#virtual life vs. real life

[johnschneiderblog]

'Clickbait'

Have you noticed that people are paying too much attention to the so-called life taking place on their phones these days and too little attention to the life going on around them ...?

If not, then you must be in a particularly intense relationship with that gadget in your hand because otherwise you couldn't help but notice.

That's the point, obviously, this New Yorker cover; the cat is so busy chasing virtual mice on its phone that it doesn't notice the real mice - the ones frolicking within reach while the cat is mentally "away."

But, as I see it, the illustration - appropriately titled "Clickbait" - does an injustice to cats. A cat would never choose a virtual mouse over a real one. That's a human trick.

[your-heart-is-a-treasure]

Pay close attention to when you’re being the real you and when you’re trying to impress an invisible jury.

[fuckyeahgoodomens]

Good Omens graphic novel update: June 2024

Welcome to the June update. A lot of behind the scenes work at the moment but we're grabbing the travel sweets, popping in the Bentley and hitting the road. More on that below.

Admin

Ongoing reminder that the project FAQ can be found here. 

I pledged using my Apple ID, or no longer use the address my pledge is attached to, or I cannot work out what email address my pledge is connected to. What should I do? Please contact us via your Kickstarter account where the pledge is connected; we will be able to see on our system which address it is. If it's one you have access to, great! The FAQ has information on how to resend your invite link to access the PledgeManager. If it's one you are not able to access, then you can let us know which email is preferred and we can update this on the system, which will automatically send a new invite.

Events

We've had a lot of queries about when the Good Omens team will be attending events more formally, after some Aziraphale and Crowley spotting at conventions we'd been to previously. Well, we're excited to confirm the first: Good Omens HQ will be at ACME Comic Con in Glasgow, Scotland this September.

We'll be bringing the actual-real-life-home-to-Crowley-and-his-plants Bentley from Season 2 of Good Omens, the first time the car has been made available publicly for fans to come see and get photos with, ahead of its journey back to the set and the start of Season 3 filming.

We also see Quelin Sepulveda, aka Muriel, has been announced for the event for some additional ineffable joy.

You can get your tickets for ACME Comic Con here. We hope to see some of you there.

While we won't be rocking up with the Bentley to this next one, we want to let you know about Ineffable Con which, though sold out in person, is also taking place virtually in July. The fan-run event hosts great panels, auctions and more, with money raised going to Alzheimer’s Research UK, in memory of Sir Terry Pratchett.

Where next? We have - not an exaggeration - a list of about 200 events somewhere from when we asked fans this on Instagram and while we can't promise quite that amount of convention attendance, we're certainly looking to do some more things in future with Good Omens at large. Watch this space.  

Good Omens items...

This month has largely seen prototypes and samples for the wider Good Omens merch store arriving, and while we can't share those yet, we are certainly excited to see more fan product suggestions coming to life. That does, however, leave our public item updates a little slim on the ground.

To make up for that, here's some new panels from Colleen:

Also known as, "What could possibly go wrong?" And:

Also known as, "Well why don't you ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇!@#▇" or words to that effect, we'd imagine.  

Update from Colleen

Following such a positive response to Colleen's piece last month, bringing you behind the scenes into making the Good Omens graphic novel, we are delighted to say that she has agreed to write something for our updates going forward! For June, she's going more in depth into the process of flatting and the technicalities of colouring on screen vs print. Over to you, Colleen.

---

I mentioned the other month that I use a flatter to help me with technical work on GOOD OMENS, and here is a great example.

This is my original, hand drawn line art.

And this is the flatting file which was created using the MultiFill computer program.

It will put your eyes out.

The raw image above demonstrates how the color art lines up solidly under the line art. If it doesn't do that, you get a weird phenomenon in print called ghosting, a tiny little line of white around each segment of color. I had this issue on one major project and ended up redoing every single color file after I got a look at the first printing. Nearly two weeks of work.

The same image with the line art on top.

The layer order looks like this.

Background copy is the clean, line art layer.

I scan the art at 600 dpi, then make the blacks pure black, the whites pure white. Then I convert back to greyscale, then RGB, then duplicate the layer. Then I delete the white on the upper layer so the line art layer is transparent but the blacks on that layer are not.

If you have blacks on a layer that has been multiplied, you can see slight color through those blacks. You want pure black.

The lower layer is where I use the MultiFill program to create the digital flats. First you use MultiFill to drop in the random colors, then the companion plug-in Flatter Pro to make those colors seal under the black lines.

This probably sounds like a silly thing to worry about, but if the flat colors don’t line up perfectly under the black line art, you get the dreaded ghosting I mentioned. You can see it below in this image. It’s a tiny little white line that will appear around the black lines and color areas.

This drives me nuts and is an absolute nightmare to fix.

It’s a very common problem, especially for people who work for web and don’t anticipate the problems going from web to print.

What looks great on your computer can cause big problems in print.

From here, my flatter Jul Mae Kristoffer, who is way over in the Philippines, does flatting that is more in keeping with the areas of color I want to isolate. As you see on Layer 1.

But again, this is still pretty ugly, and not what I would use for final color. Flatting is a technical issue, not a creative one, though in some cases a flatter will make choices you may use. Most of the time they don't.

Here is my final color page.

Sometimes my MultiFill flats are so wonky I have a hard time getting my brain to snap out of what I see before me. If I get stuck, it's a good idea to just pick at it and come back to it later.

If it really, really bothers me, I’ll take the MultiFill flatter layer and desaturate the color so it doesn’t poke my eyes out.

Here’s an example. The digital flat file.

The desaturated flat file that doesn’t make me want to poke my eyes out.

And the final color.

Sometimes I just put in a solid white layer so I don’t see the flats at all. Flatting is there to allow you to easily pick spots to color in, and doesn’t usually appear in the final work.

Sometimes I want to create my colors using transparent color over a white ground, which is more delicate in the final.

Here’s an example from Neil Gaiman’s American Gods. I also selected all black line art here and converted it to sepia to give it a vintage look. Except for the fairies. They’re green.

A colorist must also consider color settings.

Different clients can have different requirements. I find these color settings, which I got from the Hi-Fi Studio, to be pretty solid. I use them as my default for all my projects unless otherwise requested. If your publisher has other settings, they’ll usually send you a csf file which you can upload to Photoshop. The program will save your files and you can just switch between them as you need them.

This tells the printer things about the paper and the spread of the ink you will use. That’s what dot gain means - it makes printed color look darker than intended, so you set up your files to account for it.

When you hover your pointer over each box, it will tell you what each setting is supposed to accomplish.

Another really important thing to consider when coloring comics is color range.

I’m coloring this book in RGB range, but for print you use CMYK.

I’m about to confuse the heck out of some people with this post, I’m afraid. But here we go.

Here is this shot in RGB color setting.

And here is the same page calibrated for print in CMYK.

The biggest shift is in the reds. Print cannot match those reds.

You may not see much difference here, but it’s the sort of thing that drives artists crazy.

A computer should be perfect for conveying exactly what you want, right? It's all just 0's and 1's, binary information, and that information should be the same from one computer to the next?

Nope. Not even close.

First off, computer monitors must be calibrated. You can use a computer program or a tool that measures the color on your computer screen and then adjusts the color to an industry standard.

Have you ever been in an electronics shop where a bunch of TV shows were on display, all of them playing the same show, and have you noticed how different the color was from one TV to the next?

It's like that.

I freely admit I don't pay a whole lot of attention to calibration, but if I were a professional photographer I would. I'd have a little spectrometer attached to my screen and software would adjust my monitor to the best possible standard range. As it is, I just use the default setting on my computer and hope for the best.

If your monitor is properly calibrated and your art is shown on another monitor that is properly calibrated, the art will look almost identical from one monitor to the next.

YAY!

But from one monitor to the next, that's about where the resemblance ends.

Colors are calibrated to something called RGB, or Red, Green, Blue.

All colors come from a mix of red green and blue. At their greatest intensity, all the colors in the spectrum together become pure white light.

This is why RGB is called ADDITIVE color, because you ADD colors from the spectrum to get ALL colors, and all colors create the entirety of the rainbow, and pure white light.

Your computer monitor, your phone, your television, all images are created via light using RGB, a gamut that covers all possible colors that can be created.

That's a lot.

And that's why some of the colors you see on your TV or phone are so deep and intense.

For the widest possible range of color and intensity, you use RGB.

Unfortunately, there is what you can create with light, and then there is what you can create with pigment or ink. And that is why printing what you see on your computer almost never looks exactly like what you see in a book.

For printing, you must use a color setting known as CMYK. This stands for Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Key/Black.

In printing, the pure blue is actually Cyan and the pure red is actually Magenta.

CMYK color range is not created by addition, but by SUBTRACTION. In order to get the color you want, you reduce the percentage of one of the four colors for ink mixing. Mixing all colors, instead of giving you white, gives you black.

The gamut of CMYK is limited to what can be created with ink.

You've probably heard the term four color press? This is what that means. Four colors, with each color of ink run over the paper on rollers which, combined in varying layers of opacity, create all the printing colors you see.

But remember, what you see on your computer monitor and what CMYK gamut can handle are two different things.

Now, I’ve been really careful with the color settings on Good Omens, so there haven’t been any big surprises, but let me show you a snippet of a project I did for the French fashion house Balmain.

The RGB version:

And then this shot after it was converted to a CMYK file for print.

That's a pretty big difference.

Now, you see this shift mostly with vibrant colors, such as that pink there. But other colors hardly changed at all, right?

That's because this issue is about range of color. CMYK and RGB occupy a shared range which you can see demonstrated by this graphic I got from Wikipedia.

The graphic shows the RGB ranges supported by various digital formats. SWOP CMYK is the most common range my publishers use. Note that the bounding box line shared by the RGB and SWOP CMYK formats shares about half the range space. So whatever RGB colors you use that are outside that range will be digitally converted to the smaller SWOP CMYK range.

And you may not like what you end up with.

As you can see, some of the most ethereal and intense colors get lost outside of the SWOP CMYK boundary.

A look at the Dark Horse Comics color settings in Photoshop. Theoretically, this information should prevent your art from looking like mud on publication.

Now, after I just told you the dangers of coloring in RGB then converting to CMYK for print, I tell you I am coloring Good Omens in RGB anyway. There’s a couple of reasons for this.

Remember, RGB give you a greater range of color, so it can be to your advantage to preserve your original files using a format that gives you the greatest range.

Again, here is the unaltered file.

You can see what the CMYK result will be simply by clicking the Proof Colors button here. This will show you how the art will convert.

And the Gamut Warning will show you which colors are out of gamut range for print.

The intensity of that magenta and that purple in the top right are not going to print true.

This is how it will look in final.

So even if you do what you think is perfect color on screen, there is no way it can perfectly convert to print. Almost everything will involve a little bit of compromise.

Even though you have to consider the color shift issues, preserving your files in RGB gives you greater wiggle room, especially if you get lucky someday and get to work with a printer who can print in 6 colors. Or maybe some technology you don’t know about will pop up and make printing super glorious. Who knows.

Regardless, you should keep an eye on that gamut and color for CMYK print, while preserving your master files in RGB.

Until next time.

[cy-cyborg]

The Untrustworthy Fake: Disability Tropes

[ID: A screenshot of Willy Wonka from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as he limps towards a crowd using a cane. In the picture, he has a brown top hat in his hand, and he's wearing a suit with a purple jacket, multicoloured bow tie and cream coloured pants. Beside him is text that reads: "Disability Tropes, The untrustworthy Fake" /End ID]

Tell me if this sounds familiar: A new character is introduced into a story with some kind of disability - usually visible but not always. Maybe they're a seemingly harmless person in a wheelchair, maybe they're a one-legged beggar on the street, or maybe they're an elderly person with a cane and a slow, heavy limp. But at some point, it's revealed it's all a ruse! The old man with a cane "falls" forward and does a flawless summersault before energetically springing back up to his feet, the wheelchair user gets to their feet as soon as they think the other character's backs are turned, the one legged beggar's crutch is knocked out of his hand, only to have his other leg pop out of his loose-fitting tunic to catch him.

All of these are real examples. Maya and The Three introduces one of it's main protagonists, Ricco, by having him pretend to be missing a leg in order to con people (something that works on the protagonist, at least at first), Buffy The Vampire Slayer had the character Spike, pretend to be in a wheelchair, until the other characters leave and he gets up, revealing it's all a ruse and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory introduces Wonka by having him slowly limp out into the courtyard of the factory, only for his cane to get stuck, causing him to "fall" and jump back up, revealing that he's actually perfectly fine. Virtually every single major crime show in the past few decades has used this trope too, from CSI to The Mentalist, Castle, Law and Order and Monk all having at least one episode featuring it in some way. Even the kids media I grew up with isn't free from it; The Suite Life of Zack & Cody sees Zach faking being dyslexic after meeting someone who actually has the condition in the episode Smarter and Smarter and the SpongeBob SquarePants episode Krabs vs Plankton has Plankton fake needing a wheelchair (among other injuries) after falling in the Krusty Krab as a ploy to sue Mr Krabs and trick the court into giving him the Kraby Patty Formula.

No matter the genre or target audience though, one thing is consistent: this trope is used as a way to show someone is dishonest and not to be trusted. When the trope is used later in the story, it's often meant to be a big reveal, to shock the audience and make them mad that they've been duped, to show the characters and us what this person (usually a villain) is willing to stoop to. Revealing the ruse early on though is very often used to establish how sleazy or even how dangerous a character is and to tell the audience that they shouldn't trust them from the get go. Gene Wilde (The actor who first played Willy Wonka) even said in several interviews that this was his intent for Wonka's character. He even went so far as to tell the director of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory that he wouldn't do the film without that scene because of how strongly he felt this trope was needed to lay the foundations for Wonka's questionable intentions and motivations. His exact words are: "...but I wouldn't have done the film if they didn't let me come out walking as a cripple and then getting my cane stuck into a cobble stone, doing a forward somersault and then bouncing up... the director said, well what do you want to do that for? and I said because from that point on, no one will know whether I'm telling the truth or lying."

There's... a lot of problems with this trope, but that quote encapsulates one of the biggest ones. whether intentionally or not, this trope ends up framing a lot of actual disabled people as deceitful, dishonest liars. Now I can already hear you all typing, What?! Cy that's ridiculous! No one is saying real disabled people are untrustworthy or lying about their disabilities, just people who are faking!

but the thing is, the things often used in this trope as "evidence" of someone faking a disability are things real disabled people do. A person standing up from their wheelchair or having scuff-marks on their shoes, like in the episode Miss Red  from The Mentalist isn't a sign they're faking, a lot of wheelchair users can stand and even walk! They're called ambulatory wheelchair users, and they might use a wheelchair because they can't walk far, they might not feel safe walking on all terrains, they might have unstable joints that makes standing for too long risky, they might have a heart condition like POTS that has a bigger impact when they stand up or any number of other reasons. Also even non-ambulatory wheelchair users will still have scuff marks from things like transferring and bumping into things (rather hilariously, even TV Tropes calls this episode out as being "BS" in it's listing for this trope, which it refers to as Obfuscating Disability). A blind beggar flinching or getting scared when you pull a gun on them isn't a sign they're faking their blindness like it is in Red Dead Redemption 2. Plenty of blind people can still see a little bit, it might only be a general sense of light and darkness, it might be exceptionally blurry or just the fuzzy outlines of shapes, or they might only be able to see something directly in front of them, all of which might still be enough to cue the person into what's happening in a situation like that. Even if it's not, the sound of you pulling your gun out or other people nearby freaking out and making noise probably would tip them off. A person needing a cane or similar mobility aid sometimes, but being able to go without briefly or do even "big movements" like Wonka's rolling somersault, doesn't mean they don't need it at all. Just like with wheelchairs, there's a lot of disabilities that require canes and similar aids some days, and not others. Some disabilities even allow people those big, often straining movements on occasion, or allow them to move without the aid for short periods of time, but not for long. Some people's disability's might even require a mobility aid like a cane as a backup, just in case something goes wrong, but that still means you need to carry it around with you, and unless it can fold down, it's easier to just use it.

Disability is a spectrum, and a lot of disabilities vary in severity and what is required of the people who have them day to day. This trope, however, helps to perpetuate the idea that someone who does any of these things (and many others) is faking, which can actively make the lives of disabled people harder and can even put them in very real danger, physically, mentally and even financially.

Just ask any ambulatory wheelchair user about how many times they've been yelled at for using accommodations they need, like disabled toilets or parking spaces. How many times they've been accused of faking and even filmed without their consent because they stood up in public, even if it was to do something like get their wheelchair unstuck or as simple as them standing to briefly reach something on a high shelf. I've caught multiple people filming me before, so have my friends and family, and it's honestly scary not knowing where those images have ended up. This doesn't just impact the person either, a friend of mine was filmed while standing up to get his daughter (who was about 4 at the time) out of the car. He was lucky to have stumbled across the video a few days later on facebook and contacted the group admins where it was posted to get it taken down, but had he not stumbled across it by chance, pictures with his home address and his car's number plate, his child's face and his face all visible would have just been floating around, all because a woman saw him stand briefly to pick up his daughter.

Many people don't stop at just saying a nasty comment or taking a photo though, a lot of people, when they suspect people are faking, will get violent. I have many friends who have been pushed, slapped in the face, spat on or had their mobility devices kicked out from under them. I've even been in a few situations myself where, had I not had people with me, I think the situation would have turned violent.

There's even been cases where those photos and videos I've mentioned before have been used against real disabled people and they've been reported to their country's welfare system as committing disability fraud. While cases like this are usually resolved *relatively* quickly, in many parts of the world, their payment will be halted while the investigation is in process, meaning they may be without any income at all because of someone else's ignorance. If you're already struggling to make ends meet (which, if you're only living off one of those payments, you probably will be), a few weeks without pay can mean the difference between having a home and being on the streets.

Not to mention that when there's so many stories about people faking a disability in the media, especially when the character is doing it to get some kind of "advantage", such as getting accommodations or some kind of disability benefit, it perpetuates the idea that people are rorting the systems put in place to help disabled people. If this idea becomes prevalent enough, the people in charge start making it harder for the people who need them to access those systems, which more often than not results in disabled people not even being able to access the very systems that are supposed to be helping them. A very, very common example of this is in education where accommodations for things like learning disabilities require you to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops, especially at higher levels, only to have some teachers and professors refuse to adhere to the adaptations anyway because they're convinced the student (and usually disabled students as a whole) is faking.

Yes, the "untrustworthy faker" is a fictional trope, and yes, it does occasionally happen in real life, but not as often as media (including things like news outlets) would have you believe. However, when the media we consume is priming people to look for signs that a disabled person is faking, it has a real impact on real disabled people's lives. "Fake-claiming" is a massive problem for people in pretty much all parts of the disabled community, and it ranges from being just annoying (e.g. such as people spamming and fake-claiming blind people online with "if you were really blind, how do you see the screen" comments) to the more serious cases I mentioned above. It's for this reason a lot of folks in the disabled community ask that people leave this trope out of their works.

[megid0nt]

If you're a linux[1] user who deploys multiple devices, I implore you: learn the command `scp`. It will change your life

It lets you copy files over an ssh pipe; if there's an ssh server on that host, you can essentially directly address a known file on that filesystem and say pwease gimme. And it's roughly the same syntax as `cp`, just with a `[user]@[host]:` before *either source or destination*[2].

And the real kicker is that neither source nor destination need be local:

I copied a file from my web server to an icecast source client host by passing it through my phone.

Unreasonably handy tool to have on your toolbelt.

Footnotes under the cut.

[1] Okay, fine, you got me! It's not solely a linux util. SCP is part of the openssh suite, which means that it's available on virtually every OS under the sun... Including being included by default on Windows 10 1709 and later versions of Windows. It's already on your mac, your BSD system, and almost certainly your phone, too. SSH servers and *nix go together like picnics and baskets, though, so I wouldn't exactly pull the *average* windows user aside to recc' `scp`.

[2] What's most interesting to me is that the `[user]@[host]` is used for the SSH client to know where it's authenticating and how, but the actual filesystem location's format is not processed by the SSH client; it's the *server's* format, not the client, that matters for parsing the file location. In some cases this can lead to a mismatch on filenames that you're receiving vs requesting, but the -T flag disables that checking, and then use `qwert@192.168.1.69:D:\\Documents\\testdata.bin` (drive letter indicated and backslashes escaped) to refer to it

[autisticrosewilson]

Hello to the one blog I've been loving to read for the past few days :) <3

Just wanted to add a little something that I started thinking abt after reading a few of your really cool posts, I think we should also discuss abt how Bruce's argument abt killing (with Jay) are often framed with "you're not the judge, jury & the executioner" which is really telling of who he thinks can exersise this legitimately? ? ?

I think it'd be constructive to actually properly discuss this aspect of Bruce's philosophy too. Plus, we get more nuanced Bruce characterisation. (Also keeping in mind uh... comic book propaganda of the writers and DC themselves)

YES ABSOLUTELY! Like what if someone is given a death sentence by a court of law? Does Bruce still care? I'm sure most writers would tell you no because Bruce has become a cop allegory. He's a violent enforcer of the law, and he seeks to uphold the law. Which is a recent switch! Batman comics used to be more radical, but now they're being written by old white men. So it's another one of those things where you can ignore it for your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION but you can't say that it's not A Thing because it's been like this for at least a decade.

His argument would likely be that everyone deserves a fair trial, that everyone has the right to be seen in court. Something which I do think Jason would agree with because when he's being written well he's not just shooting petty criminals! Jason's stance comes in with the big players, the disgustingly rich or well connected upper class who get away with murder. This has been true since the Garzonas case, the whole point was that Felipe was virtually immune to the law, and Jason couldn't allow that.

I think what it comes down to is whether they believe in reformative justice or punitive Justice, and I can most assuredly say that Batman believes in the latter. You can argue that Bruce is an advocate of prison reform but we don't really have evidence of that. He considers himself a punishment for criminals, he considers himself an equalizer but that's not true because he just delivers criminals into a system that is fundamentally corrupt and unfair. Do you actually think a trial in GOTHAM of all places is going to look at a rich man vs a petty crook the same way? That rarely happens even in real life.

And I don't think that Bruce does what he does out of inherent malice. Bruce is a deeply empathetic person, the core of Bruce Wayne is that he cares. But that's not enough, Bruce was allowed to grow up sheltered and it gave him an intrinsic idealism. He only has a Birdseye view of what the common people go through, that is not enough to stand there and say that he understands . Because he doesn't. He literally can't. And I think this bias, certainly one projected by the writers but that's another issue, comes through the most with Jason and Steph.

As far back as Jason's Robin era - widely regarded as Bruce's peak of being a good dad - he still makes some pretty big mistakes. Because he finds this homeless kid whose family has been ripped apart by the corrupted systems, who has actively experienced the worst Gotham has to offer, and he comes to the conclusion that if he doesn't take Jason home Jason will inevitably become a criminal even after Jason explicitly says he doesn't like stealing. So he takes Jason in but he makes that position as his son synonymous with Robin. And this is where we have to talk about meta because Jason is intrinsically tied to meta narratives. I'm not sure if you saw my other posts about Robin, as a concept, but I'll summarize here.

Child sidekicks are fine, in early comics. When things were campy light hearted whodunnit mysteries with a few action sequences, when you always knew that the child hero would come out unscathed, would always live till the next issue. And so when Bruce makes Jason Robin you have this veil of suspension of disbelief. But Jason's era is where you start seeing these kids' storylines get worse. More gruesome, more violent, more cruel. They start really testing the limit of Bruce's morality.

Batman: The Cult - Robin Jason has to crawl through a pile of dead bodies and while Bruce is having a mental break this MAYBE 14 year old is trying to get them out. The Diplomats Son - Jason watches a rapist be let go, because he's powerful and his dad has money. He sees exactly the kind of damage it does to the victims, he's the one who finds Gloria Stanson. A Death in the Family - Jason is murdered. Tortured and murdered and betrayed. He's dead and he was always intended to STAY dead. And all throughout Tim's run and then into Steph's the writers retroactively change everything about who Jason was because it has to be HIS fault, because if it's not Jason's fault then it might be Bruce's. Because how can audiences see Bruce as just and good for taking in new kids after what happened to the last one?

The suspension of disbelief shatters. Because now Jason is back and he's angry. Because maybe we as readers know that Tim, and Steph, and Damian need to be Robin because Robin makes money with young readers. But you know who doesn't know that? Jason, who no doubt assumed that his survival depended on being Robin. Who was sold out because he was Robin. Who was badmouthed and disgraced the entire time he was gone by people he loved and trusted. Jason doesn't know that he's in a comic book, but I argue he knows he's in a Batman story.

If not from his first appearance then definitely in recent ones. What can you do besides lay down and forgive and keep coming back when you know that the universe revolves around one man? How do you get rid of the terror and anger at realizing that you can never leave, that no matter how much he hurts you the universe will bend itself in half so that he is still just and right? When you realize that the love that has defined you is a disease rooted so deeply that to rip it out would be to kill yourself, that you can't even stay dead because Bruce does not want you to be.

And they couldn't even stick to Jason being the problem! Because then Steph dies. And all I could think was "Of course she did. She's an East End girl whose been compared to Jason constantly. Or a version of him. Of course she would be tortured to death trying to get Bruce's approval." Here we are, history has literally repeated itself, and...Tim is Robin again. Why? Because this is a comic book, and Batman needs Robin.

But what do you think everyone in-universe thinks? What do you think that looks like? How can you possibly still call Bruce a good parent under these circumstances? Bruce calls Robin a blessing, a gift, a necessity. He relies on Robin, physically to watch his back and emotionally to keep him in line. He trains them, he molds them, he loves them.

But sometimes love just isn't enough and the good Robin does shouldn't negate the harm they get in the process. Robin then becomes this horrible force of change, you get it and you know that this has doomed you, one way or another. Because Bruce believes that suffering is noble, that pain can reform people. It's baked into his character. Even if he doesn't intend to hurt his kids, it's not like we haven't seen him justify it to himself and others. "I love you, I did this for your own good, I thought I could help you, it was your fault I did that, it won't happen again, I lost control of myself but only this once, we can be a family again if you just come home." It reads an awful lot like an abuser trying to convince you or himself that he's not in the wrong.

This was longer than I intended it to be, but I guess my main point is that Bruce and Batman can't ever be fully separated. Something that I think his relationship with Cass shows us he's aware of but chooses to ignore. We know that Batman is dangerous, that he wouldn't hesitate to hurt his kids, we saw that with Zurr-Batman (WHO BRUCE ADMITTED WAS A FACET OF HIMSELF YOU CAN'T SAY IT WASN'T HIM BECAUSE HE HIMSELF SAID THAT IT WAS). So why try and act like it's this impossible out of character thing for Bruce to be harmful? For his kids to feel angry and hurt about his actions or for their feelings to be as or more valid than Bruce's. Batman has and will hurt his kids and Bruce will try to rationalize it all away because he loves them, he would never want to hurt them. And the narrative will tell us that Bruce is right, that this is good and fair and just, that Bruce's perspective is the correct one, that his kids deserve this, because this is a comic book and outrage sells. Or they'll retcon it and pretend it never happened. Or they'll just never bring it up again. Or Bruce will be forgiven regardless just to hammer home how good and right he is.

Because this is a comic book about Batman, and Batman is a hero, he is our protagonist, and so he is reliable and we should never doubt him, or call him out, or be mad at him. Naturally.

[utilitycaster]

I feel a lot of discussion of misogyny in fandom would be greatly improved if people acknowledged and understood that a huge component of misogyny, especially in how people judge and berate women, real and fictional but separated from them by some distance (vs irl interactions with women face to face) is that there is virtually no "acceptable" behavior in the eyes of the misogynist.

It's not just that the woman or the female character made too emotional a decision in the moment of great crisis and therefore she's hysterical; it's that if she'd made the "logical" decision she'd be called too cold and ruthless. It's not just that she's a treated as a joke character reduced to being kooky but hot; it's that if she were seen as even slightly more serious and/or less conventionally attractive, she'd be an unfuckable killjoy or called crazy or a bitch. If she's physically weak she's a useless damsel and dead weight the other characters have to deal with; if she's physically strong she's insufficiently feminine. The problem is ultimately that the acceptable range of behavior for a female character (and women in real life) is a single point in space defined by "listens to the much smarter men and does what they tell her and doesn't take up too much screentime," and for many people even the smallest deviation from that point is justification for hating her.

A truly depressing amount of energy (some of which I have absolutely been guilty of expending in the past, and have been trying not to do for some time) goes to sniping between people who generally do like female characters over interpretations on an individual level - whether any one female character is silly or serious, led by emotion or logic - when the misogynists are open to quite literally any interpretation provided the conclusion is "and that's why she sucks and I hate her." I'm all for a discussion of different character interpretations, but the people who are being bigoted are not the ones saying "oh man she's very argumentative" if the next part of the sentence is "and that's an interesting trait to give her." The bigots are the ones saying "why won't she shut her stupid mouth and listen to the men instead of arguing all the time."

[ananke-xiii]

More on the power of resurrection as the "apple of discord": Billie won theory.

So. Chuck vs Billie, it's all about the preservation of the natural order. Now if you ask me what "natural order" means in Supernatural I wouldn't really know how to answer. I think by that they meant a concept akin to that of metaphysical necessity, of a causality that's prior to space and time. However, Chuck has subdued the Moirai as we know from s6 and s15 and he controls life, death and space and time. Therefore, the natural order seems to be Chuck himself. Or he definitely thinks he is but he's really not 'cause, as it turns out, it doesn't really matter if Chuck exists as God, anybody who can contain God's power can become God. Just like any reaper who dies can become Death in case Death is absent. In other words, "Death" and "God" are just "roles" that virtually anybody with sufficient power and in the right circumnstances could play.

In this respect, Chuck is more powerful than Death because he can control space and time as he pleases while Billie can't. I mean, it appears on Supernatural that techinically Billie can manipulate space and time but her issue is precisely that: if you start manipulating space and time Death ultimately really means nothing since it's a concept that's intrinsically connected to these notions.

This is why, I think, resurrection is the core problem in the ultimate power struggle, i.e. God vs Death. As a concept, it defies the rules of Time. If resurrection can happen, then time is no longer irreversible and if time can be reversed then Death doesn't really need to exist. But apparently in Supernatural necessity is the ultimate force and Billie wants to protect that, she wants to protect the role of Death in the story. Surprisingly, in this view I find Chuck a litte bit more fascinating because he's not only playing around with his toys, he's actually messing with Necessity itself. And no smart God would have done that 'cause it only ends one way: a recknoning.

So following this probably unsteady logic, in the end Billie won. Because what did she want? In the words of the Shadow:

The Shadow: Become "New God." Classic narcissist, right? She's all tingly for the rules, the good-old days. [...] Everyone back to where they belong... realities, dimensions, graves. What should be dead dies, angels off Earth, demons back to Hell, and I go back to sleep.

It's always, always about "the good-old days" (insert teary gif from The Office's last episode).

She didn't get to become the "New God" because she made the same mistake as Chuck: inserted herself in the story, thought she could use Jack and focused all her attention on Dean Winchester without realizing who her real enemy was (as I've previously said, it's totally Castiel. It's always Castiel, Castiel must die die die for the story to end).

But if what mattered to her, power aside, if the reason why she wanted to become god was because she didn't want anybody to interfere with the natural order AND if it doesn't matter who Death and God are as long as they stay hands-off... then Billie totally won in the end.

And she won because Castiel died and didn't resurrect (more or less, he's somewhere in Heaven probably but we don't see him. Seeing is crucial in resurrection stories: if we don't see him he might as well be dead to us). Dean died and asked not to be resurrected (incidentally I should talk about how Billie's values align with Dean's but not today). Sam eventually dies too and Jack is... somewhere, sometime, being God all alone and in everything but without interfering with Necessity (and I should also talk about what the fuck they mean when Jack says "[people] just need to know that I'm already a part of them and to trust in that". LOL what people and what trust? And why should they care? Are these the same "people" Chuck didn't give a shit about? Chuck was already a hands-off type of God, hell, he was the absent father, right? Not just to the Winchesters and the Angels, no, he was humanity's absent father. Chuck self-inserted into the story just to play with his two toys, this has nothing to do with "people". They clearly didn't know how to end the show and tried to pull the mysticism card like they did in S11 but with worse results).

Order is indeed preserved. Time as we know it is safe. Still, there are monsters and Heaven and maybe even Hell, Purgatory and the Empty. God exists but doesn't interfere. Most importantly, Death has no obstacle and can do her job just fine. Everything in its place and a place for everything.

The universe is indeed many things. And sometimes it is poetic (justice).

[tarnussy]

☹️

This whole situation of my posts getting stolen left and right is really making me sad and is extremely disheartening to create anything in the future. Not only that but it is making me not even want to play the DLC at all because I know I'd get excited about something, make either photos or gifs (anything really), god forbid a bigger multi-picture post and it would be stolen again immediately. And these accounts then, if it is a smaller one, keep yapping about how grateful they are for the new followers they gained via stealing, and big accounts just don't give a shit since they are getting sponsorships for stolen content because all that matters is follower count. It is infuriating that I spend a shit ton of time on posts, get nowhere, not even in the sense of having minimal amount of people interacting with my posts outside of tumblr, and then one of these absolute dipshits get all of the positive aspects of being a creator while they are not. The amount of time I spent on everything I posted in the last year and a half is wild and for what?

Small deroute about another thing that I don't understand: Even if I get new followers here, none of them actually check out what I made in the past. They follow then disappear forever, except for a very small amount of people. Why is that? I'm not sure where this mindset came from that you can't go and raid someones blog to reblog a bunch of shit, that is why tumblr was made. Whenever we followed someone in early tumblr days, we combed through the blog via the archive page (or even just the regular blog page) and drafted a ton of posts for later reblogs so we don't flood the dash all at once. What is this culture of never touching anything the person posts you just followed, why follow then? It's been getting gradually worse as time goes on. It must be this fucking instagram brainrot that over there if you like an older post, people will throw virtual tomatoes at you for it but I can assure you that is not a thing on tumblr. People will love if you follow someone then check out their posts they made in the past. Posts on here don't have an expiration date, I could literally go and pull up posts from 2011 to rotate them.

Back to the OG topic: so really what this teaches you is that creative work and ideas are punished, and if you are a thief, you get rewarded both with interactions and monetary compensations FOR FUCKING STEALING.

My recent Morgott reference post that could be useful for artists got a measly fucking 30 upvotes on reddit, vs when someone stole and removed my watermark on a different post got 23 000. You know how that feels? It's like getting constantly punished for wanting to connect with people who share the same interest with you.

So I absolutely have no idea what to do. Commenting on these stolen posts does nothing. They won't even bother with any reaction and keep stealing.

I've been having headaches because of this which is ridiculous because there are way more pressing issues. "Kim, there's people that are dying", as I usually say. And yet, I'm mentally fucking done. All of that combined with whatever the hell is going on in my real life, I just want to bash my head into a wall until my skull cracks.

[brucewaynehater101]

Love the blog! I have been thinking about what would be interesting ways for Jason to slowly adopt a 'no killing' philosophy. I want it to do nothing with Bruce Wayne or the Batfam (the self realisation is so so so much better,, plus I don't want it to be like... him forsaking his philosophy for... just family stuff, it has to be more) and I've been loving reading ur blog for the past few days so I was wondering if u have any thoughts on it.

I really liked Beast World's approach on it 😭😭, smth like that!! I also like the approach of how killing is actually vvv hard on Jason, and how he maybe uses it as sh sometimes. Interesting stuff methinks !!!!

Hi 👋 Thank you ^^ Very interesting premise!

Tw: Death, purposefully giving someone permanent disability, torture (?), let me know if I need to add more

I do think this depends on Jason's characterizing, but the main problem with Jason switching over to not killing is his main ideology with it:

The prison system is not adequately preventing hardcore repeat offenders from committing heinous crimes

It feels... Disingenuous if Jason just stops killing without this major flaw being fixed. Yes, maybe you could go, "It is not your job to harm yourself like that for everyone else," but he is a Bat. Giving their entire being to the cause is what they do.

In order for Jason to stop killing, he would need proof that other methods are working. Here's a few suggestions:

Blackgate/Arkham reform [and no one escapes for over a year]

Inhumane procedures/failsafes against high-risk criminals (such as bomb in the head, loss of limb, impairment, heavy medication use, brainwashing, etc.) [Wouldn't be killing, though]

Legal system fixing [would take years to implement, though]

Dangerous criminals shipped off to the Phantom Zone or some other virtually inescapable place

Some of these methods are impossible without the batfam, though :/

There is one ideology I can see Jason adapting in the meantime, however.

If they die, they stop suffering.

As long as someone puts the little notion into his brain, it will get the ball rolling. He would start to morph from killing shots to permanent injuries. Not only would this affect their quality of life, but their medical bills will become expensive. It's also a permanent reminder of what they've done (I'm not arguing for this method. This is a reflection of what might change his mind to refrain from killing).

As he slows or stops killing, he may find this to be preferable (lessens the blood staining his hands).

I also think the Outlaws could help him with these realizations. They may kill as well, but that would allow Jason to have open and honest communication about the costs.

Jason could also use his tactical prowess for designing personal hells for every person he deems worthy of it (like the real disgusting jerks out there).

In the end, he would refrain from killing unless he deems it necessary for his, his teammates, or civilians' safety.

As far as using killing being a form of SH, I can agree with that idea depending on the circumstances/how it's interpreted.

We could see how killing takes a literal tax on his soul, but I'd prefer to analyze how killing harms his relationships/support system (not talking about his friends. We stan them and their unwavering support).

The Bats, his family, are actively against killing. This is not an argument of whether they should or not. This is a statement about their boundaries. Jason knows that the Bats are against killing and that maintaining a relationship with them while killing would be extremely arduous, or, in some iterations, impossible.

We could argue whether or not Jason should even be part of the Batfam (for his own sake) or how he may have hoped they'd love him in spite of that. We could debate on how much Jason's independent actions should affect the Bats considering their vigilante status vs their family status.

Those are all separate but vital arguments.

Bottom line, Jason knew/knows that killing is a HUGE point of contention. How the others react (and, in some cases, they react horribly) is besides the point.

So, if Jason is trying to play nice with his family by not murdering anyone, he could easily jeopardize himself/his relationships by killing again (this is not a discussion about how the Bats react/what Jason deserves). In one action, he would destroy everything.

I've seen a lot of fics where Jason renegades his agreement due to one of his family members being hurt. He ends up killing again due to the severity of the perpetrator's actions against his loved one(s). This is fabulous angst.

However, I haven't really seen one analyzing Jason killing again because of his low self-esteem. After months of not killing, he relapses in an effort to push everyone away from him with the eventual goal of impersonating a dumpster fire.

In this scenario, Jason kills again to scream, "Look! Can't you see? I am the monster I think I am. I don't deserve love/kindness. I don't deserve you."

Thus, him killing in these circumstances is actively harming himself and fucking up his life. A good batfam would communicate and help him through this. A bad batfam would allow Jason to distance himself or, worse, provide the punishment he feels he deserves (i.e. being banished from Gotham, being locked up, etc).

But, overall, I agree. Jason shouldn't change his methods just for his family. It's an important piece of his identity as a vigilante. He, as a murder victim, believes that death is justice for those wronged. While not all victims would agree to this, it is how Jason feels. He no doubt would be relieved and less fearful if the Joker was dead.

[gayelderstourney]

OLD MAN YAOI BRACKET ROUND 1

Propaganda:

Sir Alistair Hammerlock/Wainwright Jakobs:

THEY ARE CANONICALLY MARRIED!!!!! THEY ARE FORCE/FINESSE SUN/MOON SALT/SUGAR. THEY ARE SILLY GENTLEMEN WHO ARE IN LOVE. HAMMERLOCK IS A VICTORIAN BIG GAME HUNTER LIFTED STRAIGHT FROM A STEAMPUNK NOVEL WHO IS ALL ABOUT ADVENTURE AND WAINWRIGHT IS A SOUTHERN GENTLEMAN HEIR TO A GUN MANUFACTURING MEGACORPORATION WHO HAS SMALL AMBITIONS. OPPOSITES ATTRACT ULTIMATE INCARNATION. THE THEMES AND MOTIFS AND PARALLELS BETWEEN THEM ARE IMPECCABLE. THEY SUPPORT EACHOTHER UNCONDITIONALLY AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY. HAMMERLOCK THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO DIE AND HE RECORDED WHAT HE THOUGHT WERE GOING TO BE HIS LAST WORDS AND HE SAYS, I QUOTE: "but I long not for death seeking adventures, but instead for one… last… peaceful… moment… with you. I love you, Wainwright. Farewell." DID I MENTION HAMMERLOCK HAS A NICKNAME FOR WAINWRIGHT. HE CALLS HIM Winny AND IT MELTS MY HEART EVERY TIME. GOD THEY GET MARRIED IN THE CORPSE OF AN ELDRITCH GOD AND THEIR WEDDING IS AN ENTIRE DLC. IT ALSO COVERS THEIR RESPECTIVE DOUBTS THAT MAYBE THEY AREN'T THE RIGHT MAN FOR EACHOTHER BUT IN THE END THEY REALIZE THAT IT'S NOT TRUE AND THE OTHER LOVES HIM SO SO SO MUCH JUST LIKE HE IS. I AM SO SO AUTISTIC ABT THEM THEY ARE PEAK OLD MAN YAOI BUT THEY ARE VIRTUALLY UNKNOWN IN THE OLD MAN YAOI COMMUNITY. PLEASE.

They have an entire DLC about their wedding. Their base game story arc starts with Wainwright calling you to ask you to go on a rescue mission to save Hammerlock and calling him the love of his life.

There is a whole game DLC dedicated to their canonical marriage, they constantly call each other by pet names, every single time they talk about one another there is passion in their voices, they express how much they love and care for each other.

Irving Bailiff/Burt Goodman:

they are TRAPPED in capitalist dystopian hell and yet gay love persists. literally they are fighting for their got damn lives to be gay. they've been subjected to evil fucked up brain surgery to make them forget who they are outside of the workplace and yet. AND YET. they fall in love INSIDE the workplace and gain the desire to fight their oppressors so they can do old man yaoi activities. i forgot to take my adderall today sorry im not forming coherent thoughts but they made christopher walken yaoi real

They have only ever experienced being at work and are desperately trying to find meaning with no memory of the outside world. Fraternization is against the rules as well. The yearning is so much.

they are 2 sad old men who are in forbidden love. they bond over a mutal love of corporate art & company tote bags. their love inspired Irving to rebel against his employers for the first time ever. Burt is even Christopher Walken.

They’re so quietly sweet and heart-wrenching… fell in love on the ‘inside’ (they both work a job that ‘severs’ their work memories from their out-of-work memories; inside the job, they have no idea who they are on the outside or what the world is like, but they found each other and found a little bit of love and meaning and happiness inside the nightmare corporate world that is their job)

canonically in love with each other! in the show people sever their consciousness so they aren't aware when they're working. this creates a separate person that only exists while they're at the office, who doesn't share any memories with the person they are on the outside. these two old men bond and find comfort in each other despite the dystopian hell situation they're in

Old men having a forbidden romance while stuck in a hellish workplace dystopia

These two old men know nothing outside of their company propaganda, which says romance is forbidden, and they still choose each other. They bond over paintings, discuss company policy in each other's arms like they're debating scripture on whether their love is allowed. They're sooo gay and it's so sweet to see true, canonical old man yaoi

Weird old man office romance except they only exist inside the bounds of the world’s worst office building and they go on a little date to a room full of plastic plants

[lonelylonelyghost]

Re-watch of The Spirealm. Episode 30

Ah yeah. The iconic "Theater Gay vs Math Gay" moment

Friendship in the umbrella is the key that we've found along the way or something, idk

Well, she's a proper spoiled brat, but she seems to genuinely love her boyfriend. I don't know how to feel about her... She is a human I guess

I like her

The stairs in the forest - it's my favourite thing!!! I'm obsessed with those images, even managed to find several in real life

yey!

YOO-HOOO!!!

"It said that in a village where it rained incessantly, crops were about to fail. The villagers, in their ignorance, heard of a method: chopping off someone's head and hanging it in the yard would make the torrential rain stop.

The villagers, believing in this superstition, selected a child. The village school teacher tried to dissuade them from this foolish act, explaining that the village, situated between the mountains and the sea, was naturally rainy. the villagers, unwilling to listen, insisted on sacrificing a child.

The school teacher, determined to sacrifice himself in place of that student. The ignorant villagers wrapped the teacher's head in white cloth and hung it high..."

First of all, who even came up with this method? Who told the villagers this? I need to have a few words with them.

Second of all... So, like - the superstition was correct? Because it worked, didn't it? The rain stopped immediately...

And third of all, I can't believe that Gao Dawei canonically based this entire Door World on some random popular internet search. This dude used Bella Swan's research method lmao

:)

oh great...

"Have you ever thought that the world inside the Doors is real? And everything we're experiencing now is an illusion."

"Of course, I have. But I can't figure it out."

"If it were you, would you choose a real but scary world or a virtual but safe world?"

"I'll choose wherever you are."

And he'll be true to his word...

Ah, my heart...

They're so cute together....

"Ruan-ge, I don't have the courage and guts to face everything inside the Door. If I have to experience the world inside the Doors again, I'd rather die. Dead as a door nail."

But as much as it hurts, I understand her decision. The Door world is terrifying, and in order to have a slightly higher chance (and not a guarantee!) of passing her 6th, she'll have to experience the horrors of other Doors time and time again. I don't know what I would've chosen if I were in her place...

But it still hurts, it hurts, it HURTS! Why did I even start this re-watch???...

"I'll help you in the Door, Zaozao."

"Nonsense. You've passed a low-level Door alone so far and Li Dongyuan sacrificed his life to save you. How can you protect Tan Zaozao?"

"Because there is nothing I could do about Li Dongyuan's death. I don't want to lose another friend!"

"You're not saving her, you're just going to die with her!"

"Isn't that what being friends mean?"

"The meaning of friendship is to live for each other, not die for each other."

😔said the person who will not heed his own advice...

And now we feel guilty for the argument...

≧ ﹏ ≦

"Cheng Yixie, you're risking your life! Why won't you ever listen to me?"

"Ruan-ge, I'm sorry."

"You're just drinking poison just to quench your thirst, do you know that?"

"If it works, I'll drink the poison. If Qianli can quench thirst, then it'll be enough."

Yixie and Qianli, these poor babies! 😭😭😭

They are really such different characters, that's why I still had doubts at the time that it was the same actor, even if I already noticed the specific camera movements

🐱and🐶

oh nononononono

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[raayllum]

Something I’ve been noticing a lot in my current rewatch is how Rayla and Soren are foils…Soren being the failed crownguard (“failed” in large part bc of his father’s choices) who ends up on a quest to kill his little king… Rayla trying to make up for her parents’ failures as dragonguards and going every extra mile to protect Zym but taking Ezran under her protection as well (sometimes FROM Soren)…, Soren runs Viren through for trying to kill Ez but he’s just an illusion, the real Viren is trying to kill Zym, and Rayla is prepared to die to stop that…then Rayla goes but Soren stays, and when she comes back he’s taken up her role as the moral center of the show, arguing points that she used to make

I tried to see if you’d written anything about these two being foils specifically but tumblr search is… you know lol. I would love it if you could point me to a relevant meta if there is one! If there isn’t, I hope my thoughts were interesting lol they make me emotional

Y'know funnily enough I don't think there ever was a dedicated Soren&Rayla from almost anyone (of course I could've missed it, but at least not from me) precisely cause from what I remember of early post-s3 arc 1 days, their foil relationship was just... a general fandom consensus of everyone going "Oh yeah that checks out" and kinda left at that.

After all, Soren is the princes' sworn protector who tries to kill them, makes his way back onto the right side, and then 'kills' Viren (his father) in order to protect them... whereas Rayla is their sworn killer who defects from her father in order to protect those same princes, and then she actually kills Viren (if Aaravos and Claudia hadn't intervened) in the same episode. More than that, they both leave behind their previous "hey kill these kids" roles in favour of being a Protector of their respective princes (Soren with Ezran, Rayla with Zym) respectively likewise in 3x09.

You're absolutely right that Soren and Rayla both rely a lot on their physical fighting skills, and this parallel in regards to failure always stands out to me in S3:

Soren: As crownguard, it was my job to make sure that nothing happened to him. No matter what. So when the Moonshadow elves came I did everything I could to protect him. But it wasn't enough. I just... don't want to fail you, too. Rayla: It's me, and it's all my fault. I failed them. I let them all down. They're right to reject me. I'm not good enough, and I never will be.

as does this one for Runaan-Viren, because Runaan may have brought his teenage daughter on an assassination mission, but she's never seemingly scared of him the way Soren is of Viren

even if both fathers take issues with 'fear born' weakness at least in theory

And of course there's some other parallels scattered throughout, which makes sense: 1x01-1x03 is basically Rayla speedrunning Soren's S1-S3 arc of perpetuating the cycle of violence to actively trying to stop it by joining forces with your previous 'enemy'.

I think in a lot of ways Soren was exactly the sort of human Rayla had prepared her whole life to kill -- he's proud, he lies, he's not a 'good' person (at first) -- but of course, now they're good friends and it's very sweet to see. Arc 2 has less direct foils, but it's still there, y'know? Just more quietly in the background.

For example, enough has changed since 2x07 that now in 4x05 their roles have virtually switched, since Soren is the one campaigning to save the dragon while Rayla, although not the aggressor, is saying to walk away. I expect S6 Rayla to take some of Soren's 'protector' quality on further in regards to "doing everything you can" when Callum gets possessed. Possible 5x08 parallels also stand out to me with the concepts of identities (names), ownership vs agency, and compassion against the enemy currently wailing on you through future possessed!Callum and Elmer parallels.

The two are also in for a real pickle since they're the most "these people are the bad guys, we're the good guys" in the show... and it's like sir your sister is evil and ma'am your boyfriend is going through a corruption arc, you're in for some rude awakenings. That said they do have their unbreakable bonds of love with Claudia and Callum respectively, so who knows. It'll all work out. (Eventually.)

On that note we can also see some parallels between 2x02 and 3x03 perhaps... Rayla accuses Soren of trying to kill Ezran but explains it poorly, so Callum gives her as much as he can but doesn't side with her in the moment (which to be fair it is Quite a leap so like Callum you're so valid) VS Soren poorly explaining Viren asking him to kill the princes and Claudia not siding with him. The difference is that in the face of more evidence in favour of Claudia + Soren, Callum still sides with Rayla, and in the face of more evidence against Viren ("You'll understand when you see the first to change" -> "Claudia, you're changing too"), Claudia still sides with Viren, but I digress.

I'd also argue that Ezran is the moral centre of the show (at least to me) simply because he's the only one in the main cast who hasn't entered the 1) you did terrible things in the name of love/protective relay and 2) he's pretty measured and compassionate 99% of the time (but I do love the 1% when he's not let me tell you).

I talked about it in this meta (which is 2+ years old jc) about how like a good moral line event horizon measuring stick is "how does this character treat Ezran" and if they're treating him poorly they're not doing the right thing, and if they're treating him well then they Are, but it doesn't go into S4 or S5 so like. Mileage may vary

Last but not least: I do have a Sorayla tag for headcanons edits brotp content in general so if you want more of them, that's what I'd recommend, with fics such as "flower crowns" (oneshot) and "if heaven and hell decide" (completed multichap, 60k) for their dynamic

[dms-a-jem]

Depeche Mode - Interview with Alan and Martin

International Musician and Recording World - Nov. 1984

Leaving their beginnings as wide-eyed Popsters behind them, Depeche Mode have become masters of the art of noise and the science of the studio. Adrian Deevoy had a rewarding chat with the Basildon-to-Berlin boys, Les Drennan took some great pictures.

Somewhere, off one of the corporate corridors in the labyrinthine complex we affectionately term Broadcasting House, a woman sits alone. Her job is to create emotion, tension and atmosphere. Her key to this process is a PPG system. Although this is heartbreakingly unromantic it is the ultimate argument for machines in the Machine vs Human debate. It’s also quite a nice little story.

Depeche Mode like this story.

“All the sounds for Life Of Earth,” declares Alan Wilder.

“All those little animals,” beams Martin Gore.

After four years Depeche Mode are pretty bogged off with being told that they make inhuman music. They quite rightly believe this accusation to be untrue. They might accept that their first two albums weren’t cataclysmic – catchy, melody blip-bops if you like your lager warm but nothing to telex home about – but they remain adamant that last year’s LP, Construction Time Again, this years singles People Are People and Master And Servant, and their latest album Some Great Reward are anything less than stirring. For in the last 18 months Depeche Mode have discovered, embraced and subsequently immersed themselves in sound. With the aid of producer Daniel Miller’s matchmaking Synclavier a strange love affair has developed between the band and sampled noise.

Alan Wilder and Martin Gore, the songwriters, seemed most smitten to a meeting between themselves, and a micro-Walkman was promptly arranged in a horrendously loud video wine bar where they both bawled unashamedly of their love for sound.

“I’ll take you through all the sounds on People Are People,” says Martin, eyes glazed, sparing the machine no blushes. “The bass drum at the beginning was just an acoustic bass drum sampled into a Synclavier then we added a piece of metal to that – just a sampled anvil type sound – to give it a slight click and make it sound a bit different. That’s the beauty of the Synclavier, you can edit sounds together to make what we call combination sounds. The main synth sound is the actual ‘synth’ sound on the Synclavier, that’s the one that plays the bass riff. But the bass sound is a combination sound too with part of it being an acoustic guitar plucked with a coin, which sounds very interesting when the two sounds are sequenced together.”

“There’s very little playing going on in People,” adds Alan, “virtually everything is sampled into the Synclavier. With the guitar sounds we altered them slightly once they were in the Synclavier because you sample in one note and then you can alter the length and dynamic of every note in the sequence for the guitar part so it will give expression, but it will still be completely in time. You can justify all the rhythms, you see, so that you can have articulation but it’s all in time.”

Getting back to the People Are People breakdown Martin unveils a short sampling anecdote: Love on a plane.

“I took a stereo Walkman when I was going on a plane from England to somewhere,” he begins. “I originally brought it along to take the takeoff but while the air hostess was doing her safety speech at the start of the flight I decided I’d tape that as well. But as she was telling everyone to ‘Check the instruction cards under your seat,’ the door flew open and all this air rushed in which made a real loud noise and everyone laughed. Anyway I looped the end of what she was saying and the laughter so it goes, ‘…tion cards ha ha ha ha …tion cards ha ha ha ha,’ which sounds funny but I used it in conjunction with a choir sound and it added a really nice texture to the bridge on People.”

“There’s a Synclavier harp sound in the verses,” contributes Alan, “and an ARP sequencer playing very fast in the chorus and there’s some Emulator sounds that we used for adding a few frills here and there.”

The three throaty clunks at the end of each chorus is in fact Martin’s throat.

“That was a combination sound,” says Alan. “First of all we sampled Martin going, ‘Unk Unk Unk,’ with his throat then we added a bell sound and a timpani to give it depth.”

“I felt a bit of a berk doing that,” admits Martin. But love’s a bit like that.

The vocal line, “It’s a lot… like life,” at the beginning of Master and Servant was yet more fodder for the Synclavier. As Alan explains.

“Firstly we got a lot of people singing the high, ‘It’s a lot,’ and then a low, ‘Like life.’ You don’t have to play one slower or faster than the other to get the octave either because you make a patch on the Synclavier keyboard for each part and then you play the parts in their natural pitches and both at the same speed which is very handy.”

The lead vocals on People Are People and Master and Servant (or M&S as us Depechies call it) on the 7” mixes at least, were pretty well the only sounds that weren’t sampled.

“The vocals,” explains Alan, “were recorded in a big room. That is the vocals were sent down through a PA into a big, live room so we could not only get a great big sound but so we could put effects on the vocal while it was being recorded and afterwards on the disk.

“Although we sample all the snare sounds,” he adds as an afterthought on live rooms, “we always record the initial sound in an ambient space. We like to vary the snare sounds a lot so we record all different acoustic snares in various rooms and we close mike them or mike them from a distance depending on the width of the sound that we require. Simmons pads? No, I don’t like them. After you’ve done all that fiddling around to get away from that factory preset sound you might as well have got a really good sound on the Synclavier. Simmons pads just remind me too much of that Howard Jones factory preset and Drumulator syndrome. Really boring ‘synth’ sounds. They’re just not interesting, they sort of scream ‘DX7!’ and ‘JP8!’ at you.”

The latest Depeche album boasts a myriad of sounds, less overtly metallic than the socialist sentiments that they reflected on Construction Time Again but just as fascinating. Love is all about contrasts.

“We don’t think that we overdid the metal-beating idea on Construction Time,” says Martin, “but we wanted to make this one less obviously metal sounds. We wanted a little more subtlety…”

So instead of belting skips they belted concrete.

“Yeah, on one of the tracks on the album, Blasphemous Rumours,” elaborates Alan, “we sampled some concrete being hit for what turned out to be the snare sound. All that entailed was us hitting a big lump of concrete with a sampling hammer…”

“…I’m sure they’re not actually called sampling hammers,” interjects Martin giggling.

“Anyway,” continues Alan, “the engineer / producer we use, Gareth Jones, has got this brilliant little recorder called a Stellavox which we use with two stereo mikes and it’s as good as any standard 30ips reel-to-real but this is very small and therefore very portable. So we just took the Stellavox out into the middle of this big, ambient space and miked up the ground and hit it with a big metal hammer. The sound was… like concrete being hit. I can’t really put it any other way.”

“Professional Walkmans are good for sampling too,” claims Martin. “Gareth has always got his out. On trains… at home. They’re good because they get a very impure sound that can often be really interesting. But if we want a very pure sound then we’ll take the thing, say a bit of scaffolding, into the studio and mike it up in the proper conditions and get a clean sound.”

If an equipment list had been included in the mentions on Some Great Reward, apart from pavements, buildings, bottles and old people being stapled together it would have incorporated a long list of toy instruments which Martin divulged as he became more intoxicated; by love of course.

“One morning me and Andy (Fletcher) went down to Hamleys, the toy shop in London, and bought as many toy instruments as we could find. Pianos, saxophones, xylophones and we took them all back to the studio and sampled them. One we used a lot was a Marina (?), a toy one, very strange, but after we’d sampled it, it was great. It sounded pretty terrible as a toy but when we took it down a couple of octaves it sounded really good.”

“People tend to think that if you’re using toy instruments then they have to sound whacky,” complains Alan, “but we put some to very good use because as soon as you sample them they take on a whole new quality and when you transpose them it puts them in a completely new context. Like the noises Martin was making with his throat, we only took those down a tone and it was unrecognisable as someone going, ‘Unk’, with their throat.”

But sampling, like love, isn’t all happiness and although Depeche have learnt to take the rough with the smooth, they found out the hard way. Alan breaks off in the middle of another ‘good combination sound’ story to tell how they were stitched up by a sussed, sampling percussionist.

“We were doing this combination with Martin doing his Indian voice combined with a bassoon type sound.”

“It was pretty ethnic,” says Martin launching into his Indian voice.

Alan ignores him. He has something on his mind that he’s not sure if he should tell us.

“I’m not sure I should tell you this,” he tells us, “but we got this percussionist in for the afternoon to sample his drums and the different techniques of playing them. We didn’t try to hide the fact that we were sampling him. We said, ‘We hope you don’t feel r*ped,’ and he agreed to be sampled literally just hitting one drum, once at a time. Anyway we sampled all his drums once, maybe twice. Now, the Musicians Union haven’t really caught up with sampling and this bloke had obviously contacted them when he got home because he gave us this bill for about 50 different sessions, plus sampling time plus a consultation fee. It was enormous and the stupid thing was that most of the sounds weren’t even as good as that (bangs two pint glasses together) and we only used about two for maybe two seconds each on a couple of songs.”

Another problem came when the band had to divide their recording time between Music Works in England and the 56-track, Solid State luxury of Hansa Mischraum in Berlin.

“There were all these builders in next door at Music Works,” moans Martin, “and we’d have the track running with us hitting skips and concrete and they’d be next door tearing a wall down and we couldn’t tell which was which. It was very confusing at times.”

Like love and marriage, sampling and timing tend to go together like the proverbial horse and jockey.

“Although it makes the whole process even longer, when you get into one you can’t really help but get into the other,” says Alan. “You can’t help, after you’ve been involved with sequencing for a while, noticing three millisecond or five millisecond discrepancies. So you end up time-shifting every sequence until it’s perfect. Then we got into consciously putting things slightly out of time. Like, for example, the choir sound on People again we used a combination sound of different choir sounds on different synths and then put them slightly out of time with each other. Like we took one sound from the Synclavier, one from the PPG and one was on the Emulator. Are you familiar with the Friendchip? It’s a time code reading clock that can monitor every single click output from all your drum machines and all your synths so when everything is going via the Friendchip you can adjust the feel by pulling something, say five or six milliseconds in one direction.

“The thing is so many things can’t play in perfect time anyway,” reveals Alan, “the Linn isn’t in time when it’s meant to be playing ‘drum machine’ perfect time without human error programmed in. It can go out by 20 milliseconds. We set an oscilloscope on several things to see how well they kept time. The one that came out best was the TR808 which only as a two millisecond shift. That’s better than the Synclavier. Rotten sounds though. But we actually ended up triggering stuff from the 808 just because it’s so tight within itself.”

“We always thought the 808 had a good feel,” chips in Martin before adding a bitchy, “even though Alan has a grade eight piano his playing is still incredibly out of time compared to the Synclavier sequencer… and even that’s out!”

All this and the Emulator II?

“Yeah,” admits Martin realising that his love has almost turned him into a technocrat, “the sampling time is about 17 seconds now, I think, and you can get more sampling across the keyboard, it gives better quality than the Fairlight and it only costs about seven grand which is a lot but it will be a big help to us live.”

And there’s a pianillow ballad, Somebody, to be sung love. Martin promises some. Kinda wonderful.

“We’re going to go for a completely human feel on that one. Just a piano played by Alan and Dave singing and Andy playing tapes on the Fostex X15. It’ll be very different.”

So the love for sound can take you backwards but what of the future?

“I don’t know,” confesses Martin, “the Synclavier can already go further than your imagination and they’re thinking of getting new software for that. Then there’s re-synthesis which might happen in a couple of years where you can take a sampled sound and change just tiny parts of it. It’s really impossible to say. Maybe we’ll just get the guitars out and make a Rock ’n’ Roll album. Who knows?”

…and somewhere, within the folds of Auntie Beeb’s ageing skin, a woman sits alone wrestling with a similar emotional predicament. Is she really in love with her PPG system is has it been David Attenborough all along?

Adrian Deevoy, November 1984 (some of the text is hard to read so transcribed to the best of my ability. Apologies for any typos)

[liuwithheadcanons]

General Dynamic Aggression Headcanons

Cause I want to expand on the dynamics and their aggression- also cause my omega aggression headcanon seems to be gettin some traction lmao

Tw for violence talks, blood,,,just over all a dynamic study on aggression behaviors. So stay safe and skip if ya need!

note that these are just general statements and can differ! It’s not isn’t clear cut, but this is the general consensus in my verse! 

Omegas: Omegas are usually seen as the most patient and compassionate out of the dynamics. They can control their annoyance and emotions much easier. However that doesn’t mean they can’t be aggressive or show anger. In fact, aggressive Omegas are seen as the most intimating and the ones that can do the most damage if they have the chance. Which, they usually don’t, so cases of Alpha/Omega or Beta/Omega violence where the Omega is the perpetrator is taken either seriously or not seriously due to the uncommonness. But many times in those cases, while it was eventually stopped due to Betas and Alphas being generally stronger than Omegas, the Omega did do real harm before the intervention. 

Many people’s perception are stuck in old ways of thinking that Omegas can’t actually hurt the ‘higher,’ dynamics

However Omega on Omega violence while uncommon does happen and that’s usually when the most damage is done. They can go into an all out battle of clawing, biting, stabbing, tackling, pinning and growling and won’t back down. Many compare them to rabbits due to the ‘fragility,’ of the dynamic but also the damage that can be done if provoked enough.

Omegas teeth are the sharpest but their bite force is weak, this is because their teeth are more for stabbing a ‘critical’ spot over and over. (I got this from a old saber-tooth documentary that suggested as such and though: huh, it works)

Alphas: Unlike Omegas, Alphas are usually seen as aggressive, prideful, assertive, competitive but also at the core of it all: protective. Due to the semi- social norm of Alpha on Alpha violence it is often seen as the most violent. Though experts know they’re actually second to Omegas. Alphas do have patience and can also hold in their emotions but Alphas know how to push other Alphas buttons which can result in a brawl. Biting, clawing, tackling and hitting is most common. Due to the semi-normalcy there is an Alpha on Alpha aggression and violence, there is an Alpha vs Alpha etiquette. This is due to having the strongest bite force and second sharpest teeth, which can cause a lot of harm.  The rules are: Never claw for their scent glands If one of them is staying down for ten seconds or more, then the other is the winner. Weapons aren’t allowed in a domestic/public fight, unless life is in danger Never hurt a kiddie/pup to the point of blood, exception is a nose bleed

Betas: Sadly due to biology, they are the weakest when it comes to offensive aggressiveness. They are generally the second best at patience, and just like Omegas it takes a lot for them to snap after being annoyed by someone for so long. When a Beta gets aggressive, unlike their counterparts that go offensive, they go defensive. They rely on their virtually silent feet, and their nose to weave and sneak around to land small attacks that the opponent can’t see coming. This is due to fangs being the least sharp, so they have to compensate and make up for that.

You can tell there was Beta on Beta violence due to the stalking, the silence, and their over all demeanor which is seen as ‘creepy.’ But do not be fooled, while they are generally the weakest offensively is perfectly capable of taking down an Omega and Alpha. It just takes more work and extra calculation- which due to their ability to better distinguish instincts from feelings and logic- is usually easy for them to plan out. 

[3liza]

i think the part of A Rape In Cyberspace that caught my attention the most on this read-through a few days ago was the part where they are convening the meeting of the MOO users to discuss what to do about the rapist and he finally shows up and they ask him what the fuck is his problem. and he says it was a social experiment. and the description of the reaction of the crowd is really interesting

“Asshole,” spat Karl Porcupine, “creep.” But the harshest of the MOO’s hostility toward him had already been vented, and the attention he drew now was motivated more, it seemed, by the opportunity to probe the rapist’s mind, to find out what made it tick and if possible how to get it to tick differently. In short, they wanted to know why he’d done it. So they asked him. And Mr. Bungle thought about it. And as eddies of discussion and debate continued to swirl around him, he thought about it some more. And then he said this: “I engaged in a bit of a psychological device that is called thought-polarization, the fact that this is not RL simply added to heighten the affect of the device. It was purely a sequence of events with no consequence on my RL existence.” They might have known. Stilted though its diction was, the gist of the answer was simple, and something many in the room had probably already surmised: Mr. Bungle was a psycho. Not, perhaps, in real life — but then in real life it’s possible for reasonable people to assume, as Bungle clearly did, that what transpires between word-costumed characters within the boundaries of a make-believe world is, if not mere play, then at most some kind of emotional laboratory experiment. Inside the MOO, however, such thinking marked a person as one of two basically subcompetent types. The first was the newbie, in which case the confusion was understandable, since there were few MOOers who had not, upon their first visits as anonymous “guest” characters, mistaken the place for a vast playpen in which they might act out their wildest fantasies without fear of censure. Only with time and the acquisition of a fixed character do players tend to make the critical passage from anonymity to pseudonymity, developing the concern for their character’s reputation that marks the attainment of virtual adulthood. But while Mr. Bungle hadn’t been around as long as most MOOers, he’d been around long enough to leave his newbie status behind, and his delusional statement therefore placed him among the second type: the sociopath. And as there is but small percentage in arguing with a head case, the room’s attention gradually abandoned Mr. Bungle and returned to the discussions that had previously occupied it.

it's the idiot vs villain dichotomy spelled out very clearly, one we still deal with on a daily basis online. poe's law, and before that, hanlon's razor. it stuck out to me a lot this time, im not sure why

edit; i also completely forgot about the twist. i forgot there even was one, but its a doozy