#well whatever the context should speak for itself

[skrunksthatwunk]

some other adventures from this have been

three CONSECUTIVE scenes of kuwabara going "you're NOT gonna die on me again urameshi :((" during genkai's tournament. they JUST cut to him for that and then cut away it's SICKENING. like heyy reminder that kuwabara was traumatized a bit by yusuke's death teehee and then back to like. exploding shuriken fights

realizing how much they lean into the "fight me fight me fight me" stuff in the rando arc and how much less that's the case with time because like. they actually become friends who have other stuff to talk about now :)

great beasts/maze castle/saint beasts/WHATEVER arc (and genkai's tourny) has just. they're telling each other to shut up Constantly like even more than i thought

i think i mentioned this a while back but im working on an "every kuwameshi" video right (yes it's ridiculous i know somebody take them away from me) and i just need to say im so fucking sick of editing the saint beasts arc </3 pls i love that one normally but this section of the video is like. 70% silent group shots it's so bad and not fun to watch or edit and i hate it :[

[zukosdualdao]

i know some people take the moment of azula speaking up in the flashback to the war meeting in sozin's comet as azula trying to "protect zuko" after he starts (while carefully choosing his words) disagreeing with ozai, but i really can't see it that way.

even aside from the fact that i don't think we should ever argue that her advocating for genocide here was a good thing, based on everything else about their relationship, i can't see this moment as anything but her once again trying to establish dominance and superiority over zuko. it actually reminds me of a different scene, all the way back from the flashbacks in zuko alone.

in both situations, ozai is testing his children in a way, and when zuko can't or won't give the "right answer", azula interjects and is able to say exactly what he wants to hear.

in zuko alone, of course, ozai is asking them questions that seem to be related to whatever (heavily inundated with propaganda, clearly) schooling they get. something that i find really interesting is that zuko doesn't seem to only struggle with firebending, but with his schooling as well. which isn't exactly surprising: abused kids often have trouble in school, and that seems particularly likely when ozai is already treating zuko like he is weak, incompetent, and unworthy in other areas. it's a self-fulling prophecy, on ozai's part: he demeans zuko for not being good at firebending (and perhaps for not being good in school), and, because kids are very naturally going to clam up and not get better at something when they're treated as worthless for any perceived flaw, it affects his ability to build his skills or performance in school.

but i think there's also a way in which zuko probably struggles to keep up in school because he's receptive to the values ursa tries to instill in him from a young age. he probably doesn't realize the things they are learning are things that are morally wrong, but there's a way, at this point, in which he can't relate to them, can't understand the motives of why it would be considered a good thing to defeat an enemy in such a brutal way when it runs so counter to the values of kindness ursa is trying to instill in her children, be it by explaining that throwing bread at turtleducks is not nice or that we shouldn't wish death on other family members.

by contrast, the emphasis on azula here is that she's clearly fully bought into the propaganda, that she respects and admires the brutality of the tactics. (also, is it just me, or does she sound a little like she's reciting a textbook, albeit with a lot of glee?) and notably, at the end, when she gets the answer 'right', she side-eyes zuko with a smug smirk. just like she does in sozin's comet as she's told she's right.

just for comparison's sake:

the situation in the sozin's comet flashback is different, of course, because they're not being quizzed on their schoolwork so much as they are being asked to put what they've learned about war and tactics into practice. zuko has a lot more understanding now than he did as a much younger child of the realities of war because he's seen it up close. and because of that, not only can he not condone or suggest any of the brutal and egregious tactics that are clearly expected of him, but he actually says something in defense of the earth kingdom, albeit trying to choose his words carefully, and with ozai (quite possibly willfully?) misinterpretating them.

to suggest that azula is protecting zuko here is its own form of a willful misinterpretation. you have to ignore the entire context of their relationship, azula's established motivations, and the tone of the scene itself to come to that conclusion. she does not interrupt zuko to keep him from saying something that will get him hurt, but because she wants to prove once again that she's better, that she's right and he's wrong, that he’ll never catch up. but zuko is starting to realize that he doesn’t and shouldn’t want to.

[actual-changeling]

Welcome back to a meta post that was not supposed to exist, but I fucking love answering questions, so here we are.

i got an ask (the answer contains a tl;dr) about why I think Crowley has unstable relationship patterns, and the following will be a detailed look at why this is the case, how Aziraphale plays into it, and what it ultimately means for the two of them.

This won't be as unhinged as my usual analyses, so consider this a special edition of Alex's unhinged meta corner - now hinged.

As always, please remember that this is my personal interpretation—not a generalization—and that genuine questions are welcome, either here on the post or in my inbox!

Everything I will say is based on research I have done, books & studies, and many, many conversations with my therapist (and at points my psychiatrist too); just so you know I'm not making shit up as I go.

Now, in the context of trauma-related/based disorders, what exactly does it mean to have unstable relationship patterns, and how does it apply to Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship?

Canonically, heaven does not care about what Aziraphale is doing and they are not keeping an eye on him. We know this both from references in the script and their dialogue and what we see throughout the show as a whole. That "fear" of being found out should he openly commit to Crowley is, for the most part, self-fabricated.

Yes, hell would potentially punish him (that potentially is another long post), but that is not something Aziraphale gets to take and use against Crowley, and the fact that does it anyway to 'prove' that he is not behaving incorrectly is a big issue.

What that leaves them with is a very common and well-known relationship pattern that requires a lot of self-awareness, control, and work to break it.

Aziraphale and Crowley get closer, spend more time together, their relationship grows and the intimacy increases, resulting in their behaviour changing to reflect that. They go on more romantic-coded dates (e.g. 1827, whatever the fuck 1941 was), eat together more frequently, drink together and feel comfortable enough to get drunk drunk while in each other's company—which always carries the inherent risk of doing something 'forbidden' while their impulse control is lowered.

I think the second episode of season one is actually a great example for all of this. When they drive to Tadfield, there's a mutually respectful conversation, they tease each other, they bicker like an old married couple, and don't fall into blaming the other for the situation they're in. At the manor, they are openly flirting from the start, laughing about the paintball guns and blowing kisses to miracle away stains, and the wall slam scene honestly speaks for itself.

I wrote a detailed analysis of it right here, which contains the conclusion that the entire interaction was intentional and orchestrated by the two of them.

They are doing great, they're comfortable, intimate—both physically and emotionally—and their sides are already on their asses about the apocalypse, so why not commit to the relationship?

Because Aziraphale gets scared, scared of intimacy, scared of what it would mean for his life, scared of what it would force him to confront (his faith, mostly, which is another gigantic topic), scared of the changes it would bring to their relationship, scared of breaking out of the pattern they have been moving in since the very beginning.

So he pushes, hard. He insults and denies and hurts Crowley to get as far away from all of that as possible. Push & pull, no matter when, no matter why, it's always the same.

At this point you might be thinking Alex, this is all on Aziraphale, how is this also Crowley's unstable relationship pattern? The answer to that question can be roughly summarized in one sentence:

He does not punish or discourage Aziraphale's behaviour.

There are NEVER lasting—if any—negative consequences for Aziraphale when he forces them into the push/pull dynamic, when he insults him, denies their relationship, calls him evil, you name it. No matter what Aziraphale does, Crowley always forgives and forgets and comes back to him, essentially resetting their loop. That way there cannot be any progress because they're not moving a single inch in either direction that isn't carefully organized and controlled by Aziraphale.

Why does Crowley not confront him? Because he is scared too.

Now, THIS is the part where I explain why I said Crowley has unstable relationship patterns. It is important to understand that Aziraphale's kind of instability is only one possible manifestation, and that they are—broadly speaking—on opposite ends of the spectrum, which not only makes them incredibly compatible, but also makes them worse.

Crowley is terrified of losing Aziraphale permanently and being on his own. God rejected him, heaven rejected him, hell rejected him—his life as been one traumatic incident after the other with a strong focus on abandonment and neglect, especially from people he cared about.

He says himself that Aziraphale is his only friend, he doesn't have anyone or anything else. The bookshop is Aziraphale's anchor, but Crowley has nothing except the Bentley and whatever Aziraphale allows him to partake in. Hell can take his job, his flat, punish and torture him as they please, and make his life, well, hell.

With the Bentley only appearing in the early 20th century, for 99% of his life he had nothing except for Aziraphale, his best friend, the person he loves.

So what does he do? He clings, he circles him and tries to push his orbit just a tiny bit closer whenever there's a gap he can use, trying to solidify their relationship. Terrified of being abandoned again, he swallows and ignores everything and anything negative.

The final fifteen are the FIRST TIME that Aziraphale asked him for something and he said no without changing his mind later—and it was literally the worst case scenario, the one boundary he has that he is not willing to cross for him, literally the barest minimum.

Every other time he relented, gave in, apologized for something that wasn't his fault, have Aziraphale everything he wanted from Hamlet over shooting a gun at his face to giving him the Bentley. Crowley's primary objective is to do whatever it takes to avoid being abandoned, so whenever Aziraphale DOES push back and abandons him/says that he will, he panics. He panics even more when there is an outside source threatening Aziraphale's presence in his life.

Look at how frantic he is when he finds Aziraphale after the bandstand, trying to say whatever it takes to get him to come with him. He does the apology dance, gives in when it comes to Gabriel, and never reacts to Aziraphale in a way that would prompt him to re-think the choices he is making, let alone stop doing the push/pull.

His identity revolves around Aziraphale, his only relationship is with Aziraphale, he allows him to shape him to his liking as far as he can take and then some, he needs him to be happy, to enjoy himself, to live a life worth living—and Aziraphale needs him to be and do all of those things so he can keep up his behaviour.

They are dangerously co-dependent and just spiral deeper and deeper until they hit rock bottom and are forced to separate.

Look, I have BPD on top of everything else, I have been in a relationship with this exact pattern in Crowley's role, and it is fucking horrible. Absolutely unbearable. My ex-partner was like Aziraphale, pulling and pushing and pulling and pushing but on a daily basis, every few hours. No amount of talking or begging could get them to not behave in a way that would hurt me, and I was so emotionally tied to them and terrified of being alone that just like Crowley, I relented every. single. time. A year and a half and they never, not ONCE, apologized for anything. Ever. Not for hurting me, not for being an asshole, nothing.

The only way I got out was with a lot of therapy, support, and so much emotional work I was having several panic attacks a day because I was so fucking exhausted. Crowley and Aziraphale separating was the best thing that ever happened to their relationship.

Now, Aziraphale is facing negative consequences for his behaviour and is forced to examine himself and deal with all those fears causing him to behave the way he does. Crowley on the other hand is now forced to learn how to exist without Aziraphale to orbit around—he needs to develop an identity that exists outside of Aziraphale, so he can have boundaries and stick to them.

[youremyheaven]

The Pisces Heart of Cinderella 👸🐭👗👠🏰

Claire Nakti had made a video about UBP's connection to Cinderella. While I wholeheartedly think its bs to reduce one entire nakshatra's legacy down to them marrying rich, I do think the connection to Cinderella was right. HOWEVER, I have a different take on it.

Cinderella is not merely a story about a poor girl who marries a Prince. Cinderella is a good person stuck in a really unfortunate circumstance. She is mistreated by her own family ("step-family" but receiving step-treatment is a common theme in the lives of many UBP folks) Despite it all, Cinderella is a hard worker, kind, gentle and imaginative. Its really hard to not give into bitterness when you're in a such a position but Cinderella? She's a sweetheart. She puts her head down and does the work without complaint. And soon enough she's rewarded for it. The Fairy Godmother is the embodiment of her good karma; what goes up has to come down and eventually your goodness and sincerity will be recognized. We have to take into consideration the time and place in which Cinderella was written, which is hundreds of years ago. Marriage was the only way out for women and in many parts of the world, it still is.

In this context, Cinderella going to the Ball was her receiving an opportunity to transform her life. We can come up with many "feminist" alternatives where Cinderella is a dressmaker or a boss babe or whatever but its pointless to apply 21st century morality to a fairy tale. Think of it as an allegory. The Prince here represents good fortune and Pisces is the final rashi/sign and represents the culmination of all good things. Cinderella has worked her whole life for this, this is her turning point. She gets to marry into royalty and live in a castle. This of course can be taken literally as we've seen many UBP women marry into wealth but it is also a metaphor; if you work hard enough (not just actual labour but also spiritual/karmic work) you will achieve breakthrough. In order to break out of cycles, we must put the work in. And Pisces/12h is all about breaking patterns and coming out of the cycle. The close association with butterflies should say enough. The butterfly endures the pain of transformation and breaks out of the cocoon in order to emerge as her true self.

Remember that Revati is the birth nakshatra of Saturn.

The themes of karma, justice and fair-play are very evident in Revati nakshatra (which is the birth of Saturn) as well as UBP (which is a Saturnian nakshatra).

These are the two naks that lie entirely within Pisces rashi so they're what I refer to when I speak of Pisces. (0-3 degrees of Purva bhadrapada will also be included)

Cinderella wasn't chosen at random. It wasn't sheer luck. She was wearing glass slippers that her Fairy Godmother gave her. Those were specifically made for her. Going with the earlier metaphor of the Fairy being the embodiment of karma, the slipper represents the rewards that Cinderella has earned. Even when she walks away from the Ball, the trace of her karmic footprint (literally lol) remains there. What is meant for you cannot miss you. And eventually, Cinderella gets her due.

Cinderella is a deeply Saturnian story and Pisces rashi itself has both Saturn & Jupiter influence, representing two sides to the same coin and the Wheel of Fortune. The sign of Pisces is ruled by Jupiter, the largest, most expansive planet associated with luck and abundance. Meanwhile, UBP nakshatra is ruled by Saturn and Revati nakshatra is the birth nakshatra of Saturn. Vedic mythology and astrology is full of paradoxes and contradictions, representing the duality yet singularity of human existence. Therefore it's only fitting that the concluding nakshatra that literally means "wealth" would be the one under which Saturn, planet of discipline, karma & limitations would be born.

One cannot exist without the other. Jupiter mahadasha is followed by Saturn mahadasha and even though Jupiter is known as the giver, Jupiter's blessings are more short term, it is Saturn that gives long lasting success and good fortune because Saturn only rewards the worthy.

The theme of going from rags to riches is present in the lives of many Pisces natives.

Another nakshatra that has similar themes is Punarvasu.

Now I'll mention some Cinderella adaptations and the actresses who played Cinderella (Claire already covered many in her video so I'll try to include less common examples)

I had to start with the OG 1950 animated Disney film. It stars Ilene Woods as Cinderella

Ilene has a very interesting chart that makes her the perfect choice for Cinderella.

She is Bharani Sun, UBP Moon, Mercury in Rohini, (exalted) Venus in Revati (atmakaraka) Mars in Punarvasu, Ketu in Vishaka and Ashlesha Rising

All of these naks connect to different aspects of the story and emphasize a lot of common themes.

Bharani, as I'd explained in my post about Venus naks is strongly associated with karma and is presided by Lord Yama, God of Death, time, karma, justice and punishment. Bharani is a very transformative nakshatra and I'll go so far as to say that being in the company of a Bharani native triggers transformation/karma in others as well.

Rohini & Mrigashira are also strongly associated with fairy tales (I'll make a separate post about them in the future) and themes of running away, seeking a new home, being a misfit/outsider in your own house etc are common Rohini themes.

Punarvasu literally means "return of the light". Jupiter can give but he also takes. All Jupiter naks have themes of both gain and loss. Especially with Punarvasu natives, I think there is often a tendency to take their initial success/prosperity for granted/take it too seriously/have their head in the clouds, so they lose it and then re-gain what they lost or even more in the future, thus making a "return to light". Rags to riches is a common theme for these natives.

Vishaka nakshatra is known for having many enemies and for having many haters. They often find themselves in an environment where they're an outcast in some way. Being misunderstood is a HUGE theme.

Ashlesha, as I'd explained in my post about the nak often manifests as dysfunctional relationship with their mother and for receiving step-daughterly treatment at home. Obviously this is a major element of Cinderella's story as well.

Lua de Cristal, the 1990 Brazilian adaptation of Cinderella stars Xuxa as Cinderella.

She has UBP sun & stellium (mercury and jupiter) Bharani Moon along with Pushya Mars & Rising

Pushya is considered the most auspicious nakshatra and known for being a "wealth giving" nakshatra but as a Saturn ruled nak, these natives often undergo a lot of trials and tribulations.

First Love (1939) is based on Cinderella and stars Deanna Durbin as the protagonist.

She has Jyeshta Sun, Anuradha Mercury & Venus with Ketu & Rising in Revati

Jyeshta is a nakshatra associated with unluckiness and poverty. It is generally considered an inauspicious nakshatra but as Claire's research has shown its the birth nakshatra of numerous billionaires, nodding to the paradoxical nature of Vedic astrology/mythology.

Any woman who plays Cinderella is going to have heavy Saturnian energy and Deanna is no different with that double Anuradha; which is also the height of Saturnian restriction.

the gender swapped 1960 adaptation titled Cinderfella stars Jerry Lewis as Fella.

He has Purvabhadrapada Sun (2 degrees Pisces), Mercury in Revati, Rahu and Rising in Punarvasu

This 2012 Russian adaptation of Cinderella stars Kristina Asmus as the titular character.

She has UBP Moon, Revati Mercury (atmakaraka) Venus in Rohini and Jupiter in Bharani

Mary Pickford starred as Cinderella in one the earliest screen adaptations in 1914.

She has Revati Sun atmakaraka, Venus in Rohini, Jupiter in UBP and Ketu in Vishaka

If the Shoe Fits (1990) stars Jennifer Grey as Cinderella. She has UBP Sun & Moon with Ketu in Purvabhadrapada (0 degree pisces)

Korean Dramas are notorious for playing with the Cinderella trope so here are a few Kdrama examples:

The Last Empress stars Jang Na-ra (UBP sun conjunct mars) as a Cinderella esque character.

Secret Garden stars Ha Ji Won who is Revati Moon, Punarvasu mercury atmakaraka, Venus in Ashlesha and Ketu in UBP

She also played a similar role in Empress Ki

My Secret Romance stars Song Ji Eun who has Bharani Sun & Mercury, Venus in UBP, Ketu in Ashlesha.

Something About 1% stars Jeon So-min who is Revati Sun

Master's Sun stars Gong Hyo Jin who is Revati Sun, Vishaka Moon

I'm Not A Robot stars Chae Soo bin who is Punarvasu Sun, Pushya Moon with Ketu in Bharani

Here's Drew Barrymore (Punarvasu Moon) in Ever After which is a Cinderella adaptation devoid of magic.

The stepmom is played by Punarvasu Sun Anjelica Huston

The "good" stepsister who is instrumental to the turning point of the plot and who ensures justice is served is played by Melanie Lynskey who is Bharani Moon with a Revati stellium

Claire recently made a video about Punarvasu where she said there is a theme of losing something, repenting and gaining it again. The contrast between opposites, light vs dark, beauty vs ugliness etc is a big theme in this nak. I think this movie does a great job of representing Punarvasu.

The good and the evil are both played by Punarvasu natives. This is crucial because Punarvasu is all about cycles. By the end of the movie we see the good person aka Cinderella rewarded for her goodness and the evil stepmother punished for her cruelty. Punarvasu means return to light and this also means nobody goes unpunished.

Its even more poignant that the person most crucial to ensuring that justice is served is played by a Bharani Moon native (Bharani IS karma itself tbh) and that she herself is neglected by her mother and treated like an outsider.

Lastly, it's interesting af to me that in almost every adaptation of this story, right from the very beginning to now, Pisces natives are cast as Cinderella along with a group of certain naks recurring again and again.

Here's Revati Moon Cardi B recreating a Cinderella inspired look for Harper's Bazaar

i hope i could add a little more nuance to the pisces connection to cinderella<33 hope you enjoyed it<33

[ikinremu]

KINKTOBER DAY 14: John Shelby x Face Fucking

Backchat

John Shelby x Fem!Reader

Tags: Oral (M receiving), praise

You and John Shelby couldn't be further from strangers, and you were certainly no stranger to the petty arguments you shared - besides, the many of unfathomably low significance typically ended the same way; anything of a sexual nature.

And that was today's case. Stood, rather distantly, arms crossed, bickering with the stocky man inside an otherwise vacant, somewhat compact workspace.

"John, I'm just tired, alright?" You so heavily exhaled, delivery far more venomous than the context itself, "You don't need to get so indignant about it."

Blatantly brazen, he scoffed, "You really think I'm being indignant?"

"Yes," You practically huffed out, humidity shooting from your gently parted lips, "But I really can't be bothered to talk to you about this."

"I was just trying to cheer you up."

Truthfully, you couldn't even recall what had initiated such trivial bickering - it was rather an ongoing cycle by this point.

"Alright, well, I never asked you to do that." The quick-spoken, quite lethal words were beyond mindless, you were really just speaking to speak - not truly believing what came out.

With a razor-sharp, cavernous inhale, John so heavily scoffed - and you didn't blame him.

"What's all this backchat, eh?" He inquired, "Should put that mouth to better use."

In theory, your eyebrows shot unsettlingly high, your lips sprayed a vicious, squabble-ending retort and you stormed off - though as he suddenly, possessively stepped nearer, you simply couldn't find it anywhere within yourself to do so. You were helplessly compelled to forgo.

Honestly, it was incredibly typical for the pair of you. You were never remotely dismayed with the conclusion these irrelevant quarrels were drawn to: you both realised - whatever the case - that it was mind-numbingly dull and discovered a far better, far more fulfilling use of your shared time.

Suddenly, his wonderfully warm, blissfully soft skin grazed the gentle, familiar surface of your own, pinkish lips briskly brushing over yours. Skilfully enough, John reduced his thick voice to a mere sultry whisper, "On your knees."

Rather shamelessly, you found yourself complying, so abruptly - so mercilessly - eager to feel him, to taste him. All of him.

His mouth stretched to an enormously complacent, all too recognisable grin as he both slowly and kindly swept a momentary stroke over your reddening cheek. Granting you a sweet, fragile peck atop the forehead, he inched slightly closer, thick digits unwinding his buckled trousers.

"Open." He ordered - though there was a clear lenience to his tone.

Upon your jaw's rapid unclenching, John eased himself in, vacating the sodden warmth between your lips. His raw, thick length slid onto your expectant tongue, shaft softly pulsing within your ravenously latched mouth.

A stomach-tingling, undeniably weighty groan escaped the man as he suddenly snaked a large, quite stony hand atop your bobbing head - largely splaying his fingers over your scalp, your hunger engulfing his throbbing tip.

"Fuck.." John heaved, pre-cum leaking length twitching within the flawless, skilful swirls of your tongue.

Stomach pooling with a - beyond - deep, humming heat, you rhythmically glided your mouth up and down his quivering cock, further yearning for his familiar taste.

Drool coated the very brinks of your inner-lips, thin, gradual drips running down the motions of your chin as your tongue tantalised the now relentlessly convulsing head of his cock.

"Shit," He grunted, "Just like that."

Undeniably fuelled by the low, pleasured extractions, you heightened each infliction - tongue's pace quickening as you further submerged his convulsing cock within your gliding mouth.

"Fuckin' hell." John wavered, thick fingers caressing your hair as you - quite abysmally - attempted to compress your creeping smugness.

His bare, firm length twitched against your tongue, gloriously sliding your ravenous mouth over his shaft - earning the deepest, gruffest groan yet.

An abrupt burst of hot, pale ribbons painted your rapidly stroking tongue, John’s raw shaft helplessly spasming against it.

"Fuck," He groaned, "Swallow for me. That’s my fuckin’ girl.”

With a swift, merely singular gulp, you rid your tastebuds of the warm, salty substance - mouth parting from its previous fulfilment.

In a hurried fluster of pants, John uttered an overwhelmingly breathy statement - one that was frankly rather agreeable, “Shit, much prefer that to whatever the fuck we were on about.”

Thank you for reading and hope you enjoyed! Please feel free to use the asks feature on my page for requests of oneshots/drabbles/blurbs etc.. would be greatly appreciated, though I will be responding to them after kinktober since i’m doing the full month! <3

[gemsofgreece]

A little more on Hellenism

The discussion has been going around quite a bit in the Greek tumblr community, so I am making a decision to be adding the tag #hellenism to relevant posts from now on, as a person who is in fact aware of what constitutes Hellenism and what not. I typically use a very specific tagging system however I am going to be adding this tag now too in an effort to purge the problematic appropriative usage of the word.

I am doing this because I realised the problem is bigger than I thought. I thought the term was misused by a tiny niche community, it turns out the misuse has been initiated and largely encouraged by - what else - western classicist academia. Therefore, many young foreign people may be feeling justified in the use of the term since foreign pages are often misleading and appropriative about it as well.

For example, one might feel relieved in using the term Hellenism due to Wikipedia featuring a page with the term as used by non-Greek speaking people. However, it is essential that in this case your research goes a little deeper. In the very same page, Wikipedia acknowledges the concerns for cultural appropriation the use of this term has raised.

Here are some crucial parts you should not skip in your rush to use the term:

First of all, take care how in fact Wikipedia makes (correctly) a distinction between the Modern religion """"Hellenism""""" versus the Ancient Greek religion.

We have to remember that this is technically a new entity in the context of structured orginized religions, largely innovating its practices now or trying to reconstruct older ones. This of course makes the use of the term "Hellenism" (= Greekness, Greek nationhood, the essence of being Greek) even more problematic, since we are talking about a new entity. A reinstatement of an ancient system of beliefs in an organised, structured way. Even if there have been historically individuals who subscribed to this belief system after studying ancient classics, the current religion which tries to structure itself, find its footing and sustain its spiritual community is very much a contemporary process.

Here are examples of how the word Hellenism was used in antiquity:

In short, Anglophone translators applying in non-English words whatever meaning they fancy with little evidence. True enough:

It is truly an English devisement through and through, the prototype word neither has a strict religious meaning nor - most significantly - an exclusively ancient one.

Moving on to the crucial part:

By the way, in case you think there is still not much uproar to justify giving up the term, that's only because I can guarantee you 98% of Greeks have no idea Hellenic Polytheism is practiced outside Greece, let alone by non-Greek people calling themselves Hellenes and calling the religion Hellenism. At the possibility that the religion expands and more Greeks get exposed to the news, rest assured they are REALLY not going to be supportive of the name choices.

We Greeks however are better aware of name issues occuring within the nation. It should be noted that just like it happens with every religion, especially at the time the religion is in the process of establishing and institutionalizing itself, independent groups of believers with questionable practices or beliefs may form. The Ethnic Hellenes are a big example, since many Greek devotees of the Hellenic Polytheism identify as such. Due to an unpleasant incident I was a witness to recently (I made a vague rant), I visited the main page of the YSEE (Supreme Council of the Ethnic Hellenes) and I was dumbfounded by the cascade of red flags I encountered. Ethnic Hellenes is also a problematic term, because it suggests non-believing Hellenes are not ethnic Hellenes. True enough, the very questionable nature is proven when they more or less admit in the main page that even though they "acknowledge" other Hellenes (AKA Greeks) as Hellenes, they consider themselves as "better" or "truer" at being Hellenes. Do I need to insinuate here towards what sort of political ideologies this is dangerously leaning to? They also openly admit that the primary goal of their religious community is to spread the religion to other Greeks. In short, prosyletism, a controversial phenomenon which was happily missed in Greece until now, save for the occasional Jehovah Witness here and there. The informational page has also historical inaccuracies and a very embellished opinion on Christian Orthodoxy.

The reality is that there are two options for us: either we entirely reject the concept of Ethnoreligion or we accept that Greece has TWO (2) ethnoreligions, Hellenic (Greek / Eastern) Orthodoxy and Hellenic Polytheism, although of course the latter so far has had the historicity but not the numbers. A reality where only one of the two can be the ethnoreligion simply does not exist and it is time both Orthodoxy and Greek Polytheism accepted this. (Of course they don't, each considers the other the root of all evil but anyway.) Furthermore, I noticed very recently that """Ethnic""" Hellenes are trying to attract other Hellenes with the notion that THEY care about the country and its environment and its culture, as if whatever befalls the Greek environment and culture happens with the blessing of the Greek Orthodox doctrine. But that is the policy in general, showing a community of Greeks loving Greece and Greek nature and Greek culture (mostly ancient but not only, but definitely with revisionism if not exclusion of the Orthodox contribution to it), as if other Greeks don't love these things as much, which attracts unsuspecting Greeks that are disappointed by the current sociopolitical mess. Like I said, there are things concerning me about how this is going to unfold politically in the future because it plays with the extremely dangerous and propagandist notion of "truer Hellene and less true Hellene".

My rant a few days ago was because I realised this due to said incident and I decided to write this to help you understand that you should take care who you take advice from, even if they have similar beliefs to you, but also to invite you to reconsider using such a pivotal term to Greeks such as "Hellenism". And because I am not willing to randomly give up this quintessential term for our identity to revisionists, Greek or foreign, which is why I explained I am going to be using the term in its intended way.

I am tagging @wordsmithic and @alatismeni-theitsa if they want to reblog this and help it go a little further, but I know they already use the terms hellas and hellenism more often than me in the tags.

*Having said all that, "Ethnic" Hellenes - who refer to their religion with the not-at-all problematic "genuine Hellenism" also disapprove of foreigners calling themselves Hellenes or practicing Hellenism, so it's extremely unlikely you will find a Greek being okay with it, regardless of said Greek's beliefs.

** We should also acknowledge that there are some significant linguistic barriers between Greek and English that are inescapable and may blur your understanding of some concepts. For example, Wikipedia in this very page says at some point "re-Hellenize Greek identity"

This is a factually wrong statement that can lead to all sorts of misconceptions abroad, such that might even cause issues to Greeks and their identity. What Wikipedia should say is "re-hellenize Romaic identity" and it would still be questionable. Not to be confused or conflated with Ancient Romans btw. But that's a whole another story that you don't need to concern yourself with. My point is that there are serious limitations in the way Greek culture and linguistics are perceived in Anglophone or other western academic research.

Let's end this with some pictures of Hellenism!

I tried to also get pictures from an english hellenism query on google but I was jumpscared so much by the politicisation, the one-sidedness and the western self-insertion out of nowhere that I decided against it :)

[sgiandubh]

I laughed at your sweet Sam post. Not meanly but I did laugh because yours along with some others over the last few days show how very little there is to actually talk about. This fandom is almost completely dead. I've been here a long time and its been dying as the years and the wait between seasons lengthens and the engagement ceases, but this time seems the worse one by far. Tumblr is dead, Twitter is dead, IG does not lend itself to blog style posts so is also dead. Cast: giving nothing. TPTB: useless photos and occasional BTS videos with no new content/no context. It's a real bummer. I did smile to see Sam's sweet little face though.

Dear Dead Fandom Anon,

I think one of the most interesting things about a fandom experience (first and last, for me) is what you make of it.

Cast keeping it mum? No problem, but still intrigued.

Twitter dead? Twitter has been dead ever since it turned into X, this is barely news. But since it's also politically loaded, I am not going to discuss it: I have my red lines and do not see fit dragging my daily life in here.

Tumblr dead? Make no mistake: Tumblr is dormant. But throw this crowd something, like I inadvertently did with those old S&C pics, and just watch your clicks explode. This crowd is always hungry for more. Always. And mind you, people will still hang around at least until this show is over. Some to see the end of it, others to taunt the opposing faction, in a completely useless attempt to do some missionary work. So nope: not yet.

IG is, of course, a joke. It's primarily for selling a media profile to future studio honchos, agents and all the other Hollywood types you'd wish to work with in the foreseeable future. The day those uber-excitable ('SHOUTING, SCREAMING, THROWING UPPP TO SEE MY PARENTS LIKE THIS' - yes, this is fandom legit jargon, Anon) women will understand they are a tradeable digital commodity like any other is the day Insta will begin to crumble. We are not there yet and so I suppose we'll see more of those (young?) people shouting, and screaming and throwing up in celebration of 'their wonderful friendship for life' (🙄). Or C's make-up, since that's just about all she's showing her sans-culottes. Or S's biceps, since that's just about all he's showing his mommies (spare for the booze- and no, FMN not coming soon in a liquor store near you: moi aussi, je suis désolée). Your pick.

As for ***, well... Never ever in my life have I seen a company so endeavored to destroy whatever it managed to build, in terms of audience success, in such a short time span. Whoever planned the current wreck should get the sack, sooner or later and they have only themselves to blame.

Thankfully, this series will be over and done with. It is my deepest wish, Anon. And then, we shall see. We shall live and we shall see.

Keep calm and carry on: that's your (our, really) boredom speaking.

[inbarfink]

I guess the only thing that actually bothers me about the whole ‘David Theory’ thing in DHMIS, is how, like… I think it leads people to examine that aspect of the Death episode entirely as a Way to Decode the Secret Lore of DHMIS and stuff - and to kinda ignore the Meaning and Context of it in the actual episode?

Like, whatever or not the ‘David’ Stuff means something for some sort of Hidden Grand Narrative, I think it’s also important to remember that it also has a very important emotional theme within just the context of the episode itself.

Because the whole thing about Duck being buried under the name David and being memorialized with things he never did… leaving aside any possible lore implications, this is first and foremost a really poignant message about how much it hurts to see the people closest to you being remembered wrong. 

It is not uncommon for grieving friends and/or family to watch their deceased loved one get ‘twisted’ after their death, being immortalized as something different from what they remember, something they know is wrong. Whatever it is because of refusing to speak ill of the dead, or trying to fit them into a more comfortable narrative, or doing a Performative Mourning for a person you didn’t actually know well, or people just refusing to accept the person the deceased actually was...

(Like, okay, let's not beat around the googly-eyed anthropomorphic bush. I don't know if that was the creator's intention but this is a VERY common experience for queer folks. Like, 'being buried and mourned under the wrong name' isn't just some sort of absurd cartoony exaggeration - that is a real terrible thing that happens to real trans people!)

And it hurts because memorialization SHOULD be an important part of their healing process. It should be comforting that your loved ones will live on in the memories of people, that you can reminisce and commiserate about your loss with others… but sometimes, the person who lives on is just not the same person, sometimes no one seems to talk about the person you lost.

This is what Red Guy and Yellow Guy go through with the whole ‘David’ thing in the episode. The mourners claiming to be ‘friends’ despite not even knowing Duck’s proper name (I mean we don’t know it either but still) is just the most literal interpretation of seeing people performatively grieve for people they don’t even know.

And that whole angle, I think, is very important to the episode themes and - like - Red and Yellow behavior throughout it. Like, this is a huge reason why they couldn’t get on the ‘right’ way to grieve.

And if you want, you can also connect it to the Deeper Hidden Lore Theory about David. Like, I suggested it in a previous post the idea that rather than just Yellow Guy being some sort of version or manifestation of David Lesleyson - it’s all Three of Them who represent different aspects of David. And that Yellow is simply the favorite because he’s Lesleys favorite part of David - the innocent and inquisitive child. 

And you can connect that theory to this whole aspect of the Death episode. Like, the Three of Them are all different ways people remembered the actual David and Yellow was simply Lesley’s version. Or if he’s Lesley’s favorite because he’s based on the parts of David she’d like to remember. 

For Lesley, David will always be remembered as her innocent and curious little kid, no matter how much more complicated the truth was (he might’ve had more snarky and selfish qualities like Red Guy or Duck). And in a way, that is not much different than just straight-up burying him under the wrong name.

[bestworstcase]

I am vexed bestworstcase, vexed! I am trying to write dialogue/interactions between Salem and Oscar and struggling with their characterizations. I keep turning the interrogation/false-start reunion scene in the whale over and over again in my mind. What would it look like for Oscar and Salem to be forced to talk to and interact with each other on more even ground or working towards a truce? (With a big ol Oz shaped elephant in the room.) I want to get across Oscar as an active participant with autonomy and not flatten him, while also reckoning with Salem’s complex headspace around this whole shitshow. Do you have an idea of how you’d approach writing that dynamic? Any advice on how to make such a dynamic hold true to their characters while being an interesting exploration of their relationship? [What fucking happens if they’re kind to each other when they’re both expecting cruelty???] Genuinely interested in your thoughts on this considering the show itself will inevitable have to revisit this dynamic at its climax and conclusion

basics first. my general read on salem is that she has a solid grasp of what makes people tick but struggles to articulate her thoughts clearly, and this has cascading impacts on her speech: if she isn’t delivering planned and rehearsed remarks, she seems to either circumlocute (in ways that are, textually, confusing: “what are you saying” + her inner circle’s wildly different interpretations of what she means) or just say nothing at all.

i think this reading explains salem’s manner of speech far better than the pure ‘manipulative, lying puppetmaster’ angle a lot of the fandom ascribes to her, because there are these incidents—like the interrogation scene—where salem is being manipulative and her tactics are very cunning but undermined by her erratic or flat affect and unclear speech; if she were a masterful manipulator being cryptic on purpose for the sake of deception, she would be able to turn that off and speak plainly in situations where being cryptic is counterproductive to her purpose. but it really doesn’t seem like she can do that.

complicating all this is that 1. i think salem is aware that she’s Not Good at conversation, and 2. she wants to be understood. her constant seething about ozma’s lies is partly from the traumatic betrayal of her trust and also partly because he’s spent the intervening centuries poisoning the well against her to ensure that anyone who meets her will have the preconceived notion that she’s an unfeeling, unreasonable, inhuman monster. so there’s a degree of self-protection in her silence and her aversion to talking about herself, i think—if ozma couldn’t give her the benefit of the doubt, why would she expect better from anyone else?

with oscar specifically—i’m assuming a post-v8/9 context—there’s also the complication of salem having. tortured him. the last time they spoke which i feel is almost a bigger goliath in the room than oz is, because salem is actually pretty on the ball with separating oscar from her feelings about ozma. but the torture is very personal and very fraught for both of them; do you acknowledge it? apologize? ask for an apology? if oscar doesn’t bring it up, should she? is salem doesn’t acknowledge what she did, how does oscar navigate whatever feelings he might have about that or assumptions he might make as to why (is she pretending it never happened? does she think it doesn’t matter? will she get angry if he brings it up? the last time he tried to reason with someone ironwood shot him off a ledge)? it’s delicate.

some uh, general things that i try to hold in mind when i write dialogue for salem:

what is she thinking and not saying?

why isn’t she saying it? is she afraid of not being understood or is she not able to see the gaps or is she not sure how to put it into words?

what does she mean?

is this something she planned out in advance (or something she talks about often enough to have a sort of script in her mind), or is she speaking off the cuff?

when in doubt, she should probably say less

remember that her affect gets erratic and weird when she’s really uncertain

does she have people on her side whom she can kind of rely on to fill in the gaps (eg, summer) or is she on her own?

her soliloquies are eloquent, even poetic; her speech tends to be simpler. she rarely uses metaphors in conversation.

she tends to answer questions by giving examples that imply her intended meaning, and i am… not sure she realizes that she’s doing it. (cinder in v5 is a good example: salem says “never underestimate the usefulness of others; take leonardo, he was one of ozpin’s most trusted, and now…” when what she means is she’s hoping she can turn ruby against oz later)

when she isn’t sure how to respond she sort of stares blankly into the middle distance for a second or two. (she does it with cinder in v5 and oscar in v8)

oscar is similar in a way because i think he spends a lot of time in his head and it’s rare for him to get to a point of emotional enough to let out… any of the deep existential fear he’s living in, and i get the sense that he’s very conscious of what he says—which can come out in awkward stammering but also in a very deliberate cadence when he’s feeling more confident or determined or too focused on what he’s trying to express to feel self-conscious about it. but at the same time he’s easier because he doesn’t have, gestures at salem and her labyrinth of emotional armor, all of that. and wasn’t alone for millions of years.

with the specific context of olive branches and peace talks i think—esp at first—salem’s liable to be pretty tangibly awkward? because being asked questions and engaged with like a Person instead of a Fairytale Witch runs so counter to her expectations for how people will treat her. kind of a rattling experience, and nerve-wracking.

rewatching scenes is always useful. i try to take note of like body language and cadence ’cause achieving dialogue that feels in character is as much about how the character talks as what sort of things they say. and also thinking about character goals and emotionality—what are they trying to get from this interaction, how do their feelings influence their speech, do they succeed or fail and why?—is helpful too. what motivates the words they say? what motivates the thoughts they keep to themselves?

[calico-cows]

Is marching band a cult? here’s a list from site link

The group displays an excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader, and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

the band directors word is law

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

maintain morale, don’t question anything or complain, especially leadership

Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, or debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

questionably applicable… it is very hard work but the goal is not suppression

The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (e.g., members must get permission to date, change jobs, or marry—or leaders prescribe what to wear, where to live, whether to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

yeah absolutely. They tell us how to act and think and NO TOUCHING and professional learning environment and all that

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and its members (e.g., the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

well we ARE special

The group has a polarized, us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

you cannot tell me the band doesn’t have this mindset about cheer and other sports kids

The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders, or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

ok but is the band director actually held accountable

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (e.g., lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

eh not really unless you count exercise lol

The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and control members. Often this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

not really unless you’re late

Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

band camp. You’re never home. Debatably applicable

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

have you seen our recruitment efforts? We’re not good at it but we’re trying very hard

The group is preoccupied with making money.

it’s expensive to run a band! And we need new uniforms eventually! So yes

Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

haha absolutely

Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

I mean no one says it out loud but yeah kinda

The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave—or even consider leaving—the group.

there is no leaving marching band

[anamericangirl]

I’m not sure if you know or care who Th3Birdman is, but he’s a former Christian movie YTer, just saying to preface this. I stumbled across this statement he said about God and human suffering in his Suicide Squad video, I’ll need to put it in quotes to get the entire context, so excuse the formatting:

Movie: “If God existed, wouldn’t this be proof that he wasn’t good at all?”

CS: “Well no actually, God’s goodness, at least biblically speaking from a New Testament perspective, is not something that prevents all human suffering but rather something that offers grace and redemption to all those who have suffered.”

Th3Birdman: “But that skirts the fact that this hypothetical god created everything, including the concept of suffering, and that he knew the people he created would suffer, thereby making him the direct cause of suffering. That’s the problem with primitive fairy tales — they fail at logic and can’t keep up with societal morality. Imagine believing an all-powerful deity needs to send an avatar of himself to Earth with the intention of dying to forgive sins instead of… just forgiving the sins… that he knew was going to happen anyway…”

In another video, he’s also agrees with CS saying that parents force religion onto their children when they’re young since they can’t object, and that Christianity’s “real name” is Christian Mythology. I wanted to know your thoughts on these perspectives since I think it sounds a bit off and you know more about Christianity than I do.

I'm not familiar with him but he sounds like someone who is very hostile against Christianity and God and also doesn't understand the nature of God.

His premise is that suffering is bad and since God is the creator and allows suffering and "created the concept" of suffering then that means God can't be good. But first he has to explain why suffering is bad. Sure, we don't like to suffer but why is the reality of suffering evidence of God not being good?

It sounds like he's saying if God were really good, then he, Birdman, would just be able to do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted, he could reject God and disobey him and if God were really good, He would just allow it and Birdman would never have to experience any consequences for anything and never worry about repentance because if God were good he would just forgive him and never let anything bad happen to him while Birdman just does whatever he wants.

For God to be "good" according to his misguided opinion, God would have to eliminate choice out of the equation. And God giving us choice and freedom was a good thing. God didn't create suffering, we created it. And if God took away the concept of suffering then that would demand he take our choice away with it.

We can't have the choice to follow God if the choice to not follow him is not also there. And whether Birdman likes it or not, the evil and suffering in the world is what life is like when we don't follow God. God is not a do-gooder, he is goodness itself and if you choose not to follow goodness then you are left without goodness. We are living in a world that we brought evil and suffering into by choosing to reject the goodness of God. And you can be like Birdman and think well if God was really good he wouldn't have made it so not following him is bad. As C.S. Lewis wrote "God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there." But that's what Birdman wants. He wants peace and happiness apart from God, where it cannot exist.

He is criticizing God for allowing evil and suffering but he's also criticizing him for stopping it because he's not stopping it how the pseudo-intellectual Birdman is thinks it should be stopped. Whatever Birdman thinks God "could have done" is irrelevant to what reality is.

The reality is sin is real. The reality is consequences are real. The reality is sin is separation from God and it has a price and Birdman better be glad God sent the "avatar" of himself to die and take the punishment that Birdman deserves.

And the thing is God did create a sinless world. We were created in a perfect state with no evil and no suffering and then we broke it. We created it. Blaming God because it’s possible to break perfection is like blaming a chef if you drop a cake they made on the floor and saying, “well, if they were a good chef, they would have made their cake in such a way where throwing it on the floor wouldn’t have destroyed it. And I’m not going to clean up my mess but if they clean it themselves it just proves they aren’t a good chef because they could have made a cake that wouldn’t make a mess.”

Also, he calls it a fairy tale because it doesn't "keep up" with societal morals. And, uh, that's the point. Christianity is not supposed to keep up with societal morals. We keep up with God's morals. Society should be keeping up with God, not the other way around. Societal morals are crap and ever changing and he's a fool if he considers them something God should be "keeping up with."

Does Birdman think he is a good person? If he is a good person and knows how to correctly do forgiveness, which means no one needs to be punished we can "just forgive," is that what he practices and is that how he wants our justice system to work? Should we not prosecute rapists and murderers and just "forgive them" because that's what goodness is like? Is it bad for people to experience consequences for their choices or not? And unless Birdman is without sin he cannot claim to be an authority or even a credible source as to what goodness really is.

Another C.S. Lewis quote because I think it's relevant to Birdman's claims.

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” 

I hope that answered you and made sense. Sorry it's a little all over the place. Sometimes it really irritates me when atheists try to pass themselves off as intellectuals just by the very nature of being atheist when their arguments against Christianity boil down to "if God were good then evil wouldn't exist" which just shows they don't even have a basic understanding of the religion they're trying to criticize. They like to throw out phrases like christianity is a "fairy tale" and then pretend they are wells of logic and intelligence when that's one of the dumbest statements you can make. You don't have to believe the Bible or Christianity but if you think it's a fairy-tale that's an objectively ignorant and shows you really have no idea what you're talking about.

And he can pretend religion is "forced" onto children when they're young by their parents but I could say the same about atheism. Parents are going to raise their children in accordance with the values and beliefs they subscribe to. Religion is no more forced onto children by religious parents then atheism is forced onto children by atheist parents.

[malaierba]

I'm not opposed on principle to toxic yaoi laishuro (art is art, everything can be good and interesting if it's well executed),

but the takes on it I've seen are so lukewarm. Vaguely inspired by the fight, all rely on Toshiro yelling at Laios (people who missed that that rarely happens: you need to make the friend he would've liked to spend his life with a dark magic-infused puppet of the dungeon, kill his mother figure mentor + childhood friend + subordinates/people he'll be responsible for in front of him, starve him for however many days, wear him down over years etc. Or later in the manga, spoilers, telling him with utmost seriousness to commit a taboo.) and Laios being like. Oblivious without any depth or second guessing.

I'm just saying, there's better ways to explore the way their character flaws could feed off each other. Toshiro continuing to be too conflict avoidant to speak up when Laios crosses his boundaries, being agreeable to the point where he always says yes to whatever is suggested, perhaps the relationship itself included? Ignoring his own doubts? Feeling that he knows/understands Laios way better than Laios knows him

Laios second guessing everything he perceives from Toshiro, everything he agrees to. Never fully getting over the fight + the "abandonment" of the party that went right back into the dungeon. Caught in a limbo between what he wants to do with him, and the uncertainty of if Toshiro wants it back. Asking directly, getting frustrated when Toshiro's (polite by his standards) vague. Having difficulty reading him, feeling frustrated since people like Falin, Chilchuck, Namari and Kabru obviously do it with way more ease.

Like. Lol I hate the term "toxic yaoi", it essentially means nothing, but I get the feeling people often correlate it to outward, explicit friction and conflict.

Not all dysfunctional relationships require you to fight! There's a lot to be explored in relationships that are quietly dysfunctional. Both people wanting it to happen and wilfully ignoring all the ways in which it isn't happening. Pulling a cart with a wheel that's slightly off, shorter, misshapen, and just going on and on until the whole thing falls apart.

There could be so many weird motivations, so many things that play against the relationship too. Toshiro being demi and/or trans in a historical context where he wouldn't have the language to understand those parts of himself, let alone the openness to explain it to someone else. Guy caught in social expectations and performative roles. Him wanting to retain something from Melini, since his relationships in Wa are so weird. Both of them feeling like they should take advantage of the willingness of the other, even if the timing is off. Both of them doing it because MAYBE this is what they need to be more willing to synchronize with each other (doesn't work). Not being able to figure out a long distance dynamic. The question of Laios eventually needing to leave an heir. These are just off the top of my mind, you could go everywhere with it.

Anyways. Food for thought.

[paradoxcase]

Harrow the Ninth Pronunciation Guide

I keep coming back to that idea that he might have picked this name because of Caesar. It would be so funny if that was actually the case. Like, it would be like if in some future where the US had somehow ceased to exist, I don't know, conquered, destroyed, disestablished, whatever, only subject matter for historians now, etc. and some world leader was like, man, George Washington was really cool, I really admire that guy, I want everyone to think about George Washington when they hear my name. So I'm going to change my last name to George, because who else was there even who was named George? I bet this is exactly what the ancient Americans did to invoke this great man

But now I'm curious about how much of Earth's old cultural whatnot was still public knowledge 100 years after the Resurrection. Like, people don't seem to remember anything about that era anymore, but surely the people who were resurrected all knew about it, and I doubt all that knowledge just disappears in a generation. Did people know John's name back then, and its links to Christianity and at least that Gaius was a Roman name?

Ok, so, not really related to the pronunciation at all, but it occurs to me that we've now learned that Augustine and probably also Mercy and Gideon and their cavaliers would have been born on pre-Resurrection Earth and resurrected by John, since they are the founders of their Houses, right? And if supposedly all of the people who were resurrected spoke English, and English is still the operating language of the Nine Houses, they should have English names, right? Alfred is a perfectly traditional English name; Cristabel is not exactly traditional but perfectly believable as a name that someone would be given; Gideon, sure, biblical names never go out of fashion in the anglosphere, even the weird ones, for real I went to college with a guy named Cain; Augustine, well, Augustus has a fine tradition as a name, that seems like a believable variation on that. But are we meant to believe that there were English-speaking people on Earth before the Resurrection named Mercymorn and Pyrrha? I could buy Mercy by itself as a woman's name given by some incredibly religious Christians or something, but "Mercymorn" seems to be following the standard we have in these books of two part names like Harrowhark and Coronabeth and Jeannemary, which is not something that i think came from any Earth tradition. And I can't imagine anyone would have been named Pyrrha. Maybe her parents were Classics nerds, or something?

Augustine and Alfred were like quite possibly the very first people to ever have an arithmonym. How could there possibly have been any implications about any use of them at that point?

Honestly, I feel like it works much better as a reference to Pyrrhus, just in terms of names being significant in the context of the story, because of what happened to Gideon in the fight against Number Seven

It's kind of funny that she wrote a whole paragraph about this, but at no point did she actually define "dactylic enneameter" for anyone who didn't recognize the roots, as, presumably, a poetic meter where each verse consists of nine metric feet, which each consist of two unstressed syllables followed by a stressed one

This pronunciation makes me realize this is supposed to be apo + pneumatism. But the pneuma root is about movement of air. Is thanergy a force that only moves or exists or emanates/radiates due to the presence of air molecules, like sound? Is that why there is so little thanergy in space, and not just because there isn't a source of thanergy nearby? Light can obviously travel for huge distances from the source through space, because it doesn't rely on air molecules

I'm fairly certain that every other English word that derives from Greek meso- is pronounced either /mɛzoʊ/ or /mɛsoʊ/, so why is this one /misoʊ/?

[max1461]

Ok I'm rather busy and had planned to write a longer post elaborating on this topic but I can't do it now, I'll probably still write one later but I wanted to make a short post as the topic has become relevant: the thing that you have to know about my writing style is that (speaking particularly about my serious posts here and not my shitposts) it is very literal modulo certain stylistic quirks. I don't really have time to elaborate all of these (ironically this post was written in a rush, and thus might not itself be the best example of my usual style), but one important fact is that when I say "almost", "in generally", "more-or-less", "in some sense" and so on, I really mean these. Like, these aren't filler words, I think a lot of people just gloss over them but tbh I often agonize over where exactly to put these when writing a post. I sometimes leave posts in my drafts for ages just because I haven't decided whether to propose some phrase with "generally" or not. I'm very, like, careful about trying to make it unambiguous that I don't mean whatever I don't mean, right? So these words are not meant to be glossed over; they're written carefully and they're meant to be read carefully.

It's also important to note that I omit them for stylistic reasons quite often, in particular because if I included words like this everywhere that I think they should logically be, my writing would become like, unreadable. So I try to structure things whereby I set the reader up with reasonable assumptions about what generalizations are absolute, which ones are statistical but high confidence, which ones are very loose and so on. So for instance I'll often set up the appropriate way of understanding a generalization in the first paragraph in which it is introduced, and then make it clear from context that the reader should carry this through when I talk about it going forward. Maybe I don't always do a good job.

But like, consider this recent post. I first say that "I’m comfortable taking it almost as an axiom that no one should ever get kicked out of where they are living". And when I say almost, you know, I mean almost! Idk if other people's writing has this quality. Almost is not there for metrical shape, it's there for content! Anyway, later say something like "an ideal housing policy should respect this axiom", and this is meant to mean... well, I'm not sure really how to say it other than how I said it, it's meant to mean "an ideal housing policy should respect this axiom". A very important part of the semantics of this sentence is that I am invoking a sort of fundamental property of ideals, which is that you usually can't achieve them in actual practice but you should try to get close, modulo whatever constraints you are under. Maybe it's not clear that these constraints are the same constraints imposing exceptions to the axiom; that seems like a genuine ambiguity. Well that's on me.

Anyway, this post sounds kinda snarky like I'm getting on people's case for not reading my post correctly, but no that's not what I mean at all! No like, I'm not irritated at other for not reading a post how I intended it. But I've been wanting to write about my own writing style for a while, in particular because as I said I write in a very particular way whose meaning may not always be like... obvious to readers. And this was a good opportunity to like, point out one of the biggest ways in which my writing style is particular, and which sometimes leads to misunderstanding. Well anyway. Sorry this was written in a rush cause I have actual things I have to do today, there's probably typos and so on so please forgive that.

[qqlettuce]

Twitter is dumb for writing longer form opinion pieces so I'm going to put this here: On Twitter there's been a lot of heated discussion over the way the IDW artists and writers handle their depictions of the characters. And if you genuinely feel they've done a disservice to them, its fine, your feelings are valid, and the point of this isn't to tell you that you're wrong and that the people working on IDW Sonic are infalible. Where I take issue is people trying to paint them as the sole destructors of this franchise. That artists like Evan Stanley are warping characters like Silver to fit their own preferences or that Ian Flynn is hellbent on destroying a well grounded world so that his visions may overtake it. I'm not being hyperbolic but during my relatively short time in this fandom I have been seeing more and more harsher statements regarding these people under the shield of "criticism". There is nothing wrong with criticism, but how can it be good faith when you're attempting to directly attack their character. You could dismiss it as just banter, but fandom in general tends to have an issue with dehumanizing creators, either by creating a boogeyman out of them or speaking of them as a monolith, and in the Sonic fandom, there's a long history of examples as how nasty this can get with people like Ken Pontac, Warren Graff, Takashi Iizuka and yes, Ken Penders. Ken Penders especially is the grand example of what can happen when this is left unvetted for so long. Is there any reason why people continue to devote so much negative energy to a man who hasn't been relevant to the series in like 20 years? Is this someone that still needs to be a butt of a joke or have hundreds of YouTube documentaries made out of them. All because he made weird hedgehog comics? I could talk about CWC as well and how the internet will never take responsibility for their fate, but that's a whole other road. Admittedly one of my initial responses to the recent discourses directed at Evan's depiction of Silver on Twitter was more emotional, but as I hinted earlier, there has been more and more targeted comments at her, and I felt it especially reached a boiling point once she confirmed on twitter that two background characters in the Trial by Fire arc were gay. Something like this a major change to the status quo of Sonic, so it's not unreasonable to think many see her as a threat to the franchise. Why all of a sudden after her many years of working on Sonic, is there so much attention being put on her like this? So far none of this has anything to do with the contents of IDW Sonic, because I feel thats not really where I take most issue with all this controversy. But I did some more thinking and I will still engage this. As far as I know, IDW Sonic is not some unmanageable operation. SEGA/Sonic Team are heavily involved in its production, as a response to what transpired with Archie Sonic. It's stories and new characters all go through a thorough vetting process, there's a lot of back forth to ensure whatever gets printed meets their apparent standards. And yes, this gets as strict as the facial expressions.

I agree that facial expressions are an integral part of understanding the soul of a character. It is something that should not be taken for granted. I personally don't feel that the artists in question break off more than what is necessary given the context of the situations and the medium of comics itself, but again, if you feel otherwise, then I don't think the blame is just solely on the artist when the approval process is this tight. People like Evan and Ian are freelancers at a third-party company handling the IP. I don't think they have as much leverage as people seem to think they do, ESPECIALLY during the early run of the comic. Again, you can say that the artists dropped the ball here, but I think SEGA had all the power to give them the appropriate notes and those artists would have complied because well... they're professional artists. And if this is something they're truly incapable of being subordinate to, then they could've been terminated from their jobs a long time ago. Now don't misconstrue this as me trying to say "WELL IF SEGA APPROVED IT, THAT MEANS ITS GOOD ACTUALLY XDDD". No actually, if SEGA approved it, and things still aren't up to par, that means there must be a systematic failure that goes down the entire line. In fact I'm willing to bet most critics would agree with that since there seems to be a sentiment that Sonic as whole has been in limbo for a very long time, it goes way beyond IDW. Games like Shadow the Hedgehog and Sonic 06 are apparently ones that Sonic Team will never be able to live down. Sonic Forces was also seen as a large failure, and as a result, demands for an actual proper game were pretty high when Frontiers was announce And then the day the IGN Gameplay footage dropped, I was demoralized to read many foul things being said about Sonic Team and Morio Kishimoto. It made shockwaves throughout the internet, with every content creator and influencer hopping on board. It wasn't just about graphical/gameplay concerns, it was straight up calling their competence into question, calling for the team to be terminated and replaced by people who could supposedly do a better job. I'm sorry, as much as I've grown to love this franchise, I can not value the perceived quality of a product over the hearts and efforts of artists who work under strenuous conditions to make it possible. People's tones have cooled since the game's release, but I don't think being "proven wrong" is what should've been required to respect these people. Hell, even YUJI UEKAWA, whose artwork is supposedly the gold standard for how Modern Sonic should be depicted, and whom many of his contemporaries are compared to, has recently been under scrutiny by fans, saying that he's become a worse artist over time. At the end of the day, remember we're talking about living breathing people. Don't turn them into scapegoats when everything about creating works is a collaborative process. There are no heroes or villains. Their humanity should be respected when critiquing their work, and the same when praising them. I don't think most people actually enjoy being put on such a high pedestal anyway.

[littlewestern]

I'm not so sure gordon giving advice to sir handel is such a good idea tbh... given what happened in "trucks"

Oh I didn't say it would be *good* advice!

I probably should have clarified that despite the fact that Gordon is technically the one doing the ""mentoring"" here, the advice in itself is not the point. The core appeal of Sir Handel/Gordon to me is the fact that together, they would have an outlet for the parts of their personalities which other engines find too caustic to tolerate in a relationship context.

So, for a quick example: Let's say Sir Handel complains to Gordon at Croven's Gate that Skarloey or Rheneas or some engine isn't giving him the respect he feels he deserves.

Gordon snorts and gives him a pitying look and says something like, "Not surprising. Little engines hardly know the meaning of the word. They can't be blamed for the poor manners they've picked up on this backwater. It's good of you to recognize that you deserve better little Sir Handel! When engines need to be corrected on their behavior, I speak with a booming voice and give a good blast on my whistle. That usually fixes the problem."

Sir Handel thinks this sounds like a grand idea and tootles off to do whatever it is he's doing that day. When Gordon pops by a few days later though, Sir Handel is c-r-o-double-s.

"I raised my voice and whistled at them like you said Gordon," Sir Handel weeshes. "But they all made fun of me and asked if I was going deaf. They laughed at me! And then the Thin Controller scolded me for disturbing the passengers with my whistling!"

"W-well you must have done it wrong," Gordon splutters back. He was expecting glum and defeated, he was not expecting fury. "No one laughs at me when I do it!"

"They probably do behind your back," Sir Handel snips. "You just don't notice because your tender gets in the way." And then he huffs out of the station leaving Gordon wondering what the hell just happened.

Well, you know you can't suggest things like that to Gordon. In my ideal scenario, Gordon spends the next week acting real squirrely and insecure, trying to find out if the other engines are actually laughing at his behavior and then overcompensating for it by being even louder and more demanding... which causes them to laugh at and make fun of him.

Naturally, the reconvening of the Blue Express Engine Indigence Meeting looks a little more contrite. There are no apologies uttered, but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't felt.

"Skarloey told me that respect doesn't get passengers from A to B."

"Yes, well. Shows what he knows."

And they both agree that as long as they have the respect of each other, who gives a damn what the rest of the shed thinks?