#well......... in my interpretation at least

[glassfullofsass]

so. It's been a hot minute since I gave a shit about the bible as a "guiding" texting my life, and at least as long since I attended church services with any sort of regularity, but I was raised in the United Methodist Church which does tend to be one of the more liberal* denominations.

(*over the last decade, the denomination has formally split over the Issue of Gay Marriage.)

(I'm going to use "church" as a catchall for A Bunch of Christian Churches that I Feel Confident Grouping Together, lets say Protestants, which covers Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians and Evangelicals, among others)

There's plenty of nuance to dig into if you want to think about ordained ministers/divinity schools/Christian Educated Folk, but at the end of the day, church leaders follow the teachings they agree with, they find ministry programs that further their beliefs, and they stay on their chosen path.

Regular everyday congregation members are typically exposed to Teachings 1-3 times per week, depending on their dedication and the activeness of the church. (Some denominations certainly meet more often). These teachings fall into two (Very very broad) categories, services and bible studies.

Services have readings, sermons, prayers, and maybe music if your denomination is spicy enough.

Readings are literally just a layperson reading a text that has been selected for them.

Sermons usually involve a reference to the bible (maybe the parable of the sower, or the good Samaritan), and then the pastor's interpretation of it. (And usually his 15 minute illustration of that reference in a "real world" scenario that ends in a shitty joke.)

Bible studies do involve conversation and actual engagement with the text...but its usually a very select piece of text. It's from whatever version of the bible the specific church uses, or whoever is leading the study uses. The study may be lead by the pastor or some other Educated person, or just a layperson. I can't speak for every church, but as far as I remember, all the sunday school and vacation bible school and confirmation classes and youth group discussions I ever attended were not about challenging the text, or digging into it to discover how the teachings might be applied in today's world, they were about learning the story and "understanding" the "lesson". (The Prodigal son, the mustard seed, the one about the two guys that were given their master's coin and the one with more buried it and the one with less invested).

Now sometimes you might get an actual, good sink-your-teeth-in study that does really investigate whichever book. I'm not denying that those exist entirely.

I know Christian scholars exist. I know sacred reading practices have been practiced in Christian traditions. Even some protestants observe the teachings of the saints. There's a *booming* industry of Christian non-fiction where scholars do reach an audience that seeks to deepen their relationship with Christ.

But. The Everyday Layperson isn't expected to challenge the text. It is the word of god. To question it would be sacralidge. Interpretation is for those Wiser and More Holy to pronounce.

The teachings and sermons and passages are all chosen by Important People that the congregation looks up to, and those people sure as fuck have an agenda.

Those sacred reading practices I know about? I didn't learn Lectio Divina or Sacred Imagination in youth group. I learned them from a podcast hosted by divinity school students.

Even if your average layperson decides to Read Their Bible, they likely don't have the tools or the community support to interpret it in a meaningful way.

There is, also, this pervasive teaching that underlies the Christian belief...that if everyone were just "saved" then all would be well. If everyone accepted Jesus into their life, then that would solve our problems. That Christianity is the one true way and we know best and we are the blessed and all others are to suffer for not bowing to the truth.

I'm getting low on spoons, so I'll just wrap up with this-

Particularly with American Christianity, you have a legacy of the faith being used as a tool of assimilation and being claimed as an indicator or righteousness and superiority.

There exists a pattern where access to the source material and the ability to understand it is reserved for those who "deserve" it.

This is the faith that literally stripped passages from its sacred text in order to better master the enslaved people who had been indoctrinated into it.

Americans have not rooted out our indoctrination to the White Supremacist Social Order and American Christians are the natural conclusion to a religion that worships itself more than its god.

Since posting that "how many mass graves and extinct cultures" post last month, I've had multiple Christians in the notes whining that there isn't a "specific instruction of belief that Christianity needs to wipe out every other religion in the world" in Christianity's teachings, and that it's all just The Church/King James/etc.

And every time, I point to the literal text of the passages of The Great Commission.

And nearly every time, that shuts them up; the only time it didn't, it was to engage in some disgusting semantical goalpost moving.

But it's like...

Why do Christians not know the content of their own texts? Is your faith really so tribalistic and totemic around the concept of "Jesus" that you all don't bother to actually read the religious texts?

It feels like it must be--I've heard of too many instances of Christians walking out of readings of The Sermon On The Mount because they think it's "liberal nonsense" and the like, but I just find it baffling and more than a little sad that I, a Jew, apparently knows the New Testament's text better than the people who swear by it and ostensibly believe and follow it.

[lesbianherald]

Based Jayce take tbh….also I’m gonna confess this on anon but one of my most pretentious takes when it comes to fandom is that everything would be way easier to enjoy if ppl understood story structure a little more. Like Jayce’s arc is a negative arc. He sucked on purpose! If you had bad feelings about him that was intentional and okay (I do think Jayce hate was overblown but I also get why it existed. Like the audience was just picking up on the feelings the show was putting down). But he was definitely Like That for a reason! Usually in good writing, characters are tools for the narrative first you know…you don’t need to justify his actions to like Jayce because he’s fictional and he’s not a real person youre stanning. But also fandom is for fun so I know this take is pretentious but also it’s my truth. My story structure….my characters who are intentionally challenging my theme….my character arc….

NO NO BUT YOU ARE COOKING ON EVERY LEVEL !!!!

(Note: This randomly turned into a very hasty analysis of the shots used in the bridge scene? Because I got on a tangent about how we interpret visual storytelling as well and oops!)

Story structure is so overlooked. The role characters are supposed to play in an overarching narrative is overlooked. So much gets ignored in the way information is presented both in the story structure and visually that sometimes it frightens me and it makes me really bummed! And it's nobody's fault! Most of us live in a society that devalues art and literacy on purpose!

I don't think it's pretentious to wish people better understood the building blocks of the story or at least understood how to take in general arcs. And I think if they did as a whole most fandom spaces would be a lot more interesting and have a lot less bizarre takes/infighting.

I also think that - where arcane's writing can get weird and murky - the visual language will cover it. (Almost to an extreme.)

It makes me think of one of my favorite scenes in the whole show and how misinterpreted it gets and how quick people are to defend jayce here despite how much it is playing on the themes of the show and how clearly he is painted as in the wrong both by the writing and the shots ok fuck -

I think all the time about the imbalance of power represented by that insane low angle on Jayce. You know what fuck it. I'm going to go get it. Fuck. This is about to become a whole thing. Okay.

If I brought an angle like this into a classroom setting, I would be laughed at for it being too obvious. But its one of my favorites because its so visceral. In fact, I've shown this to a lot of friends - the reaction to this shot is usually an audible "Woah!" or even nervous laughter! Because clearly! He's supposed to be intimidating here. This is supposed to be like. Oh. He is not who he used to be. Oh. Oh no. Its so co clearly a representation of power and corruption you may as well stamp it on his forehead.

He's not only Jayce here, he's a representation of piltover as a whole - in its physical and political positions over Zaun. In a position of power over someone he's close with, who just verbally told someone he would "understand." Now we are seeing that he very likely wont. (He will! But right now, we are supposed to be with Viktor in this scene. We are supposed to become convinced he won't right with him!)

Note that the angle we get for Viktor is way less extreme. Way more eye level. And less centered. I could go on about this too. But oooh boy. Like! Clearly we are supposed to be more with him in terms of who we find rational. Clearly he's the voice of reason here. We are level with him. He is at a safe distance. We are seeing how he is looking up at jayce without looking down at him.

In this shot, he is someone we as an audience are level with, who is gathering information, making a decision. He is remaining more measured than I think the audience is supposed to be given the angle we're getting on jayce.

The only time we do get the "reverse" of that Jayce shot on Viktor is when he is quite literally standing out of the frame almost immediately. Whose furious with the position Jayce is putting him in. This is Right after Jayce says, "They're dangerous." He's gathered the information he needs. He sees Jayce for what he is. Somebody he cannot trust. And he refuses to be put in this lower position.

Jayce is not supposed to be the one we are rooting for here. He is the person we are supposed to be disappointed in. We are supposed to question him here. This isn't only dramatically spelled out in the narrative but also in the shot choicesss!

And then we have the apology -

That's why i always question why people are like. Okay but he apologized. When the apology is framed like this! We don't even get to see viktor's face because the damage is done!! JAYCE ISNT EVEN LOOKING AT HIM !!!! It doesn't matter. We don't even get full access to Jayce here! What's at the center of this shot is the barricade that Jayce has ordered!!! This makes the apology, and "I've had a lot on my plate" purposefully look ridiculous in the context of the Narrative here! It's not enough!

Viktor is DYING. And jayce is standing here all prim and proper, with the Talis symbol very visible in that fuckass suit, saying he's had a lot on his plate. We're very clearly not supposed to look at this and go awww! baby boy <3. If this apology was a meaningful moment for either of them that changed either of their minds - it would not be framed like thisssss. These words are empty in the context of it all. Jayce may be genuinely sorry, but he's accidentally revealed way too much about how he views Viktor's people. Even if he didn't mean to. Even if he didn't realize how deeply his biases ran.

And then we have Viktor lying. Viktor knowing he has to go about this alone. And this is the shot. This is the moment of fracture. Viktor looking back at him in disgust with Jayce's barricade in the background. HES ALONE!! JAYCE HAS FAILED HIM !!! This is so critical in understanding Viktor's entire everything moving forward, and it's so so critical for Jayce as well.

People talk a lot about that moment where jayce has his hand on Viktor's lower back because yaoi but that screencap is so hard to get because that moment is almost immediately interrupted by a protestor from zaun throwing a Molotov cocktail in their direction! And the touch, that reluctant familiarity, despite the conflict, gets broken.

Something that I think gets overlooked is Jayce's face after the (Molotov?) gets thrown by a protestor. ITS ANOTHER LOW ANGLE LIKE!!! Once again. Highlighting the power he has here.

We see Jayce in season 1 act 1 really highlighted with a lot of high angles. A lot of doe-eyed wonder. He looks young. Sweet. This is not the same jayce and it is very very clear in the way he is shot. This is the point !!!!!.

There are a lot of scenes i see misinterpreted but this is the big one. And its one of my favorite scenes. Because he's so wrong here! And he doesn't really fully grasp how much so yet.

I love jayce. I love my complex man. Because here's the thing. He needed this low to reach the character highs he does later. Jayce being as loving and determined to make things right as he is in season 2 wouldn't be nearly as compelling or tragic or exciting were he not like this in season 1. It's brutal to watch him get punished by the narrative! But it's also narratively satisfying!

Anyways anon i agree wholeheartedly sorry i made it into a whole thing.

[synchodai]

"Mystra groomed Gale" takes rustle my jimmies like no other. I get how some people who don't know much about her beyond BG3 may have this interpretation, but if you're like me, a woman who's been playing since the days of AD&D, you'd understand why accusing Mystra of being the bad person in this scenario may hit a nerve.

TL;DR: Did Mystra take advantage of Gale's devotion to her as his goddess? Definitely, she's a Faerûnian deity — they subsist on worship and adulation. Does that make her his abuser? Eh... man, maybe it's high time that a lot of us learn different terminology for unhealthy relationship dynamics other than abuser-victim. I've seen a couple of posts that are really gung-ho about forcing every companion character to be some sort of abuse victim, because that's what they've decided the game is about. I mean, they're free to interpret the game that way, but damn, we're really out here flattening god, the very concept of magic itself, into the role of an abusive ex, huh? A fantastical, nuanced relationship between mortal and immortal set against the backdrop of a rich palimpsest multiverse digested like a YouTube drama video.

Let me try to explain my perspective by going through the history of Mystra, how she's utilized in Forgotten Realms lore, and treated within D&D games in general.

MYSTRA THE MAN-EATER

Since her creation, she has always been depicted as the sexy goddess whose main purpose was to be a wizard player's muse as well as their patron. Back then, D&D (and TTRPGs in general) was a heavily male-dominated hobby, so Mystra (and Mystryl, her avatars, and all her other incarnations) was catered and shaped by that demographic.

Because it's the player characters and Wizards of the Coast who have narrative agency and many of them want to fuck a goddess, they make stories where Mystra comes on to them because their character is just so good at magic. They designed Mystra to be a mysterious, beautiful love interest because they wanted to use her as the crown jewel of their power fantasy of being a super cool and powerful magic man. You can pretty much see this in the Elminster books and the Avatar series with Midnight (one of Mystra's avatars). Gale himself seems to be an exploration of this typical kind of wizard character.

As far as power fantasies go, making the goddess of magic have an intimate relationship with a mortal character is fine. It's the ultimate validation for a burger-flipper when the god and all source of burger-flipping is head over heels in love with them. It also doesn't have to have a sexual component to have "magic" and the magic system itself enamored with a character — depending on the game and DM, Mystra's favor can be entirely symbolic and metaphorical. A fine power fantasy in the power fantasy generation game.

So because everyone literally wants a piece of her, you end up with Mystra having more Chosen running around than any other god. Understandable given what she has to do to maintain her massive portfolio. It fits her as the personification of magic — someone who entices ambitious young spellcasters but burns them out through obsession and overreaching. Consume any Forgotten Realms-related media, and you've probably come across at least one campaign, novelization, or character backstory that use Mystra for the role of sexy sorceress goddess that's the alluring (yet often demanding) patron of some magic man. Whomst amongst our wizards haven't been visited by Mystra in the night ordering him to do plot point, he rolls to seduce her, and she has no choice but to admit that she's actually attracted to him because the dice said so? It was a community inside joke passed around tables: Mystra the Man-eater.

But then some BG3 fans started taking the joke seriously...

MYSTRA THE GROOMER AND WHORE

This piece of dialogue has done so much irrevocable damage.

Some (Galemancers specifically) have interpreted this to mean that Mystra is known to go after young men. She does not. She has more documented Chosen than other gods due to her massive portfolio and power level, but there are just as many female Chosen as there are male Chosen. Minsc, like most of us in this fandom, is speculating and doing so in a way that uplifts Gale at the cost of taking a bit of a jab at Mystra.

"Mystra's a whore. She boned Kelemvor and Elminster and so many of her Chosen, taking advantage of them as a goddess," they say as if she didn't have her romantic relationships all as different people and in different bodies. Her avatar Dasumia was the one who had an intimate relationship with Elminster, and it was the human Midnight (who later ascended to become Mystra) who was Kelemvor's lover (who himself was a mortal adventurer at the time).

This is why Mystra is, how other people put it, "a whore." Because WotC canonized a handful of those stories where different sexy female mage love interests whom otherwise have nothing in common are slapped with the Mystra label for one reason or another. Sometimes they're mere avatars or magical projections, sometimes they're actual people possessed by Mystra, and sometimes they're destined to be the new Mystra but don't know it yet. But those sort of nuances are lost to people who learn their lore secondhand from deliberately provocative tweets and reddit posts, flattening extremely fantastical relationships to clumsily fit a more relatable framing that'll net them more online engagement.

I don't want to argue what is and isn't grooming. But I have encountered arguments taking Gale's mentions that he was "a young man" to mean Mystra groomed him as a child. But I doubt he would have said "young man" if he meant child...

Mystra took off the gossamer veils from her body to fully reveal herself to him — or whatever romanticized way Gale tells you that they were intimate. The man speaks in half-abstraction and metaphors because it's revealed later on in the romance that all their love-making happened outside the Material Plane. They were very intimate, but never physically had sex (or had any physical contact at all because gods are only allowed to interact with mortals through their avatars or projections). If Mystra "groomed" Gale, so did every other god who revealed themselves and made themselves vulnerable to their followers. Shar grooms her justiciars when she brings them into her dark embrace. Umberlee grooms her clerics when she swallows them up and gives them her wet kiss.

MYSTRA IS A FAIR GOD ACTUALLY

Look, gods in D&D-verses are, more often than not, dicks. They have to be or else there would be no need for adventurers to fix wrong-doings if the gods weren't so detached to the suffering of mortals and regularly making earth-shattering calamities.

Mystra, as a patron, is actually one of the more fair and hands-on dieties. She's one of the few gods who rewards benevolent ambition and punishes destructive hubris, knowing the line between the two. In the Elminster series, she (or one of her avatars) assists Elminster in taking down one of her rebel Chosen who has abused her blessing to become a tyrant. Azuth, one of her Chosen, has achieved godhood through her. In fact, she is divinely obliged — forced against her will, some might say — to help mortals she would personally rather smite. There have been so many instances where Mystra has to be the bigger person. As far as gods abusing their followers go, Mystra is low on that list.

There are barely any stories of magic abusing spellcasters, but there are cautionary tales aplenty of spellcasters abusing magic.

ON GALE SPECIFICALLY: HOW IS MYSTRA THE BAD GUY HERE?

Gale is the first to tell you that he "violated her boundaries." Mystra told him not to mess with the Tome of Netheril and he did it anyway, so he's fully aware that the orb in his chest and his fall from grace is his own fault. Mystra didn't cast him aside just because she felt like he was getting too big for his britches. His actions actively endangered her and the Weave.

(Mystra is wrong about certain details on the Karsite Weave if we're going by Forgotten Realms lore, but she's not wrong about its existence being a danger. BG3 takes a lot of liberties with the world Faerûn, so I can't definitively say whether Mystra being wrong was her lying, Larian rewriting canon, or this incarnation of Mystra not knowing the true nature of the Fall of Netheril. I could go on about what effects the Karsite Weave actually would have on magic, but this post is already long enough. )

Gale only starts to resent Mystra when she asks him to detonate himself. Elminster makes it sound like an order, but from the way she doesn't punish him in the epilogue if he chooses to keep the orb, it feels more like a suggestion. If Mystra wanted Gale well and truly dead, she has so many options.

Throughout Faerûn's history, Mystra herself has constantly been betrayed and taken advantage of — her power coveted by ambitious men who claim to worship and love her. Honestly, as far as goddesses with traumatic histories of being killed by ambitious men go, she's pretty chill about Gale. The fact that she allows him to become the god of ambition in the end if you choose that path? Well... let's just say she's not the one who looks like the evil ex who was only with their partner to take advantage of them in this scenario.

CONCLUSION

Mystra isn't the only goddess to have romantic relationships with her followers. I've already yapped on about how Forgotten Realms writers and D&D players love to make goddesses fuck their heroes, and all that pearl-clutching over "power imbalance" and "consent" is moot when the mortal party is actively rolling to seduce the divine entity.

But notice how the male gods rarely have intimate relations with their mortal charges? It's almost as if Mystra was objectified for years by horny nerds to be the sexy sorceress who validates the more important male hero. Fast forward years later, she's now being slut-shamed for all the lore of her sleeping with the more important male hero by a new crop of fans who would love to think they're more progressive than the horny nerds of the 80s, but fall into the same trap. Mystra has so much potential for complexity, but they choose to flatten her because they ultimately don't care about making stories involving complex female characters.

Instead, one of the most powerful beings in Faerûn has no bigger role in this universe than to be your girlfriend or your current boyfriend's evil ex. Wow, the realms of your creativity and respect for women truly know no bounds.

[nabi-unveiled]

With each rewatch of When It Rains, It Pours, I had become increasingly uncomfortable. A question had begun to plague me.

How did I miss it?

It's no secret that I've been in the "don't trust Fujisawa" camp for a while. But I felt bad for him during the early episodes. After all, it really is a nightmare situation for him too. Why did it take me until my THIRD watch of ep4 to fully convince myself of Fujisawa's nature?

Missing sounds? Not a surprise.

But COMPLETELY missing something that's literally GLARING at me? Not even having it on my radar? That's unusual.

I always have multiple theories and numerous potential scenarios running in my head. It's not like I was watching this series casually.

And make no mistake - the man's been glaring since episode 1. It wasn't constant, but the glaring is not a new development.

Even Fujisawa's words have never been subtle.

So how did I miss it? Why did it take me so long?

I realized the answer yesterday, and I don't like it.

I missed the signs, because I was trained to miss them.

I see these dynamics all the time in my community. And when you see something all the time, you begin to notice it less.

Being uncomfortable with sex?

Growing up ensconced in purity culture means I know A LOT of people with very complex relationships with sex.

Some want it but would NEVER dare talk about it.

Some see it as something shameful.

Some see it as something to be feared.

It's what happens when you're constantly told libido is a swamp.

So this...

I didn't see it as a problem beyond them wanting different things. Either Fujisawa was ace or had issues with sex. He had been open about it with Sei, and he was doing the best he could.

This is fine as long as both parties are content. But Fujisawa is controlling and manipulative. Note the "bars" in the picture above.

Matching your partner's preferences?

I was taught catering to my partner's commands was an expectation. It was required to be a "good" partner. So this....

At one point WAS me. And even if I don't obey the rules anymore, I still see this type of "consideration" in most relationships around me.

IT'S NOT HEALTHY.

Consideration should not mean self-sacrifice.

At one point I thought, "Well, it's Sei's choice."

And that's true. But I know better than to fall for that logic.

It ignores his trauma.

It ignores his low self-esteem.

It ignores his fear of being left alone.

It ignores the difficulty of leaving those you care about and the life you know.

It ignores the manipulation.

Because this type of statement? It's tricky. It can be completely innocuous. But it can also be controlling, and a lot of that comes down to the power dynamics of the relationship.

Fujisawa holds the power here. He HAS been controlling and trying to manipulate Sei. I questioned last week what the purpose was of the editor if Fujisawa wasn't having an affair. However, it became clear when watching for the sizzle. Sei says he will go to the party and Fujisawa IMMEDIATELY says "I'll introduce you to my editor."

The unspoken words are if you don't go to the party. Mentioning the editor was a manipulation tactic. A subtle one, but it was there.

I give Sei credit. He went to the party. He kept emailing Hagiwara. He pushes back on occasion. He doesn't always follow commands.

But well.... damn.

I thought I could at least recognize when my raising was influencing interpretations. I thought I had worked through those issues.

So thanks When it Rains for reminding me not to forget my ID.

I sure as hell don't plan on getting trapped in that room again.

Break out Sei. It's not easy, but BREAK OUT.

There's a beautiful world waiting.

[thatguyjam]

Highschool Sweethearts - Pierre Gasly

Highschool Sweethearts Masterlist <3

Pierre Gasly x Hockey Player!Reader

Ft an entire plot centered around hockey for all my obsessed moots

- a (casual) hockey fan in a hockey family who lives in a hockey town :)

Growing up, you always had at least a few classes with Pierre. You didn't really have time to get close with him with how much school he missed, but when you did see him, he always seemed nice, and quite funny. Eventually, by the end of primary school, you two were inseparable. Every moment you could be, you were both by eachothers sides, joking and playing all the time. But when secondary school came, and Pierre told you he was going to go to a different school because of karting, you were heartbroken. The funny kid you had learned to love in the past few years would no longer be able to be by your side in the next stage of your life.

The two of you tried to keep in touch, and you did to some extent, especially in the winter, when he was home from all of his karting and he could come see your games and the two of you could play as much hockey as your bodies could handle. Towards the end of one of these winters, in January, you and Pierre were shooting pucks when he decided that four hours into skating was a great time to strike up a conversation

"So, Y/N, got any guys or girls in mind for Valintines day?"

"Well, I mean I guess I got a- a guy in mind. Not sure that he'd reciprocate though"

Pierre lay silent for a moment, and you didn't know it at the time, but he later told you that he was admiring your grunts as you shot the puck.

"What do you mean? Who wouldn't what to be your Valentine?" He skated over, putting his elbow on your shoulder and raising his eyebrows suggestively.

"Well -Go on, it's your turn- For one I'm pretty sure he's straight, and for another, he won't even be in town for Valentines day"

After missing terribly, clearly distracted, Pierre turned to you confused, "Well I can't help with the first thing... but if you tell me who he is, maybe we can trap him in town with you" Pierre smiled, still mischievous, but now with a sad look to it.

"Well, first tell me about your plans, yeah?"

Pierre fell silent again, looking at you with hopeful eyes, "It depends on yours"

"My plans were to think about you all day, realistically, I know you have to be at LeMans all day the 14th" you confess with an awkward laugh, praying that you interpreted him right, that you weren't going to lose your best friend, but before you could spiral any further, Pierre's lips were on yours and his hands on your cheeks as your sticks crashed to the ice.

"Maybe we can celebrate a few days early?"

"Yeah, yeah, that sounds good"

Banner credits to @enchanthings-a

Taglist: (comment or DM to be added)

@koalapastries @justaf1girl

[guttednight]

I NEED to talk about lesbianism in revolutionary girl utena with other lesbians. So many thoughts. So many thoughts about Utena specifically and how, to me at least, her perceived attraction to men is symbolic of her being a victim of both grooming and the patriarchy overall. She’s fighting mega comphet demons on multiple fronts, and she’s only 14. God knows I remember the comphet demons when I was 14, and I’m sure many other lesbians see themselves in her that way too.

I think one of the most important things for me distinguishing Utena as a lesbian rather than bisexual is the revelation that her rose crest ring was never leading her back to ‘the prince.’ It was leading her back to Anthy. The ring that drives her since the beginning, and drives her ‘attraction’ to men (both Touga and Akio - although of course there is a grooming element on their parts to be taken into account here as well), she is revealed to be mistaken about. I take it as she is mistaken about her attraction to men as well, but that’s just my own understanding of course. To me, it was always Anthy :)

It’s important to me that when Utena and Anthy break free of Ohtori, they do so as lesbians. To grow past their victimisation by men and patriarchy and realise, no, it’s been women all along, it’s always been her - is soooo powerful to me. To be groomed both literally (Akio) and figuratively (the patriarchy as a whole) and turn around in defiance of that to claim a lesbian identity and revolutionise themselves as a result - it’s just wonderful. I appreciate the show allows for the interpretation of lesbianism as a revolution of the self - because it certainly was for me.

Disclaimer! This isn’t me invalidating any other interpretations! It is a very interpretative show! This is just an insight into the lens through which I viewed it as a lesbian myself!

[tonystarkisadouchebag]

one thing that I am tired of is the effect that MCU tying Tony to Peter has had on ppls interpretations of Spider-Man. Specifically with his identity. I’m sorry, ppl can write what they want, and I’m not even a big comics person, but the amount of fics where Peter intentionally reveals his identity so he can be an avenger is *exhausting*. Like, even with my basic knowledge I know that this contradicts core elements of Spidey’s character and WHY he wears that mask. If there’s evidence to the contrary in comics or other official media I’d love to see it, genuinely! But I personally just cannot be convinced rn that Peter would just broadcast his identity like that, bc that’s not Spider-Man. Not to me at least. It just takes me out of the story immediately, literally I exit out idc how good the writing is😭

The real kicker is comic Tony isn't great either and before the Iron Man movie no one cared about him or kind of hated him anyway, so the thought of tying the identity of one of the most recognizable and beloved superheroes of all time to your b tier Elon Musk rip off is insane. I'm so glad comic synergy hasn't affected that in the comics as far as I'm aware but, come on.

Far From Home being bogged down with constant mentions of his death, makes it unwatchable. When it comes down to it, their relationship consisted of Tony coercing Peter into fighting Captain America without giving him a chance to form his own opinion on the accords and then was "sassy" (rude) to him until he died.

MCU Peter may as well be someone's self insert OC with how well he represents the mythos of Spiderman. These movies do this a lot but usually with characters the general public would not care about like The Mandarin or Shatterstar (still upset about this one), so it's interesting to see them do this with arguably their most important character. Imagine the new Superman movie came out, and he was suddenly closely tied to Aquaman and considered him his mentor and father figure, and the Kent's are barely mentioned, and John Kent died off screen.

[inamindfarfaraway]

why do you ship poppy and sparrow from eah?thoughts on duchess swan and sparrow?

I have nothing against shipping Duchess and Sparrow! I just slightly prefer to think of them as best friends. Honestly, considering how she’s lived in the shadow of tragic doomed romance her whole life, I think it would be really nice for Duchess to find her happiness without any long-term romantic partner. I feel like she’d have anxiety about romance ending badly for her. Yeah, it turns out destiny is fake, but fifteen or so years of having the inevitable narrative of your future drilled into you and knowing that you are meant, you exist, to be hurt and betrayed and doomed by your romantic partner? That’s gonna mess your attitude to dating up. And since destiny is fake, non-doomed lovers are just one bad day away doom. There is no permanent happily ever after. Anyone could hurt her for any reason; and as she hopefully matures to be nicer and more moral, she could be afraid of hurting her lover too based on her past actions. But to learn that she doesn’t need to be anyone’s love interest could be empowering and liberating. She and Sparrow are definitely each other’s true loves in some way. I personally enjoy the platonic sense better, but the romantic option is just as valid an interpretation.

Okay. Duchess tangent over. Now, as for what I like about Poppy/Sparrow.

Poppy says in her bio that she finds Sparrow cute, but would like him more if he weren’t so arrogant. That’s a good foundation on her part. She sees worth in him, but also his flaws. If he ever wanted to play around with her, her standards and boundaries (and Holly) would force him to get his act together at least a little, which could be a catalyst for his character development.

They both have themes of freedom and rebellion. Sparrow is a Rebel more because he values his personal freedom than because he’s invested in human rights, refusing to conform to the law by stealing, his story by keeping the gains for himself and social norms by being an ass. Poppy loves not having a predetermined future and officially becomes a Rebel to avoid being the next Rapunzel and queen. Her least favourite class is Princessology, where you learn to be a responsible, respectable princess. Sparrow gets that. But she can show him how to express himself and defy social mores without being obnoxious about it.

They’re both creative types with unconventional styles and adventurous spirits, Poppy’s medium being hair and fashion while Sparrow’s is music. However, Poppy is a great, popular hairdresser. She’s good at listening to her clients’ input and giving them what they want, without sacrificing her own integrity. Sparrow is technically a skilled guitarist, but he hasn’t bothered to become as that good a singer, only cares about what he wants and is terrible at responding to criticism. He could learn from her to be a better artist. And I think their alternative aesthetics (I know Poppy’s is still pretty tame and feminine, but that feels more like Mattel being Mattel than the ultimate expression of her alleged personality; fanart that depicts Poppy with a wilder fashion sense my beloved) could complement each other really well.

Conversely, Poppy has sometimes been known to be unsure of new situations or herself, like that whole time she was on the fence between the Royal and Rebel ideologies or when she was nervous about ice-skating for the first time. It’s easy to extrapolate that being raised as the spare to Holly’s heir with the glaring lack of a destiny could have given her some identity issues in general. (Canon doesn’t really show that, but canon shows us so little depth that we have to fill in the blanks.) Sparrow does not have that problem. Ever. He knows who is and what he wants in life, and he’s gonna take it. Maybe he could influence her to be more confident.

It’s less much less obvious because Poppy is genuinely kind and morally principled and socially competent to balance it out, but she has a selfish streak too. She regularly cuts off her magically strong, long and fast-growing hair and sells it. Why sell it? Why not just donate it? Because despite having all the money she could ever need, she wants a little more for herself. She makes a steady profit by selling something she doesn’t have to work for and doesn’t want. That’s a shrewdness and initiative Sparrow can appreciate. I think her choosing centrism wasn’t as callous or stupid as some fans have made out; the Royals have a lot of understandable, sympathetic arguments, the Rebels at this time can’t prove that the other shoe won’t drop and with a Royal sister who’s probably afraid of her going poof, it would realistically be an emotionally fraught political debate for a teenager. But her “Roybel” identity is still a safe position where she tries to have the best of both worlds and can feel vindicated no matter which side wins. And it’s interesting that for as good a person she is and as many friends she has with Rebel stances and/or tragic fates, what drives her from “The face-eating leopards have pros and cons, let’s see how things go” to “Face-eating leopards are bad and need to be fought” is literally “Wait, the leopards want to eat my face?” If anything, I think her selfishness is wiser and more effective than Sparrow’s - she stays inside the law and benefits others enough to have strong friendships and a glowing reputation.

We also see in the ice-skating webisode that Duchess develops respect for Poppy and her courage after initially viewing her as a rival, setting up a friendship and a fun dynamic as Sparrow’s two true loves. Especially if, as I suspect, Poppy wouldn’t make a half-bad partner in crime herself. And on the other hand… Sparrow and Holly. Sweet, gentle, polite Holly who finds nothing more exciting than reading. And Sparrow Hood. Needing to coexist and learn to get along. That’s hilarious. Imagine the wedding speeches.

In the original Rapunzel tale, she was born to poor farmers and married into royalty, so an O’Hair falling for a commoner is at once a reversal and a return to form. It feels fitting.

Likewise, the original Robin Hood was in some versions a nobleman who abandoned his decadent lifestyle to serve the lower classes. (They weren’t always comfortable having a true peasant hero.) So I like the idea of Sparrow inverting that with his journey, being a greedy, selfish scoundrel as a poor kid and then only gaining riches after becoming equally rich in compassion and generosity. Only once he’s ready to share the wealth does he get access to a royal treasury. Legally, even!

Thanks for the ask! It was very fun articulating my thoughts and feelings about these characters, I’d never done that before and I thought of a few new arguments while I was writing this. I love all of them even more now.

[nikkashidashipper]

so to elaborate on this-

let me preface this with:

Czech is quite a complicated and also a very colorful (Slavic) language

I do have to add that the Czech dub for KCD2 is *chef's kiss* it's SO well done. it's so colorful and so witty and funny. I encourage any Slavs to at least check out the cz dub + eng sub option

I haven't seen the playthrough in English properly so feel free to correct me if I missed anything

I'm experiencing the game in Czech dub + sub

this is a subjective interpretation of the diminutives used in the Czech dub and the levels of intimacy/affection they carry, a different Czech person may have different experiences with these names

(spoilers ahead obviously, but not anything beyond the Trosky map/part of the game)

for this I'm gonna focus on our lads, Hans and Henry and the Czech versions of the names and their use in the game/dialogue, and two scenes that stood out to me so far - 1st is the cutscene after the lads get jailed at Trosky and they learn that Hans is to be hanged, 2nd is the sequence of gameplay and cutscene during the abovementioned scramble after they get ambushed on their way from Trosky to Nabákov

firstly, the lads and their names

so in the English dub our lads are called Sir Hans Capon and Henry of Skalitz, and as far as i know, Henry only calls Hans either "Sir Capon", "Sir Hans", or "Hans"

in the Czech dub, our lads are called Pan Jan Ptáček [pan jan ptɑː(tʃ)ek] and Jindřich ze Skalice [jɪnd(rz)ɪ(kh) ze skalɪ(ts)e] - the meaning of the words mirror the English equivalents (aka Pan = Sir, ze = of etc.)

going forward I'm gonna use the term "hypocorism" as a blanket term for terms like "informal name", "diminutive", "nickname", "pet name", and the term "formal name" when referring to either an "official" name of the character or (eg. Hans) or a formal given name in the linguistic sense

Jindřich (Henry)

as far as the diminutives of the name Jindřich (Henry) go, there's mainly "Jindra" [jɪndra], which is a fairly basic hypocorism of a formal name - Jan (Hans) uses it quite often for him (as can other characters and do so quite often), which isn't that surprising given Jindra's social status and Jan's and his dynamic, aka Jan doesn't have to stick to respectful and formal names and terms when addressing Jindřich, he could more or less call him whatever

in the English dub, I'm not sure Hans ever calls Henry a nickname(?)

Jan (Hans)

before we get into the hypocorisms, a fun(?) quick(?) aside:

the name Jan in Czech is a formal name, as can Hans be in English of course, but the direct Czech equivalent of the name Hans is "Honza" which, while it technically can(?) be a formal name (there are only 7 people with Honza as their given name in the Czech Rep out of almost 11 million), it is pretty much exclusively a hypocorism of the name Jan - if you're wondering, the direct English equivalent of the name Jan is John (or German Johannes)

with that said, I'm only going to be looking at the way the name Jan and its hypocorisms are used in the Czech language without relating them back to Hans (as Hans is simply the characters formal name in the English dub)

and again, I'm not sure Henry ever calls Hans a nickname(?) in the English dub, but most importantly for this, he doesn't do so in the instances when Jindřich does so in the Czech dub

so as far as I've noticed, there has only been one instance (so far) where the Czech dub uses hypocorisms of the formal name Jan, and we get two of them basically in one scene/sequence - the 2nd scene I listed at the beginning - "Jenda" [jenda] and later "Honza" [honza] which, and this is where it gets subjective in my opinion, is a wild choice from the writers??

Jindřich using hypocorisms for Jan is more significant for obvious reasons, which I already mentioned - the class differences and their dynamic, Jan is a Lord and Jindřich his company, and the latter should keep up the formal and respectful manner when addressing his Lord etc etc, the game tells you this repeatedly in various ways

so, Jenda is pretty much a direct hypocorism of the name Jan, but heavily informal, it has a "silly factor" if you will, it's a Very lighthearted diminutive, kinda goofy, one would use it, in my opinion, for a young-er friend (good friend) or in a teasing manner, or as an affection charged nickname, familial, familiar or romantic

Honza is a bit complicated to explain, it's also a hypocorism of Jan, but it's far more often used than Jenda, and while still informal it doesn't have the goofy factor and silliness to it and may as well be used as a regular (nick)name instead of the given name Jan

why this matters - Czech hansry truthers have been blessed

now, both of these are far from inherently overtly affectionate (or romantically charged at that) - However, as is established, Jindřich should have no business calling Jan, his lord, any sort of nickname (or even just calling him only by his first name, as he does in the 1st scene mentioned at the beginning, more on that below), and the fact that he does so in moments of desperation where Jan is in great/grave danger is. insane of the writers tbh

and this is the first time Jindřich uses these for Jan as well, he just shouts them out, too, the voice actor (Richard Wágner) did an absolutely fantastic job, those hypocorisms are loaded with emotion

and again, as far as I've been able to find, there hasn't been any use of hypocrisms or nicknames in the English dub between these two

lastly, to circle back to the scenes - the 1st scene in jail at Trosky, Jindřich just shouts "Jane!" after him and it caught me SO off guard because this was the first time in the sequel (and possibly the first or second time over both the games) Jindřich called Jan only by his first name, no title, no last name, just Jan, and it was while Jindřich was being dragged away from him, both having just learned Jan is to hang in 12 hours. the 2nd scene the lads have been ambushed by guys with pistols(!)(I hereby invite you to look up what the origin of the word "pistol" is lol), Jan keeps disappearing from Jindřich's sight and then he gets whacked in the head and stays unmoving on his back and Jindřich has to shake him back into consciousness while they get surrounded. I have rewatched both scenes at least 15 times each, I am losing my mind

I genuinely am unable to fully express just how intimate the "Honzo!" is when Jindra is cradling Jan's head, shaking him awake desperately. like,, the "Jane!" was already a shock, and then this. I am so serious when I say I screamed

in my humble opinion these are very deliberate choices on the writers' and directors' part and I'm still in awe from just how well and sensibly and delicately they developed their relationship and even crafted a romance option that feels completely normal, even natural for these two characters. I still cannot understand or comprehend how this even happened at Warhorse (given Vávra and his very vocal opinions, no less) and that we have this tastefully crafted and handled gay romance in a Czech medieval videogame. speechless (he says, after finishing his extensive speech asdjlhkhaskhgsjkadhl)

you guys. in the czech dub of the game, henry calls hans nicknames and more importantly, diminutives during the scramble after they get ambushed on their way to nabákov. im. soft

[deoidesign]

Doing master studies the only way I know how: Stealing them and making them my guys.

(Barberini Faun)

(The Fallen Angel - Alexandre Cabanel)

(Covent Garden - William Bruce Ellis Rankin)

[citrusai]

taash said "they were doing it" and people ran with the interpretation of an npc that doesn't know solas or the history of the elvhenan even when bellara interjected and said, no, that's not right. that's not how it was for the elvhenan. they formed bonds before they had physical bodies. and people ran to doompost or create weird anti-solavellan shit even though mythal & solas refer to each other as old friends and when she releases him there is no tenderness or love in it. it is the act of unchaining a dog from his post, the stepping down of a general. but to each their own ig.

[hisclockworkservants]

So I found some super old art from when I was young and tried redrawing them XD

[margridarnauds]

#NO LITERALLY#theyve done something awful but what choice do they have? rhiannon can't protect herself nvm them!!#love this fuckin take youve done it again R#the mabinogi It REALLY struck me this read-through how thoroughly screwed Rhiannon is from the get-go. Because like...how shall I put this? I think, in the past, I put more stock in her status as queen + bond with Pwyll than the text actually does. Because the lords are ALREADY calling for her removal -- they want Pwyll to marry another woman. And they're not monsters for this! The text goes out of its way to say that they do this out of love! They're just....men. And Rhiannon is just a woman. And she's a woman who isn't One of Them. I want to do more on this one day, but I think that interpretations that make her explicitly a fairy woman miss out on the raw horror that she is a HUMAN WOMAN being exposed to this, simply because she's vulnerable, she hasn't given birth to a son, and she isn't One of Them. If it was their daughter, or their sister? She would probably get a pass. But she ISN'T.

She promises to protect them, but can she really, when the wolves come baying at her door? The boy is missing, SOMEONE has to pay, and there's something about how she's described, when she goes to sleep, as "mam y mab Riannon" -- she is the MOTHER to the son of Rhiannon, SHE is not the important one. Her job security just got yanked through the chimney.

I jokingly asked this time about how they could possibly mistake the bones of something else for a newborn baby (because, if nothing else, there tends to be a difference in size, along with anatomy), and one of my colleagues very seriously told me that the Mabinogi exists in a state of heightened reality and you can't take it too literally. (I mean, just because YOU'VE never been whisked off to a magical world to switch places with an Otherworldly king...) But that explanation, while valid and coming from a good place, didn't sit FULLY well with me because...well. The EVENTS of the Mabinogi tend to be fantastical, but the underlying psychology tends to NOT be. What Gwydion does in the Fourth Branch is, to put it lightly, unrealistic, but we know why he does it: He loves his brother and he loves his nephew. Why does Llwyd do his fucked up little magic show in the Third Branch? Because no one cares about Gwawl (which, tbf, the audience has likely forgotten Gwawl by that point.) In and amongst the horrors of the Fourth Branch, Manawydan promises Cigfa he'll protect her. We get glimpses into both Pwyll AND the wife of Arawn's POVs during the switch in the First Branch.

The point is...it's fantastical, yes, but it also tends to be psychologically plausible. The author of the Mabinogi, whoever they were, was someone who seems to have been very interested in human behavior, the WHY for people's actions. They tend to at least give a sentence or two for why people do something. So my interpretation is this: They didn't care that the bones clearly weren't that of a newborn human. It didn't matter. I'm not even sold, during this read-through, that they actually, seriously BELIEVED that she had done it. Because Rhiannon was in a tight space from the beginning and now they had the chance to press their case against Pwyll. They didn't care because it was convenient to what they wanted. And it doesn't make the lords monstrous, but it's one more example of men dropping the ball through laziness or personal interest or just not THINKING and women paying for it.

And taking into account the situation of the women...again...they did something monstrous, but they also saw exactly where the wind was blowing and saved themselves. And the question that I think adaptations tend to lose by making them like. Stereotypical old hags or accusers in a witchcraft trial (which, also, Rhiannon HERSELF has more sympathy for them than I think adaptations tend to), but that I do think the text DOES invite us to consider is how many of US would do the same in their situation, out of a moment of panic? Maybe we wouldn't be the ones to do the monstrous action, but how many of us would sit by and say nothing? Everyone wants to be Rhiannon (...okay, besides the whole. You know. "Carrying people on your back for years" thing) -- she's clever, quick-witted, eloquent, diplomatic, brave, and generous, with one of the single most iconic lines in the entire Four Branches, as well as, naturally, being beautiful even into her later years. She's wonderful. But the reality is...how many of us can be her?

Rereading the First Branch of the Mabinogi lowkey makes me want to do a retelling of the second half, but from the perspective of one of the women who was sent to look after Baby Pryderi and framed Rhiannon.

Because like. These women do something despicable. They hurt mostly innocents. There's no softening this. They hurt someone who does nothing but try to reassure them that she'll protect them, they hurt an ENTIRELY innocent creature in a way that I literally can't type and could barely translate. There's no point where you can girlbossify this.

But the thing that the author of the Mabinogi does is that they don't act out of jealousy, or because they're naturally evil, but because they're scared. They just lost the king's son. They explicitly think that being burned to death or put to death (no, the text doesn't quite explain how burning isn't a form of being put to death) would be a small punishment. Were they noblewomen? Were they common women who found themselves in over their heads? All we know is that they were sent in to watch over the baby and fell asleep...but we know that the thing that snatches Pryderi tends to make people fall asleep. Was it really their fault? They found themselves in a situation where they were in over their head and made a monstrous decision.

Did they see Rhiannon while she was doing her penance? Did any of them feel a hint of guilt? What did they think when her penance was over and they found out that Pryderi was alive? How do you live with that kind of secret? What kind of twisted, fucked up bond do you have with someone when you've smeared blood on the queen's face and hands with them?

[flower-blossoms654]

"If not his friend, then mine."

I keep thinking about that one line because it fucking tears my heart out. Its Telemachus saying I know you have done something that you regret - probably something that you believe is bad and makes you a bad person and unworthy of that person's friendship - but as your friend (who fully realizes your imperfections) I believe you are a good enough person to make amends.

"Maybe to fall is to learn one way" because its OKAY to make mistakes. Doing bad things doesn't automatically make you a bad person. If you really want to help, if you really want to make amends, and the person who you wish to help is wanting and willing to accept those amends, then maybe things will get better.

He's really just looking at Athena and acknowledging that she can change/is changing/has changed for the better - and that was what Athena needed. She seeks out Odysseus, sees that he needs her help, and challenges her father for his freedom.

She's a goddess. Renowned and worshiped. She has great pride and not only did she extend her mentorship to Odysseus, she basically set her claim on him. For him to directly go against her warnings and for him to believe he knew better than her was a big blow. Their argument didn't make things better.

So she cut him off. Said goodbye. Tried to forget him and act like she was never tied to him. That she never even considered him a friend.

Then his son rolls around. Young and bright. In need of guidance. Surrounded by foes. A young boy who looks so much like a father he never knew of - most likely because of her.

And its pride and guilt and regret that fights inside of her until someone can look at her and tell her that hey, you don't have to be perfect to be loved.

[spotsupstuff]

day 22 and 25 -looks at date- or at least inspired by them

[meamiki]

Happy Anniversary In Stars and Time!! Have some Friend Quest based drawings :D

(These have specific quote picks related to them! And there's also a long ramble on why I like those specific quotes below if interested)

(And by long, I mean roughly 2k+ words of proper ramble total, so be warned before clicking keep reading this link right here to the rb!!)