of complexity in a veilguard? even in a main plot?

it is INSANE how much of human psychology, emotion and real life ethics and problems can be touched in ONE passing through mission. and even MORE insane how another story just doesn't bother to even try to recreate that!

[girlactionfigure]

Some hard facts no one will tell you, but if you care about truth, you’ll want to know.

Let’s start with the most fundamental lie you’re being told. 

“Israel occupied an Arab Palestinian state and stole their land.”

Sit down for this. 

Such a state never existed in the history of the world. Don’t believe me? Try to find a date that the Arab Palestine was established. Try to find out who the president was. What currency did they use? What was their national anthem? 

I’ll save you the time. 

It never existed. 

Onward…. 

The next blatant lie is “Israel occupied Gaza before October 7th, which is why Hamas attacked.”

Really? 

Here. I’ll help you. 

Open your web browser. Open Google. Type in “The Disengagement.”

2005. Israel forcefully removed 10,000 Israel from Gaza, dug up its dead (Yea, you read that right!) so Hamas wouldn’t rape (Yes, that’s a thing. Hamas raped corpses on October 7th.) the dead bodies, and handed the Palestinians Gaza on a silver platter for them to build a state. 

The Palestinians pretty much immediately elected Hamas to govern them and chose a terror state over what could have been paradise. 

There were zero Jews in Gaza on October 6th. 

That’s not an opinion. It’s an indisputable fact. 

Next… 

Genocide. People love to use that word when describing the war in Gaza. 

So there are a few ways to address this. 

First of all, the numbers everyone keeps quoting are from Hamas, a terrorist organization that raped little girls and burned families alive. 

Have you considered that maybe they’re lying? 

But you know what? Let’s go with Hamas. What ridiculous number are they up to? 30,000? 40,000? You know what? Let’s go with 50,000. 

50,000 dead in Gaza? Sure. How many of those were terrorists? Because according to the Gaza Health Ministry, out of those tens of thousands, zero of them were terrorists. 

Cool. Makes sense…

But forget the numbers. Just kindly explain to me why Israel has lost hundreds of its soldiers in Gaza. Why didn’t Israel just attack from the air and flatten Gaza if genocide was what Israel was after? 

How long would this war take if Israel didn’t send in soldiers and just dropped bombs on Gaza? Spoiler: It would have ended on October 8th. 

Finally, do you know how those numbers, again, even according to Hamas’ fake numbers, compare to other wars and conflicts in the world? Syria, for example. 

If the numbers in Gaza are so microscopic compared to other wars, why is it that you haven’t heard about a genocide going on anywhere else but Gaza? 

“Ceasefire now!”

Here’s a little secret for ya. 

There was a ceasefire! Wanna know when? On October 6th. Then Hamas broke it and attacked Israel. 

Want a ceasefire? Great. So do I. Right after Hamas returns all the hostages and surrenders. 

If you’re calling for a ceasefire and looking at Israel, you must be confused. Israel has offered a ceasefire so many times in this war, all of which Hamas rejected. 

We all want a ceasefire. Don’t look at Israel. Look at Hamas who broke the ceasefire then proceeded to reject offers for a ceasefire over and over. 

Ok, moving on… 

“Jews love to pull the antisemitism card. There is no antisemitism. It’s just anti Zionism.”

Really now…?

Because antisemitic attacks, against Jews, not Israelis, are up over 300%. 

Kindly explain to me why Jewish influencers are getting thousands of comments about the war when they haven’t even stepped foot in Israel. 

Kindly explain to me why synagogues are being vandalized and attacked. 

Kindly explain to me why Jewish events need extra security or why Jewish speakers require body guards. 

Kindly explain to me why there are marches around the world in which thousands chant antisemitic chants about Jews, not zionists. 

I’ll wait for your explanation. 

Ok, next. 

“Israel is ethically cleansing Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and has been for 75 years.”

Fascinating. 

So if that were the case, you’d expect the Palestinian population to be on a sharp decline. 

Wanna take a guess how many “Palestinians” (added the quotes because they didn’t call themselves that till Arafat hijacked the word that previously just meant Israelis.) were in Israel in 1948 and how many there are now? 

Take a guess. 

5,462,888. That’s how many Palestinians there are now. ()

You know what? Forget numbers. Here, I’ll give you a visual. 

Does that look like ethnic cleansing? 

Want to know what real ethnic cleansing looks like? Go choose any Muslim country and notice how many Jews lived there 50 years ago and how many live there now. That is ethnic cleansing.worldometers.info/world-populati…

“Israel is an apartheid state.”

That’s so interesting because I was just watching an interview with a member of Knesset, Israel’s parliament, who is not only a Muslim Arab, but he’s also anti Zionist. That means he opposes the existence of Israel and yet, he has a seat in the parliament. 

If Israel was an apartheid state, why is every road sign in Israel written in Hebrew and Arabic? 

If Israel was an apartheid state, why are there Arabs who are judges in Israel?

If Israel was an apartheid state, why do Arabs, Muslims, and Christians have total freedom in Israel? 

If Israel was an apartheid state, why are there Arab doctors, lawyers, soldiers, actors, athletes, and CEOs in Israel who are Muslim?

Israel must really suck at this apartheid thing. But since there are so many people out there who are experts in apartheid, maybe some of them can train Israel to up its apartheid game…

🤣

Moving along… 

“Give them a state. They deserve a state. If only they had a state, the terror would stop.”

Wow, how did we not think of that?

Oh wait, I forgot one thing. 

They had a state given to them once or twice. Or 15 times. 

1937, 1947, 1967, 1991, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2019, 2020. 

Perhaps they don’t want a state… 

What else we got…?

“End the occupation and the “Resistance” will end. 

First of all, let’s just clarify some terms. Resistance. What is legitimate resistance? 

Because Hamas beheaded babies, raped girls and old woman, burned families alive, and committed other unspeakable sexual crimes and they also made sure their family members watched their loved ones get raped. 

Is that valid resistance to you? 

But let’s address the premise. 

Put on your logic hat for a second. 

If occupation —-> terror

Then logic dictates 

No occupation —-> no terror 

Right? 

So if I show you that Arabs were massacring Jews before any so-called occupation, this whole argument falls apart, right? 

What if I showed you that there was Arab terror against Jews before there was even a state of Israel for them to oppose? 

1929. Hebron. Arabs massacred Jews. 

Great. Glad we cleared that up. 

Next… 

“Israel is lying about October 7th. There was no rape and Hamas only attacked soldiers. The rest of the people were killed by Israel.”

Um. Where do I even begin? 

Ya know what? I can’t even. Go watch the GoPro footage. Go listen to Hamas who is so proud of what they did. 

So you don’t believe Israel and you don’t believe Hamas. Got it. 

Must be nice to live in a fantasy world. 

“Israel is indiscriminately killing Gazans.”

Wow, had no idea. 

So is Israel strong and therefore should act with restraint or Israel so weak that even though it’s killing indiscriminately, the numbers don’t reflect that. 

Shouldn’t there be hundreds of thousands of dead Gazans if the mighty Israel is just trying to kill as many of them as possible? 

Make up your mind. Is Israel strong or is Israel weak? It can’t be both. 

Cmon you’re better than that. 

Let’s see, what’s next… 

“Islam is a religion of peace and the only reason there is so much radical Islamic terror in the world is because of Israel.”

Awesome. So it has nothing to do with the Quran encouraging violence, right? 

Cool cool. 

I’ll just leave this here. 

Don’t worry, we’re nearing the end…

“Israel is a white colonial state that wants world dominance and is only starting with Gaza.”

Wow, so crazy how I didn’t know. 

So how many wars has Israel started? I would assume all of them, since Israel is the aggressor. 

How about none? Not a single one. 

Israel has never started a war and attacked an enemy first. 

Maybe those same people can teach Israel how to be better colonizers. 

Also, you don’t have to spend more than 24 hours in Israel to see how many “Not white” people live there. 

Ok, I’ll stop here even though I can continue for hours. 

Stop spreading lies about Israel. Words matter and if you stand against Israel, you stand with rapists and pedophiles. 

History will remember that. 

Besides, siding with the Jews, history will show, is the smart thing to do. 

Otherwise you join ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece, Nazis, Soviet, Babylonian, and so many other empires who messed with the Jews and are now extinct. 

This isn’t just another war. This is a war between the dark forces of radical Islam and the western world and all that it stands for. 

This is good vs evil and there is no nuance. 

• • •

Hillel Fuld

[astra-ravana]

The Necessity Of Baneful Witchcraft

Baneful magick refers to any spellwork intended to harm, manipulate, or obstruct a target, whether for justice, retribution, or personal defense. While some witches avoid it due to ethical concerns or spiritual beliefs, others see it as a natural and necessary aspect of the craft. Baneful magick has existed in various cultures for centuries, from the hexes of European cunning folk to the protective bindings of African diasporic traditions. It is neither inherently good nor evil; rather, its morality depends on intent, consequences, and perspective.

There are several schools of thought regarding baneful magick. Practitioners who follow the Wiccan Rede (“An it harm none, do what ye will”) generally avoid baneful magick, believing in karmic consequences or the Threefold Law, which states that any energy sent out returns threefold. Some witches believe baneful magick is justified when used to restore balance, enforce justice, or protect the vulnerable. In these traditions, curses and hexes are seen as rightful retribution rather than malicious acts. Many practitioners see magick as a tool, neither good nor bad. They believe in personal responsibility, understanding that every action carries consequences, but do not impose rigid moral codes on their spellwork.

Examples of Baneful Magick

• Binding Spells – Used to restrict an individual’s actions, preventing them from causing harm.

• Reversal Spells – Sending negative energy or a curse back to its sender.

• Curses & Hexes – Magick designed to inflict misfortune, pain, or long-term suffering.

• Jinxes – Short-term spells that cause minor inconveniences or bad luck.

• Poppet Magick – Using a doll or effigy to influence or harm a target.

• Gazes – Using a method such as the Evil Eye or overlooking to curse with the eyes.

Why is it Needed?

The necessity of baneful magick in witchcraft is a topic of debate among practitioners, but those who advocate for it argue that it serves several essential functions within a balanced magical practice. Here are some key reasons why baneful magick is considered necessary by some witches:

• Protection and Self-Defense: Baneful magick is often used as a form of spiritual, energetic, or even physical protection. Many practitioners believe that not all threats can be dealt with through passive means, and sometimes, direct action is necessary to deter harm or prevent further attacks. This can include curses, bindings, and hexes against those who pose a danger.

• Justice and Retribution: Some witches view baneful magick as a means of enforcing justice when mundane methods fail. If someone has committed harm without consequence, certain magical traditions believe that spells can be used to balance the scales, ensuring that the wrongdoer faces the repercussions of their actions.

• Maintaining Balance: Witchcraft, like nature, operates on the principle of balance—both creation and destruction. Baneful magick is seen as part of the natural cycle, ensuring that energies remain in harmony rather than allowing unchecked positivity to enable harm. Just as nature has predators to maintain ecosystems, some believe magick must include baneful aspects to keep equilibrium.

• Empowerment and Boundaries: Engaging in baneful magick can be an assertion of personal power and boundaries. It allows practitioners to reclaim control over their lives, particularly when they have been wronged or oppressed. It can serve as a psychological and magical declaration of sovereignty.

• Shadow Work and Personal Growth: Baneful magick forces practitioners to confront their own darkness, ethics, and the consequences of their actions. It requires deep self-awareness, ensuring that spells are cast with full knowledge of their impact. Many believe that working with darker aspects of magick leads to a more complete and mature understanding of power and responsibility.

• Dealing with Persistent Negative Forces: Some believe that certain entities, people, or energies simply will not respond to healing or banishing techniques. In such cases, baneful magick may be seen as the only viable solution for neutralizing a persistent threat or malevolent force.

While baneful magick is not necessary for every practitioner, those who incorporate it into their craft see it as a tool—one that, like any tool, should be used responsibly, ethically, and with careful consideration of its consequences. Just like nature, magick is neither black or white, it just is. As a witch, it is your right to use your magick to defend yourself, and then some.

[botanicalsword]

Indicator for Entrepreneurs

In today’s landscape, personal branding, self-promotion, and networking have become significantly more accessible, thanks to the metaverse. 

We find ourselves interconnected in myriad ways; however, this connectivity often leads to a self-centered focus, where the aspiration to become influencers and promote our own products and services takes precedence.

Yet, we must not overlook the essence that establishing a successful business requires strong networks (11th House). This means delivering real value to those who engage with our services while simultaneously addressing their emotional, physical, and practical needs and desires.

Businesses are constantly seeking new ways to engage with their audience.

Some examples of digital business that related to the astrological placements:

Impressions (Venus, 1st House, Chart ruler)

Engagement (7th House, 11th House, Mercury)

Content creating (Mercury, 3rd House, 9th House)

Storytelling (Mercury, 3rd House, 4th House, 5th House, Neptune, Uranus)

Digital marketing strategy (Uranus, Jupiter, 9th House, 11th House)

Metrics eg. engagement, click-through rates, conversion (Saturn, 2nd House, 10th House)

Cultivating an entrepreneurial mindset is important for navigating this journey.  To thrive as an entrepreneur, one must be decisive and possess a holistic perspective. Without an open mind and a sharp, analytical approach, it becomes increasingly challenging to realize their vision and achieve lasting success.

✧

Certain astrological houses play a pivotal role:

1st house - the self and self-awareness - with prominent placement, they often resist being controlled by others, thriving instead on independence.

8th house  - resources and financing - the ability to leverage others' resources or collaborate in business endeavors.

10th house - career aspirations and the broader vision necessary for success. Entrepreneurs must possess a grand perspective to navigate their ventures effectively.

✧ Some key astrological indicators for aspiring entrepreneurs:

Strong10th House (Sun/ Moon in 10th House / 10th House Stellium) - strong drive for success and a deep desire to achieve - find entrepreneurship more appealing than traditional employment

10th House ruler in 1st House - a powerful ambition - Those with influential planets in their chart often strive for independence in their careers, leading to a respected and prestigious professional life - Leadership roles may also suit you well

1st House ruler in 10th House - highly ambitious, with dreams of fame and success. Your ideas or decision may frequently revolve around becoming a business owner and achieving personal recognition.

Saturn in the 1st House - face challenges in life but possess a strong sense of responsibility. Through relentless effort and determination, they strive to prove their worth to the world. With their unwavering willpower and diligent work ethic, achieving success is almost inevitable.

Strong 8th House (Sun, Moon, Venus, Jupiter / 8th House Stellium) - an ability to access resources easily - excel in securing funding and attracting investments, which can significantly enhance their chances of entrepreneurial success.

Strong 11th House / 11th House Stelium - strong social connections and a supportive network - with good relationships and abundant resources, you’ll find that others are eager to assist you in your endeavors. >> Career • what kind of content creator are you?

✧

>> Career • work a job or start a business? ✧ Natal Chart Observation >> Career • A Sudden Change - What Happens Next? ✧ Solar Return / Lunar Return >> Career • Indicators for your potential and talents (Part 1) >> Career • Indicators for your potential and talents (Part 2)

>> Back to Masterlist ✧ Explicit Content

Exclusive access : Patreon

[opencommunion]

via RNN:

The eternal martyr Basil Al-Araj wrote abundantly before his ascension in March of 2017. In his posthumously published book, "I Have Found My Answers," (a line from his will) he spoke of war during the 2014 zionist aggression on Gaza, just prior to the IOF ground invasion on July 17.

Basil guided us with eight rules and insights on the nature of war. He wrote:

—

Since there is talk of a ground operation, several points must be considered:

1. The Palestinian resistance consists of guerrilla formations whose strategies follow the logic of guerrilla warfare or hybrid warfare, which Arabs and Muslims have become masters of through our experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza. War is never based on the logic of conventional wars and the defense of fixed points and borders; on the contrary, you draw the enemy into an ambush. You do not stick to a fixed position to defend it; instead, you perform maneuvers, movement, withdrawal, and attack from the flanks and the rear. So, never measure it against conventional wars.

2. The enemy will spread photos and videos of their invasion into Gaza, occupation of residential buildings, or presence in public areas and well-known landmarks. This is part of the psychological warfare in guerrilla wars; you allow your enemy to move as they wish so that they fall into your trap and you strike them. You determine the location and timing of the battle. So, you may see photos from Al-Katiba Square, Al-Saraya, Al-Rimal, or Omar Al-Mukhtar Street, but do not let this weaken your resolve. The battle is judged by its overall results, and this is merely a show.

3. Never spread the occupation's propaganda, and do not contribute to instilling a sense of defeat. This must be focused on, for soon, we will start talking about a massive invasion in Beit Lahia and Al-Nusseirat, for example. Never spread panic; be supportive of the resistance and do not spread any news broadcast by the occupation (forget about the ethics and impartiality of journalism; just as the zionist journalist is a fighter, so are you).

4. The enemy may broadcast images of prisoners, most likely civilians, but the goal is to suggest the rapid collapse of the resistance. Do not believe them.

5. The enemy will carry out tactical, qualitative operations to assassinate some symbols [of resistance], and all of this is part of psychological warfare. Those who have died and those who will die will never affect the resistance's system and cohesion because the structure and formations of the resistance are not centralized but horizontal and widespread. Their goal is to influence the resistance's support base and the families of the resistance fighters, as they are the only ones who can affect the men of the resistance.

6. Our direct human and material losses will be much greater than the enemy's, which is natural in guerrilla wars that rely on willpower, the human element, and the extent of patience and endurance. We are far more capable of bearing the costs, so there is no need to compare or be alarmed by the magnitude of the numbers.

7. Today's wars are no longer just wars and clashes between armies but rather are struggles between societies. Let us be like a solid structure and play a game of biting fingers with the enemy, our society against their society.

Finally, every Palestinian (in the broad sense, meaning anyone who sees Palestine as a part of their struggle, regardless of their secondary identities), every Palestinian is on the front lines of the battle for Palestine, so be careful not to fail in your duty.