#what was that one quote from critical role

[0nsyu-archive]

It’s true that Mad Dog isn’t what fans expect of him, but only in a protagonist role. That Yokoyama’s conclusion isn't outdated is supported by data. In December, RGG Studio surveyed Majima fans for their favorite lines and scenes. All the top picks for his protagonist roles were non-Mad Dog. Nearly all the top picks for his non-protagonist roles were Mad Dog, even though he has plenty of scenes as a non-protagonist where he isn’t Mad Dogging.

If what fans want to see from Majima as a protagonist isn’t Mad Dog, then it follows that they have to come up with ways to take Mad Dog out of the picture, because Majima habitually “plays the character of Goro Majima” to the point it can, in part, be considered his true self.

Time and time again in Yakuza: Like a Dragon, Gaiden, Infinite Wealth, and the end of Pirate Yakuza, when he's coming out of periods of inactivity, he returns to the more classical Mad Dog persona. Mad Dog has insane levels of optimism and drive, if anything, which has let him achieve things like making Majima Construction a success, building Kamurocho Hills, and leading the biggest family under the Tojo umbrella. Even before the birth of the Mad Dog, Majima had the drive to get back into the Tojo by any means necessary, so to a degree even at his low points he's innately optimistic and driven when he has a goal.

For him to not draw upon Mad Dog when he has a goal as lofty as dealing with the fallout of the dissolution wouldn't make sense. But if Mad Dog's not what players want out of Majima as a protagonist, how do they stop him from Mad Dogging in a story dealing with the dissolution, where he, as the protagonist, can’t be inactive? That's the dilemma.

When you praise how Yakuza 0 handled this idilemma, why is that something “someone” did, while you attribute your criticisms directly to Yokoyama? Yokoyama wrote both games. 0 is one example of the exact mechanism Yokoyama is talking about. 0, as I said, is set before the birth of the Mad Dog specifically to counteract the effects of Mad Dog. The amnesia does the same thing while also letting him tap into that optimism and motivation sooner than he might otherwise.

The reason they can’t use the same method as 0 is because they’ve already done it. If they ever made a 0-2 or 0.5 (which they’ve already decided against), it wouldn’t be about Kiryu and Majima to begin with. The credits cover what happened after and they have a strict policy of not making the protagonists active yakuza. As far as that goes, every major period of Majima’s adult life where he wasn't an active yakuza has been covered from his perspective already. So having set Pirate Yakuza in the present, the reason it's not bleak and pessimistic is simply because RGG’s tone changes in response the state of the world, which is currently pretty bleak.

The quotes you’re referring to come from articles about Pirate Yakuza. Before then, it’s true he did say no to a Majima Gaiden when Ugaki brought it up. What people don’t mention is that he said he’d have to think about it—which he did. The circumstances allowed for a Majima game, and they made one. Beyond Pirate Yakuza’s announcement he’s only spoken on this twice, ever, and even then he’s only said Majima would have no more solo games.

In fact, when he most recently spoke on this, he came up with a concept for a sequel to Pirate Yakuza starring Saejima and Majima on the spot. He’s also spoken on how a game about the dissolution starring the ‘Jimas was under consideration. It just didn’t allow them to experiment to the degree the concept they went with did, and the success of this experiment has given them confidence for future ones, which is a net positive in my book even as someone who's critical of Pirate Yakuza.

But even if Yokoyama said there will be no more Majima games, if you’re fine with that as you say, why is that an issue? If Yokoyama said he doesn’t see Majima the same way Majima fans do (and he definitely has said that), why is that an issue? What does that affect, materially? Majima appears in more games than the previous series protagonist, has been playable in more games than the current protagonist, and gets a bigger share of the studio’s total output than both of them do. What is left to do other than indefinite do-overs of Majima games until every fan can be satisfied, something that’s impossible to achieve?

It’s completely fine to disagree with Yokoyama's approach, I'm no stranger to that, but "good ideas” and “good execution” are subjective, nebulous concepts untethered to practical considerations. Pirate Yakuza is one of the least-criticized games they’ve put out. If you have an issue with that, criticize the game by all means. Criticize Yokoyama's decisions by all means, too. But if you're going to, criticize them in context, because there's a whole lot more that goes into them than a potential "dislike" of a character.

I'm tired of hearing Yokoyama say it's almost impossible to "make Majima a protagonist if he still has his memory intact" like this is something a good writer would say, or that he isn't "interesting" as if he didn't make eight games about the same guy.

Also incredible how he uses the excuse of the memory loss to say it is the only way to make Majima the protagonist when Majima is the same as always in Pirate Yakuza in Hawaii, and there is absolutely nothing new about him precisely because he has no memories.

[jon-sedai]

And remember kids, the next time someone tells you, "George R. R. Martin wouldn't make Jon Snow the typical fantasy hero because that's cliche".....

Oh yes he would!

One viewer wants to know what character would you play (on the show)? GRRM: If I could magically clap my hands and become a different person, it would be cool to play Jon Snow who's much more of the classic hero. Everybody wants to be the classic hero! ABC Interview, 2014

GRRM: And the character I’d want to be? Well who wouldn’t want to be Jon Snow — the brooding, Byronic, romantic hero whom all the girls love. Meduza Interview, 2017

In fact he already has ☺️

[helimir]

Some top tier Caduceus quotes I've been thinking about in these Downfall times. Something about how so much of Ludinus' position seems to rest on revenge. Showing Bells Hells the squabbling of the gods as they debate what to do about Aeor, and asking 'You can just watch bad people get away with it?'

It doesn't matter if the gods were wrong for their choices. Killing them won't bring back Aeor and it won't stop the violence that Ludinus and the Ruby Vanguard have visited on the world. I just don't see what it's for.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

oh the broadway world review of summer stock (a) loved it as much or more than anyone (b) has as much or more info than anyone and (c) generally has the most vivacity thus far

Summer Stock made its world premiere at The Goodspeed Opera House to a most deserving enthusiastic standing ovation. Based on the 1950 MGM film starring Hollywood legends Judy Garland and Gene Kelly, Summer Stock is a spectacular production with phenomenal dancing, feel-good music, and a sweet story, all modernized for today’s audiences.

Audiences will recognize and love hearing classic songs by Irving Berlin and from The Great American Songbook, including “Happy Days are Here Again”, “Accentuate the Positive”, “I’m Always Chasing Rainbows”, “It’s Only a Paper Moon”, “Me and My Shadow”, “Red Hot Mamma”, “’Til We Meet Again", and “You Wonderful You”. Summer Stock’s writer, Cheri Steinkellner, takes the original film story to a whole new level that both contemporary and classic theater goers will absolutely adore. Steinkellner provides additional lyrics to upgrade the story to first class. It’s hard to believe that she “got the call” to write Summer Stock in October, completed the workshop draft by March, and had the rehearsal draft ready by June for a July opening. Steinkellner clearly works well under pressure - Summer Stock is a diamond.

In the Writer’s Notes, Steinkellner elaborates on the restrictions of bringing the film to stage (like how heavy farm machinery wouldn’t fit up on the Goodspeed stage) and how she tackled answering the many questions that the original film glossed over: “Why is a Shakespearean matinee idol starring in a musical in a barn? What happens when you make show-people wake up at sunrise to muck out the stalls?” and more. She repositioned and repurposed the film’s original songs like “Howdy Neighbor” and “Dig for Your Dinner”, so the classic elements that film fans are looking for are still there - only, frankly, much much better. Lastly, she addresses the challenge of “crafting a [contemporary] story to support a diverse cast of characters with intention, authenticity, and care.” Steinkellner rose to the challenge, knocked it out of the park, and created a great musical in record time.

The story is simple and sweet. Set just after World War II, we meet Jane Falbury (Danielle Wade), a doting daughter working the family farm with her father, Lt. Henry “Pop” Falbury (Stephen Lee Anderson). The Falbury Farm is in trouble thanks to the devious and ambitious Margaret Wingate (Veanne Cox), who has grand aims for a monopoly over the Connecticut River Valley. Scheming with her naive son, Orville (Will Roland), they will stop at nothing to own the farm. Meanwhile, Jane’s showgirl sister, Gloria (Arianna Rosario), has moved to The Big Apple to make it on Broadway. She wins a spot in the chorus line of Joe Ross’ (Corbin Bleu) brand new show. With his sidekick and music director, Phil Filmore (Gilbert L. Bailey II) in tow and a Shakespearean star, Montgomery Leach, ready to take center stage, they hit a snag when they lose their rehearsal space. Gloria suggests uprooting the show to rehearse in her family’s barn. Jane, who is fresh out of farm hands, reluctantly agrees to let the actors stay in exchange for earning their keep. The company’s tight harmonies might not charm Jane at first, but they certainly had us swooning. I won’t spoil the entire plot, but will say that hilarity ensues, hearts flutter, dreams are realized, and it’s wonderful.

When I first heard about Summer Stock, I cynically thought that it felt too familiar. The show is set on a Connecticut farm whose owners have fallen on hard times and risk losing their livelihood. They turn to their Broadway friends, who are amidst the usual uphill battle of making it big in show business, and agree to put on a brand new production in the barn to raise funds to save the farm. It’s based on the film of the same name, features music by Irving Berlin, and includes incredible tap numbers, and spotlights America’s sweetheart Corbin Bleu. Hearing that alone, I’d think this was a copy/paste of Tony Award-nominated Holiday Inn: The New Irving Berlin Musical, which opened at The Goodspeed in 2014 and went to Broadway in 2016. We’ve seen a number of Irving Berlin musicals, including White Christmas, and the most recent Broadway production Nice Work if You Can Get It, starring Kelli O’Hara and Matthew Broderick. So, what more is there to add to this Broadway subgenre? If you’d asked me before, I would argue there’s “Nothing More to Say”. I was very wrong. Summer Stock raises the bar with phenomenal choreography, clever storytelling and humor, beautiful orchestrations, and unparalleled performers.

Speaking of unparalleled performers, the cast is perfection. There’s not a single throwaway line or character. They’re all exquisite gems and I’m running out of words to compliment them all. The “city mice” dancers and ensemble features Erika Amato, Hannah Balagot, DeShawn Bowens, Ronnie S. Bowman Jr., Emily Kelly, Francesca Mancuso, Tommy Martinez, Corinne Munsch, Gregory North, Kaylee Olson, Jack Sippel, and Cayel Tregeagle. Danielle Wade sweetly croons just like Judy Garland and swept audiences off their feet. As I left the theater, I overheard two ladies praising Wade for her stupendous performance, saying it was perfect likeness of Garland, yet even more meaningful. Arianna Rosario, as the sugary sweet sister, is absolutely delightful. Stephen Lee Anderson, as  the veteran and father, tugs our heart strings. Gilbert L. Bailey II and Will Roland had the crowd roaring with laughter as the feisty music director and innocent corporate heir. Veanne Cox, as the melodramatic mother and CEO of Wingate Agricultural Corporate, had the crowd roaring with laughter from the moment she spoke her first line. Not to be outdone, J. Anthony Crane, as the over-the-top Shakespearean star, brought down the house with his entrance alone. Together, Cox and Crane generate instant heat, which is especially appropriate since they rock the stage with Red Hot Mamma. The cheeky, interspersed Shakespearean innuendo is fast-paced, clever, and had the audience hooting and hollering. I would see the show again for this duo.

Last, but far from least, Corbin Bleu, as the show’s director, gives the performance of a lifetime. Bleu radiates pure joy and leads with heart, inviting his scene partners to shine with him. Audiences instantly fell in love with his gorgeous, velvety voice, and, understandably, swooned. Bleu previously won the Chita Rivera Award for Outstanding Male Dancing in a Broadway Show for his portrayal in Irving Berlin’s Holiday Inn, and his transcendent tapping in Summer Stock shows he’s not stopping there. Bleu’s dancing is out of this world! You can’t miss his charming and virtuosic spin on Gene Kelly’s iconic solo dance, featuring the world’s most unexpected dance partner. Corbin Bleu is a national treasure.

The 8-piece orchestra, lead by Goodspeed’s resident music director Adam Souza, performs the remarkable orchestrations, by Doug Besterman, beautifully. The score is demanding, but the musicians don’t let us see them sweat. As much as I’m gushing, I would recommend shifting the show to one hour earlier and give it a little trim. Not a haircutter’s inch, but a discreet tidy-up. As it turns out, I was in slight agreement with the obnoxious subscribers behind me, who disrupted a precious moment to voice their complaints, “This is two hours and forty minutes? Way too long!” I nearly turned to fisticuffs in defense of this phenomenal cast, but chose to deliver an icy, yet effective, glare. I digress, but Goodspeed subscribers are truly spoiled with top-rate performers straight from the Broadway stage. In any case, we could use a couple more developmental scenes to fully flesh out the plot, and I’d be willing to sacrifice by shaving a bit off some of the longer dance numbers (“Everybody Step” and “Dig For Your Dinner”) and songs. (Not too much! Just an inch! And don’t dare recast any characters!)

That isn’t to say that the dance performances weren’t epic: Summer Stock has the best dancing I have ever seen, hands down. The virtuosic ensemble, lovingly called “city mice”, perfectly deliver wildly acrobatic displays all with impossibly high-energy and make it look easy. Director and choreographer, Donna Feore, has made an unforgettable, magnificent Goodspeed debut. Feore makes use of every inch of the stage, making it feel larger than life, and her attention to detail is unsurpassed. The choreography is out of this world! Wilson Chin, scenic designer, set the stage beautifully. The Technicolor New England farm-turned-theater is framed with classic red-sided barn, delicate florals climbing the walls, and hurricane lanterns lovingly displayed as accent pieces. Summer Stock is Goodspeed’s best original production ever. The 12, which opens next, has very big shoes to fill. Summer Stock has its eyes set on Broadway. Does Summer Stock deserve a Broadway run? Absolutely. In this critic’s opinion, it couldn’t get there soon enough.  Perhaps my favorite aspect of the production were the many comedic theater flourishes. Broadway audiences will cry with laughter when they watch the city mice (actors) learn how to play the part of farmhands: “What is the farmer’s motivation?” “E-I, E-I!” Frankly, I want an original cast album yesterday. Finally, when it opens on Broadway, you’ll wish you had seen it at The Goodspeed first.

[milkoomi]

finding & knowing your worth. ᥫ᭡

i wanted to take some time and talk about self-worth. this is something that was extremely difficult for me to find and realize for myself, but as i look back on my life and reflect on my growth, i’ve found myself truly knowing my own worth. of course, i still have those days that are more difficult than others, but i’ve been able to quickly pick myself back up. why? because i know my worth. i want to share a few things that have helped me realize that for myself, so i hope this post is able to enlighten you. ㅤ♡

let’s begin …

୨ৎ — lose interest in outsider opinions

in simpler terms: stop caring. i kept asking myself, “why do i care so much about what others are thinking of me?” and then i came across a couple quotes where one said, “if you wouldn’t trust their advice, why would you take their criticism?” and the other said, “i would never want to trade lives with someone who hates me.” those two quotes really stuck with me because it reminded me that those people who didn’t have a good opinion of me were the same people i needed to stop caring about.

so what if someone didn’t like me? that person is either no longer a part of my life (for good reason) or they don’t know me in the ways that my loved ones or my own self do, so why should what they have to say or think about me matter?

i knew myself better than anyone, so whatever anyone had to say about me shouldn’t have bothered me, and i let it stop bothering me. i also realized that as my day goes on and i find myself not thinking about what someone said, i tell myself that it wasn’t even worth a single thought in the first place because, clearly, it doesn’t bother me anymore!

if it won’t matter to you in 5 years, don’t continue to give it any more of a meaning.

୨ৎ — stop seeking validation

to piggyback off of my previous point, seeking outside validation is 1. not worth your time and 2. pointless. other people should never be the ones who define your worth. you have to seek validation from yourself. nobody else has a right to tell you whether or not you’re worthy.

i was always looking for validation from others, and it made my own journey to finding myself even more difficult. there were so many different opinions about me that i kept hearing, and it made me feel lost. it felt like i was getting further and further from truly discovering myself and feeling like i was worth something.

i had to pretty much force myself to seek validation within myself rather than from anyone else. it was hard, but the longer i kept searching for some kind of worth to others the more miserable and empty i felt.

୨ৎ — self reflection

time to bring out that journal, babe. we’re going to write about ourselves.

no, seriously, take some time to reflect on yourself. look within yourself and understand yourself a bit more. getting to know yourself and taking the time to focus on yourself can help you figure some things out and even bring you one step closer to truly knowing your worth.

prompts for reflection:

what are 3 characteristics about your personality do you like about yourself? why?

what are your strengths? how do those things about you make you a better person?

what’s your favorite thing(s) about you? how would they compare to what a loved one would say about you?

what are the things that weigh you down? what can you do to lift that weight off your shoulders?

how have you changed within the last 3 years? what about you has changed that you’re really proud of?

self reflection has helped me grow so much. i’ve learned so many new things about myself and it’s helped appreciate myself way more. you’ll be surprised at all the things you find about yourself, and guess what? one of those things will be your own worth.

୨ৎ — surround yourself with positivity

the people who you surround yourself with will play a huge role in how you feel about yourself. i spent too many years surrounded by people who made me feel like i was never enough, and i continued to keep the same kind of people around. i was sick of it. i was tired of being mistreated and feeling betrayed. those people made me feel miserable and they only ever brought me down rather than lifted me up.

even the media i consumed didn’t help me. i was always so focused on comparing myself to those instagram models and tiktok girls who looked nothing like me, and it made me feel worse about myself. even watching videos or shows that brought me down made my esteem drop too.

it’s important to surround yourself with people and media that make you feel good, that lift you up, and that help you feel confident because that kind of good treatment is what you deserve! you shouldn’t have to submit yourself to negativity, it only makes you feel worse and it’ll continue to get worse the longer you keep those things and people around.

now that i have people in my life that make me feel genuinely loved and cared for, i feel like i can offer that same energy those people give me to myself! it really makes a huge difference who your close circle consists of, so make sure those people are people who are genuinely and unconditionally there for you.

୨ৎ — final notes

if you do need a reminder: you are worthy, and you always have been! finding and knowing your own worth is no easy feat, but the journey you’ll go on to discover it and implement it into your life will be so extremely worth it. i promise!

you will always be more than enough, and i hope you can continue to remind yourself of that. treat yourself with genuine love and kindness, and don’t ever take yourself for granted. you have achieved so much and you have so many things to offer in life. you may not see it now, but once you do, you’ll see just how beautiful and bright your own light is.

with lots of love, faustina 🌷

[congenitaleunuch]

1. Recognize that you are not the experts about intersex people, intersexuality, or what it means to be intersexed; intersex people are. When writing a paper about intersexuality, make sure to center voices of intersex people. 2. Critically approach writings by non-intersex "experts" such as doctors, scientists, and academics about intersexuality or intersex people if you decide to quote or cite them. That is, consider what the author's perspective and agenda are, and where his or her knowledge comes from. 3. Do not write about intersex existence or the concept of intersexuality without talking about the lives and experiences of intersex people as well as issues they face. Do not use intersex people merely to illustrate the social construction of binary sexes. 4. Do not judge the politics and narratives of intersex people or movement based on how useful they are to your political agenda (or agendas). Intersex people are no more responsible for dismantling gender roles or compulsory heterosexuality than anyone else is. 5. Be aware that writings by intersex people are often part of conversations within the intersex movement and/or with other communities, including the medical community. Realize that intersex people's words may be addressing certain constituencies or political agendas for which you do not have access to the full context. 6. Do not conflate intersex experiences with lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans (LGBT) experiences. You may understand what it might feel to grow up "different" if you are part of the LGBT community, but that really does not mean you understand what it means to grow up intersexed. 7. Do not reduce intersex people to their physical conditions. Depict intersex people as multidimensional human beings with interests and concerns beyond intersex issues. 8. Focus on what looking at intersexuality or intersex people tells you about yourself and the society, rather than what it tells you about intersex people. Turn analytical gaze away from intersex bodies or genders and toward doctors, scientists, and academics who theorize about intersexuality. 9. Do not represent intersex people as all the same. How people experience being born intersex is at least as diverse as how people experience being born non-intersex, and is impacted by various social factors such as race, class, ability, and sexual orientation, as well as actual medical conditions and personal factors. Do not assume that one intersex person you happen to meet represents all or even most intersex people. 10. Assume that some of your readers will themselves be intersex, and expect that you may be criticized by some of them. Listen to intersex people when they criticize your work, and consider it a gift and a compliment. If they thought that you had nothing to contribute, they would not bother to engage with you in the first place. 11. Remember: five children are being mutilated every day in the United States alone. Think about what you can do to help stop that.

Suggested Guidelines for Non-Intersex Individuals Writing about Intersexuality and Intersex People by Emi Koyama, Intersex Initiative

[darknessisafriend]

Commodus Masterlist

I see you all are thirsty for our Emperor Commodus lately so I made a masterlist just for you ! (if you are interested by other characters here's the link of my full masterlist! )

SFW:

Let’s just stay here a little while,  You are feeling down lately, thankfully, your husband Commodus is there for you.

Pampering Commodus, after a hard day the Emperor needs to relax and be pampered. Fluff

Queen or thief of my heart?,  The reader is poor and is mistaken for stealing from a street vendor, and she is brought before Emperor Commodus to be killed but upon seeing her, he recognizes her as a childhood friend of his…will he save her life as a token of the past?

Periods, you have your periods for the first time with your husband Commodus, you are ashamed but he comforts you in that tough time of the month.

Your attitude may hurt me, but mine can kill you, quote challenge, Commodus is having another paranoia episode. 

You should kneel to your Empress,  Commodus’ Empress is mixed race and she overhears people at the palace making remarks about her and her family even though without her, they wouldn’t have trade or peaceful relations with a prominent tribe in Africa. Commodus hears it and defends her.

The virtues of an Emperor,  this follows the moment when Commodus learns he won’t be Emperor, but it takes a slightly different turn, he is not alone this time.

Elysium, Commodus comforts you after one of your friends died

The light in my darkness, Commodus has always been afraid of the dark. 

Sleepless Slumber, Commodus suffers insomnia

I will feed on your hate, Commodus hears people criticizing and it hurts more than expected

My never ending loyalty, male reader, preatorian’s guard love story with his emperor on the Eve of the fight against Maximus. 

Everything will be okay, you lost someone dear to you, Commodus is by your side to help you through grief

No one will oppose us,  commodus x healer!reader, they became friends, she has been the only one caring for him, and she gets to him before he manages to kill marcus aurelius and comforts him

Tell me you are mine, Commodus x healer!reader grow together, read as they build that unique bond, and that Commodus becomes the tortured soul we know

MIX OF SFW AND NSFW

The world will be ours, part 1, part 2, part 3,  part 4, part 5, You are the heir of a kindgom  conquered by Rome. To strenghen its bound to the Empire, the Emperor has made an offer your family can’t refuse… you will marry his son Commodus, but you are scared of him and he doesn’t want to marry you, but Rome is hostile to Commodus reign, what will be your role in this, will you learn to love each other?

The world will be ours Sequel,  this fic follows the life of Commodus with you, you had two beautiful, children, he is finally happy and loved but then something terrible happens… Part 1, Part 2 

No one will oppose us, Commodus ends up crying during sex that leads to an early end, you comfort him and take care of whatever emotions bubbled over.

Fanaticus, Imagine if Commodus became a fanboy of a gladiator in the Colosseum , he becomes obssessed until he realizes it is love.

NSFW:

Anything for Caesar NSFW, rough sex smut one shot

Commodus the whore of the Empress NSFW, Imagine a parallel universe where Commodus falls from grace, you become Empress and he becomes your bitch (part 2 on my friend’s blog   Part 3 , Part 4, part 5

The One rule, you have disobeyed Commodus and he punishes you in the best and yet worst way. NSFW

If only Rome knew how much you sacrificed for them,  after the final fight against Maximus in the Colosseum, you find Commodus’ body among the corpses of those dead in the arena, he had been carelessly tossed there as if he was no one. He is alive, barely, you decide to save him. But what will happen if he survives? Will he claim back the throne? Chap 1, Chap 2, Chap 3, Chapter 4,  Epilogue

You are my Empire, one shot about Commodus being a sub in your relationship, smut and fluff.

The disappointing son, Commodus falls for a slave, prisonner of war. He doesn't care about social status, all he wants his drink and perhpas more, just llike you do.

The morning after, Commodus receives a visit from you, a very dear friend. You decide to celebrate your reunion after years, alcohol is flowing, leading to unexpected events.

HEADCANONS:

Vanity 

Quizzes

The melancholia of Commodus and your comfort

Celebrating Saturnalia/Christmas with Commodus

Commodus x Plus size reader

[unteriors]

I assume you’ve probably answered this before, but what exactly is the underlying politics of this blog? I don’t quite understand the connection between neoliberal capitalism and pictures of desolate housing listings.

Thanks if you take the time to reply! -anon

We live in a bizarre intermediate period where capitalism appears to be eating itself. I originally came across the Gramsci quote in the header via Noam Chomsky in 2015/2016, when he was using it to refer to the pre-Trump lunacy that was taking over the Republican Party. In the US, this seems to have been a sort of cancerous outgrowth of decades of austerity and privatisation and deregulation that began with the end of Bretton Woods and took off in earnest in the 80s under Reagan. Similar processes have been at work to varying degrees across much of the world, throbbing occasionally with particular enthusiasm depending on the elected government, abating temporarily during other periods of Third Way-ite labour stagnation. Housing is at the core of these recent historical trends, and of the relationship between the government and its citizens. I don't know if it could exactly be called the main driving factor, but it plays an enormous role in how we work, how we form relationships, and how we interface with society generally. I remember reading a quote from a conservative politician in the UK in the 80s, responding to a question about why they didn't build more public housing to address the growing homelessness problem; he said something to the effect of 'that would just breed another generation of Labour voters.' I think the cannier politicians (and business leaders) are very aware of their capacity to shape our lives through housing like this.

A similar process has been at work in my country since World War II. We had a succession of two very good Labor Prime Ministers during the 1940s: John Curtin and Ben Chifley. They developed our version of the vast postwar public housing programs that most Western countries had. This provided stable, affordable (or often just free) housing for a huge chunk of the population who wouldn't have had access to it before the war. After Chifley, a conservative government under Robert Menzies came to power in a wave of anti-communist hysteria. Menzies appealed directly to a class of the population which he called the 'forgotten people': people in the middle strata of society who, in his characterisation, didn't get involved in trade unions or radical political organisations, didn't protest, and just wanted to get on with their lives in an apolitical solitude. In reality, this was less of a class of people that already existed and more one he set out to proactively create. He did this, in part, by altering the public housing scheme to give the baby boomers the right to buy the property the government had given them. This entrenched home ownership and, arguably, introduced a level of scarcity to the public housing stock in the long-run, and set the groundwork for later government support of housing as a financial asset, guaranteed to appreciate. It also, in a way, helped create that class of 'quiet' Australian: a solid middle 75-80% of the population that could be guaranteed a comfortable, suburban lifestyle, within an apolitical bubble quietly guaranteed by interventions into the economy by the government and regulation of the housing market in their favour. Over the years, this proportion of the population has gradually decreased, more markedly so since the overt financialisation of housing under John Howard in the early 2000s, and it's fallen off a cliff since COVID.

There's a tradition in art that I've been interested in for a while which involves broadening creative fields (in artmaking or criticism) through direct engagement with fields of work, of machine production, of lived experience or other symptoms of the oppressive political reality we live under (realism in the Linda Nochlin sense). You see it in the controversy around Courbet's paintings of manual workers, much of Andy Warhol's work and general contempt for the art world (his silkscreens of graphic photos of car crashes he found in the newspaper stand out to me), or more recently some of the controversy that came from Tracey Emin's installations. More broadly, there's something to be said about the conscious effort to make transparent and use aesthetically the machine behind the reproduction, or distribution, or amplification, etc., of art. The use of feedback in music seem to me to be an example of this. To use a couple of examples of a period of music I'm particularly interested in, grunge is one example, but so are reggae sound systems which use custom-made valve amps that give an enormous low-end to vinyls they would play, to the point of using the records as instruments to create a sort of rumbling distortion (Jah Shaka's sessions seem to have premediated alternative rock, operating on parallel tracks). These forms of creative production seem to organically emerge from the detritus of industrialisation, and seem to respond to its alienation and atomisation of human relations. I'm interested in breaking the functionality of illegitimate systems. At uni I took a series of photographs of the backs of shops. There was something comforting in identifying how a commercial entity wanted to be presented visually, and then representing it in the exact opposite way. Similarly, though I don't know if this could be considered an art project, I like an incompetent realtor. The aesthetic qualities of a real estate listing that completely fails in its intended purpose can be quite rich, in some ways liberating. An enormous amount of imagery is generated by the institutional machinery of commercial institutions, much of it ephemeral. If you rescue some visual artifacts from this increasingly engorged flood and look at them against their intended purpose you get a little window into the broader world, where advertising agencies and algorithms and real estate agents and SEI specialists, etc., aren't constantly grabbing your face and forcing you to look at the most boring and monetisable parts of the visual world. You have the opportunity to experience fear, hate, genuine nostalgia and melancholy, various other complex passionate experiences inaccessible in the neoliberal digital machine perversion of visual culture and creative experience.

This is a kind of a roundabout way of answering your question. Maybe part of my motivation has something to do with the relationship between art and work. If you reject the art as some higher, privileged category interpretation (i.e. this is just a photograph, but this other photograph is Art), then the boundaries of what constitutes art, or what can be read as art, are pretty porous. The machinery of industrialisation and capitalism took away the ability of people working in home workshops to have some control and creative involvement in their own working lives and turned them into atomised, specialised machine parts at the mercy of their employers and the market. The parts of work that could be considered contiguous with what we call art have been severed. Art and artists have suffered the same effects; contemporary artists seem to me not that different from other independent professionals. If you go to a dentist's office on Cambridge Street in Perth they'll often have a brochure with a blurb about their history and their mission as medical professionals, etc., on the front counter, and by the same token every artist in an exhibition is taught to provide their own little didactic overview of their niche interests, mostly independent from deeper, shared commitments (lumped together like a sack of potatoes, per Marx). I feel it makes sense to reach back out into other parts of the economy force art into them.

[veal-exe]

I want to talk a little more in-depth about something I mentioned in another post:

The phrase “how to make yourself uninteresting to narcissists” is textbook ableism. And I don’t mean that in a vague or metaphorical way, I mean that this is a direct example of medicalized, systemic, psychiatric ableism being repeated uncritically. If what you mean is “shitty people,” then just say “shitty people.”

Now, let me be really clear:

Gray rocking is real. It’s a legitimate and often very effective tactic for protecting yourself in the context of ongoing abuse. I’ve used it. I’ve encouraged others to use it. It can be a survival strategy in situations where confrontation or boundaries aren’t safe. I’m not criticizing gray rocking itself, I’m criticizing the way people talk about it, especially when that language comes from or reinforces ableist frameworks.

The psychiatric system, like the rest of the medical-industrial complex, is built on deeply ableist foundations. That’s not a metaphor or a hot take. It’s historical, institutional fact. Psychiatry has long been used to pathologize non-normative behavior, to categorize human beings into boxes that are easier to control, medicate, and discard. That context matters, especially when you start parroting clinical language in casual, moralizing ways.

If you’re quoting something your psych professor said; your psych professor is ableist. If you’re citing your therapist or your doctor, they, too, exist within and benefit from an ableist structure. They may be kind people. They may mean well. They may even be trying to do better. But that does not make them immune to the systemic harm of the institution they work within.

They are still part of a field that is actively hostile to many kinds of neurodivergence and regularly fails the people it claims to help especially those with personality disorders.

We say “all cops are bastards” with the understanding that even a “good” cop is upholding a violent and oppressive system. It’s the same logic here: when I say all doctors are ableist or all psych teachers are ableist, I am not condemning individual people so much as naming the system that produced them, trained them, and continues to shape their language and choices.

And unlike police, I’m not arguing these roles shouldn’t exist. I believe psychology and medicine can do good. But they must be approached critically. We cannot keep repeating their rhetoric like it’s objective truth when so much of it was built on the backs of the most marginalized and misunderstood. That goes double when you’re talking about people with personality disorders who are not only demonized in mainstream culture, but are often treated as inherently manipulative or dangerous within the very field that diagnoses them.

If you are going to use psychiatric language in public discourse, especially around abuse, boundaries, and protection, you need to be careful. You need to be critical. You need to ask yourself: Is this helping, or am I just passing along the same ableist frameworks that harm the very people I think I’m advocating for?

Because if you can’t do that work, if you’re just parroting the system without stopping to examine it, then yes, you are upholding medical ableism.

And yes, that does make you an active danger to people targeted by those systems.

Especially the ones society has been taught to fear the most.

[deramin2]

Watched "Chris's Grace: As Scarlett Johansson" on Dropout TV.

What an incredibly powerful commentary on identity and racism in performing arts. How deep this stuff goes.

Honestly any commentary I could give pales in comparison to what Chris's said himself, so please just go watch it.

It's one of those comedy shows that builds on itself so much that it's difficult to pull out specific quotes or GIFs without the full context. It comes at issues of discrimination in casting so well from so many angles.

I appreciated the criticism of Dropout itself, especially the College Humor days. An internal call to action as well as an external one. Because racism won't get better if we don't examine the way it manifests on a functional level. As well as ways Chis has also fallen into the same traps. And past experiences with industry people loving this show but also apparently learning nothing from it.

Really appreciates the struggle for the self between the roles that society makes him take on, how that's internalized, and the struggle to know and embrace his own self (work in progress). So much respect for him and this message.

[pumpacti0n]

We should always be aware that it isn't some innocent mistake that authoritarian "leftists" have constantly failed to acknowledge systems of power other than a vulgar "anti-capitalism" or "anti-imperialism", like they've carelessly left out an ingredient in a cake recipe.

"Whoops, we've acknowledged one abusive hierarchy, but the other ones slipped through our fingers, silly us!" Nope. The reason this analysis of power isn't included in their ideology and praxis is because they consider these hierarchies useful to their projects.

This is why they'll mock or ignore discourse related to youth liberation, disability justice, gender self-determination or anti-patriarchal struggle, for example, or engage in apologetics for capitalist regimes in other countries -- they want to "have their cake, and eat it too".

A key reason why "the left", as some might call it, is not as powerful as it could be isn't because of some lack of discipline (or "degeneracy"), but rather a lack of intersectionality, a criticism that many of those within the black radical tradition, (black feminists and transfeminists more specifically,) have been highlighting in one way or another for at least 50 years.

Authoritarian "leftists" don't want to sacrifice the power that these hierarchies afford them, which explains why they're largely not opposed to prisons, borders, police, the enforcement of gender roles and even capitalism itself, if it's under the purview of the "socialist" ("workers") state and its bureaucrats.

And this is why I keep putting "leftist" in quotes...We're not free until we're all free, so the implication that we should settle for addressing one or two systems of domination while allowing all the others to flourish until we address them in some vague point in the far future is a distortion of what truly radical liberatory politics should entail.

It's simply a myth that we can address capitalism while leaving racism, ableism and misogyny etc. intact, as if they aren't mutually reinforced by one another, as if fascists and reactionaries will forget that they exist once capital is abolished. This is a fantasy, a delusion.

Authcoms love to pose questions like "without a state to enforce class rule, how will the proletariat defend itself?" but a better question would be: "if we fail to acknowledge the hierarchies that atomize and disempower the masses, how could we ever be a threat to capitalists in the first place? how would abandoning the most vulnerable populations serve the interests of the "working class" and "anti-imperial" struggle?

For example, (cis) women make up approximately 50% of the world's population -- so if women are still subjugated by patriarchal rule and the gendered division of labor, how will we have the numbers to fight?

Similarly, a significant portion of the world's population are currently incarcerated. If we don't abolish prisons, allowing the State to continue extracting labor from prisoners and destabilizing untold millions of social relations in the process, how can we hope to match or exceed their powers?

If we do not challenge the capitalist, productivist logic of endless resource accumulation, with its constant pollution of the environment and the displacement and erasure of indigenous peoples and non-human animals, there will be no habitable planet left for us during this "revolution", because we will have destroyed all of it in the name of profit...so what would be the point?

These aren't minor concerns that we can put off indefinitely, and it isn't some innocent mistake that they are left out of the discourse, but are instead deliberate attempts to co-opt liberation struggle for the sake of advancing counter-revolution and authoritarian projects.

It's no wonder then, that they are eager to dismiss any criticism of their projects the result of "western propaganda", as if these same critiques aren't leveraged by very people belonging to populations they constantly tokenize whenever it suits their agenda.

They'd much rather treat every marginalized community as some monolith or as primitive victims in need of saving and representation by a vanguard. This chauvinist, colonial, assimilationist, antisocial attitude is endemic in (often white,) authoritarian circles, because it forms the basis of their position towards racial and gender hierarchies, that they are a natural and inevitable factor of organization itself. They are wrong.

In this sense, they aren't meaningfully different from the capitalists they pretend to hate so much. In truth, they are just jealous and greedy for more cake.

[shorthaltsjester]

i’m scrambling through the transcripts from eps 104 & 106 of campaign 1 because i’m writing something and god this quote from ioun when she’s speaking with vox machina is rotting me from the inside out:

“We the creators did breath beauty into this world, we planted the seeds that would blossom into this incredible weave of Exandria. However, what is the purpose of the parent but to teach what they can then set their children free? Some gods rule through fear, others through love, and others still through perceived fate. Destiny has its place, but the real deception if that you have no choice. A path can be groomed before you, but it is you who must take those steps. Not every rosy walkway leads to a better day. For me, our greatest purpose has passed the moment we granted your forebearers the spark to seek their own purpose. We now stay to inspire, to guide, to guard the Gate, to keep the hate of ignorance we spawned in our hubris from burning away everything. The rest is up to you. We need you, perhaps, but you do not need us. That is our gift.”

It’s delicious for a lot of reasons but namely in that it situates the gods once again as sentient beings who did not choose to come here but have found and maintain purpose in their continued presence - and that purpose is not to control mortals but to support them, something like aging parents who in some ways need to be looked after and can provide guidance and inspiration and limited protection but who need that to be returned. given the current state of affairs in campaign 3 even pre-downfall insights, ioun’s emphasis that one of their purposes is to keep ignorance (born from the god’s own hubris) from burning away everything. i mean even the fact that the god of knowledge admits that the gods are even capable of hubris — and i say this not because i think the gods would assume themselves to be above hubris but because i’m uncertain how much it can be called hubris for literal gods to view themselves with immense amounts of self importance — reveals the degree to which (to me at least) the gods are just beings who have immense amounts of power they did not directly ask for but were given when thrust into a new context. like brennan spoke of in the cooldown for 3x99, the power wasn’t power until given a material context and it is completely fair for mortals to be fearful or hateful of that which causes them harm as much as it is understandable for the gods to have a bitter disposition that something beyond their control and in fact a symptom of their care for their family is something that paints them as evil and cruel. it reminds me of ruidusborn in many ways — who have a stifling reputation so strong that people avoid giving birth during flares and look down upon even children born under the red moon but that reputation is contextualized by the fact that ruidusborn are and have been incredibly dangerous until it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

i am such a fan of critical role just for Good Story reasons but the historian in me has such deep respect for the lore keeping and weaving of different ideas into the fictional cultures and dispositions of the world that fit together like puzzle pieces and makes exandria feel not just lived in but truly as if the world has been minutely changed by every moment that we the audience have witnessed and will someday come to witness.

[synchodai]

Let's talk adaptation theory, because I've been seeing a lot of accusations that criticism of HotD is just "wanting it to be exactly like the books" and "book purists" not knowing what an adaptation is. So okay, let's talk about what an adaptation is, then.

I'll mostly be quoting from Linda Hutcheon's A Theory of Adaptation, because this is the first book most everyone reads when going into adaptation studies. Let's look at several ways we can approach and critique adaptation.

ADAPTATION AS INTERPRETATION

The adapted text, therefore, is not something to be reproduced, but something to be interpreted and recreated [...]

No one expects HotD to be a 1:1 reproduction of F&B. Hutcheon often compares adaptation to the process of linguistic translation, in that there will always be an inevitable loss of fidelity when translating from one language to another. However, the translator is still expected to provide an accurate representation of the source text — hence, adaptation as interpretation and recreation. Some may call this approach "fidelity criticism," an evaluation of quality based on how much the adaptation aligns with the source text.

("Fidelity criticism" is not what GRRM did. He didn't criticize the show simply because it differed from the books, and often even praises changes from the source material if it "strengthens" the impact of the work. His priority was never fidelity.)

This approach has its detractors, but there is merit to pointing out that HotD and its audience will have a difficult time interpreting and conveying F&B's message (story) if the showrunners actively take out key words (characters) and terminology (plot events). If we view adaptation as translation (from one medium to another), then the role of the adapter is to convey the intention and meaning of the source text as accurately as possible. And people do have a right to criticize "accuracy" of meaning if we see adaptation as a process of translation and remediation — which you are free not to, but some people DO come from this angle and are often dismissed as "book purists."

If you see adaptation as interpretation, are you a book purist? Perhaps, depending on what the definition of "book purist" is, but to make it clear, the people who are coming from this viewpoint clearly do not expect a blow-by-blow reproduction, and to argue that they do is dismissing a whole school of thought when it comes to adaptation.

ADAPTATION AS SUBSTITUTION

Another way to look at adaptation is through a "process of substitution." Pretty simple to understand, right? Prose that says "red dress" is substituted for an image of a white gown but with ruby embellishments, two characters are merged into one for the show, and Aemond and Aegon working together in Rook's Rest is substituted for the former betraying the latter. Your mileage may vary on whether you find these acceptable substitutions.

I believe this is the camp GRRM falls into. He brings up fidelity only insofar that he's concerned a lack of it will lead to poor and unacceptable substitutions.

How does one know if a substitution is "acceptable?" Well, I'd like to use the analogy Hutcheon brings up about surgery:

Usually adaptations, especially from long novels, mean that the adapter's job is one of subtraction or contraction; this is called "surgical art."

Good adaptations are like good surgeries: the body remains holistically intact and ideally functions better with the replacements and removals. Bad adaptations are like bad surgeries — hence the oft lobbied critique of an adaptation "butchering" the source material. The body of the adapted text cannot function on its own, being maimed or crippled by the adaptation process.

For example, the adaptational change of making Rhaenyra and Alicent the "heart" of the story has been discussed a lot by fans and critics. It was praised in the first season because it gave the story an intimate and personal "face." But it was lambasted in the second season because it actively deterred the plot progression, "crippling" the pace and stakes of the show.

In GRRM's case, his argument was that while Maelor was an unimportant part by himself, his presence was necessary for the continued function of other more vital organs. He goes on to suggest possible replacements and reprecussions upon the text as a whole. While he expresses disapproval that Maelor was removed in the first place and mentions other potentially "toxic" changes, there's also the (albeit wary) admission that Condal and his team could very still find acceptable substitutes that may stave off the damage he foresees being done to the body.

Again, this is valid criticism and a legitimate approach to HotD as an adaptation.

ADAPTATION AS AUTONOMOUS

Perhaps one way to think about unsuccessful adaptations is not in terms of infidelity to a prior text, but in terms of lack of creativity and skill to make the text one's own and autonomous.

Basically, this approach to adaptation asks, "Is the show still good by itself? Or does it fall apart without its source text and paratext (interviews, podcasts, press releases, etc.)?" This mode argues that adaptations cannot be simply sequels, prequels, or any sort of expansion of the source text. They must be separate retellings that actively evolve and mutate into a species that can survive on its own — mainly, that it adapts to a new context and audience so to speak.

A critique lobbied at the season two HotD finale was that its impact relied solely on the legacy of the prior show and the A Song of Ice and Fire mystery of who truly is The Prince That Was Promised. If the audience had no connection to Daenerys, no investment in the question of who truly was TPTWP, and never watched Game of Thrones, would Daemon's decision to finally devote himself to Rhaenyra make sense? Or does its emotional resonance rely solely on the audience's investment to another story that is not this one? Is it an adaptation of F&B or a prequel to GoT?

There's nothing wrong with it being a prequel, but if it was billed as an adaptation, then the audience has the right to feel misled because both conventional wisdom and esoteric theory agree that prequels are not adaptations. I think this is the school of thought most people subscribe to when they say HotD feels like "fanfiction" — because while fanfics CAN be written as adaptation (like modern AUs, video game novelizations, etc.), a vast majority of them are not. Most fanfics are grafted on expansions reliant on the source text for context.

This is all to say that a lot of criticism levied against the show, including GRRM's, can't be chalked up to "people not knowing what an adaptation is." There are several different ways to approach adaptation — the question is does HotD succeed in any of them?

[thewalrusespublicist]

"Tbh I was starting to feel a bit down about my blog and what I was putting out ( the eternal crisis on how to give full answers and opinions without being stupid, boring and annoying lol)"

OMG no way! Your blog is one of the best here! What i love the most is reading the analysis and meta from the users, there's always more information and good takes, and yours are always quite deep and insightful.

I would love if you share your opinions about Stuart as well. I feel like he is obviously more sanctified that he should be since he died young (like that insane quote from his mom saying that Brian told her that Stuart could have been the Beatles' manager, no way lol) and i feel his memory has been used to attack Paul, sometimes in a very unfair way. Like, i don't deny the teenage drama and jealousy that Paul felt about him but he *was* a shitty bass player and the band was Paul's future, he was allowed to criticized him not only for being John's new bestie. I also think John played with them both but i lack of your eloquence so i will love to read your take about it.

Hi anon! And the other anons!

Thank you again and to all the other messages I got, they were extremely sweet and really made my day. :)

From my inbox, it's clear you guys want to know about Stu and his role in the Beatles legacy. Well you asked for it and a novel you shall have. Be warned this might be the longest post I've done so grab like a drink or something.

A few disclaimers: I wish and had intended for this to be more of a deep dive into Stu as a whole person rather than just his relationship with John and Paul. Unfortunately I just didn't have the space to do it. If you want to know more about Stu I would highly recommend @eppysboys' blog which is the source for all things Stu Sutcliffe and where I got a lot of this info. Please check their stuff out. Also, I'm going to be a bit blunter on this than maybe I usually am because this topic has been irritating me for some time. Oh also I’m trying my best to answer a lot of asks in one post so please forgive if I don’t fully answer your specific ask about this!

Stu in a perfect world should be a fandom darling: an exciting cipher, a handsome artistic talent that died way too soon who had a major influence in the early Beatles style. It's like there’s this secret other James Dean looking mf Beatle hidden away to uncover, that's cool and he is cool! The problem is that he’s sort of becomes radioactive to talk about in a normal way due to how he's been portrayed and utilised in some biographies and fandom spaces, particularly those that have been infected by John Lennon aspirational boy bestie syndrome. As those types of spaces cannot seem to exist without tearing down Paul to prop John up as their special lil guy, Stu as John's other best friend has become the ideal heavy object to hit Paul McCartney over the head with. It's like a corrosive element, the minute Stu hits a Beatles bio, the biographer suddenly loses all training in objectivity and source work and starts waxing lyrical about 100 percent reliable never biased or wrong Saint Stu of Hamburg who died for our condom arson sins and that Paul McCartney should feel bad about every day of his life for not worshipping Stu and not accepting his own ‘place’ in life as John's just-some-guy placeholder best friend. I’ve personally seen so many posts and forums where Stu being mentioned leads to a legion of comments about how Paul could never have been Stu (correct both ways) and how John would never have even glanced at Paul for much longer if Stu had been alive. Sidenote: If you seriously think that the musical savant from down the road whom John went on to produce the most prolific song writing partnership in history with couldnt have kept his attention for long then I'm begging you on hands and knees to get your head out of the arse of your John Lennon body pillow and be serious. But anyway…

This boy bestie battle royale approach has in turn lead to a reflex reaction where Stu gets studiously ignored by other sections of the fandom as a precedent has been set that shining a light on him diminishes Paul and John's relationship with Paul. It's frustrating because if people weren't so keen to cut Paul out of his own story then we would get a much better nuanced view of every single person involved.

So let's put aside all of our defenses, cut the John Lennon loved one ranking system bullshit and lets look at the actual question here which is what was John and Stu's relationship really like and what did he mean to John?

John and Stu met at art college a year or so after Paul and John met. Up to that point John and Paul had their fun little codependant thing going on but Stu quickly became a huge fixture in John's life. Stu had things that Paul couldn't really offer at that point in time. John was at his heart a musician who aspired to be seen as an artist (he would later express surprise that he didn't become an artist). Stu was the passionate artist who knew tons about the art of the period that could teach and inspire John. Their creative leanings meant they could work on projects together and share art notebooks and poetry. (Including yes the one with anti-semitic story which I mention again as I believe it's an important thing to remember when it comes to both John and Stu and the culture of the time.) Stuart by the sounds of it was even writing a novel about John at the time of his death. They were fascinated and inspired by each other.

So, creatively they fired each other up but more importantly perhaps, Stu and John were peers. It's funny to think about when you see the Beatles later but at the time Paul and George were the kids in their school uniform coming to see their cool older friend at art school. That's an important divide. When Paul and George's parents insisted their kids do their homework and go to bed, John and Stu could stay up and talk all hours of the night, which they did. They also could rent a place together and spend long hours chatting (despite John moving out later after realising electricity cost money lol.) There's a different dynamic that the age similarity offered as well. Whilst Paul would later somewhat grow into this role, Stu could act as an authority figure to John as well as open up to John in a way you can really only do with your peers. Stu was the person John opened up to throughout Stu's life:

How long can one go on writing and writing like you. I now don’t really know who I’m writing to or why it’s quiet peculiar. I usually write like this and forget about it but if I put it in a little part of my [almost?] secret self in the hands of someone miles away who will wonder what the hell is going on or just pass it off as toilet paper. Anyway I don’t care really what happens because when I think about it, it’s so bloody unimportant – but what is important who has the right to say that this letter is not important and this is a something any way – anyway – anyway – yeah! I wonder what it would be like to be a cretin or something. I bet it’s gear. & how are you keepin Stuart old chap are you as ok – is life as good – bad shite, great – wonderful as it was or is it just a thousand years of nothing and coolness on and on and on. I think this is it Goodbye Stu don’t write out of – er what is it? well not because you think you ought to write when you feel like So goodbye (from John you know the one with glasses) ANYWAY BYE BYE see you soon I don’t know why I said that I remember a time when everyone I loved hated me because I hated them so what so what so fucking what I remember a time when belly buttons were knee high when only shitting was dirty and everything else clean + beautiful I can’t remember anything without a sadness So deep that it hardly becomes known to me so deep that its tears leave me a spectator of my own STUPIDITY + so I go rambling on with a hey nonny nonny nonny no

Extract from a letter to Stuart Sutcliffe from John Lennon, 1961

By lots of accounts Stu was gentle but firm when it came to telling John he'd gone too far. John references this aspect of Stu to Hunter Davies:

"I looked up to Stu. I depended on him to tell me the truth. Stu would tell me if something was good and I'd believe him."

The Beatles: The Authorised Biography (Hunter Davies)

In this way I kind of see Stu as a proto-Yoko. John was so insecure and uncertain about his grip on the world and reality that he relied on Stu to be his point of reference and guide. Paul did this too later and I think in Hunter Davies John mentions this, but not at this time period and not as much due to their competitiveness. This may be why some people saw Stu as the person that really understood John at this time period:

"During the turbulent adolescence that prefaced a turbulent manhood, hardly anyone knew Lennon as intimately as Stuart Sutcliffe. If they weren't exactly David and Jonathan, June Furlong, one of the life models at Liverpool's Regional College of Art, had "never seen two teenagers as close as those two."

The Gospel According To Lennon by Alan Clayson

Now this person likely never met John and Paul together but this is only one of many similar quotes and even Julia captain of John and Paul's friendship boat seems to agree there was a period where Stu dominated and Paul 'kept his distance' from the John-Cyn-Stu 'menage-a-trois'. But the friendship wasn't perfect and his position as John's ultimate best friend was never iron clad. This is best outlined by the shit they pulled when John convinced him to join on Bass for the Beatles.

Despite being John's best friend, Stu was teased and bullied:

"They argued as usual amongst themselves, but most of all they picked on Stu, the newest member of the group. John, George and Paul had been with each other long enough to know that rows and arguments and criticism didn't mean much. If it did, you just argued back. "We were terrible," says John. "We'd tell Stu he couldn't sit with us, or eat with us. We'd tell him to go away, and he did." At one hotel they stayed at, a variety show had just left. There had been a dwarf in the show and they found out which bed he had slept in and said that would have to be Stu's. They certainly weren't going to sleep in it. So Stu had to. "That was how he learned to be with us," says John. "It was all stupid, but that was what we were like."

The Beatles: The Authorised Biography (Hunter Davies)

Why John encouraged this I have no idea, maybe jealousy over Stu's looks and wanting to play people off each other? Things were tense in both Scotland and Hamburg, especially between Stu and Paul. As I said in my last post, the girls were fighting and it was mutual. Paul was mad for both fair and immature teenage-boy reasons. Stu could not be bothered with the bass most of the time and couldn't really play well and was only there as he was '(John's) best friend' (ouch for Paul). Paul conversely had given up higher education to be there and was sending lots of money back home. He also was dating the girl Paul fancied. Stu was popular with the new group and also did mean things like help John steal Paul's money when money was really tight for him. Paul in turn was a passive aggressive, jealous and mean. It all came to ahead in the punch up onstage which according to Spitz came about from Paul wanting money back and saying that Stu could borrow some from Astrid. Stu goes for him and reports vary from full-on bust up to embarrassing scuffle. Stu then goes to where Astrid and Paul's gf Dot are, demands Dot leaves and goes on a rant about Paul. Now all of this must be framed in the context of Stu receiving increasing brain damage from his condition that seemingly lead to mood swings and anger. Nevertheless, the mutual needling and anger, as well as John's refusal to do/say fuck all about it, especially given how protective John was of Stu, suggests that it wasn’t straightforward and/or John may have been playing some games to make both feel threatened. This would also make sense as to why we hear conflicting accounts of John and Stu being the centre of everything and everyone else in orbit AND John and Paul being the centre and everyone else playing catch-up, as well as John giving Paul the lead to take him round the Reeperbahn when John got dressed in the gorilla costume. (I know Paul may have just been the closest there but that always gave off bestie behaviour to me.)

(I did get an ask about how John and Paul's friendship survived it, I think it was damaged by Hamburg. When Paul got back home he got a job at a construction site and there's just a vibe of everything being a bit on tenterhooks. John also acts a bit weird at the period, not talking to anyone for a few weeks then making a lot of weird demands from Paul. I'm really not sure what to make of it.)

Even when he's back in Liverpool, John still writes long letters to Stu and vice-versa. I can't find it at all but I’ve read a really sad interview with John saying he missed his best mate and it's a shame that he's not with them. He had no idea at that point that Stu had already died of a brain hemorrhage at 21.

John is said to have gone into hysterics when he found out Stu had died. A lot of people who've spoken about this time (Aunt Mimi, his sister Julia, the Exsis) concur that at this point Stu was his best friend and the death shattered him. He even told Astrid he wished he could give his life for Stu’s. This is backed up by the fact that John never forgot Stu and his shadow lingered for the rest of John's life:

Stu was recalled in In My Life

Years later, after John composed the first of his truly poignant and heartfelt Beatles songs, "In My Life"—with its lines about "friends I still can recall/some are dead and some are living"—he revealed to me that the two people he had had uppermost in mind were myself and Stuart Sutcliffe. And then he stunned me with a statement that I'd never heard him address to anyone—least of all to another man. "You know, Pete," he said softly, "I do love you. But," he quickly added, "I loved Stuart as well."

Weird that Paul isn't mentioned surely you think that he would be mentioned if Pete was there too okay, okay my tin hat is going away this isn't the time

Pete Shotton, Nicholas Schaffner, John Lennon: In My Life

In 1965 John drew Stu on a postcard

He apparently said this about Stu prior to sending the postcard, prompted by an article about Stuart.

The card had been sent from Genoa mid-way through the Beatles' Italian tour. [...] But the conversation had become maudlin when I reminded him that he was going to talk to me for an article about Stuart. [...] In that sad telephone conversation before they set off for Milan, I asked him if he was happy: 'I'd be a lot happier if Stuart was still part of us,' he said, 'The Beatles would be complete.' And before he rang off he said 'Ill send you something.'

He also appears on the cover of Sgt Pepper

As mentioned, Stu gets mentioned in Hunter Davies in terms of wistfulness and guilt AND he gets a mention in John's insane 'if I were a homosexual' ramblings in early 70s. According to Yoko, John also wanted Yoko to write letters to him and didn't think it would be strange because Stu wrote letters to him.

I have a pet theory that as with a lot of things for John, his unresolved grief over Stu really came to the fore in the late 60s now that he had actually had a chance to sit down and think about things. I believe it was partially why he wanted Yoko to write letters and why he gets mentioned in the early 70s as a collaborator/best friend and not in 1980 where John only gives that credit to Paul and Yoko. I think with the cracks with Paul, John had started to think back on his old friend and guide and what advice he would give.

Stuarts presence is still felt throughout the seventies:

“He told me everything. He loved to talk about Hamburg. There were no secrets. It was the kind of life I never knew…. It meant total freedom. At his side always was Stuart, sweet Stuart. There wasn’t a time in John’s life when he didn’t think about Stuart. He spoke always of his love and respect for Stuart.”

Yoko discussing Stu in When They Were Boys: The True Story of the Beatles’ Rise to the Top by Larry Kane

Coming to grips with his death is also present in Skywriting

SEAN O’HAIRE: What happened to Stuart Cliff? DR. FISCHY: What happened was a full exchange of energy where it was not needed within the expression of your own self or in the energies involved around and about you. We cannot call it a happening. We’ll say it is an awakening, for in that way it has served an expression from the past to the present and to the future to where there shall be more of that incomplete vibration expressed to you in a more fuller understanding.

Skywriting by Word of Mouth, John Lennon

This isn't exhaustive but I think from all this it's pretty clear that John adored Stu, John grieved Stu and kept grieving Stu. Stu had a specific place in his life as a confidant that he tried to recreate with Yoko. At the time of Stu's death, he was John's best friend, probably slightly over Paul. Stuart had been able to be both a friend and paternal presence, a confidant and an artistic collaborator. His presence and loss was one of the foundational points in John's life.

But as we've been asked to play this stupid game and so many bios like to make a hoopla about it, were they at their closest ever as close as John and Paul were at their height?

No.

How do we know? Because John told us so:

" He [Paul] still is the closest friend I've ever had, except for Yoko, so I'm still close to him whatever goes on."

John Lennon to an interviewer, 1971

But Walrus! John just says shit! How do we know he isn't leaving out Stu because the press don't know Stu. Well true John does just say shit but this is at a time where John isn't the most glowing about Paul and he's had no problem mentioning Stu in this time period ('one of my best friends ever' would have made a similar point).

But Walrus again! If John picked Stu over Paul when they were young why wouldn't he be the boy bestie of all time, and why would John say that he was closer to Paul? Well, because of the environment and timings. Stu's death happened near the beginning of John and Paul's major bonding moments. If you look at their personal timeline, Paris, the Nerk twins, and getting signed happened just before Stu died. That's missing the major years of Beatlemania, Key West, LSD, Paul growing more into being John's peer and a load of other huge moments in their lives. It's like how John writes to Cyn in 1962 about wanting the house to themselves and not have Paul around all the time. Would you say because he feels closer to Cyn then that John in his overall lifetime loved Cyn more than Paul? No, because relationships change over time and theirs were no exception. (One thing to consider as well is that we don't yet have many letters between John and Paul during their Beatles years and earlier, probably because they were spending so much time with each other. We know a couple exist that Paul considers too personal for publication but I'm sure there are others. It's easy to understand what John felt for Stu as we have the letters, I think we would also have an easier time understanding what John felt for Paul if we had the equivalent of those.)

At the end of the day Paul was the man he believed he had a psychic bond with, the man he couldn’t shut up about, the man whom he’d conquered the world with with their endless collaboration, the man with a twin personality to him and according to John spent more time with throughout the 60s than he had with Yoko ever. To be frank if Paul had died in 67' I don't think this would have been a conversation.

As mentioned early, in early 1970s John elevates his partnership with Stu to his collaborations with Paul and Yoko but by 1980 he’s pretty clear that Paul and Yoko are their own category.

"I was saying to somebody the other day, “There’s only two artists I’ve ever worked with for more than a one night stand, as it were. That’s Paul McCartney, and Yoko Ono.” And I think that’s a pretty damned good choice!!"

John Lennon interview with DJ Dave Sholin, 1980

There are of course the what ifs. Would Stu still being alive mean that John was not as close with Paul? Maybe, highly doubtful though as the Beatles experience was so intense. If Stu remained a Beatle would John be as close with Paul? If Stu remained a Beatle he wouldn't be Stu so no. At the same time who knows what it would have been like if Paul and John were peers from the off? I said this to @the62ndbugsfan when it comes to Stu vs Paul (hi girl sorry i've made our chat a whole ass post lol) but to go a bit Wuthering Heights, soulmates are made as much from the earth as they are of the stars. What binds us is our experiences just as much as our personalities. There may be a universe where Stu and John took on the art world together or became inseparable bffs again after the Beatles disbanded, but it is not our universe. In this universe Stu tragically died and John and Paul chose to become Lennon/McCartney and artistically unite themselves forever.

Even going back to Stu's lifetime, I've said it before and I'll say it again I find it interesting that not only did John choose to go to Paris with Paul rather than pay to meet up with Stu somewhere but that they arranged to meet up with Juergen and nobody told Stu until they'd already gone. Stu was shocked and didn't know if it meant the end of the Beatles which is a pretty big thing for him not to know about. Why didn't John tell him if they're apparently still writing long letters? Was it because he really wanted to do this with Paul and didn't want to hurt Stu's feelings? And that's really the point I want to make here. Due to his trauma John was preoccupied with reinforcing ranking of relationships within his life. But the thing is friendship rankings are made up guidelines and the reality is far more complicated. You can have a designated best friend but feel closer to another friend at times, you can want to do one thing specifically with one friend and not the other for various reasons. You can (as I do) have more than one equal best friend. Friendship as with most relationships are in a constant state of flux and each friendship you have will give and mean a different thing, even if they are of similar value to you.

Paul may have ended up closer to John than Stu had been, but that doesen't make John's relationship with Stu any less special. Nor does Stu negate the significance of Paul. Whilst both fit into John's pattern of intense relationships and demands related to that, both had unique positions and meaning to him. Considering what I've gone into about John's closeness to Stu, it actually says something deeply, borderline unnervingly, intense about John and Paul that Paul pipped Stu to the post. Maybe it's time Beatles bios accept the fact that John Lennon just wouldn't be into them like that, stop using a tragically prematurely deceased young man as a prop in their jealous psychological warfare against Paul McCartney, stop perpetuating one of the most damaging games that John did to his loved ones and allow both relationships the space to shine and showcase the amazing talent that was the Beatles and those that surrounded them.

[traincat]

Joseph Quinn recently spoke about how he's choosing to portray Johnny as a character and I honestly found his responses really interesting. I'm not sure if you've seen what he's said but he pretty much says he's confident and funny but still self-deprecating and that he isn't "callous" with others' feelings. Also that his intelligence is more of a focus (which I kind of love because he is clever!!! I feel like people forget that because his brother-in-law is THE Reed Richards-though maybe I'm biased because I project the fact that I think Johnny has adhd and isn't "traditionally book smart" but still very clever, if that makes sense idk).

Anyways, I just thought this was pretty cool and I gotta say I am looking forward to seeing his take on Johnny as a character :)

I saw part of the quote, but I've been busy with a fandom event, so I haven't really been keeping a close eye on any Marvel news. I do like what he said about Johnny not being as much of a skirt chaser, which is very accurate to '60s Johnny, the Sweetest Boy in the World. I'm also glad that it sounds like they're going to focus on his specific brand of intelligence, because the fun thing with Johnny is that, even though he's so critical of himself, he is really intelligent, but it's a different kind of intelligence than Reed's. He's an engineer! He's emotionally intelligent! Except when he's not! Which is usually about his own emotions! So it's fun to hear that he's not callous with other peoples' feelings.

I'm trying to like, not get too much of an idea of anything about this movie in my head, though. I'm always interested in new interpretations of the Fantastic Four and how they draw on or differ from the original canon, so it'll be interesting to go in with no preconceptions. Joseph Quinn wasn't my ideal casting (I didn't want anyone who was extremely well known for one role in a huge fandom because of the tendency for bleed over, like what happened with the Hobbit for example) but I'm still interested in seeing his interpretation of the character. From what you've described here, it certainly sounds more grounded in the original Lee/Kirby run.

[kinardsboy]

Prefacing this by saying i don’t hate Eddie or buddie in any way, im only tagging this as anti buddie so people can filter out criticism on a ship that they enjoy ❤️

This post doesnt really have a specific theme, I’m just kinda rambling here so bear with me lol

Something that has been bothering me for a while about the gay eddie hc, is that at least the canon basis/evidence for it, is honestly a little homophobic? Most often people claim he’s gay because of how he treats women poorly and how many failed relationships he’s been in and I just.. first off have you MET a straight man?? 😭 thats how they are..(For the most part). Secondly it’s a negative stereotype that gay men dont treat women well, so having that be one of your main points to make Eddie gay rubs me the wrong way, especially when it comes from non queer men. The other main point I see is the quote “it feels like a performance” but the thing about that quote is , its taken extremely out of context.

He was literally talking about being set up on dates, being FORCED to date instead of letting it happen naturally. Thats what feels like a performance.

I have never understood why Eddie also cant be bisexual if queer at all. he has been clearly shown to enjoy having sex with women.

And another thing that bothers me is that buddie fans shout all the time about wanting whats best for Buck, and then want him shoved in a relationship with a man that has never treated a romantic partner fairly. Again, this isnt Eddie hate but the guy needs serious therapy. He’s a good friend and a good dad, ultimately hes a good person too but he’s not a good partner and that wouldnt change just because he dates Buck.

Bob’s are constantly forcing a heteronormative role onto Buck, especially when it comes to taking care of Christopher and it just, thats not going to solve anything? Like at all? It really makes me feel like they dont understand mlm relationships at all, and what they look like and how they work, especially based on their reactions to how Tommy and Buck interact.

People probably arent going to like this take, but I see fics or posts that constantly put Christopher as Buck’s 1 priority and I just dont think its true. Dont get me wrong I really enjoy the relationship they have, but if any kid on the show has his highest priority, its Jee. Buck spends so much time with Chris because Eddie needs help, if Henren needed help or babysitting more often Buck would seem close to Denny and Mara as well. Im not saying Buck doesnt care or want to hang out with Chris of course, but I feel like people definitely overplay their relationship to an extreme extent. The same goes for buddie in general, especially these last few seasons I dont see buck and Eddie being any closer than eddie and hen or buck and hen or something. Especially considering in 704 Eddie literally didnt invite him to trivia which he knows (or should know) Buck likes lol

And another thing about Christopher is that they turn him into this buddie love child who is SO obsessed with his dad’s sexuality and its just so weird to me. They completely strip him of any independence and personality and turn him into this buddie advocate, and then put him away when he’s no longer useful or needed. Its ableism. Chris is his own character and his story shouldnt focus around Buddie or his dads romantic endeavors AT ALL.

Anyway if you read all of this thanks for indulging my rambling lol